planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:55 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 937
Ennis wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
As much as one would want to analyse each incident on its own merit, that is not the case. In fact even rules are designed in a way we take into consideration the prior actions.

10 seconds TIME PENALTY (its not stop go) is stewards going very easy on Max. I am sure the past incidents played part in the minds of officials but they have still gone easy.

The argument that it wasnt malicious is irrelevant in my book when it comes to Max. I really liked the kid which we all saw win his first race with RBR. But what I have seen since then isnt great on track behaviour.
And if you see his press comments for last 2 races, it showed that he does not care or think about what he is doing on the track. Also he gets lot of affirmation from the certain section of the press for what is reckless driving.

This incident was on the cards. It was like a ticking time-bomb. Lot of people saw it coming and I it finally happened. There was no chance in hell he was ever going to make that corner at those speeds. Lockup was not unfortunate incident, it happened because of his mistake and brain fade. He carried too much speed into that corner. And the whole argument is "IF DAN WASNT THERE, he would have made it" is BS. Forget about his own Boss confirming he wouldn't have, but you cannot, i repeat cannot discount other cars on the track around you ever!
And he got punished for it, justly and in fact I say he got a very mild penalty.

I hope RedBull has good sports psychologists on the payroll. And if not, hire one for Max. He needs to understand there is difference between driving aggressively and taking undue risks that affects not only him but others around him including his own team. I fear that if he continues like this, its only a matter of time we get bigger incident.


And as someone already pointed out, this is not similar to Bottas (though I think he deserved some punishment for taking out kimi and max, but we know 1st corner incidents are usually ignored), this is not similar to Vettel (who got much severe punishment and has received official penalty points, probation as well as warning from FIA ). And it does not matter in the end. Max needs counselling and I hope the people around him see this and points him out.

Being YES MEN around a young driver like Max is playing with fire.


I don't get the timing of it though. Max may be no angel, but when do we tend to see incidents between teammates punished like this?

Generally the team have already taken their hit, they won't allow their driver to end their other driver's race, and the stewards don't need to step in. I like that approach to be honest.


Silverstone 2017 Kyvat vs Sainz, Kyvat was given a drive through and penalty points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
j man wrote:
ALESI wrote:
FIA has different standards for different drivers and different championship positions. Everyone knows this!

Indeed. This is my biggest gripe with how the stewarding is conducted at the moment. To me the most unsavoury aspect of the Vettel incident in Baku was hearing that the effect on the championship standings was taken into consideration when deciding the punishment. That I find atrocious.

It's not a new thing either. We saw it back in 2007 with Spygate, where McLaren and both of their drivers should have been excluded from the championship (though I still believe that they effectively were and that we were served up a staged façade of a title fight that year).

They didn't take that into account when Hamilton was being continuously penalised in 2008, but then again Mosley wasn't the biggest fan of McLaren at the time.


Actually We did. A very good example of stewarding manipulating the title fight.

2006 as well with Alonso's ridiculous penalty in Monza.

In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2212
Blake wrote:
Maybe someone has mentioned it, so forgive me for repeating it if they did.

I think that one of the major reasons, though there are many possibilities, that we have discrepancies/inconsistancies in Stewarding is that F1 does not have a set Stewards crew, instead it shifts people every race. In doing so, you are open to different interpretations for both actions and penalties. I understand that is done to create a fairness or so that no one team/country feels disadvantaged by the officiating crew, but it does lead to different styles and "solutions".

I would think that the FIA could create 2-3 TRAINED Stewarding teams and rotate them as needed. They could even have the teams nominate people to be considered, thereby making the feel that they are involved and that they have a say. At the end of a year, the stewards/crews could be evaluated for extension, or replacement... and then again use the off-season to further train the teams, whatever their make-up. Do not most major sports have professional and trained officials... Soccer leagues, NFL, MLB, NBA??? There is obviously a reason that they do so.

There may be perfectly good reasons why this would not work and I am sure that some of you will let me know what they are! However, to me it would appear to be at least a partial solution?


Logical, but flawed. The flaw being the FIA doesn't require consistent stewarding, the FIA requires puppets who look to the FIA for guidance, this way the 'correct' punishments can be handed out as appropriate at the time (depending on the shape of the championship). If you had permanent stewards they would then have to justify why their decisions where inconsistent, and the fans would be calling for them to be replaced every five minutes. You just have to accept that what you are watching is manipulated and if you don't like it watch something else.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11999
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
j man wrote:
ALESI wrote:
FIA has different standards for different drivers and different championship positions. Everyone knows this!

Indeed. This is my biggest gripe with how the stewarding is conducted at the moment. To me the most unsavoury aspect of the Vettel incident in Baku was hearing that the effect on the championship standings was taken into consideration when deciding the punishment. That I find atrocious.

It's not a new thing either. We saw it back in 2007 with Spygate, where McLaren and both of their drivers should have been excluded from the championship (though I still believe that they effectively were and that we were served up a staged façade of a title fight that year).

