Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Baku City Circuit, 2017

Baku Safety Car restarts “dangerous” – Sainz

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Carlos Sainz Jnr says the Safety Car restart procedure at Baku isn’t safe enough.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

@Leventebandi is unimpressed with developments in the World Touring Car Championship:

After Marcello Lotti departed the WTCC, I thought it will be an upturn in the series in many ways, I was naive maybe.

The racing was good under his leadership, but he had so many shenanigans, like the case of the Mexican track, when it was FIA graded before even the asphalt got laid down.

But what goes around since his departure is simply a disgrace to the series and the sport. This joker lap gimmick is simply a horrid try to spice up the show, and try to increase the number of overtakes, which went sharply downhill, since the TC1 spec got introduced, with very high focus on aerodynamics.

Another issue is the inconsistent stewarding. Take for example the Moroccan Bennani. Even in BTCC measures he would already collected a few race bans, he is that reckless, and driving dangerously, but in the end he escapes everything with small penalties.
Levente (@Leventebandi)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Dan N, Gdog and Melody!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 174 comments on “Baku Safety Car restarts “dangerous” – Sainz”

    1. I see Jackie Stewart is being as big a Hamilton fanboy as ever looking to heap credit upon him for anything he can.

      1. I know what racism is and what it looked like.

        And what Jackie Stewart said wasn’t it.

      2. It’s because Jacky knows that his 27 wins and three WDC are a far greater accomplishment than whatever Hamilton ultimately accomplishes, and he’s sore that so few agree. Most people lack the historical context to understand why Jacky is right. It would not matter if Hamilton ultimately wins 90 Grand Prix, 100 poles and five WDC over a 15 year career. That accomplishment would pale compared to what guys like Jackie Stewart accomplished because of when they accomplished it.

      3. I’m so done with JYS always looking for an opportunity to bash Lewis. I feel slightly embarrassed for him.

        There’s clear proof that Lewis did nothing wrong and Seb just made an error being a bit too eager trying to get close enough to slipstream Lewis on the long flat-out section into turn 1.
        Why would Lewis brake-check Seb? He’s in the lead, has just got a great restart from the first SC period and has a monster of an engine in his merc to keep Seb at bay. Why would he risk rear damage by break-checking? Doesn’t make sense..

        I agree it’s a great talking point but c’mon people, this is a very simple incident to portion blame. 100% Seb! From which the penalty is just as embarrassing as the incident itself.
        I did read that the wheel banging might have been a bit of an accident as Seb was gesticulating with his hands. This is just irrelevant now as if Seb would have just admitted that and apologised then this would all be done and dusted.

        And as for the Ferrari not liking to complain bit…. I can’t believe I just read that 😂😂😂

        1. No, the new information is that LH indeed was slower than on the previous restart. SV had to have some reason to believe he was brake tested even if technically LH didn’t brake. Stewart is right in his assessment.

          1. It doesn’t matter if he was slower than the previous SC. He is the leader, he dictates the pace. His pace at that part of the track was quite adequate being the leader.

            1. Follow the leader leader leader, follow the leader, sigame!

              Sorry, I will see myself out

          2. SV had to have some reason to believe he was brake tested even if technically LH didn’t brake

            Maybe SV just made a mistake and then lost his temper? It’s not like it would be first time.

        2. It is clear that Lewis was slower than expected, and that caught out Vettel. Seb’s move alongside and the wheels banging was definitely the result of anger to what he thought in the moment to be brake testing.

          I don’t think Lewis slowing down was intended to irk Vettel in any way, he was simply leaving space for the SC so he does not overtake it before the SC line once he floored his Merc.

          I also don’t think Seb meant to bang wheels, he must have misjudged the direction while waiving his hand and looking right towards Lewis. But the fact remains that he drove aside him in anger, and willing or not made the two cars touch, so a penalty needed to be imposed. If not for this particular incident then at least for not creating a precedent and discouraging such disgraceful (yeah, Lewis got the term right) behavior in the future.

        3. Why would lewis brakecheck vettel (hamilton slowed down dangerously, brakechecking is wrong term here)? To annoy vettel, to make vettel brake abruptly and flatspot his tires, to lose composure because lewis’ unsafe moves make it hard for vettel to get close without crashing, to actually cause vettel to drive into the back of hamilton and lose front wing, to force vettel to brake suddenly which creates a moment for hamilton to get advantage of being further away from vettel when he goes full power, to try to get vettel to spin because he wants to avoid hamilton… No reason at all for hamilton to play these games he is known to be playing…

          1. Are you serious? To annoy Seb? To flatspot his tires at 55kph?? To cause a collision??? To get Seb to spin????

            Interesting comment..

            1. Are you serious? There is mind games in every sport. Football, badminton, tennis, golf. If there is a way to make your opponent get annoyed or to make him do something that negatively hurts his performance then you do it. If it is legal then not doing it means you are not getting 100% out of the situation. If you expect athletes to leave possible wins on the table for fairplay you are not watching top level sports.

              For this reason for example in football there is tons of acting and pretending to get injured so you can fish a penalty for the other team. In racing this could mean doing moves which are right at the edge of the rules. Slow down unexpectedly behind safety car to make it harder for the car behind to follow (why would you make it easy for the guy behind you to get close for the restart?). Sometimes you push these limits too far and go over the limit and should get a penalty.

              Come on…

          2. Sometimes some comments are just incredible. A little advice, watch the incident again and then read what you just wrote…. it’s hilarious!!

    2. The restarts in Baku are obviously tricky for the drivers, and I hope they leave it like that. I would hope they are tough enough to accept the challenge it presents. Too many times the FIA will change the rules to make the racing easy and clinical, often in response to a one-off event, just to stop it happening again and thus removing all excitement. It was a joy to watch the drivers challenged and making mistakes at the restart and I will not complain if that continues in the future.

