planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:24 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
He was only faster by 4ths on one lap and he had DRS, we have the same data. We also have the data from after when with a damaged car and even older tyres Max went 8ths faster than Ocon could despite an even newer set of tyres for Ocon.

They aren't all as important though, we know that from examples like were Alonso was punished for ignoring blue flags because he was in his own fight with Massa for 10th in Japan and he held Lewis up. Alonso's fight for the points just isn't as important as interfering with the leaders pace and so he was punished.

Ocon wasn't given a blue flag in respect to Verstappen so not really the same thing.


Its an example of not all the cars are important as each other and compromising their own race for the leaders benefit happens every weekend.

It still doesn't change the fact that drivers have the right to unlap themselves if they are quicker, I've just given an example why of this recent reasoning is just nonsense.


No idea what you're on about tbh. I was responding to a post that said all cars on track are as important as each other and I pointed out that's just not true.

I don't think anyone's saying drivers shouldn't unlap themselves, I think they're saying it should be done in a safe manner without fighting tooth and nail as if its for the race win if anything.

Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ocon wasn't given a blue flag in respect to Verstappen so not really the same thing.


Its an example of not all the cars are important as each other and compromising their own race for the leaders benefit happens every weekend.

It still doesn't change the fact that drivers have the right to unlap themselves if they are quicker, I've just given an example why of this recent reasoning is just nonsense.


No idea what you're on about tbh. I was responding to a post that said all cars on track are as important as each other and I pointed out that's just not true.

I don't think anyone's saying drivers shouldn't unlap themselves, I think they're saying it should be done in a safe manner without fighting tooth and nail as if its for the race win if anything.

Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.


Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2636
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
Lotus49 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Mark Hughes view on his race report:

"Verstappen could have simply let him go, But the guy unlapping himself has no right to challenge the leader to a piece of race track. If the leader has made it plan he is not permitting that (as Max did, by defending into T1 and still being on Ocon's outside down the hill) at this particular moment, then the guy trying to unlap himself has to accept that and wait for a more opportune time. He is not racing and so cannot challenge to a piece of territory. Ie, Ocon should have backed off and tucked in behind as soon as Verstappen defended T1. But he was hardwired into the racing thing of challenging the territory."
Where could I read that article? I would like to see if Mark Hughes explains where a race leader gets the right to compromise a backmarkers race, to the point (in this case) of compromising his own.


That happens literally every race with blue flags. Both McLaren's got penalised for not compromising their own battles and getting out of the way quick enough for the leaders in Brazil.
For a car being lapped, I would agree, Lotus. But this was the opposite. That is why so many fans question the "explanations" by the stewards and the race controller.


Why the difference? We either accept the leader gets treated differently or we don't, surely? I think the leader being passed by a backmarker on a straight is fair enough but competing for apex's in some 'S''s is just ridiculous for me and he should've backed out. Its far too aggressive for a car not competing for position.
Why the differnce? Simply because one case is documented, while the other isn't.

You make an interesting remark in using the expression "competing for apexes". While Mr Whiting spoke of the apex in his mysterious rule explanation 2 years ago, that too is undocumented. At least as far as I know. To be honest, I find it odd that teams field legions of lawyers for technical matters, but not for the most basic item in the sport; the sporting regulations.

_________________
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 Nov 17, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
F1_Ernie wrote:
"It's not in the rules. Heaven forbid we should try to put even more etiquette into words and codify them. Enough. But neither is it merely my opinion. It is accepted racing etiquette - and always has been - that a driver unlapping himself does not contest a piece of track with the car he is unlapping as if he were racing it."
Ernie, if a five-times world champion doesn't know the difference between "2 moves" and "2 changes of direction", then clearly the rules are inadequate, or inadequately understood and need to be clarified on paper. That way, not only world champions can learn and apply them, but fans can learn and appreciate them.

As for racing etiquette; are you sure it is the same world-wide and through all classes of motorsport? And where can I study F1 racing etiquette?

_________________
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: Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3092
Fiki wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
"It's not in the rules. Heaven forbid we should try to put even more etiquette into words and codify them. Enough. But neither is it merely my opinion. It is accepted racing etiquette - and always has been - that a driver unlapping himself does not contest a piece of track with the car he is unlapping as if he were racing it."
Ernie, if a five-times world champion doesn't know the difference between "2 moves" and "2 changes of direction", then clearly the rules are inadequate, or inadequately understood and need to be clarified on paper. That way, not only world champions can learn and apply them, but fans can learn and appreciate them.