They didn't take that into account when Hamilton was being continuously penalised in 2008, but then again Mosley wasn't the biggest fan of McLaren at the time.


Actually We did. A very good example of stewarding manipulating the title fight.

2006 as well with Alonso's ridiculous penalty in Monza.

In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11999
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)


Haha, go on Fiki, admit it, you know I'm right! The FIA were pretty keen for a McLaren driver to not win that WDC. TBH who can blame them? McLaren were still getting a benefit from there cheating a year before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
j man wrote:
Indeed. This is my biggest gripe with how the stewarding is conducted at the moment. To me the most unsavoury aspect of the Vettel incident in Baku was hearing that the effect on the championship standings was taken into consideration when deciding the punishment. That I find atrocious.

It's not a new thing either. We saw it back in 2007 with Spygate, where McLaren and both of their drivers should have been excluded from the championship (though I still believe that they effectively were and that we were served up a staged façade of a title fight that year).

They didn't take that into account when Hamilton was being continuously penalised in 2008, but then again Mosley wasn't the biggest fan of McLaren at the time.


Actually We did. A very good example of stewarding manipulating the title fight.

2006 as well with Alonso's ridiculous penalty in Monza.

In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.

Yeah Bourdais was fuming. :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1506
Location: Miami, Florida
funkymonkey wrote:
I really liked the kid which we all saw win his first race with RBR. But what I have seen since then isnt great on track behaviour.

If you liked him in Spain 2016 you should like him still because even though he got that win his on-track antics on Raikkonen in that race was no different, and it wasn't the last time he behaved that way. Once he found himself in a car able to contend for occasional podiums, his defensive driving became more cut throat and downright dangerous. I recognize he is highly talented but he must realize that his car is only quick enough to finish high up in the order on a very select few tracks and in most races he has to rely on misfortune to befall one of the faster cars ahead to be in contention for higher finishing positions. As such, his weaving is such that multiple drivers have expressed their displeasure for it. However, when other drivers try to intimidate him he's not a happy camper and recently went as far as to say This guy thinks we're playing bumper cars which is as grand a case that I can recall of a pot calling the kettle black.

In this incident with his teammate he was simply trying to defend on the inside on a wide piece of track and got it slightly wrong. Nothing more, nothing less, and contrary to the drivel Horner spewed, he most definitely would have made that corner if his teammate wasn't there. Might've lost a place or 2, but he definitely would've made the corner. That's just Horner trying to reassure Ricciardo they have his back. Right now it seems as though Max is there for the moment but is probably in the process of setting his next move to another team, and if so, Horner must play his political and psychological cars to ensure he keeps one of his star drivers for the long-term stability of the team. I think LeClerk to TR and Sainz to RBR in 2018.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1631
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You're not comparing like for like, though. The Vettel incident in Baku isn't really comparable to other racing incidents. It's a disciplinary question, more than a sporting one.

Secondly, I can't at the moment remember the incident with Bottas in Spain, but in Baku he was a bit unfortunate that the kerb made him lose control. I don't think it's quite the same as Max barreling in far too fast. I think every clash isn't the same and shouldn't automatically get the same punishment

BIB…

What Max did in Hungary was not in any way malicious and he's generally VERY good and late braking and maintaining his line in these situations. In this incident you can clearly see he's got full left lock but the car was just carrying too much speed and drifted regardless of him holding his wheel left. It happens and this is an incident that deserved no penalty because the driver never intentionally set out to force the other wide, but rather tried to defend his position within the confines of the track without purposely hindering anyone. Was it a bit off?… perhaps… Should it have been punished? Absolutely not!

It seems in this Social Media happy politically correct day and age, even racing is being policed in a way so as to appease the general masses whom don't know that the competitors are participating to win rather than just to enjoy turning laps with the rest of the field.

Ironically, Ricciardo, as much as I really like the guy, is the driver who has dive bombed down the inside incorrectly more than most current drivers, and has forced others to take evasive action, allowing both drivers to continue, while he gains the advantage from such poorly calculated moves born out of desperation. Just saying.

What Magnussen did to Hulkenberg was done with clear intent and it he was rightly punished, but I think Hulk should have punched him in the mouth when he told him to suck his balls! 8O
If it were me they'd still be trying to pull me off the guy. That kind of attitude is the kind of stuff a sport as dangerous as F1 does not need.

Ricciardo is one of the cleanest overtakers on the grid.

Verstappen's error was so great that he took out Ricciardo despite the latter giving him tons of space.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 103
GingerFurball wrote:
Ricciardo is one of the cleanest overtakers on the grid.

Verstappen's error was so great that he took out Ricciardo despite the latter giving him tons of space.

True and true. He never could have made the corner and was to eager to defend his position.
But it wasn't intentionally, and he took out his teammate. Enough punishment if you ask me. I think we all agree the rules aren't applied equally.

Dan is good off track, meaning talking to press. On the track he's rather boring. Yes Max did some dumb stuff, but he also showed absolute skill and intelligence. In his Toro Rosso trailing Vettel in Monaco, and overtaking just about everyone in wet Brazil. That's the stuff ppl want to see. Not some billion dollar 60 lap parade. Max knows after 2 laps everything is just about decided. If top 4 had their way we could skip Sunday. We should applaude Max for being different, not bending over to get screwed. He doesn't want a parade, he's a born racer.

"A gem cannot be polished without friction nor a man perfected without trials." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2490
Location: UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.

:thumbup:

That penalty for Bourdais was the most ridiculous one I've ever seen dished out. Including the Alonso / Massa blocking incident in Monza.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
Knuppel1983 wrote:
he took out his teammate. Enough punishment if you ask me.
I like your sense of humour Knuppel! :lol: (Were you an adviser at Mercedes these last couple of years, by any chance?)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1506
Location: Miami, Florida
GingerFurball wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You're not comparing like for like, though. The Vettel incident in Baku isn't really comparable to other racing incidents. It's a disciplinary question, more than a sporting one.

Secondly, I can't at the moment remember the incident with Bottas in Spain, but in Baku he was a bit unfortunate that the kerb made him lose control. I don't think it's quite the same as Max barreling in far too fast. I think every clash isn't the same and shouldn't automatically get the same punishment

BIB…

What Max did in Hungary was not in any way malicious and he's generally VERY good and late braking and maintaining his line in these situations. In this incident you can clearly see he's got full left lock but the car was just carrying too much speed and drifted regardless of him holding his wheel left. It happens and this is an incident that deserved no penalty because the driver never intentionally set out to force the other wide, but rather tried to defend his position within the confines of the track without purposely hindering anyone. Was it a bit off?… perhaps… Should it have been punished? Absolutely not!

It seems in this Social Media happy politically correct day and age, even racing is being policed in a way so as to appease the general masses whom don't know that the competitors are participating to win rather than just to enjoy turning laps with the rest of the field.

Ironically, Ricciardo, as much as I really like the guy, is the driver who has dive bombed down the inside incorrectly more than most current drivers, and has forced others to take evasive action, allowing both drivers to continue, while he gains the advantage from such poorly calculated moves born out of desperation. Just saying.

What Magnussen did to Hulkenberg was done with clear intent and it he was rightly punished, but I think Hulk should have punched him in the mouth when he told him to suck his balls! 8O
If it were me they'd still be trying to pull me off the guy. That kind of attitude is the kind of stuff a sport as dangerous as F1 does not need.

Ricciardo is one of the cleanest overtakers on the grid.

Verstappen's error was so great that he took out Ricciardo despite the latter giving him tons of space.

Sorry but the first part of your statement is a bit off the mark.

Discounting the fact he's not ended up collecting other drivers because they were quick to react to his boneheaded divebombs does not mean he's clean. Rather he's been quite fortunate they went out of their way (literally) to avoid contact.

This is at times all too common with Ricciardo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3iREE_t5_I
And in that incident, Brundle irresponsibly spoke about how Ricciardo loves that move "but locked up" – "But didn't run into Rosberg" when the reality was that Rosberg's quick reaction prevented the collision initially.

If you look carefully, you'll notice Rosberg sees an out of control Ricciardo in his mirror at the last moment (0:13) redirects his turn-in while on the prime line (and well ahead) to avoid what would have been a significant collision. There was the nonsensical thread in here last year referring to Ricciardo as a late braking God based on moves like this. To that I say a late braking God wouldn't lock up his tires or attempt divebombs from so far back because a true late braking God would time his braking perfectly and would not lock up, making themselves a passenger in an out of control missile.

Now, if another driver divebombed Ricciardo in the exact same fashion, I reckon he wouldn't hesitate to all them a name like a moo-pickle of a Bloke. He's a really charismatic character for the most part, but he's shown he's not the model poster boy many believe him to be either. I will say Ricciardo seems to have learned and improved on making such mad dash attempts and has been driving really well, and this season he has been really clean and not lost control while battling closely that I can recall ATM.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
j man wrote:
Indeed. This is my biggest gripe with how the stewarding is conducted at the moment. To me the most unsavoury aspect of the Vettel incident in Baku was hearing that the effect on the championship standings was taken into consideration when deciding the punishment. That I find atrocious.

It's not a new thing either. We saw it back in 2007 with Spygate, where McLaren and both of their drivers should have been excluded from the championship (though I still believe that they effectively were and that we were served up a staged façade of a title fight that year).

They didn't take that into account when Hamilton was being continuously penalised in 2008, but then again Mosley wasn't the biggest fan of McLaren at the time.


Actually We did. A very good example of stewarding manipulating the title fight.

2006 as well with Alonso's ridiculous penalty in Monza.

In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.

Even the British press, normally largely supportive of Hamilton, criticised him for his move. I'm not sure why that would be seen as stewards' manipulation. I think that's a stretch.