      For a while I have thought that they could put the green flags out once the safety car itself has gone past the first safety car line, rather than each individual car having to. That way we still get a restart procedure, but all the cars can go at once. However, that’s not the sort of thing they should now do just as a knee-jerk response to two messy restarts that happened in one race.

      1. It all reminded me of an Indycar race, with the grouping of yellows culminating in a red. As they say in the US: yellows breed yellows.

        1. Agreed, it looked very much like an Indycar race.

      2. I really think the FIA should get an new safetycar an really fast one. Maybe the current one has an big engine but in corners my car can pass it.

        1. Just putting it out there, but the main reason the safety car is (relatively) slow is because it doesn’t have downforce. So…. what about putting a single-seater out there?! I know that Mercedes want to flog their sports cars but compared to F1 machinery they are not coming off very well, particularly with the F1 drivers moaning about how slow they are – not a great message for the brand, surely. How about a Merc-powered F3? Then once the field is ready to resume racing the F3 car could start ramping up in speed so that we don’t have the problem last Sunday – cars crawling to almost a stop before the lead car puts his foot down suddenly. It’s not as fun (chaotic) though, so I wouldn’t vote for my own idea!

          1. The point of the safety car is to go slow so that the marshals can clear the track safely. If they had a single seater going flat out then it would not really be a safety car…

          2. Fukobayashi (@)
            27th June 2017, 10:13

            They discussed this on Sunday and there are a number of reasons they do not use a race car. Simply put, it needs to be able to drive in all conditions as it is, without fitting special tyres so it can be deployed quickly. And above all it needs to be reliable, which race cars are not. If your safety car breaks down then you have to recover that aswell!

            They should really have something like a P1 or the new Aston Red Bull as the safety car imho.

            A ferrari safety car would also be a nice throwback, didn’t they used to use 348’s for something back in the 90’s? I cant remember if it was the safety car or they just sat at the back of the starting grid looking pretty for some reason.

            1. The safety car is also a sponsor deal. Mercedes probably pays to fia to have mercedes safety and pace cars. The issue here is that mercedes doesn’t really have anything faster to offer. The sls gt is their fastest car and it is a luxury gt car. Not a race car.

              Technically f1 could ask for a gt3 mercedes race car if they really wanted but mercedes wants to promote their brand and for that reason a road car is better looking option than a gt3 car for example. A gt3 car would be reliable enough but then you also have the issue of f1 and mercedes essentially promoting gt3 racing in f1 event. So for that kind of reasons race cars are not probably an option f1 can agree to.

              The main issue with the safety car is the downforce. To go faster adding more and more power doesn’t help after certain point. You want more cornering speed and the only way to add that is downforce. Something like a laferrari, mclaren p1 or porsche 918 would work better for sure. Or a koeniggsegg or a bugatti…

        2. Agreed, that Merc or a Porsche GT3 or any supercar even are sooooo much slower through the corners it’s unsafe if you ask me.

          They could use an LMP1 car maybe… they’re about 5 to 10 seconds slower a lap than an F1 car.

        3. @macleod

          but in corners my car can pass it.

          I hope you don’t daily it :)

          1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
            27th June 2017, 13:01

            Lol he didn’t say he would make the corner though!

        4. @macleod I think part of the problem is that the safety car needs to be ready to go ant the drop of a hat – anything that is mechanically too complicated wouldn’t be viable

        5. What car do you drive? Safety car has 500 hp plus and is driven by a race driver who is pushing it. Faster in the corners? That road spec safety car has set very quick track times in journalists hands. Faster in the corners….you have a Caterham R500, a Radical, Lotus Exige or a road spec McLaren P1 LM?

    3. Wrong Jackie…..try again

      1. @mach1 Jackie is on the money, I’m sure other past F1 drivers are going to get what happened. Re-watch Hamilton’s first interview with Rachel Brooks, he’s about to speak candidly about the whole situation and then the PR lady puts a lid on him, they reassemble and put up their PR strategy.

        Vettel acted childishly and foolishly. Thank Arrivabene for keeping a lid on the subject, because in the end as Mercedes made a mistake the stewards were forced to orchestrated a penalty so Vettel wouldn’t still win the GP, but in the end that meant Seb won some points, otherwise any penalty would have come up for the next race.

        I’m more concerned to why is Bottas able to do what he’s doing, he’s job is clearly to ruin someone’s championship, he takes Raikkonen out several times, in other GP’s he slows others down, it’s undignified the finnish driver, but no penalties.

        I don’t know what we can do to improve SC restarts, perhaps make a big SC restart line or marker on the track though before the SC overtaking line.

        1. Please don’t hit me but, I think what NASCAR is doing now is a cool idea. Not double row restarts, but a Restart Zone, an area in which the leader HAS to hit the throttle. Not before, not after. I think it’s a cool middle ground. Otherwise just mandate that the leader must return to racing speed at the start/finish line.

        2. “Mercedes made a mistake the stewards were forced to orchestrated a penalty so Vettel wouldn’t still win the GP”

          Huh? So you’re actually saying Seb deliberately pulling alongside and hitting Lewis, was totally acceptable?….. wow!

        3. Jean-Christophe
          27th June 2017, 9:33

          Those defending that are just incredible! He didn’t brake test it. As Ricciardo put it, he was too excited. Have you watched past Vettel’s restarts? The guy’s a hot head. Whenever under pressure he loses it!! He should have been black flagged.

        4. As I have said previously…

          I wouldn’t say that Hamilton slowed particularly coming out of the corner, he just didn’t accelerate, merely cruised out of it, which is the trigger for the initial collision. That in my viewpoint was a racing incident with maybe a blame to point at Hamilton. Regardless of the the reason of the collision, Vettel then effectively retaliated and in doing so put the swing of events entirely onto himself.