As for racing etiquette; are you sure it is the same world-wide and through all classes of motorsport? And where can I study F1 racing etiquette?


I haven't got a clue what your going on about but tweet Mark Hughes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
If it had been Lewis Ocon would've sat back and not get racy in the first place.

...or Hamilton would simply have let him by in turn 1?


Or got eaten by a dinosaur which is just as likely as Ocon fighting a Mercedes in that situation.

You can't decide what might or might not have happened.


But you can? :?

Am I the one that came forward first with all this reasoning like Ocon would have just sat behind Hamilton?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Why the difference? We either accept the leader gets treated differently or we don't, surely? I think the leader being passed by a backmarker on a straight is fair enough but competing for apex's in some 'S''s is just ridiculous for me and he should've backed out. Its far too aggressive for a car not competing for position.

You need to watch the title deciding race in 2008, the last lap to boot, and how Kubica dives inside Hamilton into a left hand corner in order to unlap himself forcing Hamilton wider than he wanted to go and enabling Vettel also to pass Hamilton for actual race position, Vettel's pass momentarily had Hamilton losing the WDC title, no one saw what Kubica did as being against any rules.

If that is not interference by an unlapping car then what is, and a title on the line to boot, I perfectly understand the need to penalise a driver for crashing into the race leader to set a precedent but the actual reasons for penalising Ocon were just made up.


Lewis wasn't leading the race but I'd have had issue with that if it didn't work out for him in the end and I felt Kubica was too aggressive in unlapping himself.

Who said it wasn't interference?

If it was interference then Kubica should have been penalised this is seemingly the standard being put on Ocon by the stewards that he was too aggressive, the fact that Kubica wasn't shows that it's just a made up rule.


Did the stewards or Charlie mention Max being the leader played a role in the decision?

Only in respect to him being a lap ahead I believe?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Its an example of not all the cars are important as each other and compromising their own race for the leaders benefit happens every weekend.

It still doesn't change the fact that drivers have the right to unlap themselves if they are quicker, I've just given an example why of this recent reasoning is just nonsense.


No idea what you're on about tbh. I was responding to a post that said all cars on track are as important as each other and I pointed out that's just not true.

I don't think anyone's saying drivers shouldn't unlap themselves, I think they're saying it should be done in a safe manner without fighting tooth and nail as if its for the race win if anything.

Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.


Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.

Like Kubica, Ocon obviously just saw it as a normal racing situation and expected to be given room as such.

I think with Kubica it's established that unlapping drivers can challenge in the corners themselves that then open ups a lot of grey area of just how aggressive you can be, Hamilton was forced to give Kubica more room by not being able to take the line he wanted to.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
Fiki wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

That happens literally every race with blue flags. Both McLaren's got penalised for not compromising their own battles and getting out of the way quick enough for the leaders in Brazil.
For a car being lapped, I would agree, Lotus. But this was the opposite. That is why so many fans question the "explanations" by the stewards and the race controller.


Why the difference? We either accept the leader gets treated differently or we don't, surely? I think the leader being passed by a backmarker on a straight is fair enough but competing for apex's in some 'S''s is just ridiculous for me and he should've backed out. Its far too aggressive for a car not competing for position.
Why the differnce? Simply because one case is documented, while the other isn't.

You make an interesting remark in using the expression "competing for apexes". While Mr Whiting spoke of the apex in his mysterious rule explanation 2 years ago, that too is undocumented. At least as far as I know. To be honest, I find it odd that teams field legions of lawyers for technical matters, but not for the most basic item in the sport; the sporting regulations.


I'm not going to argue its in the rules because I can't and I agree it should be more clearer but much like with the white flag rules they don't seem to state things that are just common sense like no overtaking under white flags or don't fight the leader so hard when unlapping yourself.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
...or Hamilton would simply have let him by in turn 1?


Or got eaten by a dinosaur which is just as likely as Ocon fighting a Mercedes in that situation.

You can't decide what might or might not have happened.


But you can? :?

Am I the one that came forward first with all this reasoning like Ocon would have just sat behind Hamilton?


