Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 161
  1. #151
    Senior Member truefan72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    5,943
    Like
    1,228
    Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Firstgear View Post
    If that's the case, they should open the investigation for the sake of transparency and for future clarification of what is and is not acceptable driving. I also agree with BK about a possible penalty of 5 sec making a difference.
    did they not give Hamilton a 3 grid drop for Austria after reviewing the 360cam footage days later?
    The whole thing is joke.
    Oh well
    you can't argue with results.

  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwan View Post
    If Max had managed to stay on track , I believe he would have gotten a penalty , or , at least have been asked to "give the place back" .
    I put that in quotes to denote that it isn't really clearly that way , as Lewis was only momentarily ahead as they came in .

    Max was actually ahead as they passed the apex of the corner , and that is generally seen as giving that driver priority , as long as he leaves room for his opponent if he knows he is alongside .
    But , not only did he not give room , he drove straight on , eventually leaving the track .

    And , that's the catch . Had he not been ahead , Lewis would have likely turned in , and Max may have taken him out .
    But with Max ahead and seemingly obviously too fast to make it without leaving the track , his last ditch effort was to run deep and hope Hamilton followed him around , instead of ducking inside .

    I wonder if it would feel better to all of you if he had locked them up on the way through steaming up the inside .


    I would also submit that Max might have driven differently to escape a time penalty had one been applied before the end .
    Neither scenario you describe elevates the fact that his conduct was below the driving standards of the formula. A different kind of bad does not change the fact that it was not acceptable and a half-decent team of stewards would have seen that.

    What we have seen at Brazil suggests those stewards are in someone's pocket. It is too obviously so.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by truefan72 View Post
    did they not give Hamilton a 3 grid drop for Austria after reviewing the 360cam footage days later?
    The whole thing is joke.
    Oh well
    My point exactly, these stewards are on the take.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  4. #154
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Like
    173
    Liked 308 Times in 206 Posts
    I wish you guys were as scathing on Lewis whenever his driving is sub par.

  5. Likes: Bagwan (20th November 2021)
  6. #155
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Neither scenario you describe elevates the fact that his conduct was below the driving standards of the formula. A different kind of bad does not change the fact that it was not acceptable and a half-decent team of stewards would have seen that.

    What we have seen at Brazil suggests those stewards are in someone's pocket. It is too obviously so.
    Steaming into a corner too fast does not merit a penalty .
    If you are ahead when entering , but know your opponent is beside you , you are obligated to leave a car's width between you and the edge of the track .
    But , if you cannot stay on track yourself as a result of too much speed , it kind of negates the possibility to allow space at all .

    It opens an impossible Pandora's box situation for the stewards as the driver can say it was a mistake to slide through , even though the mistake could easily be interpreted as a workable defense .

    Had Hamilton turned in , he likely would have taken a penalty .
    If Lewis had been ahead at the apex , Max would have been in for a penalty , and likely would have taken out the both of them .

    But , as I said before , I think the annoying thing for Lewis should be that he missing out on getting the pass done inside Max as he steamed by .

    And , by the way , it seems like that is the already in place solution to this desperate gambit of Max's .
    You either believe that he's going to be able to stay on track and drive around the outside , or brake hard as he slides through , and , strangely , they all know this counter-move already .



    Rather than Accusing the stewards of being on the take , I prefer to try to understand how they might have come to the conclusion to which they came .

  7. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
    I wish you guys were as scathing on Lewis whenever his driving is sub par.
    I can assure you l shall give full beans with my criticism if he messes up.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  8. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwan View Post
    Steaming into a corner too fast does not merit a penalty .
    If you are ahead when entering , but know your opponent is beside you , you are obligated to leave a car's width between you and the edge of the track .
    But , if you cannot stay on track yourself as a result of too much speed , it kind of negates the possibility to allow space at all .

    It opens an impossible Pandora's box situation for the stewards as the driver can say it was a mistake to slide through , even though the mistake could easily be interpreted as a workable defense .
    These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world. And they are paid a stupendous amount of money for that reason. Track limits are defined to require drivers to manoeuvre through the tracks without straying beyond the track limits. Hence, Verstappen is expected to approach a corner at the appropriate speed to ensure that he exits the corner without straying from the track. If you can agree with this point, then it is obvious to you; l hope. That Verstappen is expected not to be steaming into a corner too fast such that he loses control enough to cause him to stray significantly off the track. The fact that he did would suggest that he acted intentionally to exceed the track limit as a means of preventing the attacking driver from overtaking him in the corner.

    The question now is, "Is it now ok not to yield to a car that is clearly ahead at the approach to the corner by carrying excess speed into the apex in such a way as to stray off the track and causing the other driver to take avoiding action to prevent a collision by also straying off the track? "

    This new position has the potential of bringing F1 defensive actions to a place that mortally endangers any attacking driver. It was great that the corner in question had a vast run-off area. If we imagine for a moment that it didn't, can you stop for a moment to wonder what might have ensued? Senna had what looked like a routine run-off into the barriers and surprising died from the incident. The steward's decision shows the stewards office and the racing director have a very poor appreciation of the dangerous consequences of the sanction that they have now given the drivers.