          We know that Vettel has a ‘passion’ when racing, we saw it in a very similar circumstance last season at Mexico with his ‘F— Charlie’ rant.

          For those accusing Jackie Stewart of jealousy, why would he be jealous? He himself is a 3 time WDC, in his own right as well as operating a very successful (for a new and young team)Formula 1 team, before selling it to Jaguar Racing (before it’s most recent sale to Red Bull)…

    4. Wow, I’m truly astonished that Jackie Stewart found fault in Hamilton’s driving. What a turn up for the books.

      1. It’s no secret Jackie doesn’t particularly take a ‘shining’ to lewis.. so this doesn’t surprise me. It’s quite sad really.

        As for Ferrari.. “we will not complain because it is not our style”

        You will not complain because, you can’t.

        1. Sad and really undignified. Every time he does this, he takes a little more shine off his own reputation.

          1. Yeah he is a nasty jealous little man. I hope press start to ignore his repetitive anti Hamilton comments

        2. I don’t like Lewis either, i am a Ferrari fan since ever and a Vettel fan since the 2013 malaysian grand prix (to be fair i rooted for Seb at Monza in 2008 also), but i still think Lewis was blameless in all this and that Seb should have acknowledge what he did and apologize.

    5. I still think Vettel crashed (as in unintentionally) into Hamilton, that would explain also his failure to acknowledge it after.
      He should have apologized right away though.

      1. Doesn’t not talking about it rather explain his guilt? If it was an accident, you’d have hoped he would have said so and apologised at the end of the race.

      2. That’s an extremely naïve view.

        Haven’t you ever seen the brother push his sister, then pretend he didn’t do anything when his parents catch him?!

        It’s basic human psychology. You downplay your wrongdoings in the hope staying off the radar will allow you to slip through the net. It’s clear as day he thrusted his car towards Lewis’ in a fit of rage. He actively pulled up alongside him to gesticulate, then slammed his wheel to the right to further demonstrate his frustration.

        I really don’t see how anyone can see anything different.

        For me, it was a low speed Schumacher/Villenueve from Jerez. Absolutely crystal clear.

        1. No it wasn’t. It was a “hey, what the hell are you doing?!” move. Not a “I need to take him out or I lose the championship!” move.

          1. So we agree it’s two instances of deliberately turning in to your opposition, correct?

            If so, I fail to see how they differ that much, other than the speeds, as I mentioned. But horses for courses.

          2. @Baron Agreed. @ecwdanselby You are in essence saying the kid stealing candy from the corner store is equivalent to the armed robber at a bank. They’re both committing theft, right? Both deserving of equal punishment?

            Actually SV got a more meaningful penalty for whacking LH on Sunday than MS got for whacking JV.

            1. Wasn’t MS DQ’d from the championship?

              I think you’re misinterpreting me – my point was they both had the same intention: to deliberately barge their opponent.

              As I said, this was the much slower version.

      3. From his post-race interviews it does seem like Vettel doesn’t know what contact the journalists refer too.

        Could it be that Vettel accidently turned the steering wheel into Hamilton as he was fuming and making arm gestures and that he was so emotional he never felt/realized he hit him?It seems so unlikely but yet, he looked genuinely clueless after the fact…..

        What ever the case, beeing to hotheaded to remember doesn’t excuse him at all.

        1. The way I saw the incident vettel was trying to pull close to Hamilton and was so wound up he kept going diagonally and hit Hamilton so pulled out again.

          I didn’t see the contact as deliberate only pulling alongside which is why I assume the stewards gave him a standard penalty for a stupid move not anything more.

          1. I am not sure how the stewards would know if it was intentional or not. If Vettel turned the wheel (and he did) then the only person that knows if it was intentional or not is Vettel Himself. Unless the stewards have some sort of brain analysis software. Although judging by his recent antics it looks like there is not much brain left in vettels head so that might not be any use either… ;-)

    6. For God’s sake people, read the articles before you comment. None of Ricciardo, Stewart, or Sainz is defending anyone blindly unlike you lot. They are trying to give their rather balanced views on the incident. And no one’s saying it’s all Hamilton’s fault or what Vettel did was right. Learn to read first, otherwise your arguments look childishly emotional and easy to dismantle. Stop putting yourselves in that position. I mean discussing stuff like zealots who are incapable of putting their conviction to one side and listening to what others are even saying which is not even against what you are saying most of the time is pitiable. Why do people behave like this on the Internet. Sigh.

      TL;DR: Read the articles before you comment.

      1. +1
        There should be a little quiz to prove you read and comprehend the article before you’re allowed to comment.
        Will make the comment section a lot shorter though ;)

        1. Great idea actually lol.

      2. Well @kanan, I did read those articles. But sadly I cannot agree with you that part about not defending blindly. Steward clearly disregarded the fact that HAmilton did NOT slow down when he mentions that Hamilton should not have braked. But yeah, by now we expect his comments towards Hamilton to be based on is own prejudices.

        To sum up the others, Ricciardo makes it pretty clear that he feels Vettel is too hot headed and in risk of losing his cool and should work on that. And he shows that Hamilton was off course driving as slow as possible to get an advantage, but “fair game” as he was the leader and setting the pace. Since Daniel spotted that, I doubt Vettel wouldn’t have. He should have avoided getting cought out and hitting Lewis car.

        And Sainz does have a point when he mentions that the way the whole procedure works makes it extra tricky for the mid field. I am all for having a look at procedures, because while it was fun to watch an IndyCar race with F1 cars, I wouldn’t want it to get a habit.

        1. @bascb, Hamilton DID slow down as confirmed by the stewards.
          He just did it consistently with the earlier restart(s) and therefore wasn’t deemed erratic and thus not punishable according to those same stewards.
          Stewart (the one with a ‘t’ at the end) disagreed, and in his opinion put (a small) part of the blame on Hamilton .

          1. I should have been clearer @f1-liners Steward mentions that Hamilton had “slowed down quickly (he didn’t, he just took his foot off the pedal and that slowed him down).
            The closing speed is high, but not because Hamilton “quickly slows down” but because he doesn’t accelerate while Vettel does. This shows just that Sir Jackie is ill-informed at the moment he comments (he probably saw only the on board from Vettel) and therefore it is not a fair judgement.

            1. @basbc, he actually braked – just check the screen images (link) – and decelerated from 70+ to 52mph even in en after the turn.
              The reasons the stewards did not penalise him was because he did exactly the same on the earlier occasions, and he seems to be braking constantly (rather then erratically).
              correct decision IMO.

            2. Yes, he does not “quickly slow down”, indeed making it not erratically and unpredictable.

            3. And the plot thickens, @bascb.
              I just saw the full video (link), and LH was erratic, as in breaking before the turn, then releasing brakes & accelerating, and suddenly braking again in/after the turn.

              I now understand why ‘the Stewart’ (the one with the ‘t’) put some of the blame on LH ;)

            4. Look at the clip from Vettel. That graphic doesn’t actually depict brake pedal usage, but merely lights up when there is even a hint of deceleration.

            5. As @patrickl points out @f1-liners, what you see is not signalling braking, it could also be a bit of the regeneration setting in etc. And it is very far from being “erratically”.

              I get what Stewart saw in some footage. It gave only limited information, therefore he was ill-informed at best. And from past situations where he commented on Hamilton, I am afraid his prejudice did also play out again.

            6. Haha, nice try @bascb, @patrickl .
              When the brake box turns Red in the clip it means 100% that the guy in the car pushes the brake paddle. The software then decides if to use brake discs and/or MGU-K (regeneration); but braking is what occurs!
              And if you still not believe me just look/listen at the revs reducing from 7k to 5k.
              It is also without doubt that Ham braked accelerated and then braked again (the last one after the turn).
              Personally I find this a bit erratic and unnecessary. But the guy IS the SC after Bernd switches off his lights, and has considerable leeway in the way he leads the pack.

        2. But sadly I cannot agree with you that part about not defending blindly.

          Well that part was subjective anyway, and it was a general statement about the interviews. I don’t agree with everything they said either. But good for you for reading.

      3. But that would mean we can’t generalize everything Vettel does and says as being a hot headed petulant child. And talk up Hamilton as the true reïncarnation of Senna even though Senna would have definitely been more likely to do what Vettel did than what Hamilton did ie ask for his teammate to slow down.

        How are we supposed to create this villain (Vettel) / hero (Hamilton) story by using reason and logic and listening to the opinions of others.

        1. If Hamilton actually does something wrong he gets blasted for it too. It’s just a fact that Vettel does a lot more of this stuff though.

    7. “We will do an analysis of the race, but we will not complain because it is not our style.”

      Indeed ;)

    8. The question I have for Stewart is, was it Hamilton slowing down too quickly or was it Vettel accelerating too hard like he was in full race conditions. Vettel didn’t leave sufficient room to allow for the car ahead to prepare his car for a restart. There was nothing malicious about the actions of Hamilton, he slowed down marginally but Vettel was too close and going too fast.
      Besides, it was the job of the stewards to question Hamilton’s action not Vettel.
      Stewart doesn’t even admonish Vettel for his road rage and that is where I question his own moral compass.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuPPHgF0xEM

        Look at how close Vettel was to Hamilton it was just ridiculous.
        Look at the gaps other drivers respectfully gave the cars ahead to allow for weaving, warming brakes and other race start preparations.

        1. If you watch the first safety car restart, Lewis dropped Seb after exiting T16, which surprised him. On the next restart, he anticipated that Lewis would do the same again and he didn’t.

          Even if Lewis had brake tested him (which the stewards subsequently cleared him of doing) it still didn’t warrant that reaction from Seb and was very disappointing to see.

          Say what you like (not necessarily you) about Hamilton, but he’s not a dirty driver. Does he race hard? Yes he does, but I doubt (&I hope I will) never see him react and do something like that, especially under the safety car.

      2. Stewart does criticize Vettel for the road rage. Even if you didn’t read the article THAT part is quoted by Keith under the link.

        Some of you really read what you want to read.

        1. I read the Stewart’s article first before I made my comment. He says Vettel has no excuse for his actions, then proceeds to make an excuse for Vettel. The unfortunate thing was that Vettel was wrong in both instances. Vettel was responsible for the first contact and then a narcissistic streak made him believe it was the fault of someone else.
          Stewart should have reminded Vettel that he was a role model for the sport, rather than bringing up lame excuses to justify road rage.

    9. “Sebastian has more experience and is calmer than Lewis,” Stewart predicting a Vettel championship win this year.

      Not to forget “I think he [Hamilton] can be a little ballerina” after ignoring the Mercedes Abu Dhabi orders last year (subsequently described by Mercedes management as a bad mistake).

      1. Have you really forgotten every single time Hamilton has lost his cool and let circumstances affect his driving?!

    10. One thing I’ve come to appreciate but not necessarily always like about the Mercedes team is that they are quick to accept if either of their drivers was in the wrong. They don’t try to twist the tale to suit their own end.

      1. Quite. Like him or not Toto Wolff is a fair man and it’s no co-incidence that he delivered Williams last win whilst in charge of that team. This is the only way to command respect from all around.

      2. Hilariious that they convinced you they are such an honest team of people unlike every other team. Their PR department must be working well lol.