Well yeah, that's what I responded to.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You need to watch the title deciding race in 2008, the last lap to boot, and how Kubica dives inside Hamilton into a left hand corner in order to unlap himself forcing Hamilton wider than he wanted to go and enabling Vettel also to pass Hamilton for actual race position, Vettel's pass momentarily had Hamilton losing the WDC title, no one saw what Kubica did as being against any rules.

If that is not interference by an unlapping car then what is, and a title on the line to boot, I perfectly understand the need to penalise a driver for crashing into the race leader to set a precedent but the actual reasons for penalising Ocon were just made up.


Lewis wasn't leading the race but I'd have had issue with that if it didn't work out for him in the end and I felt Kubica was too aggressive in unlapping himself.

Who said it wasn't interference?

If it was interference then Kubica should have been penalised this is seemingly the standard being put on Ocon by the stewards that he was too aggressive, the fact that Kubica wasn't shows that it's just a made up rule.


Did the stewards or Charlie mention Max being the leader played a role in the decision?

Only in respect to him being a lap ahead I believe?


EDIT: I went and looked and no mention of him being a leader making a difference so I'm guessing the Kubica example was deemed safe.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Last edited by Lotus49 on Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It still doesn't change the fact that drivers have the right to unlap themselves if they are quicker, I've just given an example why of this recent reasoning is just nonsense.


No idea what you're on about tbh. I was responding to a post that said all cars on track are as important as each other and I pointed out that's just not true.

I don't think anyone's saying drivers shouldn't unlap themselves, I think they're saying it should be done in a safe manner without fighting tooth and nail as if its for the race win if anything.

Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.


Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.


Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
F1_Ernie wrote:
Fiki wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
"It's not in the rules. Heaven forbid we should try to put even more etiquette into words and codify them. Enough. But neither is it merely my opinion. It is accepted racing etiquette - and always has been - that a driver unlapping himself does not contest a piece of track with the car he is unlapping as if he were racing it."
Ernie, if a five-times world champion doesn't know the difference between "2 moves" and "2 changes of direction", then clearly the rules are inadequate, or inadequately understood and need to be clarified on paper. That way, not only world champions can learn and apply them, but fans can learn and appreciate them.

As for racing etiquette; are you sure it is the same world-wide and through all classes of motorsport? And where can I study F1 racing etiquette?


I haven't got a clue what your going on about but tweet Mark Hughes.
Good call! I missed that this was a quote. My apologies.

_________________
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: Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2636
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.

Like Kubica, Ocon obviously just saw it as a normal racing situation and expected to be given room as such.

I think with Kubica it's established that unlapping drivers can challenge in the corners themselves that then open ups a lot of grey area of just how aggressive you can be, Hamilton was forced to give Kubica more room by not being able to take the line he wanted to.
Had there been a collision between Hamilton and Kubica I suspect that it would have been viewed rather differently, particularly as there was a championship - not 'just' a win - at stake. Having said that it was ten years ago, and in different weather / surface conditions, so who knows?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6647
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.


Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!


it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.


Since he was though, do you agree with the other driver just turning into him? Knowing he is there and trying to overtake?

And to answer your original point, take everything out of the equation and look at the move in isolation, you'll see that a car was pushed out of the track. Since lapped (faster) cars are allowed to overtake, it really begs the question how can you NOT see some portion of blame in Max's driving (not all of it, I agree that a lapped car should not interfere with the leader; the point made is that the leader decided to interfere with the lapped car when he should have let him go).

We've seen Vettel being blamed for Singapore last year when he wasn't even involved in the actual accident, rather collected in the aftermath. And the driver who turns into another driver shall be deemed completely blameless?


whether max should have turned in is irrelevant for me. a more experienced driver may have given room but doesnt change the fact that ocon was trying an aggressive move, in effect racing with leader, and shouldnt have put his car in that position. as soon as max let the brakes off to get a decent amount ahead that was the signal to ocon that no you are not making the move here, try somewhere else and ocon should respect that ( and would have done if it was say hamilton).

Then I think we are in disagreement of what consists an aggressive move. I did not see smoking tyres, a banzai style dive bomb, a Senna "get out of my way or else" type of overtake... It was a controlled move done time and again in that corner, with drivers giving space and everyone coming out of it unscathed. I would agree it could be done elsewhere, but he got a good run, went ahead prior to T1 and would complete the move it if Max had given space.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6647
F1_Ernie wrote:
Mark Hughes view on his race report:

"Verstappen could have simply let him go, But the guy unlapping himself has no right to challenge the leader to a piece of race track. If the leader has made it plan he is not permitting that (as Max did, by defending into T1 and still being on Ocon's outside down the hill) at this particular moment, then the guy trying to unlap himself has to accept that and wait for a more opportune time. He is not racing and so cannot challenge to a piece of territory. Ie, Ocon should have backed off and tucked in behind as soon as Verstappen defended T1. But he was hardwired into the racing thing of challenging the territory."


