Why Pirro thinks Vettel deserves his penalty in Canada

At the 48th round of the Grand Prix du Canada, Sebastian Vettel makes a mistake when arriving in turn 3. Slightly losing the rear of his Ferrari when turning, he must counter-steering and can not help but shoot straight into the grass. On his return to the track, at the exit of turn 4, he finds himself slightly off course inside and then goes off to the right, returning to the normal trajectory and to the wall. Lewis Hamilton, who was following him closely and had stayed on the track, has already started on the right, with much more speed, when he sees the door close. The Briton is forced to put four wheels off the track and brake to avoid the collision.

Read also:

Commissioners are seized of the incident and must decide on Vettel's liability. Did the German or not do a dangerous maneuver? In a quarter the time, the decision is made and is announced from the 57th lap: the Ferrari # 5 is penalized by five seconds for a dangerous return to the track. The sequel has now entered the history of Formula 1.

Pilot Commissioner that day, Emanuele Pirro participated in the reflection on the incident and the decision taken by the College of Commissioners. In a long interview with FormulaPassion.it, for his first speech as long since June, he returned to the facts and the way the rule was applied. Also, when he was simply asked why the quadruple World Champion had been penalized, he replied: "The rule is clear: whoever gets off track can come back if he is able to do so, provided he acts safely and without taking advantage of it, trying to keep his position at all costs means pulling an advantage."

Vettel "had control" and "closed the door"

Even though many spoke, sometimes peremptorily, at the mere sight of the images, Pirro had more – like all the commissioners – access to many telemetry data to form an opinion. "First and foremost, I immediately wanted to understand how much Vettel's return maneuver prevented Hamilton's overtaking, and then I saw on telemetry, in real time, that the pilot Mercedes had acted on his brakes repeatedly to reduce his speed by more than 70 km / h, and if he had not had to brake to avoid a collision, he would easily have passed Vettel. tried to understand, that's why Vettel had followed this trajectory.I then was controlling the opening of the gas throttle of his Ferrari, and I saw that from the moment he went on the grass After a very quick counterattack, he immediately began to accelerate, trying to minimize the loss of time, as everyone would have done, including myself. "

Read also:

And from there, the commissioners judged that the German had control of his SF90 and had sought above all to prevent Hamilton to exceed it: "He made a perfect counter-defeat and he put his car back on the right, which is the only way to 'survive' […] on an excursion on the grass, from the moment the car was straight, his priority was no longer to spin, but not to lose his position, accelerating as much as possible, everyone would have done that, Vettel lost the back for a moment, then he immediately thought to stay ahead and he 'cut the road' to Hamilton when it was enough to have it brake without causing an accident.Besides, they are not Champions of the world by chance. very well what they do. "

"Vettel closed the door in Hamilton, it's a fact, it's on the pictures, but our question was: did he do it voluntarily or because his Ferrari was out of control?" when you see the gas throttle open, we understand that he has control of the car.Many stressed that he had never turned the steering wheel to the right: he did not need it. cars, indeed, had converging trajectories of 30 °: they were heading towards each other, it was enough to go straight.If he wanted to be sure not to return to Hamilton or not to slow down Vettel should have turned the steering wheel to the left. "

"No, he kept shutting it by keeping the steering wheel right, these are basic arguments that I, with ten years of experience as a steward, made in a flutter. that people, even competent ones, did not make them … "

The Hamilton-Ricciardo case at Monaco 2016 has "nothing to do"

Among the many arguments put forward to try to discredit the sanction, one concerned the case of the incident between Lewis Hamilton and Daniel Ricciardo in Monaco in 2016. On the 37th lap of the Monegasque race, the Briton, in the lead, slips to the braking Chicane port and pulls in the loophole, before returning to the track before the end of the chicane. Several dozen meters later, once the chicane passed, the Australian who threatens to try to go through the right but fails, the gap between the Mercedes and the rail is barely the size of his Red Bull . At the time, Hamilton had not been penalized, but the incident was judged as a fight on track and not as the consequences of a dangerous return since it occurred well after the latter.