        1. +1

          “Ferrari is quickest, we’re no longer favorites.”
          Sure Toto, sure.

          1. Well they really weren’t in Montreal. It’s just that Ferrari performed so poorly. Between Vettel’s poor Q3, then poor start and ensuing damage from being overtaken on both sides and also Raikkonen’s brake issues, they threw away what should have been an easy win for them.

            Of course Mercedes did the same in Baku when Bottas was too careful and let Raikkonen take him on the outside (where there was no space really with Vettel already banging Bottas from behind). Then they messed up the head rest. Sometimes a loss can be in the small things.

        2. I did mention when talking about their drivers.

    11. Why don’t the FIA/FOM get a Porsche 918 as a safety car? It has 2 seats, much quicker and would lap even better in the wet. Plus it’s a very much a hybrid.
      If the biggest issue is the F1 cars not having safe temperatures to race, then something needs to be done about the safety car itself or the rules. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Mercedes thing, it’s time to change. Specially in an era where tyre and brake temperatures are so critical.

      1. Probably waiting for the Mercedes hypercar with that F1 engine they stuck on it.

      2. Ah this is what i said before i saw this comment. But i agree there should be an faster safetycar then the one right now.

      3. Organisers need a safety car that can have the wheels driven off it from cold and importantly continue to do so. I doubt a racing bred machine would deliver either of these criteria.

        1. Also, fuel economy is a consideration. In Fuji 2007, the Safety Car nearly ran out of fuel (after 19 laps) as it was. Porsches burn fuel quicker and so there’d be the added complication of refuelling in more situations.

          1. @alianora-la-canta you do know what the 918 is right?

            And yes, Mercedes have had the deal for a ridiculous amount of time. But it’s now time to act and do something about it. The Mercedes GT is too slow!!
            If the won’t change the safety car, then it’s time to change the rules.

            1. It’s less fuel-efficient than the Mercedes AMG that is currently doing the job, that’s what it is.

              Also, the Safety Car driver can’t drive the Safety Car at flat-out – whatever car is in use – if Race Control instructs otherwise. It is quite usual for the Safety Car to go slower than is possible for either car or driver in situations where the marshals are struggling to move something or clear the track in the timeframe that optimal speed would permit, which was especially a factor under the first Safety Car (it took several laps for Kyvat to be removed from the Qosha Corner).

      4. Fukobayashi (@)
        27th June 2017, 10:17

        Agreed, but the model of the safety car is probably some locked in contract until god knows when.

      5. @ivz Because Daimler don’t own Porsche which is owned by VAG?

      6. Because it’s Mercedes that has the sponsorship deal, and has done for 21 years.

    12. 39.5 No car may be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed
      potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person at any time whilst the safety car is
      deployed. This will apply whether any such car is being driven on the track, the pit entry or the
      pit lane.

      Hamilton broke rule 39.5. He slowed to the point that the car behind rear-ended him.

      I don’t think anyone can accuse Vettel of driving recklessly or too fast behind Hamilton.

      Even Perez has to slow to a crawl and steer to left taking evasive action.

      Raikkonen does the same in the top of the video. He has to take evasive action.

      Go watch the videos on youtube and you’ll see.

      1. The car behind didn’t leave a gap of a car’s length.
        Vettel was driving recklessly and too fast behind Hamilton. The safety car was about 5 to 6 car lengths ahead of Hamilton as he prepared to turn left and was going at a steady pace and slowed down ever so slightly to allow the safety car time to clear the track. Vettel was tail gating him through the corner. It is the responsibility of the driver behind to give sufficient room to the car ahead. Vettel was mad to even think he was not the one at fault in both instances.

      2. You also got it wrong mate. Vettel accelerated to attack Hamilton and was side by side. Perez accelerated to take the space created by Vettel leaving Hamilton’s back.

      3. But yet when the stewards looked at Hamilton’s car data, they found no evidence of wrongdoing. So care to explain how your assessment of the situation trumps theirs?

      4. GtisBetter (@)
        27th June 2017, 7:51

        Generally speaking the car that hits another from behind is always at fault. The fact that the stewards didn’t find any evidence of braketesting, means hamilton didn’t brake that rule.

        1. That’s stupid if you are driving in real life but people love to say that for some reason. No, it’s not always just your fault if you rear end someone. Why do people say that lol? Is it the lack of imagination or lack of experience or what…

          1. Yes it is always your fault. If you rear end someone then you are driving too close to be able to react to the unexpected. For instance the safe driving distance on a motorway is 70m (140m in the rain). That gives enough time to react and brake. If you are travelling closer than that then it is your fault that you hit the person in front.

            Vettel decided to accelerate when it was clear hamilton was not doing the same. He tried to anticipate what hamilton was going to do rather than working on real time information. He got it wrong and hit hamilton. It is as simple as that.

            1. This is not about Vettel. There are situations in which if you get rear ended in traffic, you should be feeling guilty as well.

            2. Wrong. If someone pulls up right in front of you and brake tests you THEY are definitely in the wrong by law. It’s an often used trick for insurance scamming on truck drivers. That’s why a lot of truck drivers have dash cams so they can proof they were brake tested.

      5. The safety car was no longer deployed. Means that Hamilton is allowed to do exactly what your are saying he isn’t allowed to do. Lead car becomes the safety car and controls the pace

      6. He was driving necessarily slowly though. He was giving the safety car time to clear the track so that he could accelerate and not overtake it. Also his brakes were stone cold and his tyres were cold. Vettel was going too fast. You can’t overtake the car in front before the safety car line so he should have seen hamilton was not going quickly and checked his own speed. He was frightened perez might overtake him like he almost did at the previous restart so was paying more attention to that than hamiltons speed.

