Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Analysing Hamilton vs Albon in Austria (Patreon)

Published:
2020-07-06 15:28:37
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Hello! Here's your earlybird special. Thanks for supporting me and hello to new patrons this month. It's so good to have F1 back again, huh?

I thought I'd do a quick overview of one of the big "oh no" moments of the Austrian GP - Hamilton vs Albon. Not everyone thought he should get a penalty... others thought he should get a bigger penalty. Me... I kind of sit in the middle. 

Files

Previews only

Hamilton vs Albon in Austria (Patreon version)

------------------ Please do support these videos on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/chainbearf1 Twitter: http://twitter.com/chainbear Videos en Español: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8aJWhQTYB6PURmsXXA2Wvw/ Writing / Illustration / Animation / Editing / Narration: Stuart Taylor http://www.chainbear.me sharecode: chainbearsharef1

Comments

Nitron F117

I’d love for the term “racing incident” to be thrown out of people’s vocabulary. It’s such a nebulous, subjective term, I think it detracts from productive discussions of rules. Personally, I think whether or not Hamilton should have gotten a penalty at all, should be cut and dry. Albon had established himself alongside, and they made contact within the outer car’s width of the track... that should be a penalty for the inside car. No ambiguity. As for what the penalty should be, there are basically two main ways to look at penalties: cause and effect. F1 traditionally looks at the cause of an incident, and tries to dole out penalties accordingly... this inevitably brings up questions about “what else could the driver have done”, or statements like, “it wasn’t intentional”. I don’t like these considerations, because they might rely on knowing the state of mind of a driver, or trying to determine unknowable hypotheticals. Much better, in my opinion, is looking at the effect of an incident. What was the outcome? These are typically much more objective. In this case, Albon dropped to the back of the pack. I would argue that, the most just penalty for Hamilton, would be to drop him back to the same position that Albon fell to. This does mean that the same cause might end up with different penalties in different races/situations, but I think that’s ok, as long as it makes sense. Let’s say the same event occurred, but Hamilton spun instead of Albon. In that case, no additional penalty is needed. It was Hamilton’s fault, and Hamilton spun, so the “penalty” has already been applied.

chainbearf1
>>39874980

The effect idea is an interesting one though it does kind of make the penalty element much more difficult as 1) there isn't always such a cut and dried case and 2) it *should* really be the act that we're trying to prohibit, regardless of what happens. For instance, when Vettel deliberately drove into Hamilton in Baku in a moment of anger, no effect came of it. If we punish the effect then we let Vettel off the hook in this case, where we would want to discourage using your car as a weapon. Alternatively he could have broken Hamilton's car and caused him to lap measurably slower, in which case, what is the penalty then? Having a penalty tied into the 'act' is more aligned with the values and sporting behaviour F1 is trying to frame. But yes, you're right, as a consequence we could see wildly different 'effects' being punished very similarly, but that's kind of how it goes really.

Nitron F117
>>39874980

You're right, and perhaps I made my position sound a bit more extreme than intended... I'm not suggesting that ONLY the effect matters... just that, if there is an obvious effect, it shouldn't be ignored. Obviously an intentional incident that happens to result in no measurable negative outcome for any other driver shouldn't be ignored either. If something is deemed intentional, it should definitely get a harsher penalty than the same action would otherwise, but I don't think something being unintentional, or "out of the driver's control" should be grounds to reduce or eliminate the penalty.

chainbearf1
>>39874980

Yeah I don't completely disagree with your original point. There's def some arguments either way and, for example, it's often been emphasised that stewards won't treat incidents any differently if they affect the championship, for example. Like if a midfielder does something clumsy that takes out a championship challenger late in the year that won't be treated differently to if they did it to a backmarker in race one. And that... I always found tricky to square. Having said that, I do think calculating a penalty accurately, without controversy and in a timely fashion (i.e. so we don't have to wait three hours after the race for a stewarding decision) is much harder. I think to some extent we have to accept there's an element of luck in the range of consequences for the same bad action. On similar lines, not all penalties have equal consequences. Albon suffered massively, partly because the field was bunched up after the restart so he fell to the back. Similarly, Hamilton's five second penalty cost him two positions for the same reason whereas under normal circumstances he might well have lost zero positions with a 5 second weight. There are no solutions, really, that solve everything but I think having consistency and transparency in stewarding is really important and if everyone knows the rules and penalties as black and white that has a lot of benefits.

Nitron F117
>>39874980

Yeah, I don't like that time-based penalties are basically the only real in-race tool that the stewards have at their disposal. I'd like for them to have the ability to say, "Driver A must allow X cars past."

Rajeev Suchet Erramilli
>>39874980

Call me crazy, but what if in that instance Alex would be "reset" back to the same spot right behind Lewis one lap later. That is to say that Alex would effectively drive one fewer lap total and spend that one lap resetting himself to where he was before the spineroo. Then he could try the same move on Lewis again but just have it treated as a lap where he did nothing behind lewis.

chainbearf1
>>39874980

I think that's much harder to orchestrate and then runs into the problem of not running a full race distance and accepting all the risk that comes with that!

Nitron F117
>>39874980

Rajeev, while I agree that might technically be more “just”, I have to agree with Stuart, the trade off of having to coordinate such a maneuver would outweigh the benefit to the overall race... also, that effectively leaves Hamilton without a penalty, which I don’t think would be correct.

Nitron F117
>>39874980

A “let’s start over” on Penalties would be great... I think there has been too much “bad” precedence set in the past, that wiping the slate clean, and starting over might be great... we’re already getting new technical regs, let’s do the sporting ones as well!

David Southworth

I know this really doesn't matter, but my name seems to have disappeared from the credits . Not bothered, just figured I'd mention

chainbearf1
>>39906127

Oh sorry David! I'll have a look into that - I just updated the credits for this month, but will go double check them now. Very weird. Will be sorted for the next one