The Bourdais penalty I'll grant you, though. I had forgotten about that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
GingerFurball wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You're not comparing like for like, though. The Vettel incident in Baku isn't really comparable to other racing incidents. It's a disciplinary question, more than a sporting one.

Secondly, I can't at the moment remember the incident with Bottas in Spain, but in Baku he was a bit unfortunate that the kerb made him lose control. I don't think it's quite the same as Max barreling in far too fast. I think every clash isn't the same and shouldn't automatically get the same punishment

BIB…

What Max did in Hungary was not in any way malicious and he's generally VERY good and late braking and maintaining his line in these situations. In this incident you can clearly see he's got full left lock but the car was just carrying too much speed and drifted regardless of him holding his wheel left. It happens and this is an incident that deserved no penalty because the driver never intentionally set out to force the other wide, but rather tried to defend his position within the confines of the track without purposely hindering anyone. Was it a bit off?… perhaps… Should it have been punished? Absolutely not!

It seems in this Social Media happy politically correct day and age, even racing is being policed in a way so as to appease the general masses whom don't know that the competitors are participating to win rather than just to enjoy turning laps with the rest of the field.

Ironically, Ricciardo, as much as I really like the guy, is the driver who has dive bombed down the inside incorrectly more than most current drivers, and has forced others to take evasive action, allowing both drivers to continue, while he gains the advantage from such poorly calculated moves born out of desperation. Just saying.

What Magnussen did to Hulkenberg was done with clear intent and it he was rightly punished, but I think Hulk should have punched him in the mouth when he told him to suck his balls! 8O
If it were me they'd still be trying to pull me off the guy. That kind of attitude is the kind of stuff a sport as dangerous as F1 does not need.

Ricciardo is one of the cleanest overtakers on the grid.

Verstappen's error was so great that he took out Ricciardo despite the latter giving him tons of space.

I beg to differ. I think Ricciardo is a great fan of the "get out of the way, I'm coming through" school of overtaking. Often, he relies on other drivers to avoid clashes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11999
Indeed. This is my biggest gripe with how the stewarding is conducted at the moment. To me the most unsavoury aspect of the Vettel incident in Baku was hearing that the effect on the championship standings was taken into consideration when deciding the punishment. That I find atrocious.

It's not a new thing either. We saw it back in 2007 with Spygate, where McLaren and both of their drivers should have been excluded from the championship (though I still believe that they effectively were and that we were served up a staged façade of a title fight that year).[/quote]
They didn't take that into account when Hamilton was being continuously penalised in 2008, but then again Mosley wasn't the biggest fan of McLaren at the time.[/quote]

Actually We did. A very good example of stewarding manipulating the title fight.

2006 as well with Alonso's ridiculous penalty in Monza.[/quote]
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?[/quote]

Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.[/quote]
Even the British press, normally largely supportive of Hamilton, criticised him for his move. I'm not sure why that would be seen as stewards' manipulation. I think that's a stretch.

The Bourdais penalty I'll grant you, though. I had forgotten about that[/quote]

Nothing to be supportive of he made a mistake. I'm not saying he should've got a pat in the back. Do you not find it off that we have never, ever seen a driver receive a penalty for something like that before or since? I mean, even in that race Kovalainen follows the exact same line yet no penalty issued.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Nothing to be supportive of he made a mistake. I'm not saying he should've got a pat in the back. Do you not find it off that we have never, ever seen a driver receive a penalty for something like that before or since? I mean, even in that race Kovalainen follows the exact same line yet no penalty issued.

Yep it was Kovalainen that actually made contact with Kimi's car

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 794
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Hang on a sec, if Ricciardo wasn't there Max makes the corner EASY. The issue between Max and Bottas was due to both of them being caught out by the Ferrari's slower trek through turn 1. Max was on the outside and closed up on Kimi ultra-quick and it caused a bit of a chain reaction starting with Max first who purposely veered wide to avoid ramming into Raikkonen's rear and then Bottas found himself closing up about as fast and with nowhere to go his car drifted on Max. The difference is Max was quick to react and pulled himself off-track to avoid the contact which allowed Ricciardo to edge slightly ahead, but on the outside line rather than the prime line. And While Ricciardo had no fault in the contact, Max did what EVERY driver is supposed to do which is keep from losing positions. He was mildly faster than was ideal to hold the inside line but with everything that happened in under 3 seconds I think you have to give some leeway to the guy. He is only human.


I think F1M you are reinventing facts and failing to understand how the Austrian circuit works.

Ricciardo passed Hamilton and was well ahead of Max in a straight line by corner 2 - naturally this was part of the interaction of drivers from corner 1 but DR was where he was very cleanly without interfering with anyone and he was well away from Max and much more than 'edged' ahead.

He left more than enough room for Max - and while he was on the outside of the corner, the fact is that he had the inside line for corner 3 with speed and clearly had position (and if you've watched other parts of this race and other races at the circuit - you have to make a mistake from that point to not be in front after corner 3).