    I wonder what they expect, do they expect all the other drivers to be very good boys and get out of the way of any driver with a "do or die " approach to racing. No way! It only invites all drivers to man up and take their driving to another lever of aggression when they have to pass any driver defending in this manner. The end product is more dangerous accidents and costly crashes which would make the budget cap unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwan View Post
    Had Hamilton turned in , he likely would have taken a penalty .
    If Lewis had been ahead at the apex , Max would have been in for a penalty , and likely would have taken out the both of them .

    But , as I said before , I think the annoying thing for Lewis should be that he missing out on getting the pass done inside Max as he steamed by .
    If Hamilton had been ahead, Verstappen would have crashed into him as he did when the Redbull ended up on top of the Mercedes a while back. And the dodgy stewards would also not have penalized him. It would have been a win situation for Verstappen as he would have taken out the competition, kept the points gap alive to the next race and not been penalized in the procerss.

    I don't understand why you think Hamilton should have had the pass done on the inside. Such a move is only available if he was behind on the entry to the corner. Since he was significantly ahead, and Verstappen has chosen to brake later to be ahead at the apex, his only real option was to try to overtake on the outside. With the expectation that Verstappen would genuinely try to drive around the corner within the track limits while giving the obligatory car's width.

    Verstappen wanted Hamilton to turn in so that they would tangle in a race ending way for both parties. That was his precise aim. Don't you get it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwan View Post
    And , by the way , it seems like that is the already in place solution to this desperate gambit of Max's .
    You either believe that he's going to be able to stay on track and drive around the outside , or brake hard as he slides through , and , strangely , they all know this counter-move already .

    Rather than Accusing the stewards of being on the take , I prefer to try to understand how they might have come to the conclusion to which they came.
    If there already is a solution, l fail to see it in action at Sao Paolo. The point is he did it and got away with it. SO THERE IS NO SOLUTION.

    I am not interested in how they arrived at this farcical decision. I am not stupid, l can analyse in detail with the limited information available. And the verdict portrays very clear evidence of double standards. It is glaring out of character from what we have ever experienced from the steward's office at any point of F1's history. They were either pissed out of their brains when they arrived at that verdict or they are corrupt. There is no middle road here. Not unless they have let the cleaners decide on their behalf.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 21st November 2021 at 00:33.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  9. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Like
    173
    Liked 308 Times in 206 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    I can assure you l shall give full beans with my criticism if he messes up.
    If? Like he never has?

  10. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
    If? Like he never has?
    Having a dig again Zic! When do does if that makes you happy.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  11. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world. And they are paid a stupendous amount of money for that reason. Track limits are defined to require drivers to manoeuvre through the tracks without straying beyond the track limits. Hence, Verstappen is expected to approach a corner at the appropriate speed to ensure that he exits the corner without straying from the track. If you can agree with this point, then it is obvious to you; l hope. That Verstappen is expected not to be steaming into a corner too fast such that he loses control enough to cause him to stray significantly off the track. The fact that he did would suggest that he acted intentionally to exceed the track limit as a means of preventing the attacking driver from overtaking him in the corner.

    The question now is, "Is it now ok not to yield to a car that is clearly ahead at the approach to the corner by carrying excess speed into the apex in such a way as to stray off the track and causing the other driver to take avoiding action to prevent a collision by also straying off the track? "

    This new position has the potential of bringing F1 defensive actions to a place that mortally endangers any attacking driver. It was great that the corner in question had a vast run-off area. If we imagine for a moment that it didn't, can you stop for a moment to wonder what might have ensued? Senna had what looked like a routine run-off into the barriers and surprising died from the incident. The steward's decision shows the stewards office and the racing director have a very poor appreciation of the dangerous consequences of the sanction that they have now given the drivers.

    I wonder what they expect, do they expect all the other drivers to be very good boys and get out of the way of any driver with a "do or die " approach to racing. No way! It only invites all drivers to man up and take their driving to another lever of aggression when they have to pass any driver defending in this manner. The end product is more dangerous accidents and costly crashes which would make the budget cap unreasonable.



    If Hamilton had been ahead, Verstappen would have crashed into him as he did when the Redbull ended up on top of the Mercedes a while back. And the dodgy stewards would also not have penalized him. It would have been a win situation for Verstappen as he would have taken out the competition, kept the points gap alive to the next race and not been penalized in the procerss.

    I don't understand why you think Hamilton should have had the pass done on the inside. Such a move is only available if he was behind on the entry to the corner. Since he was significantly ahead, and Verstappen has chosen to brake later to be ahead at the apex, his only real option was to try to overtake on the outside. With the expectation that Verstappen would genuinely try to drive around the corner within the track limits while giving the obligatory car's width.

    Verstappen wanted Hamilton to turn in so that they would tangle in a race ending way for both parties. That was his precise aim. Don't you get it!



    If there already is a solution, l fail to see it in action at Sao Paolo. The point is he did it and got away with it. SO THERE IS NO SOLUTION.

    I am not interested in how they arrived at this farcical decision. I am not stupid, l can analyse in detail with the limited information available. And the verdict portrays very clear evidence of double standards. It is glaring out of character from what we have ever experienced from the steward's office at any point of F1's history. They were either pissed out of their brains when they arrived at that verdict or they are corrupt. There is no middle road here. Not unless they have let the cleaners decide on their behalf.
    That was a very typical response .

    But , not much about that situation was clear , except , perhaps , your penchant for attempting to make something black and white of something very grey .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •