Hamilton's Driving

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

A fair analysis :up: .

---

...is a study on travelling entertainment providers....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

So its basically different and the total opposite to the "Purple Haze" I suffered from when I was at University? Got ya. :s mokin:

FIN.

---

No silly, you are describing a song by Prince, or AFKAP as he, she, him, it was once monikered.......

Oh, no, that was rain. Blast! ;)

END

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

No, because now the Stewards have set the precedent, and no doubt it will be made crystal clear in the next briefing. WHat I can tell you is that Vettel wont be turning towards the garages again, and Lewis wont be straddling the blue line again.

There is also benefit of the doubt in certain situations. The circumstances as to how Lewis and Vettel were side by side were unusual, and taken into account.

A jump start is a jump start - there is no ambiguity.

If Lewis weaves again for example, I would expect more than a reprimand, wouldn't you? Maybe a stop go? ANd if he does it again, grid drop? ANd again, race bans.....

I think a little logic has to be applied. As has been pointed out before, we want to see racing and races decided on the track, not 3 hours after it has finished.

---

I don't think what you are saying is consistent. When Hamilton weaved in front of Petrov, then surely, according to your logic, he should have been penalised with more than a warning, because a precedent to THAT incident had indeed been set. Everyone could see what he did was not within the rules, it's been done before, and there are even probably examples of drivers actually being punished for less. That's why we know it's not legal. But it hasn't happened recently, so he only gets a warning.

So, imagine if the Hamilton Vettel incident is not repeated in Spain in two weeks, but does happen again in two years time in Silverstone.

I think it makes sense that the jump start is punished as it is. It makes sense that overtaking under a yellow flag is punishable as it is. But in this ruling, the stewards are effectively saying that running down the pitlane side by side is less serious than overtaking under a yellow.

They should at least tell everyone what will happen to any driver who does that again in future - something immediate, like a drive-through, during the race. If they don't, they risk leaving things open to interpretation on the day, and opening themselves to accusations of favouritism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

I don't think what you are saying is consistent.

---

You've spoken to my wife then..... :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

When Hamilton weaved in front of Petrov, then surely, according to your logic, he should have been penalised with more than a warning, because a precedent to THAT incident had indeed been set. Everyone could see what he did was not within the rules, it's been done before, and there are even probably examples of drivers actually being punished for less. That's why we know it's not legal. But it hasn't happened recently, so he only gets a warning.

---

Difference being it was not defence of an overtake, it was to prevent a move being planned by breaking the tow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

So, imagine if the Hamilton Vettel incident is not repeated in Spain in two weeks, but does happen again in two years time in Silverstone.

---

Same will apply if it is a second offence......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

I think it makes sense that the jump start is punished as it is. It makes sense that overtaking under a yellow flag is punishable as it is. But in this ruling, the stewards are effectively saying that running down the pitlane side by side is less serious than overtaking under a yellow.

They should at least tell everyone what will happen to any driver who does that again in future - something immediate, like a drive-through, during the race. If they don't, they risk leaving things open to interpretation on the day, and opening themselves to accusations of favouritism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

No silly, you are describing a song by Prince, or AFKAP as he, she, him, it was once monikered.......

Oh, no, that was rain. Blast! ;)

END

---

You fool.

It was a Deep Purple Smoke on the water left by all the Purple Rain!

Anyway, back to the thread and the thrilling post from a few purple heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

But in this ruling, the stewards are effectively saying that running down the pitlane side by side is less serious than overtaking under a yellow.

They should at least tell everyone what will happen to any driver who does that again in future - something immediate, like a drive-through, during the race. If they don't, they risk leaving things open to interpretation on the day, and opening themselves to accusations of favouritism.

---

Consider first the chances of the Vettel/Lewis incident being repeated in the same way.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

You fool.

---

Yikes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Yikes

---

I'm sorry, it was supposed to be a joke. Perhaps i should use a :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

I'm sorry, it was supposed to be a joke. Perhaps i should use a :)

---

Hey, no need to apologise - I took it as a joke.

If I was offended, my post would have been long rambling and grumpy.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Lewis had wheelspin , and knew he was beaten .

But , he didn't give up .

This prompted Vettel to move in , to emphasize his right to the lane .
He was fully in the lane before Hamilton , and beside him .

That race was over , as no F-duct was going to get him down the lane any faster than the limitter would allow .



Lewis has a serious problem with the red mist , where he tends towards the "deliberate , but instinctual " moves , in times of crisis .
His racing down the blue lane prompted Sebastian to assert his right . Whether this reaction was clever or not should be looked at in the light of what his rival was up to .

My initial reaction was to say "Give up , you idiot . He beat you into the lane ." .
Upon rewatching the video , I remain with the view that Lewis lost the plot in the incident .
He was never going to win a race on a limitter .

---

.....and Vettel didn't lose the plot?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Hamilton's action (and yes, I think he was an idiot for trying to keep the position alongside Vettel after making a mess of his getaway from the pit, losing traction and getting sideways), but since when has it been Vettel's right or responsibility to police that by pushing Hamilton back towards the pit garages?

To put it another way, if someone on the road tries to overtake me illegally, and it ends in an accident, then I don't expect to get much sympathy from the traffic cops if they find out my last act before the accident was to move over on the guy who was trying to overtake me....

All Vettel needed to do was sit tight and hold his line- and Hamilton would have had to back out of it before the end of the pitlane- but he didn't, he tried to force the issue, and rightly got reprimanded

As far as I'm concerned, they're both at fault here, and I'd have been perfectly comfortable to see both get a drive-through for it