        1. I note @passingisoverrated correctly uses the term ‘generally speaking…’

          It is common knowledge that the driver in behind has more control over the situation as he is the one seeing fully the car in front and what it is doing whereas the leading car has only his rear view mirrors and fleeting glances at them at that, and would be at a greater disadvantage in anticipating the others’ actions.

          For sure if someone leaps in front of you all of a sudden and you hit him, the blame cannot always fall on the trailing driver. This is what the whole Verstappen rule was about…not a new rule at all but a reminder to everyone that you don’t make a secondary move on someone when you know they have already committed under braking and would be helpless to react to said secondary move.

    13. But Perez and Raikkonen had to take evasive action to not run into the cars in front, such was the slow speed Hamilton was travelling at.

      Vettel was maintaining a perfectly normal distance between himself and Hamilton, especially so given Hamilton had already slowed from 90 to deal with the corner. From there he unnecessarily dropped his speed to 40, which is a snail’s pace in city traffic, let alone an F1 car.

      1. You also got it wrong mate. Vettel accelerated to attack Hamilton and was side by side. Perez accelerated to take the space created by Vettel leaving Hamilton’s back.
        Hamilton took a steady pace through the corner. And if you call Perez taking avoiding action, 3 seconds after the first incident when Vettel was already beside Hamilton and hitting him a second time, then you might need some medication.

      2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuPPHgF0xEM

        Watch this video it has a top down view of the incident. Of course you will see Perez is very far away from the back of Vettel

        1. Yet still has to take evasive action because Hamilton was going so slow.

          1. Nope, Perez was taking a parallel line to Vettel and was still far behind anticipating the restart. Every other car was at least 2 cars lengths behind the car immediately ahead. Only Vettel stayed about 4 feet behind Hamilton.
            It was Hamilton’s job to dictate the pace. But Vettel was trying to dictate the pace.
            The view from the front shortens the gaps between the cars.
            This was what the Stewards saw plus the telemetry that convinced them Vettel needed a straight jacket.

            1. Hamilton slowed because some fool just smacked into the back of him.
              Vettel accelerated into Hamilton there is no excuse for that

    14. About the black flag? Isn’t a driver supposed to be shown a half black half white flag first as a warning of unsporting behaviour which may be followed by a black flag if the driver does not heed the warning

      1. I think so but I dont think Hamilton deserved that

      2. GtisBetter (@)
        27th June 2017, 10:34

        Not necessarily. You can get black flags if you ignore things like penalties or if you keep abusing track limits in which cases you can be shown a black/white flag first. But for things like reversing in pits or leaving pits while the red light is on, it is just a black flag. I think the Vettel accident was to dangerous for them to just give a warning.

      3. Only if it’s a driving standards problem and not severe enough for a separate penalty. I don’t think F1’s issued one since the mid-1990s – perhaps if they did, it would help matters.

        Hamilton would have received a black-and-orange (meatball) flag for the headrest had he not been brought in for it.

        Had either Hamilton or Vettel have been considered to have been just short of a penalty for their respective actions under the third Safety Car, then a black/white flag would have been appropriate.

    15. Before the incident on the previous restart Sergio was told by his race engineer to be on Vettels gearbox surprisingly/luckily for Vettel or everyone behind him, Checo wasnt as close on the next restart. So when Vettel clobbered Hamiltons rear a domino effect didn’t take place

      1. Perez waa told that but Perez new the race was not avout to restart as he could still see the safety car close by. And as Ricciardo confirmed, the race was not going to be restarted grom that corner, there was still time.

      2. This also shows why Perez is such a safe driver, almost always brings home points.

        1. Safe as in never going to be a world champion

        2. It shows Perez was smart because he knew the safety car had not yet gone far off by a sufficient distance for a restart hence he didn’t need to do what Vettel was doing at that point.

        3. Yet in Monaco he continuously tries to overtake in the strangest places.

          I have nothing against Perez but he’s not exactly an example of good judgement.

          1. ask the wall

    16. “but we will not complain because it is not our style.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – That’s the stupidest, most ignorant thing Ferrari has ever said about itself.

      1. If any team has complaining as a part of their DNA, it’s Ferrari.

        1. Not Red Bull?

          1. why not both?

            1. why not all?

            2. @johnmilk actually yeah…why not

        2. Not since the new management has taken over, but your disdain for Ferrari since Alonso got his marching orders always shine through!

        3. Well, they haven’t pretended that they would leave F1 in a while. Maybe they have changed?

      2. I think maybe some of you people are so bitter that you cannot get over the past… If anything Ferrari have been a bit too silent for at least a couple of years now. But you hold onto whatever that is you are holding onto, it’s amusing.

        I mean even most of the people working there have not been a part of that team for much long, but I’m sure it’s the same even if we don’t have much evidence to support that. /s

      3. @selbbin I’d say not as much as how Montezemolo would say around every year that the year after would be Ferrari’s

    17. Amazingly the drivers with supposedly “lesser” abilities in Indycars can manage rolling restarts without too much fuss. Probably because the rules are quite clear, notably

      “The leader of the field under the yellow condition is required to maintain pace lap speed until reaching a designated point (restart cone) where the leader is required to accelerate smoothly back to racing speed and the green condition will be declared.”


      Simple, no slowing down by the leader is permissible… The acceleration point is marked as well by a cone, meaning ALL drivers know the earliest point the leader can retain racing speed.

      Someone suggested that a faster pace car be used and this may need to be investigated.

      1. Oval racing is a lot different from F1 where the cars have a different pre start preparation. Tyre and brake warming requires fluctuating speeds.
        What is important is the deltas the FIA allow during such procedures and Hamilton was well within those margins. Perhaps Vettel’s throttle got stuck in the open position or he didnt have his eyes on the car ahead.