Read also:

"Still in their desire not to deepen, many have compared the two episodes, but in reality they have nothing to do because Ricciardo, analyzing the telemetry and the images, had not even managed to attempt the overtaking on Hamilton ", says Pirro, who was also in the College of Commissioners in Monaco in 2016. "I understand that according to the footage taken from the front, Hamilton's maneuver may seem to deserve a penalty, but in reality Ricciardo, on the right, found a wet and wet track, and so it was not Hamilton who pushed Ricciardo to the rail but Ricciardo who went over a puddle and lost all his advantage to acceleration and had to give up his attempt to overtake: no responsibility for the Mercedes driver. "

"In the past, there was no need for referees"

Although he believes that the Montreal penalty was justified and that it was not called into question in the review process requested by Ferrari in the days following the Canadian GP, ​​it crystallized a form of the rejection by the public, in particular, of the presumed severity of the proceedings against certain maneuvers on the track. Two weeks later, this same debate was revived by the various incidents in which Ricciardo was involved in the last lap of the GP of France and even more so, of course, at the time of the GP of Austria where Max Verstappen won in forcing Charles Leclerc off track. The Dutchman was not penalized, on the basis of criteria that had not previously been taken into account, suggesting that a change was then taking place in the way of apprehending these situations, because of the controversies recent.

"I thought a lot about the impact of the penalty we gave Vettel – it was minimal: it could have been heavier"adds Pirro, before analyzing the context of such a decision. "In the common definition of races, it is not possible that the one who does not win on the track is not the real winner, is not it? I wondered how it was done. Culturally, the passionate of Auto sport is not used to having a referee, because in the past there was no need for it. "

"In the past, let's say until 20 years ago, you paid for your own mistakes, because of the dangerousness of the tracks and the cars, which had a deterrent effect on the drivers and pushed them to self-regulate. There was a different respect between the pilots, it has evolved over the years, and since there have been pilots, the leaders have pushed for consistency and consistency in judgment. Gradually, we went to a greater severity: or white or black, no gray area.Either we can do it, or we can not, point.Today, we must deal with this rigidity – or this attention, if you will – to have consistency. "

The phone call from René Arnoux

On the human level, Pirro has been widely affected and "injured" by the insults and threats he received after the CU of Canada. While it is difficult to deny the role played by Sebastian Vettel in this, by participating in igniting the debate with his words and his actions after the Montreal race, the German did not show any resentment at all. to the five-time winner of the 24 Hours of Le Mans. On the contrary.

"He was very kind"says Pirro, who also salutes the attitude of Scuderia Ferrari. "At the GP following Canada's [Paul Ricard], in the paddock, he came behind me on a bike, he slapped me on the shoulder and shook my hand. 'We have coffee together, yes, with pleasure', then it was not done, because I did not look for it anymore, so as not to disturb him. not necessary and that was not due to chance.Canada's problem came from the rest of the world.With Ferrari, no problem.Camilleri made very sporting statements.Binotto ditto.I can not expect this that they agree, but when they say 'we accept the decision', what else is there to add, they understand very well that I was really sorry, as sportsman and as an Italian. "

But the most striking testimony of sympathy is perhaps that of René Arnoux. The former French driver, who raced in F1 in the 1970s and 1980s for Renault, Ferrari and Ligier in particular, signing seven wins and 18 pole positions, took part in what is often considered the most beautiful battle of the History of the queen discipline, namely the fight for second place with Gilles Villeneuve at the 1979 French Grand Prix in Dijon. Many fans and observers often use this famous parade, and have used it extensively after Montreal, to highlight the so-called show of yesterday and sanitization today, forgetting in passing that number of experienced pilots had at the time greatly disapproved of the behavior of the two men.

Anyway, Pirro says: "After Canada, René Arnoux called me, among other things, and it really pleased me.He told me he was sorry for what happened and he added: 'Few people understood what had happened in Canada, in my time these things would not have happened. "

Read also:

When asked in the tone of humor what would have been the sanction for this fight, the Italian replied: "This fight has always been the example of how one should run wheel against wheel, respecting himself." Arnoux said to me: "In Dijon, I put my life in the hands of Gilles, and Villeneuve did the same. We knew that respect would never have failed and that we could trust each other.

Then he concludes by recalling an immutable truth, which has been confirmed many times during the last races and in the History of Formula 1: "I would add that running in the rules does not mean running without a show – the duel between Albon and Kvyat, who were teammates, in Hungary is proof that if we apply the rules properly, the races do not lose but, on the contrary, they win. "

With Lena Buffa