So it was irresponsible (on lap 1) to try what Max did - and also directly contrary to what RBR had discussed AND agreed with both drivers before the race - hence a realistic complaint by DR.

As for Max - no he doesn't make the corner EASY if he locks up like he did without Dan there - he goes well wide, perhaps off track slightly (or at best with massive speed and momentum loss) and loses his position AT LEAST to Hamilton who goes through on the inside and with the speed to go past Max.

Max was very lucky not to damage the car with how hard he hit his team mate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
F1Oz wrote:
I think F1M you are reinventing facts and failing to understand how the Austrian circuit works.
I think the Austrian Imperial family might like your little slip-up there. :D
But I agree with your views on the start. Max was to blame for the accident.

I'm not sure whether I would have given him a penalty for it, but it's high time Max learns that races can be lost but normally not won on corner 1 or 2. Having said that, I'm also not sure whether Max just went wide in the first corner, or whether Wally pushed him off. Still, it's bad form to overcompensate. A cool head is needed.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)


Haha, go on Fiki, admit it, you know I'm right! The FIA were pretty keen for a McLaren driver to not win that WDC. TBH who can blame them? McLaren were still getting a benefit from there cheating a year before.
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title.

To be honest, I got my years mixed up, I was thinking of 2007... :blush:
But having read and viewed it again, I can't say I disagree with the stewards then. In fact, I wish all drivers forcing a competitor wide, were given a standard penalty. I also think it was wrong for the FIA to scrub the "Verstappen" rule for this year. Verstappen is a brilliant driver, but he still has a lot to learn. Just as Hamilton had back then.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2212
Knuppel1983 wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Ricciardo is one of the cleanest overtakers on the grid.

Verstappen's error was so great that he took out Ricciardo despite the latter giving him tons of space.

True and true. He never could have made the corner and was to eager to defend his position.
But it wasn't intentionally, and he took out his teammate. Enough punishment if you ask me. I think we all agree the rules aren't applied equally.

Dan is good off track, meaning talking to press. On the track he's rather boring. Yes Max did some dumb stuff, but he also showed absolute skill and intelligence. In his Toro Rosso trailing Vettel in Monaco, and overtaking just about everyone in wet Brazil. That's the stuff ppl want to see. Not some billion dollar 60 lap parade. Max knows after 2 laps everything is just about decided. If top 4 had their way we could skip Sunday. We should applaude Max for being different, not bending over to get screwed. He doesn't want a parade, he's a born racer.

"A gem cannot be polished without friction nor a man perfected without trials." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 937
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
In 2008? I don't remember the stewards manipulating anything?


Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)


Haha, go on Fiki, admit it, you know I'm right! The FIA were pretty keen for a McLaren driver to not win that WDC. TBH who can blame them? McLaren were still getting a benefit from there cheating a year before.
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title.

To be honest, I got my years mixed up, I was thinking of 2007... :blush:
But having read and viewed it again, I can't say I disagree with the stewards then. In fact, I wish all drivers forcing a competitor wide, were given a standard penalty. I also think it was wrong for the FIA to scrub the "Verstappen" rule for this year. Verstappen is a brilliant driver, but he still has a lot to learn. Just as Hamilton had back then.


Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Rockie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)


Haha, go on Fiki, admit it, you know I'm right! The FIA were pretty keen for a McLaren driver to not win that WDC. TBH who can blame them? McLaren were still getting a benefit from there cheating a year before.
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title.

To be honest, I got my years mixed up, I was thinking of 2007... :blush:
But having read and viewed it again, I can't say I disagree with the stewards then. In fact, I wish all drivers forcing a competitor wide, were given a standard penalty. I also think it was wrong for the FIA to scrub the "Verstappen" rule for this year. Verstappen is a brilliant driver, but he still has a lot to learn. Just as Hamilton had back then.


Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out

That's rubbish the car was designed and built months before Coughlan received the Ferrari documents.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
Rockie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title. [/color]

Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear...

Right, which parts on the 2008 McLaren were copied from the 2007 Ferrari? The flexible Ferrari floor of early 2007 perhaps?
And why would Schumacher's manager be allowed to claim he brought 0.5s to a team for half the price of what technical development would cost, but Alonso not being allowed to make a silly claim of himself?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 937
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:

Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out

That's rubbish the car was designed and built months before Coughlan received the Ferrari documents.


A quick refresher will help you out, remember Raikkonen won Melbourne without breaking a Sweat, even had time for an off track excursion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 103
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:

Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out

That's rubbish the car was designed and built months before Coughlan received the Ferrari documents.


A quick refresher will help you out, remember Raikkonen won Melbourne without breaking a Sweat, even had time for an off track excursion.

That's because Ferrari were running an illegal car with a purpose built flexible floor which incorporated a sophisticated spring system, they had to remove it for the next race, why they weren't disqualified from the race in retrospect I don't know but that seems to be how F1 tends to operate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Last edited by pokerman on Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.