        1. The problem with the Indy car system is that a circuit like Baku the lead driver would be at a significant disadvantage if they were not allowed to control the pace and start. If Hamilton had a dictated place to start at a smooth rate he would easily have lost the lead as he would have been able to surprise Vettel who would have been able to slip stream him down the 2km straight and pass him at the first turn. How is that fair for the lead driver?
          The only solution to that is to ban passing on the first lap after the restart.
          Safety cars are really unfair for the leading driver. make a 30 sec gap and loose it because someone else crashes, then loose the lead because the restart then disadvantages the lead driver.

          1. …wouldn’t have been able to surprise Vettel…

          2. This is why other series often require a gap between the cars following the lead driver. Paired with a specification for the lead driver’s speed, it avoids the risk of the lead driver losing more positions than merited. Of course, in F1 this wouldn’t work as the aero is so much higher (and thus the tows are longer).

        2. The Indycar restart is not just for oval racing. it is use don street and circuits as well. The simple rule is for the lead car to maintain the pace car speed until the acceleration point. No reason why it would not work for F1 as well. No slowing down is the key.

          1. It just doesn’t fit on a track like Baku

      2. GtisBetter (@)
        27th June 2017, 10:37

        I always liked that. And the nascar way of restarting. Though you can’t say it really reduces the chances of accidents right after >.<

    18. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      27th June 2017, 7:49

      Jackie….. Whether you like it or not…… You only won that 3rd title because Robbie Williams got trapped on the toilet!

    19. I would like to see Telemetry.

      1. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    20. One of the facts conveniently overlooked and utilised by the stewards is engine-braking which with a 950-1.000 HP engine is pretty powerful. Yes, data show that Lewis Hamilton did not touch his brakes, so in that sense he did not brake-test Vettel. But the data also show that he travelled at 66 kph through the apex and only 51 at the exit of the corner. He lifted off, i.e. utilised engine braking to accomplish the same effect as if he had applied the brakes. This is a clever way to circumvent the regulations. As others have pointed out, drivers as well as armchair pundits, a new set of regulations for restarts after a pace-car period is needed.

      1. If a 4-time WDC can’t react to a 14kph change in speed he’s either

        1) lost his talent all of a sudden
        2) driving too close
        3) accelerated hard and simply run into the back of Lewis’ car

        You choose.

        1. 4) wasnt expecting a 3 time world champion to box the field up into a chicane whilst leaving a massive gap to the pace car

          1. GtisBetter (@)
            27th June 2017, 10:38

            Except he said lewis does that a lot of times. Even earlier in the race…

            1. He mentioned China many many years ago.

          2. Look, it’s not difficult: Vettel was simply too close. If he can’t factor in a 14kph difference around a corner, that’s, as they say, bleeding obvious. Why was he so close? Because on the previous restart Perez had almost got past him. Just before it happened, the TV commentary even said that he (Vettel) seemed nervous about Perez behind.
            All the telemetry data confirms that. It’s really a no brainer if you stop trying to find Hamilton to blame.

      2. ….This is a clever way to circumvent the regulations. As others have pointed out, drivers as well as armchair pundits, a new set of regulations for restarts after a pace-car period is….

        Your comment is hilarious.
        How do you communicate to the driver behind that you want to go slower for the safety car to clear the, when you don’t have rear brake lights, is the solution not to gradually ease off the throttle especially as the were already going very slow.
        The driver ahead dictates the pace at the restart. If another driver is going too fast or not paying attention, that is the problem of the other driver.

        1. Jean-Christophe
          27th June 2017, 10:47

          Exactly!! I’d find it hilarious if they penalise Hamilton for that while deeming Verstappen blocking at high speed (which is far more dangerous) legal. Besides, Vettel do the exact them thing if not worse when he leads the pack behind the safety car.

        2. The driver ahead is not allowed to drive in a way that induces a collision, any more than the driver behind is.

    21. I think a lot of drivers are living in the past where Lewis Hamilton was getting a hard time every race weekend from the stewards. This gave them the feeling that they could do pretty much anything and get away with it because it’s Lewis they are up against. He’s now one of the cleanest drivers on the grid and finally he’s being treated as such by the stewards.

      Seb on the other hand is going in the other direction. Built up a cheeky chappie reputation when he drove the Red Bull rocket ships that won him his championships. Always smiling he would charm his way out of tricky situations. That all changed when Daniel Ricciardo gave him driving lessons in 2014 and exposed his weakness, he’s not able to adapt to a car that hasn’t got rock solid rear end grip.

      Now he’s the angry and frustrated man that Lewis was a few years back..

      1. @frasier Which explains why he’s leading the Standings.

        1. @davidnotcoulthard no, Vettel’s had a few years in the wilderness, finally got a car that behaves as he would like, but somehow it’s not enough, he’s still angry and self delusional. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine on that one.

        2. A loose headrest explains that.

          1. A loose headrest lost him the race in Russia and monaco?! I did not know that. Thanks for telling me.

            1. Without that headrest issue, Hamilton would have had 3 point lead in the championship. Even you should be able to comprehend that.

            2. Mr/Mrs Baron, please direct me to the part of the post where I mentioned Russia or Monaco.

          2. @img343 Not before Baku though (during and after, yeah, definitely a different matter)

      2. Yup thats why Max is giving Ricciardo a driving lesson as well now, its funny that he remains the only race winner who is yet to win a race on pure pace!

        1. @rockie Max didn’t win his race on pure pace either [Lewis and Nico taking each other out..]. Dan lost Monaco ’16 in spite of having pure pace..

          Nothing in this F1 world where the machine and team play such a part is ever clear cut. Except perhaps the fact that Jimmy Clark was the GOAT.

