planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:24 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Whose fault is it anyway?
Vettel 60%  60%  [ 90 ]
Verstappen 11%  11%  [ 16 ]
Raikkonen 4%  4%  [ 6 ]
Racing Incident 25%  25%  [ 37 ]
Total votes : 149
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Blake wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D


Good question.... I suspect that it is still going because the "lets hang Vettel" faction has not yet convinced the rest of the forum that it was not a "racing incident", but instead an example of Vettel's incompetence.
;)


the start incident at Hockenheim 2003 was basically a carbon copy:



That incident was not deemed a racing incident. Ralf was found guilty (despite an attempted appeal) and he was punished.

Therefore it is at least legitimate for people to think that Vettel was at fault for this incident and it wasn't simply a "racing incident".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I understand how a blind spot works, thanks. I also understand that the field of view in the mirrors these cars have is extremely limited, which you apparently don't. It's also pretty clear from Hamilton's description that he's referencing poor rear visibility overall, or it's likely he would have added something to the effect that other cars are visible in reference to that accident. You're just desperate to paint Vettel as the bad guy


All cars now have double faceted mirrors which further widen the rear view coming from the mirrors. We're not in the 1990s anymore.

Let's also be clear - you claimed that Hamilton said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. You've been proven wrong on that.

Hamilton is not referencing poor rear visibility at all - he's only referencing the blind spot which makes it difficult to see P2.

The mirrors are used extensively when drivers are defending from other cars - they are certainly not useless as you seem to be implying.

Let me ask you this - if you think that Vettel couldn't see the P4 driver (Kimi) in his rear view mirrors, then what exactly do you think Vettel did see in his mirrors?

I've no idea what he saw in his mirrors, but it's clear he didn't see Kimi or Verstappen.

Hamilton basically said it was a racing incident and visibility was very poor. The fact that he couldn't see Max, while Max was himself in line of sight to Kimi, supports the idea that Vettel couldn't see Kimi, which is whatHamilton was saying. Let's be clear about that.

Again, you're just looking for a pantomime villain here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I understand how a blind spot works, thanks. I also understand that the field of view in the mirrors these cars have is extremely limited, which you apparently don't. It's also pretty clear from Hamilton's description that he's referencing poor rear visibility overall, or it's likely he would have added something to the effect that other cars are visible in reference to that accident. You're just desperate to paint Vettel as the bad guy


All cars now have double faceted mirrors which further widen the rear view coming from the mirrors. We're not in the 1990s anymore.

Let's also be clear - you claimed that Hamilton said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. You've been proven wrong on that.

Hamilton is not referencing poor rear visibility at all - he's only referencing the blind spot which makes it difficult to see P2.

The mirrors are used extensively when drivers are defending from other cars - they are certainly not useless as you seem to be implying.

Let me ask you this - if you think that Vettel couldn't see the P4 driver (Kimi) in his rear view mirrors, then what exactly do you think Vettel did see in his mirrors?

I've no idea what he saw in his mirrors, but it's clear he didn't see Kimi or Verstappen.

Hamilton basically said it was a racing incident and visibility was very poor. The fact that he couldn't see Max, while Max was himself in line of sight to Kimi, supports the idea that Vettel couldn't see Kimi, which is whatHamilton was saying. Let's be clear about that.

Again, you're just looking for a pantomime villain here


Hamilton never said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. Come on Zoue, don't try and spin the truth.

Did Vettel think Kimi had vanished into thin air? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I understand how a blind spot works, thanks. I also understand that the field of view in the mirrors these cars have is extremely limited, which you apparently don't. It's also pretty clear from Hamilton's description that he's referencing poor rear visibility overall, or it's likely he would have added something to the effect that other cars are visible in reference to that accident. You're just desperate to paint Vettel as the bad guy


All cars now have double faceted mirrors which further widen the rear view coming from the mirrors. We're not in the 1990s anymore.

Let's also be clear - you claimed that Hamilton said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. You've been proven wrong on that.

Hamilton is not referencing poor rear visibility at all - he's only referencing the blind spot which makes it difficult to see P2.

The mirrors are used extensively when drivers are defending from other cars - they are certainly not useless as you seem to be implying.

