2014 Belgian Grand Prix

[BHRxRacer]

It's his choice to be on a part of the track that has no continuation.

Using that word is where we'll differ.

Not enough chartreuse?

To be honest with you, it's annoying enough to type in that color of yours. Less painful on the eye than @Famine's, but still painful. I have to dim my monitor and close I think I made fun of this before

Although we've had some in the past few years, it doesn't matter if we only get ONE thoroughly good race every 10 years. We shouldn't lower our standards just because mediocrity's that common. I was regretting watching the race until the first safety car restart. Literally a lap before, I was thinking to myself "****, this is even more boring than Singapore".






Stop taking things out of context. I wasn't calling anyone a fanboy, it just meant "how much of a fan you are" in that context. I don't know what suffix to use.



Peasantslayer apparently missed the part where the safety car helped Kimi not once, but TWICE.

Sorry to single you out bud, there's many others but my bad habit of remembering names in real life seems to apply to forums too. I rarely look at the usernames. You just happen to be the one I quoted in my last post.




Ok correct me if I'm wrong but who mentioned Massa in this thread after the race was over? Maybe you've given him **** before but either consistently do it with any driver or don't do it at all. You're being worse than the race stewards.



............I did complement his effort. Read again. I'm just saying it wasn't that much better than what he did in Monza against Rosberg and it's mainly down to the car. He showed the composure of a champion, sure, but if he didn't have the car, his skill and composure wouldn't have saved him from getting passed on the first attempt.

And it's funny when it was Rosberg people were saying he can't pass, and now that it's Hamilton they're praising Hulk so much.



I don't remember seeing him lock up in the 2nd stint but if he did, and it was as big as Perez' like I said in my earlier post, the director would slap a replay in our face. It's irrelevant though, he was the hardest driver on his tyres in the race. He can thank his bling bling god the safety car came out twice and took away some fuel out of his car before he goes racing again.

edit

Quite dedicated you are, drawing it up etc. Good to see people making effort

 

[niky]

Using that word is where we'll differ.

And that's the long and short of it. The stewards and the analysts (as does Martin Brundle, in the article I dug up for you), all view it as the following driver having the choice to back out or to continue on unsafely.

That's how the rules have always been interpreted. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's the end of the discussion. Nothing meaningful will come of discussing it further.

-

As for color, I choose dark green because it proves decent contrast and isn't hard on the eyes. Famine chooses indigo for the same contrast reasons.

-

The very first board I ever moderated had an indigo on black theme. And it kept that until it was closed down, as the site owner lost interest in keeping that section of her site.

As for the reason I post in color, nowadays... so sue me... I'm fickle, and I wanted to spruce up my laptop wallpaper.

 

[BHRxRacer]

And that's the long and short of it. The stewards and the analysts (as does Martin Brundle, in the article I dug up for you), all view it as the following driver having the choice to back out or to continue on unsafely.

That's how the rules have always been interpreted. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's the end of the discussion. Nothing meaningful will come of discussing it further.

-

As for color, I choose dark green because it proves decent contrast and isn't hard on the eyes. Famine chooses indigo for the same contrast reasons.

-

The very first board I ever moderated had an indigo on black theme. And it kept that until it was closed down, as the site owner lost interest in keeping that section of her site.

As for the reason I post in color, nowadays... so sue me... I'm fickle, and I wanted to spruce up my laptop wallpaper.

Let's be clear. Martin Brundle said Lewis should've left him space, so he does agree with me on that. Not with you.

Where he does not agree with me, is part 2 of the incident. How Maldonado reacted to not being left space.

As for the colors, I do have vision issues so maybe that's why they're a little harder on my eyes than others. It's okay though. Been dealing with it for long enough.

 

[niky]

Let's be clear. Martin Brundle said Lewis should've left him space, so he does agree with me on that. Not with you.

Where he does not agree with me, is part 2 of the incident. How Maldonado reacted to not being left space.

Read again... there's a reason I bolded what I bolded:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/7842979/alonso-sails-through-a-perfect-storm

he left the mandatory car's width in the braking zone and then if your opponent tries to go around the outside of a tight corner he's likely to run out of space, that's perfectly normal. Should Lewis have left more space for Maldonado? Absolutely yes, especially for him given their history together, but the layout of the track there means he couldn't run very far off line as a tight left-hander followed immediately.

When he says Lewis should have left space... he does not mean Lewis legally needs to leave space. Indeed, he notes that Maldonado will run out of space, and that's normal (ergo, legal under the rules, which I have spent the last two days explaining).