He perhaps had to explore the track because Hamilton was driving away from, Hamilton already knew were to drive and were not to drive. ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1541
Rockie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Fuji. No driver before or since has been penalised for anything like Hamilton was before or since. And what Hamilton did was not unusual. We see it a lot.

Then of course Bourdais got a penalty for allowing Massa to drive into him.
I'm going to look out for replies to this one... :)


Haha, go on Fiki, admit it, you know I'm right! The FIA were pretty keen for a McLaren driver to not win that WDC. TBH who can blame them? McLaren were still getting a benefit from there cheating a year before.
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title.

To be honest, I got my years mixed up, I was thinking of 2007... :blush:
But having read and viewed it again, I can't say I disagree with the stewards then. In fact, I wish all drivers forcing a competitor wide, were given a standard penalty. I also think it was wrong for the FIA to scrub the "Verstappen" rule for this year. Verstappen is a brilliant driver, but he still has a lot to learn. Just as Hamilton had back then.


Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out


Ferrari's Stepney delivered the dossier to McLaren's Coughlan at the end of April. At that time, McLaren had already taken action to prevent the influx of Ferrari material. That's why Coughlan's wife went to a photocopy shop with it (where an employee called Ferrari's Jean Todt). The dossier consisted of outdated years-old material. There was no evidence that any information from this dossier ever entered McLaren.

However, prior to this dossier, Stepney sent several sms to Coughlan with information about set ups and race strategies. Evidently, Coughlan used them. For instance, he asked the drivers to test some of the set up information. Hence, the incriminating emails that were later incompletely published. In them, Alonso asks back where the set-up infos he was asked to try out was coming from and de la Rosa answered from Ferrari via Coughlan. Very shortly thereafter, McLaren took action to prevent further influx of Ferrari information. But they kept it secret and Dennis later lied about it.

Did McLaren benefit from Stepney's sms? Yes.
How big was the advantage? Difficult to say, an information advantage definitely, copying parts of the Ferrari definitely no.
Did McLaren benefit from the dossier? No. (Most likely it is true that Stepney and Coughlan wanted to use the dossier to apply for jobs at Honda.)

Unfortunately, many confuse the dossier part with the sms part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 103
pokerman wrote:
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.

He perhaps had to explore the track because Hamilton was driving away from, Hamilton already knew were to drive and were not to drive. ;)

That's not really fair. The easiest thing to do in the rain is go fast on the straight. Hamilton drives the fastest car.
Rain is the great equalizer. That's when real skill comes into play. To me in Brazil it was Hamilton and Verstappen that showed this skill. Yes Max has his moments, but to be honest so did Hamilton in his younger days. The edges have to be polished.

On topic; they shouldn't penalize someone because of his history. Or because he's not top 4 and therefor low-risk.
Or because top 4 drivers are whining because someone dares to interfere in their battle. Money makes the world go round, but it kills sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2212
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.




So skillful, he caused the spin by driving onto the white line. Yes indeed, the kid's a genius.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1506
Location: Miami, Florida
F1Oz wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Hang on a sec, if Ricciardo wasn't there Max makes the corner EASY. The issue between Max and Bottas was due to both of them being caught out by the Ferrari's slower trek through turn 1. Max was on the outside and closed up on Kimi ultra-quick and it caused a bit of a chain reaction starting with Max first who purposely veered wide to avoid ramming into Raikkonen's rear and then Bottas found himself closing up about as fast and with nowhere to go his car drifted on Max. The difference is Max was quick to react and pulled himself off-track to avoid the contact which allowed Ricciardo to edge slightly ahead, but on the outside line rather than the prime line. And While Ricciardo had no fault in the contact, Max did what EVERY driver is supposed to do which is keep from losing positions. He was mildly faster than was ideal to hold the inside line but with everything that happened in under 3 seconds I think you have to give some leeway to the guy. He is only human.


I think F1M you are reinventing facts and failing to understand how the Austrian circuit works.

Ricciardo passed Hamilton and was well ahead of Max in a straight line by corner 2 - naturally this was part of the interaction of drivers from corner 1 but DR was where he was very cleanly without interfering with anyone and he was well away from Max and much more than 'edged' ahead.

He left more than enough room for Max - and while he was on the outside of the corner, the fact is that he had the inside line for corner 3 with speed and clearly had position (and if you've watched other parts of this race and other races at the circuit - you have to make a mistake from that point to not be in front after corner 3).

So it was irresponsible (on lap 1) to try what Max did - and also directly contrary to what RBR had discussed AND agreed with both drivers before the race - hence a realistic complaint by DR.

As for Max - no he doesn't make the corner EASY if he locks up like he did without Dan there - he goes well wide, perhaps off track slightly (or at best with massive speed and momentum loss) and loses his position AT LEAST to Hamilton who goes through on the inside and with the speed to go past Max.

Max was very lucky not to damage the car with how hard he hit his team mate.

1st BIB…

So by that explanation, most of Ricciardo's pass attempts were ill-advised, and for that matter, anyone who brakes much deeper and later into corners is doing it wrong.

In case you missed it, these guys are COMPETING to finish as high up the order as they possibly can and as such, they use their EXTREME equipment to the very limit, or so that's their goal. As such, adhesion of the tires to the track surface is permanently being tested to the point that a car crossing in front of you even as far as 30 feet can cause you to wash out. I fully accept that Max was 1,000% at fault here because Ricciardo indeed did nothing wrong, but what is being missed here is that the only thing Max did wrong was to try and out brake the guy on the outside, which is usually how the game is played if you want to win. And although turn 3 was coming up, where Ricciardo would likely have had the inside line, if Max had let him by without mounting a counter attack, he'd have likely fallen too far behind to then try and get the position back. You may see the situation in black and white, but motorsport is such that you'd need the deluxe set of Crayolas to understand the game fully.


2nd BIB…
You're pretty much saying the same thing I did, with the exception that I'm certain Max would not have left the circuit and you feel there's a decent chance he would have. That's a significantly wide section of track for that turn and the exit and Max's Lock-up wasn't severe enough to prevent him from making the corner. He would have gone a bit wide, but no way he goes onto the grass there.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Knuppel1983 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.

He perhaps had to explore the track because Hamilton was driving away from, Hamilton already knew were to drive and were not to drive. ;)

That's not really fair. The easiest thing to do in the rain is go fast on the straight. Hamilton drives the fastest car.
Rain is the great equalizer. That's when real skill comes into play. To me in Brazil it was Hamilton and Verstappen that showed this skill. Yes Max has his moments, but to be honest so did Hamilton in his younger days. The edges have to be polished.

On topic; they shouldn't penalize someone because of his history. Or because he's not top 4 and therefor low-risk.
Or because top 4 drivers are whining because someone dares to interfere in their battle. Money makes the world go round, but it kills sport.

Wasn't Kimi on the straight when he lost control of his car and put his car into the wall?

I'm not sure you are aware of all the dynamics involved in a wet race if you think that straight line dry weather speed is an important dynamic in a wet race?

Regarding how drivers race against the top 4, there is another factor in place were drivers have basically nothing to lose and take advantage of drivers that have more to lose thinking they will yield in wheel to wheel combat, Ricciardo saying that the Red Bull drivers will take no prisoners would be a point in case, I think the stewards may take that into account as well?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1506
Location: Miami, Florida
ALESI wrote:
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.




So skillful, he caused the spin by driving onto the white line. Yes indeed, the kid's a genius.

Beat me to it. LOLOLOL

Hit the nail on the head there! What commentary team is that??? Such colorful language during a broadcast? Reminded me of Hunt when referencing Arnoux! :lol:

Knuppel1983 wrote:
That's not really fair. The easiest thing to do in the rain is go fast on the straight. Hamilton drives the fastest car.
Rain is the great equalizer. That's when real skill comes into play.


This is the most inaccurate statement that's too commonly used. Rain is indeed NOT an equalizer. It may bridge the gaps a bit, but it in no way equalizes anything. The key to utilizing rain to your advantage and place your fellow competitors at a disadvantage is to choose the precise right time to gamble on when to go to wet tires. Such was the case for Barrichello and Honda almost a decade ago.

One thing I will agree on is that some drivers are for the most part, just that much better than the rest in the rain, but, as was the case in Brazil 2016, setup can make for a car that you can drive in the rain and others are just not quite right and it can all go wrong even when doing nothing out of the norm. Several drivers in that race suffered through this, but those were among the most extreme wet conditions we've ever seen in F1 and the bucket loads of water covering the entire track were of the most absurd kind.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Hang on a sec, if Ricciardo wasn't there Max makes the corner EASY. The issue between Max and Bottas was due to both of them being caught out by the Ferrari's slower trek through turn 1. Max was on the outside and closed up on Kimi ultra-quick and it caused a bit of a chain reaction starting with Max first who purposely veered wide to avoid ramming into Raikkonen's rear and then Bottas found himself closing up about as fast and with nowhere to go his car drifted on Max. The difference is Max was quick to react and pulled himself off-track to avoid the contact which allowed Ricciardo to edge slightly ahead, but on the outside line rather than the prime line. And While Ricciardo had no fault in the contact, Max did what EVERY driver is supposed to do which is keep from losing positions. He was mildly faster than was ideal to hold the inside line but with everything that happened in under 3 seconds I think you have to give some leeway to the guy. He is only human.


I think F1M you are reinventing facts and failing to understand how the Austrian circuit works.

Ricciardo passed Hamilton and was well ahead of Max in a straight line by corner 2 - naturally this was part of the interaction of drivers from corner 1 but DR was where he was very cleanly without interfering with anyone and he was well away from Max and much more than 'edged' ahead.

He left more than enough room for Max - and while he was on the outside of the corner, the fact is that he had the inside line for corner 3 with speed and clearly had position (and if you've watched other parts of this race and other races at the circuit - you have to make a mistake from that point to not be in front after corner 3).

So it was irresponsible (on lap 1) to try what Max did - and also directly contrary to what RBR had discussed AND agreed with both drivers before the race - hence a realistic complaint by DR.

As for Max - no he doesn't make the corner EASY if he locks up like he did without Dan there - he goes well wide, perhaps off track slightly (or at best with massive speed and momentum loss) and loses his position AT LEAST to Hamilton who goes through on the inside and with the speed to go past Max.

Max was very lucky not to damage the car with how hard he hit his team mate.

1st BIB…

So by that explanation, most of Ricciardo's pass attempts were ill-advised, and for that matter, anyone who brakes much deeper and later into corners is doing it wrong.

In case you missed it, these guys are COMPETING to finish as high up the order as they possibly can and as such, they use their EXTREME equipment to the very limit, or so that's their goal. As such, adhesion of the tires to the track surface is permanently being tested to the point that a car crossing in front of you even as far as 30 feet can cause you to wash out. I fully accept that Max was 1,000% at fault here because Ricciardo indeed did nothing wrong, but what is being missed here is that the only thing Max did wrong was to try and out brake the guy on the outside, which is usually how the game is played if you want to win. And although turn 3 was coming up, where Ricciardo would likely have had the inside line, if Max had let him by without mounting a counter attack, he'd have likely fallen too far behind to then try and get the position back. You may see the situation in black and white, but motorsport is such that you'd need the deluxe set of Crayolas to understand the game fully.


2nd BIB…
You're pretty much saying the same thing I did, with the exception that I'm certain Max would not have left the circuit and you feel there's a decent chance he would have. That's a significantly wide section of track for that turn and the exit and Max's Lock-up wasn't severe enough to prevent him from making the corner. He would have gone a bit wide, but no way he goes onto the grass there.

I can't help but feel when trying to pass Verstappen then you have to be ready for the contact, I read some people saying that when Hamilton was behind Verstappen it was almost like he was scared to attempt any kind of pass on him.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 103
ALESI wrote:
Knuppel1983 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Brazil was a classic case of a driver getting lucky (in that he didn't end up in the wall) and being hailed as a genius for it.

Every other driver in those conditions would have ended up in the wall, so yes that's skill. He was the only driver exploring the track behind the safetycar, that to me says it all.




So skillful, he caused the spin by driving onto the white line. Yes indeed, the kid's a genius.

F1 has gotten to your head. If you want to win you have to take it to the limit. And as a result sometimes over. He could of just stayed behind Ricciardo ofcourse. So we'd have another boring lame race... If your not making mistakes, your not giving 110%.

Max is rough sometimes, but who cares. It's fun to watch someone actually defend against a Ferrari or trying an overtake on a Merc. If it isn't fair the stewards are standing by to slay him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:40 am
Posts: 128
Kind of difficult to access each incident and try to come up with identical punishments. Many punishments are the stewards interpretations of what they saw. There's always a guest steward too so there are variables there too. Its all happening on the fly as well. Its never going to be perfect or equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 937
Fiki wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't know whether McLaren were benefiting from Spygate, but my feeling is they weren't. I also doubt the FIA were keen to keep a McLaren from winning the drivers' title. [/color]

Mclaren definitely benefited from spygate hence where the Alonso I brought 6/10ths to the car quote comes from, the car was crap until they used the dossier from Ferrari to sort it out
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear...

Right, which parts on the 2008 McLaren were copied from the 2007 Ferrari? The flexible Ferrari floor of early 2007 perhaps?
And why would Schumacher's manager be allowed to claim he brought 0.5s to a team for half the price of what technical development would cost, but Alonso not being allowed to make a silly claim of himself?


How did Mclaren know Ferrari had a flexi floor in Australia?

I guess it's hard to comprehend things but let me explain there was no rule change between '07 and '08 so if you had full knowledge of the design layout of the '07 Ferrari you don't unlearn what you know.

It's like having the blueprint of the Mercedes engine and Honda become competitive this season and then you ask how much of that knowledge is transferred to next years engine.

Also MSC actually did that with his team as they all moved together and they won.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1541
McLaren neither had knowledge of Ferrari's full design layouts, nor did they have current blueprints.

The only case where that happened was the Arrows-Shadow espionage scandal - back in 1978.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5749
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
McLaren neither had knowledge of Ferrari's full design layouts, nor did they have current blueprints.

The only case where that happened was the Arrows-Shadow espionage scandal - back in 1978.


Are you attempting to rewrite history??? That has been tried before, many times... didn't work then either. The information reportedly included CURRENT data on the cars, current info on Ferrari personnel such as engineers, test results as well as on-going data and race strategies and more.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group