Let me ask you this - if you think that Vettel couldn't see the P4 driver (Kimi) in his rear view mirrors, then what exactly do you think Vettel did see in his mirrors?

I've no idea what he saw in his mirrors, but it's clear he didn't see Kimi or Verstappen.

Hamilton basically said it was a racing incident and visibility was very poor. The fact that he couldn't see Max, while Max was himself in line of sight to Kimi, supports the idea that Vettel couldn't see Kimi, which is whatHamilton was saying. Let's be clear about that.

Again, you're just looking for a pantomime villain here


Hamilton never said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. Come on Zoue, don't try and spin the truth.

Did Vettel think Kimi had vanished into thin air? :lol:

I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start. Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.

Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
davidheath461 wrote:


Did Vettel think Kimi had vanished into thin air? :lol:


Could this get any more asinine?

heath, if Vettel had some kind of mirrors that allowed him to see through the car to his left (Max) and see that there was another car beyond Max, then maybe he should have known that Kimi was there. However, I don't believe that the cars are equipped with such mirrors.

You have been running off about this for a couple of days now, and each time you post about what Vettel could have or should have been able to see in his mirrors it gives you away. It is quite clear you have an agenda to put Vettel in the worst possible light, at all expense. Not that your approach is anything new, we have seen it for a long time now, but it is tiring and frustrating for those trying to reason with you.

It was a racing incident, and what appears to be the vast majority of people (Vettel fans or not) seem to be accepting that. I'd suggest that you do the same and move on.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Are you serious? :lol:

Most people think it was Vettel's fault. Look at the poll at the top of the page!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
Read what I wrote. I said that most seem to be accepting that it was a racing incident. The fanatics of PF1 represent the fanatic FEW among F1 fans and media ... we are not the spokespeople for the World!

Do you see article after article crying about Vettel's "guilt" any more? They, as with most fans, have moved on...it was weeks ago for cripes sake.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.

yep, personal crusade, as I thought


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5380
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).

I think you're having a laugh. You can't see the person in 2nd place but the guy in 4th place is perfectly visible? No bias there, I see. Good grief :uhoh:


Do you understand how a mirror works? or what blind spot means? :lol:

The guy in 2nd place is in the blind spot. The guy in 4th place is further back and therefore not in the blind spot and therefore would be visible in the mirror.

Unless Verstappen has an invisibility button on his steering wheel then can you explain how exactly Vettel is supposed to see Raikkonen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2501
davidheath461 wrote:
Motorsport.com wrote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".
"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.
"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.
"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.
Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).
Fine. Hamilton didn't specifically reference Kimi (or the guy in fourth place). He did effectively defend Vettel over his covering manoeuvre, so he apparently does not see Vettel to be at fault. Plus, if the lead driver is defending against the second-placed driver, but not able to see him, how is he expected to see another driver, right behind the second-placed driver, along his field of non-vision?

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


So if that's the case, do you think it was wise for him to sweep across the track the way he did?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
GingerFurball wrote:
Unless Verstappen has an invisibility button on his steering wheel then can you explain how exactly Vettel is supposed to see Raikkonen?


Vettel would have had a perfect view of Kimi in his mirrors when he was sitting on the grid, and on the initial phase of the start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Blake wrote:
Read what I wrote. I said that most seem to be accepting that it was a racing incident. The fanatics of PF1 represent the fanatic FEW among F1 fans and media ... we are not the spokespeople for the World!

Do you see article after article crying about Vettel's "guilt" any more? They, as with most fans, have moved on...it was weeks ago for cripes sake.


A quick search shows several articles blaming Vettel for the incident:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/formula-1/8844 ... o-hamilton

http://www.thedrive.com/start-finish/14 ... e-gp-crash

https://beyondtheflag.com/2017/09/18/fo ... ore-wreck/

If you don't want to talk about it anymore, then you don't need to post in this thread. If others still want to discuss it, then let them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
davidheath461 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Read what I wrote. I said that most seem to be accepting that it was a racing incident. The fanatics of PF1 represent the fanatic FEW among F1 fans and media ... we are not the spokespeople for the World!

Do you see article after article crying about Vettel's "guilt" any more? They, as with most fans, have moved on...it was weeks ago for cripes sake.