What Brundle means is it's a good idea to do so because it's Pastor Maldonado. (followed by a disclaimer that Lewis had to set up for the next turn, so he couldn't move over too much.)

This is like saying you shouldn't stand on the sidewalk when Lindsay Lohan drives by after a night at the clubs. Of course it's a good idea, but you have no legal liability if she does run you over.

Also, to note:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report...is-hamilton-spills-over-into-fireworks-at-spa

However Hamilton braked late, stayed under control, and made the apex, entitling him to the normal racing line. Rosberg’s move was off, but he didn’t accept it or take rational action.

(No, I didn't research this for this thread. I was just reading it in the course of following up on the FIA decision)

Again: You are entitled to the racing line if you control the apex.

This is the reason Brundle, other analysts, the stewards and most racing drivers (except Maldonaaaadooooo) disagree with you.

 

[BHRxRacer]

When he says Lewis should have left space... he does not mean Lewis legally needs to leave space.

I'm going to cry.

That's exactly why he agrees with me. It has nothing to do with legality. When Brundle says Lewis should've left some space, it means in Brundle's world it's as best a racing incident. THE SAME VIEW HE HAS ON SPA. His interpretation of the rules are the same as yours in the fact that Lewis was entitled to take the "racing line", and yet, in the Spa case, he called it a racing incident. JUST AS I CALLED MALDONADO/HAMILTON A RACING INCIDENT.


Had Maldonado stayed within track limits and Lewis made contact, Brundle would call that a racing incident. Like he did at Spa.

Is that hard to understand?

The next question you should ask yourself, is why Brundle thinks Spa is a racing incident, despite Hamilton's entitlement to the racing line.

 

[niky]

Had Maldonado stayed within track limits and Lewis made contact, Brundle would call that a racing incident. Like he did at Spa.

As would I. And yet, Maldonado didn't, hence, he's at fault and suffered a penalty, though one could argue he got off very lightly for that.

I'm curious as to what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Brundle agreed with you that Maldonado v. Hamilton was "just a racing incident" or that Maldonado deserved no penalty? If you read through the entire article, he actually cites other penalties in the race he thought were wrong, and this wasn't one of them.

The stewards judged that it was *not* just a racing incident, because Maldonado was off track, completely off any semblance of a racing line and punted Hamilton off by spearing straight across it. Again:

But the bottom line is that Maldonado speared at a sharp angle into the side of Hamilton's car having just recovered from fully off the race track. The throttle pedal works both ways, and this was a particularly stupid accident.

The next question you should ask yourself, is why Brundle thinks Spa is a racing incident, despite Hamilton's entitlement to the racing line.

The same reason I do. And I've explained that already, several times.

The only reason I'm debating you here is because you don't seem to understand the implications of the lead driver being on the racing line.

To whit: as long as they have the racing line and it's not a corner entry, they're not required to leave it to make space for other drivers who are sitting slightly behind them. As Brundle's quotes in a previous point have pointed out.

-

This does not mean the following driver is always guilty of causing a collision... but if anybody gets slapped with a penalty for one, that'll be him.

-

Edit: Fixed quotes so I wouldn't be "talking to myself", thus, have to tag @BHRxRacer

 

[mustafur]

BHR doesn't understand reason don't bother, Spa is clearly a racing incident, rosberg as you can see on everytime without fail was withdrawing the move just before collision so any right to anything is now gone.

The incident was effectively a rosberg withdrawal that failed and resulted in a hit, he might of had a claim to the corner if he actually committed to it but he didn't.

so the conclusion is BHR is arguing against cases which didn't exist.

- He's arguing Maldonado had right to a corner if he didn't go off track - But he did so point invalid.

- Then argues Hamilton should of gave Rosberg room even though Rosberg withdrew from the move whilst still in the track limits - Point also invalid.

 

[BHRxRacer]

As would I. And yet, Maldonado didn't, hence, he's at fault and suffered a penalty, though one could argue he got off very lightly for that.

Can we stop it with the penalty ****?

Let's divide that incident into two parts.

Part 1: Maldonado still on-track
Part 2: Maldonado off-track (forced off)


From now on, can we discuss part 1 only?

I'm curious as to what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Brundle agreed with you that Maldonado v. Hamilton was "just a racing incident" or that Maldonado deserved no penalty?

Brundle agreed with me that part 1 is a racing incident (had Maldonado stayed on track like Rosberg did).

If you read through the entire article, he actually cites other penalties in the race he thought were wrong,

Since you brought this up.

We had an ex-F1 driver (one of the most underrated British drivers in history IMO), and god knows who was the driver's steward that day. You said Brundle cites other penalties were wrong, right?