          1. On the first lap, they did, you do realise what pure pace is?
            No other car on track was faster than him!

    22. Force India to lay down law after collision (Autosport)
      “Without us causing the red flag, Hamilton’s headrest wouldn’t have come up, so he would have won it.”

      Interesting: without them colliding, Raikkonen wouldn’t have had a puncture, Vettel and Hamilton would never have collided (since there was no SC) and Hamilton’s headrest wouldn’t have come loose (no red flag). So without the Force Indias colliding, the podium would have been for Hamilton, Vettel and Raikkonen in any given order. Ricciardo, Bottas and Stroll will thank you!

    23. Can someone rewatch the race and tell me if I’m seeing my own things. Because it seems after Vettel side swiped Hamilton he tried to veer into him again. I could be wrong but it does seem like he did.

      1. He was wobbly, though I’m not sure if that was deliberate or reaction or just plain confusion.

    24. I’ve always been troubled by the way some people talk about Lewis Hamilton. I don’t think any other driver takes as many personal insults as he does. On all my years on this website it is something I have seen and I have learnt to scroll past. But last week some people were suggesting that F1 should return to its roots (read Europe) rather than travelling to less deserving countries around the world that lack “history”. I think it is this old boys club attitude that many in the formula 1 community that actually might spell the end of it as we know it.

      Jackie Stewart is a prime example. He is part of the old boys club. Whether racism or whatever prejudice it is pretty clear he has a problem with Hamilton that has nothing to do with his driving ability.

      I wonder if the British public will miss Hamilton when they’re stuck with the likes of Palmer flying their flag in F1. Or increasingly likely no representation in F1 let alone at the pointy end of the grid. I find it amazing that a man that has flown the flag for Britain in Formula 1 for the better part of a decade is so hated. Yes he doesn’t live in the UK but neither does the British hero Button. He has tattoos. So does Button. When you think about it it is very hard to understand the amount of hate he attracts and why he is such a polarizing figure.

      Just like moving the calendar back to Europe a less diverse field is not in the interest of Formula 1. While it might not seem obvious, drivers from different backgrounds and tracks in different regions of the world are good for F1 exposing hundreds of millions of people to a sport that otherwise they likely would show no interest. That translates to dollars. And without dollars there is no F1. We should embrace diversity not fear it.

      1. I’ve always been troubled by the way some people talk about Lewis Hamilton.

        I think it has to do with some kind of “unconscious” racism. This is not only a colour thing, but also a “culture” thing. He wears the “black” culture shamelessly and a lot of people dont like that – as evidenced by the number of times what he wears, does and who he hangs out with is brought up.

        What am i saying here? It is that a lot of people are racist without consciously deciding to be so. Any black person will tell you that for some “funny” reason, they are always held to a higher or different standards in the workplace than others, and always unduly criticised for stuff others routinely get away with.

        This is the same thing we witness in the criminal justice system in the USA. It is the reason why the Stop and Search laws in the UK are used predominantly against black people. It is the reason why Cannabis usage is subliminally linked to black people, whilst Cocaine usage is not linked to white people the same way – though the usage of Cocaine amongst white people far exceeds that of Cannabis in black people. Should i go on? I think not…..

        To say there is no racism in F1 or amongst its fans would make it an anomaly in the world of sport. However, this is the elephant in the room people conveniently want to believe does not exist, whilst simultaneously indulging in its existence.

        1. Ah yes, whatever happens. Blame it on the white men.


          In my experience people accusing others of racism are most often racists themselves.

          1. Just as you have done hear. I didnt see where mentioned the white man anywhere.

        2. Absolutely. I read an article on the demographics of the average f1 fan. Both generationally and culturally they couldn’t be further apart from Hamilton and I suspect this is where the problem arises for some. He is the Tiger Woods of F1, albeit an even more unorthodox version as he is behaves and loves very differently to the average driver and fan. It is absolutely clear with the wins and records he has raked up that he is not judged solely on his ability and behavior on track or even at the circuit ie interviews etc.

          It is odd that we think F1 is the only sport or part of society for that matter that racism doesn’t exist.

          1. On Sunday night while at work, my work mates were in the other room watching the race, i was trying to avoid it to watch it when i got home.
            here are direct quotes from two of the guys.
            “So what happened to the monkey?
            “Sour faced monkey!, God he is such a winger”

            That is an Australian workplace. Nice aye

            For what its worth i called them out on it and they all shut up immediately. It made me extremely angry and actually felt quite sick right though to the next day. Even now i am disgusted by their behavior.

            Anyone who thinks Hamilton is not subject to racist comments is living with their head in the sand. Sorry for the subject Keith but its the cold hard reality if the situation. One of the reasons Hamilton is hated is because of his skin color and it is prevalent in his online haters.

    25. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      27th June 2017, 13:12

      So even though Hamilton decides to brake in an unorthodox/unexpected place during a safety car period (dangerous) every time there was a chance to do so…he wasn’t penalised…after causing an accident. Right. Favouritism shining through towards Hamilton there.

      Vettel made a sill unnecessary mistake in driving one-handed and accidentally clipping Hamilton’s car, but it was Hamilton who was the instigator of the entire episode.

      BOTH Hamilton AND Vettel deserved penalties, for they were just almost equal in their lack of thought, lack of focus and abundance of self entitlement. That Hamilton had conducted the same behaviour multiple times during the same grand prix, he should have had the (marginally) bigger penalty.

    26. Love Jackie Stewart. As a Ferrari fan I could not defend what happened even if Lewis is really annoying you cannot do that but if Jackie said this I am going to cling to what I can and agree with him.

    27. Levente (@leventebandi)
      28th June 2017, 8:30

      Wow my first comment of the day :0
      Huge thanks @keithcollantine!

    Comments are closed.