A quick search shows several articles blaming Vettel for the incident:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/formula-1/8844 ... o-hamilton

http://www.thedrive.com/start-finish/14 ... e-gp-crash

https://beyondtheflag.com/2017/09/18/fo ... ore-wreck/

If you don't want to talk about it anymore, then you don't need to post in this thread. If others still want to discuss it, then let them.


Your quick search gave us three stories from a month ago! As i said, most have moved on, but apparently you are incapable od doing so, or applying reason.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1042
Blake wrote:
Read what I wrote. I said that most seem to be accepting that it was a racing incident. The fanatics of PF1 represent the fanatic FEW among F1 fans and media ... we are not the spokespeople for the World!

Do you see article after article crying about Vettel's "guilt" any more? They, as with most fans, have moved on...it was weeks ago for cripes sake.

Yes, I am amused that this thread has 13 pages. Things like this seem more interesting than the average race weekend to many. And this was over a whole month ago now and 2 more races have since gone by and we're about to see another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.


I will post when and where I choose, heath, even if only to refute the abject silliness of others.

I noticed, that per the norm, you have avoided the context of my post pointing out that ALL three examples that you posted as proof that this topic is still important in the media, were about a month old. Your own post showing that the media and MOST others have moved on. Basically the only ones arguing otherwise are those who's agenda is to put down Vettel, and those who dare to refute them.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8894
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.

Talking on behalf of others now? You bumped a thread that others were happily allowing to die out.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5380
davidheath461 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


So if that's the case, do you think it was wise for him to sweep across the track the way he did?


No, no driver should ever cover their line, they should proceed in a straight line and turn in an orderly fashion...

Are you serious? This is the covering that happens in just about every race. Again, Vettel didn't hit anyone himself


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 273
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


So if that's the case, do you think it was wise for him to sweep across the track the way he did?


No, no driver should ever cover their line, they should proceed in a straight line and turn in an orderly fashion...

Are you serious? This is the covering that happens in just about every race. Again, Vettel didn't hit anyone himself


"covering" as you put it, i prefer chopping, in such an aggressive manner does not happen in just about every race for starters. secondly id be interested in how many similar moves have been made at a wet start when drivers (should) know that unusual things can happen, say one driver further down the grid getting a lightning start for example. also with the lack of visibility trying to force another driver to back out of it (as vet was trying to do to max) would increase the risk of cars behind max getting caught up in something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5380
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


So if that's the case, do you think it was wise for him to sweep across the track the way he did?


No, no driver should ever cover their line, they should proceed in a straight line and turn in an orderly fashion...

Are you serious? This is the covering that happens in just about every race. Again, Vettel didn't hit anyone himself


"covering" as you put it, i prefer chopping, in such an aggressive manner does not happen in just about every race for starters. secondly id be interested in how many similar moves have been made at a wet start when drivers (should) know that unusual things can happen, say one driver further down the grid getting a lightning start for example. also with the lack of visibility trying to force another driver to back out of it (as vet was trying to do to max) would increase the risk of cars behind max getting caught up in something.


Cover, chop, move, call it what you want. Just about every race is an expression to show that it happens a lot. If you prefer it, I can rephrase that. In general, it wasn't a unique move, it has happened so many times in the past without any incidents. Harsh maybe, but not illegal. Feel free to look up similar starts in the wet.

Also, do you really think that the driver's thoughts at the start are "oh noooo, I can't go left, someone from 3 rows back may get caught up in something"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think you're the one spinning it here. Vettel had no reason to think Kimi had had such a lightning start.


Depends if he looked in his mirrors.

Quote:
Normal service would have had him behind Max and therefore not Vettel's problem.


Right, so under normal service he would have seen Kimi in his mirrors? If he doesn't see him in his mirrors, does he think he's vanished into thin air?

[quote[Hamilton defended Vettel, which he likely would not have done if he felt that Vettel should have seen Kimi.

Quote:
Again, I'm seeing as personal crusade here


Hamilton didn't mention Kimi.


You realise that small mirrors + spray + other car in the way = maaaaybe not so much visibility of Kimi, if at all, right? Rrrright?


So if that's the case, do you think it was wise for him to sweep across the track the way he did?


No, no driver should ever cover their line, they should proceed in a straight line and turn in an orderly fashion...