So, can you concede that TWO professionals don't have the same interpretations of the rules?

The stewards judged that it was *not* just a racing incident, because Maldonado was off track, completely off any semblance of a racing line and punted Hamilton off by spearing straight across it. Again:

Not part 1. Not the discussion.

The same reason I do. And I've explained that already, several times.

Great now we have something to work with.

If the driver is entitled to the racing line(as a rule), shouldn't other drivers be punished if they break that rule? ie Rosberg not giving Hamilton what he's entitled to and causing a collision.

This does not mean the following driver is always guilty of causing a collision...

It does if it's a rule/entitlement.

BHR doesn't understand reason don't bother, Spa is clearly a racing incident, rosberg as you can see on everytime without fail was withdrawing the move just before collision so any right to anything is now gone.

The incident was effectively a rosberg withdrawal that failed and resulted in a hit, he might of had a claim to the corner if he actually committed to it but he didn't.

so the conclusion is BHR is arguing against cases which didn't exist.

- He's arguing Maldonado had right to a corner if he didn't go off track - But he did so point invalid.

- Then argues Hamilton should of gave Rosberg room even though Rosberg withdrew from the move whilst still in the track limits - Point also invalid.

Are these your manners? Do you often insult somebody before starting a discussion with them?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@BHRxRacer... you say that Brundle agrees Maldonado wouldn't have been at fault if he didn't go off the track, but then say "but he did". Do you see how poor an argument you end up with?

As people are trying to say to you over and over again; each incident stands on merit, before the stewards, on the day.

However you feel about Hamilton's previous conduct (he's made some mistakes and caused some deliberate fouls), Rosberg's previous conduct (he's made some mistakes and caused some deliberate fouls) you still have to look at this as the incident it was, in the track section where it happened. That's all. Paint the helmets black in your head, paint the cars white, watch it like that and see what you think.

@niky has explained to you what Brundle's comments mean (an explanation that seems to me to be self-evident, just not evident to you). We've seen recent discussions with you where you fair pooped your kidneys at being questioned on how Arabic linguistic nuance can be employed, trust native English speakers when they explain the meaning of a statement in English.

What you can not change is that Rosberg drove his car to a place on the track that was always going to be occupied by another due to the profile of the double-corner, Rosberg takes the ultimate blame for that. Hamilton had no action to take there, he feels he was right to carry on as he did, so do his team and so the (as far as I've seen) the majority of impartial observers.

I still prefer Rosberg to Hamilton as a person and Hamilton to Rosberg as a driver, but neither of those things have anything to do with that incident in those corners on Lap 2 of that race, they're irrelevant, the facts, movements and results are plain to see.

 

[niky]

Part 1: Maldonado still on-track

Brundle agreed with me that part 1 is a racing incident (had Maldonado stayed on track like Rosberg did).

While Maldonado was still on track, he ceded the corner, fell behind, and lost any right to take the outside kerb on exit. And this is what Brundle meant by this:

Did he squeeze Maldonado off the track? No, he left the mandatory car's width in the braking zone and then if your opponent tries to go around the outside of a tight corner he's likely to run out of space, that's perfectly normal.

If you're saying that this:

Should Lewis have left more space for Maldonado? Absolutely yes, especially for him given their history together, but the layout of the track there means he couldn't run very far off line as a tight left-hander followed immediately.

Means he agrees that it would be a racing incident if they'd collided there... No. As I said, he was stating that Hamilton should have left space on that box out because Maldonado is a dangerous driver, but back here:

if your opponent tries to go around the outside of a tight corner he's likely to run out of space, that's perfectly normal.

He reasserts that Hamilton has the right to the track. Nothing in that article suggests that Maldonado would not have been penalized for a collision on corner exit.

So, can you concede that TWO professionals don't have the same interpretations of the rules?

On the question of Brundle disagreeing with the stewards:

I thought Senna was unlucky to get the drive-through for the contact with Kobayashi but they obviously decided he should have seen the Sauber approaching immediately after Raikkonen passed. I thought Kobayashi was pushing his luck into a space guaranteed to close.

He simply said that Kobayashi was being too rash. He could be implying (and I am loathe to use that term), however, that he feels it was simply a racing incident, but then, Brundle has already noted:

Let me start by reminding everyone that the stewards have infinitely more TV angles and data available than we do, along with interview accounts from drivers involved and other observers.

Which means that he's admitting there's a possibility he hasn't seen it from all the angles and that the stewards have more information than he does.

While it's possible to pass it off as a racing incident, because Senna would have been looking at chasing Kimi, it's pretty obvious that he closed the door on Kobayashi when Kobayashi had overlap on the inside.