I do not see as that. Max actually leaves the normal racing line just before entering T1, as if opening the door. If mid-corner he decides to close the door, that is not making it plain that he is not permitting it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3477
Siao7 wrote:
Then I think we are in disagreement of what consists an aggressive move. I did not see smoking tyres, a banzai style dive bomb, a Senna "get out of my way or else" type of overtake... It was a controlled move done time and again in that corner, with drivers giving space and everyone coming out of it unscathed. I would agree it could be done elsewhere, but he got a good run, went ahead prior to T1 and would complete the move it if Max had given space.


Ocon actually had his nose in front as they were approaching turn one. So it is becoming even more unbelievable that Max did not see him or didnt' leave space in turn 2. Ocon was always going to be on the inside of turn two unless he parked the car. The stewards really did a bad job on that one. Maybe it had to do with the fact that it resulted in Max losing the lead of the race, but I can't comprehend how someone reviews this case with all that video evidence and assigns all blame to Ocon. This was bad stewarding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6647
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.


How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.


How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I don't believe we are going around in circles. There seem to be those who believe what the stewards and race control have said and "explained", and those to whom those explanations don't make sense.

After a week of examining this for myself, I still don't understand why Verstappen did what he did, what the stewards said about Ocon, or what Mr Whiting told us. The rules don't explain what happened, and the rules mentioned in the explanations don't seem to exist on paper (or PDF, before any joker tries to slide that my way :D ). Jonathan Noble even seems to be happy about keeping these rules undocumented.

I think Ocon or his team should appeal the stewards' verdict, as it doesn't make sense.

_________________
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: Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2651
Location: England
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.


How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I don't believe we are going around in circles. There seem to be those who believe what the stewards and race control have said and "explained", and those to whom those explanations don't make sense.

After a week of examining this for myself, I still don't understand why Verstappen did what he did, what the stewards said about Ocon, or what Mr Whiting told us. The rules don't explain what happened, and the rules mentioned in the explanations don't seem to exist on paper (or PDF, before any joker tries to slide that my way :D ). Jonathan Noble even seems to be happy about keeping these rules undocumented.

I think Ocon or his team should appeal the stewards' verdict, as it doesn't make sense.


I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6647
Flash2k11 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.


How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I don't believe we are going around in circles. There seem to be those who believe what the stewards and race control have said and "explained", and those to whom those explanations don't make sense.

After a week of examining this for myself, I still don't understand why Verstappen did what he did, what the stewards said about Ocon, or what Mr Whiting told us. The rules don't explain what happened, and the rules mentioned in the explanations don't seem to exist on paper (or PDF, before any joker tries to slide that my way :D ). Jonathan Noble even seems to be happy about keeping these rules undocumented.

I think Ocon or his team should appeal the stewards' verdict, as it doesn't make sense.


I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.


I agree 100%. Ocon is partly to blame, one may say that he was overzealous (though I do not concur that he was too aggressive) and he indeed messed with the order of the race in the end of the day. The rule about the unlapping may need to be tweaked, I find it too vague that it needs to be clean.

But what peeves me off particularly is the bold bit; racing etiquette is going out of the window if a car is allowed to push another out of the track like that and not get penalised. Are we letting the drivers take the matters into their hands then? What a slippery slope that will be.

And Fiki, going around in circles as in not going anywhere with this I guess. As always people have made their minds!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
Flash2k11 wrote:
I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.

In the purest - which is to say original - form of European motorsport, there are no backmarkers. The races were held between cities, and no one was in front of the leader but spectators. Thinking in terms of that analogy, Ocon truly was not in the same race as Verstappen anymore, and had no right to interfere with him in any way - virtually speaking, he wasn't even there until he could catch up again on the same lap.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.


How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I don't believe we are going around in circles. There seem to be those who believe what the stewards and race control have said and "explained", and those to whom those explanations don't make sense.

