2010 Korean Grand Prix

I don't actually think that there is anyone in F1 today who is so stupid that he purposely lets his car be hit by another car going in 100+ kph.

 

Socially correct? If Schumacher's outstanding career wasn't shadowed for what he did to Hill, tried to do to Villeneuve, and failed to do at Monaco quali (among other less significant events), he would have a undisputed place among the greatest f1 drivers ever.

As it is, he has some die-hard fans, a few impressive records and that is all. I can understand that the perception of what is acceptable behaviour changes over time. But I started dispising him after Adelaide and never went back, no matter the many victories and titles he got to himself after that.

And I wasn't a Hill fan, in fact couldn't care less about Damon.

So, I give Webber the benefit of the doubt. I would like him to be WDC this year, as I would also like Alonso to be WDC this year (either one of them as WDC is fine with me).

 

No need to get upset and judge my opinion on the matter simply because I don't ignore possibilities (tactics of which have been used by other drivers in the past) Famine and Berger were the originators of this theory anyway *Passes the flak their way...*

 

The more I watch replays the more I get suspicious. From the onboard cam you can clearly see he locked the front wheels before touching the wall, no brakes problems at all. Then again Rosberg was the first to raise doubts, on a live interview on Italian Television not long after the crash he said "well, he didn't brake...".

This is quite nasty, I'm starting to believe he'd deserve to be kicked off as Piquet Jr.

 

Well I'm sorry for defending Webber - it's nothing personal. I bet you wouldn't like it if someone badmouthed Alonso either.

 

Safety in F1 has dramatically improved over the last 15 years, think of Kubica at Montreal 3 years ago. Sorry but your argument doesn't sound convincing. Just my opinion.

 

Depends over what. If you call him a 2nd rate driver, yea I'll defend him. If he rolled back across the track onto the racing line (w/o hitting the brakes to my knowledge), while watching cars come his way, then no, I would be singing the same song I am about Mark. Assume what you want...

 

What a silly comment. I will just throw some names out there and let you think about it:
Henry Surtees, Felipe Massa, Alex Zanardi...

 

I'm just saying, but neither Surtees or Zanardi's accidents were Formula 1 related. And Massa's injury was related to a loose part from another car hitting his helmet - it didn't do anything to test the integrity of the chassis.

 

Ardius, you are a respected poster in this F1 forum and I value your opinions. However, are you seriously trying to say F1 safety hasn't improved, and backing it up with those 3 driver's incidents? For a start 2 of them weren't even in F1 and all 3 were freak and unavoidable accidents. That's the standard risk that will always remain in racing. The possibility of freak accidents that can kill people. It's the risk the drivers knowingly take.

I think calling the above post an idiotic comment is a little miscalculated.

 

I'm tempted to bring up the decline in bravery argument in modern F1 but meh. If there was more consequences for hitting an immovable object with your F1 chassis I doubt Sutil would have driven like such an ass in Korea. I also reckon Petrov's crash would have very nearly been fatal 10 - 15 years ago.

Flame on.

 

Really? You don't see my point? You think the drivers are insane enough to think safety and their acceptance of danger makes them willing to actively try to crash into people?

I find this very disturbing. You cannot assume just because safety has improved that a fatal accident is not possible. And parking your car or sending your car across the racing line on purpose is increasing the possiblity of a car hitting the side and causing any number of various accidents or injuries. Particularly launching a car over the side and near the drivers head (the most vulnerable spot).

To claim that Webber would feel its safe enough to cause crashes without risk of injury is ludicrous.

Everyone accepts motorsport is dangerous, but this doesn't mean its acceptable to increase the risks. This is why we have penalties for dangerous driving.

 

I'm not saying drivers try to crash into people I'm saying that in stating safety has not improved you are incorrect.

 

Ummm...C'mon now

 

Thanks.

 

The increased safety in F1 had some effect in the behaviour of drivers. I remember Lauda (or was it Stewart?) talking about the way drivers started to bang wheels to overtake/defend position and saying that such a behaviour would be homicidal/suicidal in their days (60's/70's/80's at the latest).

But to assume drivers go from banging wheels side by side to deliberately let their own car go at slow speed, crippled to the point of almost no human control, backwards, facing incoming F1 traffic at speed, hoping that one or more cars in said traffic will hit you head-on or T-bone you is ...

well, I lack enough knowledge of the English language to translate what I'm thinking, so I'll just say


... foolish.

 

Those were somewhat calculated moves though, Webber's accident was not planned and he was arguably risking far more than either Senna or Schumacher were. Although Senna was insane for that move.
Senna knew if he did what he did, it would end up in the gravel trap and it would only involve him and Prost (probably). Schumacher attempted a lazy move at low speed which was unlikely to put him in danger (same as with Villenueve).

If Webber had decided to use his accident to take someone out on purpose, he would be out of his mind because anyone could have hit him in any number of ways. His car was already damaged, he didn't know how much control of it he had and he didn't know where the other drivers were in relation to him. Its madness.