As Brundle says:

they obviously decided he should have seen the Sauber approaching immediately after Raikkonen passed.

If the driver is entitled to the racing line(as a rule), shouldn't other drivers be punished if they break that rule? ie Rosberg not giving Hamilton what he's entitled to and causing a collision.

-----

Entitlement is such a strong word. It is simply accepted that following the racing line is not an abnormal change of direction, as long as you haven't moved off it to defend in the straight and as long as the following driver doesn't have overlap on corner entry.

There is no rule that the following driver cannot enter the racing line on corner exit if the other driver cedes it.

There is a rule that if a driver causes a collision, there will be penalties.

If the leading driver comes off the racing line then moves back onto it, that's an abnormal direction change and causing a collision. His penalty. If the following driver barges into him while he takes the racingline, that's causing a collision. His penalty.

Here is where telemetry and replays come in. The stewards may not give penalties if the collision is not through any fault of the following driver. If it happened, for example, because his car bounced off a bump, or because his tires have suddenly lost grip, or if he hits the other driver under braking because his brakes and/or tires have gone off unexpectedly. The unexpected part is important... if the driver enters too hot and brakes too late and slides into another car because of it, then that's a different story.

The stewards sometimes get things wrong. They're only human, after all. But there is hardly any* disagreement on which car is the victim in these cases. The disagreement is usually on whether the perpetrator is culpable for causing the incident, and how culpable they are.

*Of course, it's impossible to say that no disagreements will ever exist. That's why we have appeals and deliberations. And rulings have been overturned or penalties assessed after the fact through this appeals system.

 

[FormulaKimball]

What you can not change is that Rosberg drove his car to a place on the track that was always going to be occupied by another due to the profile of the double-corner, Rosberg takes the ultimate blame for that. Hamilton had no action to take there, he feels he was right to carry on as he did, so do his team and so the (as far as I've seen) the majority of impartial observers.

THIS. And ultimately Rosberg's "prove a point" may have done what was intended because now Hamilton has been quoted with "I don't know how to race around him," in other words that trust that must exist between professional drivers is somewhat broken now, Lewis feels he has to worry that he might again be blindsided BY HIS OWN TEAMMATE who will ignore the well-established rules of the road if he can get away with it. Kind of like the old Senna tactic of placing his car in such a way that you have the choice of letting him go or having a crash - if he wins that psych battle he knows he's defeated you, from then on you'll leap out of the way anytime he shows you a wheel. Except in this case, it's not showing a wheel, it's sticking his nose into a blind spot around the outside, which is worse. You know how annoying it is to have to race someone who smacks you from behind in a place he had no right to be?

 

[mustafur]

Are these your manners? Do you often insult somebody before starting a discussion with them?

It isn't rude if its true, you clearly don't understand reason, not to mention Rules, Racing etiquette and often seem to make up scenarios to try prove your point even if said scenario isn't what happened.

Note: I didn't call you stupid or an idiot, I am not personally attacking you im just stating it as i see it.

 

[Famine]

You know how annoying it is to have to race someone who smacks you from behind in a place he had no right to be?

I think we've all played Gran Turismo online...

 

[mustafur]

I would say the Senna Kobayashi accident is a Racing incident, yes it was Sennas fault in the sense that he turned into Kobayashi but it was the racing line.

Conclusion: Senna didn't see Kobayashi so hitting him is his fault, however Senna was just driving the Racing line.

Its the same basic incident as the Button/Hamilton one at Canada in 2012.

 

[mikeerfol]

I would say the Senna Kobayashi accident is a Racing incident, yes it was Sennas fault in the sense that he turned into Kobayashi but it was the racing line.

Conclusion: Senna didn't see Kobayashi so hitting him is his fault, however Senna was just driving the Racing line.

Its the same basic incident as the Button/Hamilton one at Canada in 2012.

2011, the only chance this would happen in 2012 would be when Hamilton was lapping Button

And I'm really looking forward to see how much more off-topic this can go

 

[Swagger897]

Racing etiquette

Racing etiquette requires participation on both sides. This, is what started it all. Whether or not Lewis should have given room, or shut the door, and whether or not Nico should have kept it where he was, or backed off.

IMO, you do not shut the door right in front of someone, racing line or not. There was a car beside him, and he must accept that, which ultimately he did not, and caused the incident himself. If Lewis were to keep right, it would have never of happened, and he could have ultimately stayed in the race. What is the point of racing if there is no competition, and no adverse scenarios. Someone else out there can do the job for less than 17 million..

 

[mustafur]

2011, the only chance this would happen in 2012 would be when Hamilton was lapping Button

And I'm really looking forward to see how much more off-topic this can go

yeah my bad forgot the year lol.

Racing etiquette requires participation on both sides. This, is what started it all. Whether or not Lewis should have given room, or shut the door, and whether or not Nico should have kept it where he was, or backed off.

IMO, you do not shut the door right in front of someone, racing line or not. There was a car beside him, and he must accept that, which ultimately he did not, and caused the incident himself. If Lewis were to keep right, it would have never of happened, and he could have ultimately stayed in the race. What is the point of racing if there is no competition, and no adverse scenarios. Someone else out there can do the job for less than 17 million..

Lewis gave enough room but was completely entitled to the corner before the contact as Rosberg withdrew, not to mention there was still more track Rosberg could of used without hitting Lewis.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I just love the serenity of unbiased perspective, usually coming from old timer viewers/lovers of the sport. Like Maurice Hamilton. And I always liked John Watson, the "Three Stooges" reference made me chuckle.

Decided to share. Enjoy:

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorsport/story/172919.html

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

Yesterday afternoon on the official Mercedes facebook page they asked their fans if they preferred open racing or team orders.

98% came back with supporting open racing.

They then asked what their opinions were on what they would do in Mercedes' shoes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just wondering, why does F1 get its own thread for every Grand Prix and not just a general thread like the other motorsports get?

Because the rage discussion spills out to maaaany pages often.

Told you

 

[niky]

The 24 months of LeMans ain't done yet...

-

It's all nice and fine to declare your drivers can race, but you have to lay down some ground rules sometime, and give out actual punishment for violations of those ground rules.

I can't, for example, imagine either driver would be entirely pleased with being benched for one race while a test driver does a grand prix in their stead...

 

[DQuaN]

Breaking news!

Nico is to be disciplined by Mercedes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28983758

More to follow...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I doubt it will be much more than what Red Bull did to Vettel for ignoring team orders in Malaysia. This whole episode reeks of Mercedes pandering to the whims of the public, rather than setting policy based on what is in the interests of the team - which I still believe is what motivated Rosberg in the first place.

 

[sems4arsenal]

He did apologize on Facebook just now.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Racing etiquette requires participation on both sides. This, is what started it all. Whether or not Lewis should have given room, or shut the door, and whether or not Nico should have kept it where he was, or backed off.

IMO, you do not shut the door right in front of someone, racing line or not. There was a car beside him, and he must accept that, which ultimately he did not, and caused the incident himself. If Lewis were to keep right, it would have never of happened, and he could have ultimately stayed in the race. What is the point of racing if there is no competition, and no adverse scenarios. Someone else out there can do the job for less than 17 million..

What is the point in racing if you can just brake late and force someone of the line? I don't believe you would be defending this move if it was Hamilton doing it...? Rosberg would be steaming if Hamilton did what he did and I could understand that. What Hamilton did in the past doesn't even matter, it's about this incident and Rosberg is the only one to blame.

 

[Famine]

In the days since the Belgian Grand Prix in Spa, I have spent a lot of time thinking about what happened during the race and discussing it with the team. I have already expressed my regret about the incident but, after meeting with Toto, Paddy and Lewis today, I wish to go a step further and describe it as an error of judgement on my part. The number one rule for us as team-mates is that we must not collide but that is exactly what happened. For that error of judgement, I apologise to Lewis and the team. I also want to say sorry to the fans who were deprived of our battle for the lead in Belgium. Lewis and I have been given clear instructions about how we race each other. As drivers, we have a clear responsibility to the team, the fans of the sport, our partners and Mercedes-Benz to deliver clean racing. We take that responsibility very seriously. I look forward to concluding the season with hard, fair competition on and off track right up to the final lap of the season in Abu Dhabi.

So. Racing incident or Hamilton's fault then?

 

[tribolik]

He probably wrote that at gun point...

 

[Swagger897]

What is the point in racing if you can just brake late and force someone of the line? I don't believe you would be defending this move if it was Hamilton doing it...? Rosberg would be steaming if Hamilton did what he did and I could understand that. What Hamilton did in the past doesn't even matter, it's about this incident and Rosberg is the only one to blame.

Ask the same question about Hamilton V. Maldonado..

But if the shoes were switched, it wouldn't bother me, as the tire may, or may not of gone down... Plus, he already was in the points lead...

 

[DQuaN]

So. Racing incident or Hamilton's fault then?

Obviously Hamilton's, haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Anghammarad]

Anyway, nice drive by Ricciardo.