After a week of examining this for myself, I still don't understand why Verstappen did what he did, what the stewards said about Ocon, or what Mr Whiting told us. The rules don't explain what happened, and the rules mentioned in the explanations don't seem to exist on paper (or PDF, before any joker tries to slide that my way :D ). Jonathan Noble even seems to be happy about keeping these rules undocumented.

I think Ocon or his team should appeal the stewards' verdict, as it doesn't make sense.


I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.


I agree 100%. Ocon is partly to blame, one may say that he was overzealous (though I do not concur that he was too aggressive) and he indeed messed with the order of the race in the end of the day. The rule about the unlapping may need to be tweaked, I find it too vague that it needs to be clean.

But what peeves me off particularly is the bold bit; racing etiquette is going out of the window if a car is allowed to push another out of the track like that and not get penalised. Are we letting the drivers take the matters into their hands then? What a slippery slope that will be.

And Fiki, going around in circles as in not going anywhere with this I guess. As always people have made their minds!
Ocon overzealous? He had already shown himself in Max's mirrors on the approach to turn 4 on the previous lap, and from the radio conversation we know Max was aware of his position and speed.
I don't know how zealous becomes overzealous in the eyes of some, but I see no mistakes in Ocon's behaviour that I can relate to what is in the rulebook.

What I find even more difficult to understand than the fact that the accident happened, is that so many race fans seem to swallow the stewards' verdict and Mr Whiting's so-called explanation, without examining what is being said. And with this I don't mean they shouldn't respect either Stewards or Race Control - we all should.
Excuse me for pointing it out Siao7, but you say that the rule about unlapping may need to be tweaked. There simply isn't a rule about unlapping!

Rulebooks exist because there is a need for them. What is common sense and obvious to us, may simply look like weakness in the eyes of Max, Senna or other Schumachers.

_________________
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 Nov 20, 2018 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 546
Exediron wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.

In the purest - which is to say original - form of European motorsport, there are no backmarkers. The races were held between cities, and no one was in front of the leader but spectators. Thinking in terms of that analogy, Ocon truly was not in the same race as Verstappen anymore, and had no right to interfere with him in any way - virtually speaking, he wasn't even there until he could catch up again on the same lap.

Continuing that view however Verstappen truly was not in the same race as Ocon anymore, and had no right to interfere with him in anyway (except to lap him if faster, which was not the case).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6647
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I don't believe we are going around in circles. There seem to be those who believe what the stewards and race control have said and "explained", and those to whom those explanations don't make sense.

After a week of examining this for myself, I still don't understand why Verstappen did what he did, what the stewards said about Ocon, or what Mr Whiting told us. The rules don't explain what happened, and the rules mentioned in the explanations don't seem to exist on paper (or PDF, before any joker tries to slide that my way :D ). Jonathan Noble even seems to be happy about keeping these rules undocumented.

I think Ocon or his team should appeal the stewards' verdict, as it doesn't make sense.


I understand it, to a point. Ocon affected the front of the race despite not being directly involved in it himself, but in the purest form of motorsport, its tough fairy cakes if the backmarkers get a bit racey and hold you up. The real red flag for me is if they had been racing for position, Max would have been 100% guilty of cutting him off on the apex, which he should still be guilty off regardless of Ocon's current placing. I dont agree with Ocon being that racey with the leader, but once he was, Max should have just let him go.

The reality is that a precedent has now been set that the leader of the race can basically do as he pleases in regard to cars attempting to unlap themselves, and thats a really dangerous area to get into.


I agree 100%. Ocon is partly to blame, one may say that he was overzealous (though I do not concur that he was too aggressive) and he indeed messed with the order of the race in the end of the day. The rule about the unlapping may need to be tweaked, I find it too vague that it needs to be clean.

But what peeves me off particularly is the bold bit; racing etiquette is going out of the window if a car is allowed to push another out of the track like that and not get penalised. Are we letting the drivers take the matters into their hands then? What a slippery slope that will be.

And Fiki, going around in circles as in not going anywhere with this I guess. As always people have made their minds!
Ocon overzealous? He had already shown himself in Max's mirrors on the approach to turn 4 on the previous lap, and from the radio conversation we know Max was aware of his position and speed.
I don't know how zealous becomes overzealous in the eyes of some, but I see no mistakes in Ocon's behaviour that I can relate to what is in the rulebook.

What I find even more difficult to understand than the fact that the accident happened, is that so many race fans seem to swallow the stewards' verdict and Mr Whiting's so-called explanation, without examining what is being said. And with this I don't mean they shouldn't respect either Stewards or Race Control - we all should.
Excuse me for pointing it out Siao7, but you say that the rule about unlapping may need to be tweaked. There simply isn't a rule about unlapping!

Rulebooks exist because there is a need for them. What is common sense and obvious to us, may simply look like weakness in the eyes of Max, Senna or other Schumachers.


I mentioned overzealous as people mentioned before that the 0.4 secs that Ocon was faster wasn't really enough. I myself did not find it overzealous, certainly not aggressive. He saw Max opening the door and he went for it. Nothing wrong with that.

I am not sure if it is in the sporting regs that a car can unlap, but it has to do it cleanly (whatever that means to each driver) or if it was what Whitting offered as an explanation. I take your point though, so it makes it even more baffling, the steward's decision that is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Lewis wasn't leading the race but I'd have had issue with that if it didn't work out for him in the end and I felt Kubica was too aggressive in unlapping himself.

Who said it wasn't interference?

If it was interference then Kubica should have been penalised this is seemingly the standard being put on Ocon by the stewards that he was too aggressive, the fact that Kubica wasn't shows that it's just a made up rule.


Did the stewards or Charlie mention Max being the leader played a role in the decision?

Only in respect to him being a lap ahead I believe?


EDIT: I went and looked and no mention of him being a leader making a difference so I'm guessing the Kubica example was deemed safe.

Indeed the only difference between Verstappen and Ocon was that the cars crashed into one another, at that point Ocon get's penalised and I say fair enough, no contact and Ocon has done nothing wrong.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
No idea what you're on about tbh. I was responding to a post that said all cars on track are as important as each other and I pointed out that's just not true.

I don't think anyone's saying drivers shouldn't unlap themselves, I think they're saying it should be done in a safe manner without fighting tooth and nail as if its for the race win if anything.

Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.


Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.


Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

Only under blue flags, here's some other opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wluP4atQo

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.

Like Kubica, Ocon obviously just saw it as a normal racing situation and expected to be given room as such.

I think with Kubica it's established that unlapping drivers can challenge in the corners themselves that then open ups a lot of grey area of just how aggressive you can be, Hamilton was forced to give Kubica more room by not being able to take the line he wanted to.
Had there been a collision between Hamilton and Kubica I suspect that it would have been viewed rather differently, particularly as there was a championship - not 'just' a win - at stake. Having said that it was ten years ago, and in different weather / surface conditions, so who knows?

Well that would be my point it's only the collision that makes the difference.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.


Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.


Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

Only under blue flags, here's some other opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wluP4atQo


Not only, under SC conditions too for example. Other opinions about what? (I'm not wasting an hour to find out)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Not sure what that's got to do with what I wrote? Kubica can think what he likes, it won't make all cars and battles equally important.

The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.


Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

Only under blue flags, here's some other opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wluP4atQo


Not only, under SC conditions too for example. Other opinions about what? (I'm not wasting an hour to find out)

I'm not sure what you mean under SC conditions were lapped cars are able to unlap themselves so that's kind of opposite to lapped cars having less rights, the issue is discussed right at the beginning of the podcast that's why I didn't suggest skipping to a certain time.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5012
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The stewards didn't think any differently to Kubica.


Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

Only under blue flags, here's some other opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wluP4atQo


Not only, under SC conditions too for example. Other opinions about what? (I'm not wasting an hour to find out)

I'm not sure what you mean under SC conditions were lapped cars are able to unlap themselves so that's kind of opposite to lapped cars having less rights, the issue is discussed right at the beginning of the podcast that's why I didn't suggest skipping to a certain time.


We're talking about a statement of "All cars being as important as each other" and I'm giving examples to back up my stance of why they are not all as important. (Under Blues, and the SC conditions one was the leader dictates the pace on restart)

Are they really discussing that at the beginning of the podcast?

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2668
https://streamable.com/fkpqj


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9392
shoot999 wrote:
https://streamable.com/fkpqj

What shoot999 forgot to mention is that this here is a link to a on-board video from Ocon's car of the laps leading up to the Ocon Verstappen crash.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2668
Covalent wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
https://streamable.com/fkpqj

What shoot999 forgot to mention is that this here is a link to a on-board video from Ocon's car of the laps leading up to the Ocon Verstappen crash.


:thumbup: Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2636
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.
How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I agree with the argument over the sensible thing (for Verstappen) to do. I'm also pretty sure that, had that been a race for position, any decision on the incident would have resulted in a different outcome (racing incident / more blame on Verstappen). Where I differ is in the fact that Ocon was a lap down - and therefore, in my view, should have backed out of any potential conflict when attempting to unlap himself. Whilst Verstappen did cut Ocon off, my view is that the onus was on Ocon not to put himself in that position (i.e. complete the overtake ahead of turning in). Not necessarily fair, as in biased towards the race leader, but lapped cars are not treated 'fairly' anyway (having to move over when blue flags are shown, for example).
We're all going to have differences of opinion; that's where some good (and, OK, sometimes heated!) debate comes about.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Good for them, I'm still lost as to what that's got to do with what I wrote about not all cars are as important as each other. They're plainly not.

Only under blue flags, here's some other opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wluP4atQo


Not only, under SC conditions too for example. Other opinions about what? (I'm not wasting an hour to find out)

I'm not sure what you mean under SC conditions were lapped cars are able to unlap themselves so that's kind of opposite to lapped cars having less rights, the issue is discussed right at the beginning of the podcast that's why I didn't suggest skipping to a certain time.


We're talking about a statement of "All cars being as important as each other" and I'm giving examples to back up my stance of why they are not all as important. (Under Blues, and the SC conditions one was the leader dictates the pace on restart)

Are they really discussing that at the beginning of the podcast?

I fail to understand why the leader dictating the pace of the restart as anything to do with the subject matter?

The podcast goes straight into the Verstappen/Ocon incident, it has also other interesting things like what actually happened when Grosjean crashed into Stevens whilst lapping him, what led up to Grosjean's idiotic driving.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9392
tootsie323 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.
How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I agree with the argument over the sensible thing (for Verstappen) to do. I'm also pretty sure that, had that been a race for position, any decision on the incident would have resulted in a different outcome (racing incident / more blame on Verstappen). Where I differ is in the fact that Ocon was a lap down - and therefore, in my view, should have backed out of any potential conflict when attempting to unlap himself. Whilst Verstappen did cut Ocon off, my view is that the onus was on Ocon not to put himself in that position (i.e. complete the overtake ahead of turning in). Not necessarily fair, as in biased towards the race leader, but lapped cars are not treated 'fairly' anyway (having to move over when blue flags are shown, for example).
We're all going to have differences of opinion; that's where some good (and, OK, sometimes heated!) debate comes about.

Yeah I agree. The point at which Verstappen decided to defend the inside line is when Ocon should have backed off.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Covalent wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kubica clearly thought his race was important as Hamilton's race and the stewards did nothing in regards to how he interfered with Hamilton's race, I venture if there had been no contact between Verstappen and Ocon as in Verstappen had given Ocon room then likewise it would have been deemed that Ocon had done nothing wrong.
I won't argue with that. But there was contact and, as far as I know, Ocon was penalised for causing a collision - not for 'racing' with the leader. I'll reiterate that Verstappen needn't have had to feel the need to defend his position against Ocon but my view is that once Verstappen did go defensive Ocon should have backed out.
How can you cause a collision when you are crowded off the track? It is bonkers... There is only one driver that caused the actual collision and it's not Ocon.

We seem to be going in circles with this argument. I've tried to see this from all possible angles, even if my favourite driver was in Max's position. It just doesn't add up; the sensible thing would be to let him go
I agree with the argument over the sensible thing (for Verstappen) to do. I'm also pretty sure that, had that been a race for position, any decision on the incident would have resulted in a different outcome (racing incident / more blame on Verstappen). Where I differ is in the fact that Ocon was a lap down - and therefore, in my view, should have backed out of any potential conflict when attempting to unlap himself. Whilst Verstappen did cut Ocon off, my view is that the onus was on Ocon not to put himself in that position (i.e. complete the overtake ahead of turning in). Not necessarily fair, as in biased towards the race leader, but lapped cars are not treated 'fairly' anyway (having to move over when blue flags are shown, for example).
We're all going to have differences of opinion; that's where some good (and, OK, sometimes heated!) debate comes about.

Yeah I agree. The point at which Verstappen decided to defend the inside line is when Ocon should have backed off.

Backed off for good or does Ocon then attack Verstappen again at the the next opportunity?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


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: No registered users 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