Are you serious? This is the covering that happens in just about every race. Again, Vettel didn't hit anyone himself


Are you the guy who posts twitter updates for Ferrari? :lol:

If Vettel had proceeded in a straight line he would be a lot closer to Hamilton in the standings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Covalent wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.

Talking on behalf of others now? You bumped a thread that others were happily allowing to die out.


Erm...seems like you are the one who is talking on behalf of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Blake wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.


I will post when and where I choose, heath, even if only to refute the abject silliness of others.

I noticed, that per the norm, you have avoided the context of my post pointing out that ALL three examples that you posted as proof that this topic is still important in the media, were about a month old. Your own post showing that the media and MOST others have moved on. Basically the only ones arguing otherwise are those who's agenda is to put down Vettel, and those who dare to refute them.


The three examples illustrate that there are many within the F1 community (and outside those PF1 forum fanatics) who blame Vettel for the accident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
davidheath461 wrote:
Blake wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.


I will post when and where I choose, heath, even if only to refute the abject silliness of others.

I noticed, that per the norm, you have avoided the context of my post pointing out that ALL three examples that you posted as proof that this topic is still important in the media, were about a month old. Your own post showing that the media and MOST others have moved on. Basically the only ones arguing otherwise are those who's agenda is to put down Vettel, and those who dare to refute them.


The three examples illustrate that there are many within the F1 community (and outside those PF1 forum fanatics) who blame Vettel for the accident.
There are plenty people who do. Which is neither here nor there. Verstappen moved towards Vettel first, making himself vulnerable on two sides.

One thing though; please don't call what Vettel did a chop. If you don't understand the difference between a steady move and a chop, watch Rosberg/Hamilton in Barcelona 2016 again, and Schumacher/Häkkinen Francorchamps 2000. Schumacher Heidfeld Melbourne 2005 was a good example of a chop, luckily with instant karma that time.

Had Vettel really chopped Verstappen in Singapore, I am confident the stewards would have said he carried most of the blame. But he didn't. I loathe chopping, and I dislike blocking almost as much. But you can't convince me this was a chop, or that Vettel was most to blame.

A thought about mirrors; I remember when Lauda described how he aimed his in the 1970s. He would always have them cover the rear tyres, so he could keep an eye on them visually. It's what immediately popped into my head when Hamilton beached his car in the pitlane gravel trap in China, all those years ago. Had he kept an eye on his tyres (literally), he might now be looking for his 5th title.
When Verstappen moved to the right, towards Vettel, he would have slowly got into Vettel's field of view. And at the same time hidden much of what was beyond his car. If Vettel looked then, he wouldn't be able to spot Räikkönen, and even if he would have been in his field of view, Verstappen would still have been his biggest threat. Räikkönen making it past Verstappen would not have constituted a threat at all to Vettel, both driving those red cars, remember?

Edited for the spelling of karma... Surely that must mean something! :blush:

_________________
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: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
davidheath461 wrote:
Blake wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
As i said, if other people still want to dicsuss the incident, then let them. If you want to move on then perhaps you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.


I will post when and where I choose, heath, even if only to refute the abject silliness of others.

I noticed, that per the norm, you have avoided the context of my post pointing out that ALL three examples that you posted as proof that this topic is still important in the media, were about a month old. Your own post showing that the media and MOST others have moved on. Basically the only ones arguing otherwise are those who's agenda is to put down Vettel, and those who dare to refute them.


The three examples illustrate that there are many within the F1 community (and outside those PF1 forum fanatics) who blame Vettel for the accident.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I was not saying that no one was placing the blame on Vettel, I am not that damn dumb. What I was saying is that most have accepted it and moved on. YOU then posted three links as proof otherwise. ALL three of your links were for articles that were a month old! So, in effect, you have supported what I was saying.

To make this simple and perfectly clear, if your links had been a few days old... ie recent, your post would have had relevance. MOST of the media and reasonable fans have moved on.

Ciao

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:20 am
Posts: 10
Personally I don't think Vettel saw Raikkonen.
Then again, being wrong doesn't mean you did it on purpose... I think that's the whole point.

Ignorance isn't the same as innocence. Now granted, 'ignorance' is quite harsh here, but I believe that's the saying ;).


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: Bing [Bot], 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