Besides, I find it really difficult to believe watching the onboard. Too much happens too fast for Webber to have planned anything.

I didn't say that though?

I did say the comment was silly - if any of the drivers really do think they are fine to create fatal accidents because one hasn't happened in F1 for over 15 years and that safety has improved then they are monumentally stupid. Its frankly quite disrespectful to Mark Webber. Safety isn't so improved that you can get away with being crashed into on the racing line at those speeds, you may get lucky, you probably won't.

 

Vettel's onboard pole lap is up:

http://www.formula1.com/video/onboard.html

Impressive stuff, as always. Hope the race edit is released today also, I'm very curious about what it will show us

 

Spot on mate! I remember watching that live, I was outraged, worst Senna version ever.

 

I think Webber's incident could be described as a, "If I'm going down I may aswell take as many with me as I can' idea

It is a natural human (possible animal) instinct, when you are gut wrenchingly dissapointed and deflated, to just try and take other people down aswell, so I actually partly agree with the whole idea that Webber deliberately re-entered the tarmac to try and take other's out

 

Anyway, the man comes before the driver, I just love remembering Ayrton for this

 

Maybe in a racing video game like F1 2010 ; but I do not think Webber tried to take out other racers after his shunt.

Can't wait for Interlagos

 

I respect you for seeing things from an impartial perspective at least As I've said before, we will never know Webber's true intentions here, but to write off such a possibility is just turning a blind eye because you don't think a sportsman can stoop to such a level (despite the fact that history tells you otherwise), even going as far as to putting his health/life on the line.

As you said, in the end it is a bit of a animal instinct to do whatever it takes to win or to come out on top. As we know - animals are ruthless and could care less about fighting a fair fight, and to think humans (some more than others) don't still have some of this instilled in them is being a bit naive IMO.

As much as I admire Ayrton's abilities and in particular his passion, at times I consider the guy boarderline insane and delusional. I mean why do you find such need to so unusually pull of the track for such an incident like the above, yet deliberately run your opponent off the road at such high speeds (like @ Suzuka 1990) risking your competitor's life. Something just is not quite right with that IMO

 

I did not mean it in a way that would jeopardize mark webber's reputation. Under normal circumstances, no sane person would put themselves in that level of danger. But these were not normal circumstances at all. Driving an f1 will without a doubt increase the lever of adrenalin flowing through someone's veins. Have you guys ever talked to someone in that state of mind? They never really tend to make the most rational decisions. Especially in a moment where someone is about to lose something very valuable to them. I don't think webber meant to harm anyone. He just didn't think at all. The incident happened so quickly that it would not give him enough time to. Maybe he didn't plan for it go across the track. Maybe he was so shocked at what just happened and the realization that he might lose the lead for the title that he did not realize what he was doing at that time. If I was in that situation I would let someone hit me but then again I am a big jerk sometimes.

 

Vettel does have a remarkable ability to nail one single qualifying lap together, he's obviously extremely technically gifted. With that said, I think the Red Bull's greatest strength asides from its basic downforce advantage, is that it is the most consistent handling and easy car to push to its limits.

Anyway, just thought i'd share with you, a snippet written about Lewis Hamilton's technique near the end of the lap:

"Into the 'street' section and the right-left sequence of 14/15, where there's a trade-off to be made in how much exit you take at the first part and how well you line yourself up for the second. Lewis Hamilton has come up with a unique solution: he stays hard on it through the exit, uses up all the road, but gets a little squirt of power-oversteer at the end. Instead of immediately correcting that, he leaves the steering as it is and uses the slide to point the car immediately to the other side of the track. It works perfectly, and he repeats it lap after lap. For him there is no compromise necessary here. That's for the others."

From Mark Hughes' trackside view in Autosport this week.

 

What a job this guy has, talking out of his behind left and right like he's Mr. Know it all. Where's the proof that he did this lap after lap Mr. Hughes? I watched a bit of his onboard footage from qualy and didn't see him really pull of this technique (let alone with any consistancy) even once really in that particular section of the track - not to mention that part of the track is really too quick to induce much throttle oversteer in the Mclaren. I also DL'd the onboard footage from the race (which has quite a bit of footage from Lewis), and most of the time he was tip toeing his was around the wet circuit, trying to minimize excessive oversteer and sliding in order to preserve his tires.

No question Lewis has remarkable car control, but in this case Mark Hughes is feeding everyone some make believe story.

 

F1 cars are super safe nowadays. You're more likely to die from peeling an onion. I'm not entirely buying the "why would he risk his and another driver's life" argument. And a driver is willing to do anything to win a championship, including trying to crash into your rivals..

 

He was talking about practice/qualifying, not the race. And it was a trackside view, so i'm guessing he noticed this by virtue of being 'trackside'. He's a reputable F1 journalist, one of the most respected.

 

I missed this race because I was camping. Is there anywhere I can watch it?
BBC iplayer won't work because I'm in Ireland.

 

Fresh rumors in the oven, looks like HRT has finally bought Toyota's old F1 team.


Oh, and Bruno's been having talks with Lotus