It may have been understandable if at least one of them got a penalty, but the inconsistency makes it so much worse. Scotty got a penalty OK'd in R2, but for some reason, it was only then deemed illegal - once the officials had supervised it, and of course, after the 888 sore losers squad had gone off to have a word about it. The next day, Whincup spears a car into the wall on the last lap, taking another with him. Considering every time a car is tagged around, no matter how slight or accidental, a penalty is applied, that makes no sense - and it only points towards favoritism on the 888 camp from the stewards. I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's corrupt by now.
Overall, even if you still believe Mostert shouldn't have attempted to make the corner, which he was ahead for and had the correct line, you can't deny that Jamie was going for nothing more than a last-gasp blind luck dive. There is no way it could've worked for him, in any situation, unless he had at least a complete overlap on Chaz.
Nowhere have I said I want penalties at all costs. Nowhere. What I want is consistency, not penalty roulette. If they hand out a penalty for being in an incident full stop, let them do it that way. If they want a clearly defined list of what's legal and what isn't, and bother to investigate everything properly, then they should do it that way.So if you want a penalty handed down that badly then you should be encouraging a penalty to Mostert.
I'm sure everyone remembers this. This is how two highly skilled drivers can take turns 9,10 and 11 side by side and nobody ends up in the wall. Whincup seemed to be in exactly the same position as where he was last year
The only difference is Mostert cut Whincup where McLaughlin didn't. Mostert ended up in the wall and McLaughlin didn't...
In the Mostert incident Whincup was at the back of the front passenger door and with McLaughlin he was halfway up to the front passenger door. Are you trying to say that half a door length is the difference between an accident and side by side racing?
Well, the corner goes left and Whincup is about to run out of room. That's what common sense says.Well he's past the B pillar so he has every right to be there.
It is more the fault of the driver that can't see and assumes there is no car.So, is it the fault of the driver who can't see or the one that can see?
So, is it the fault of the driver who can't see or the one that can see?
Of course you can - but only if the other driver makes a mistake, has a problem, or decides early to let you through. None of which happened here, and so the attempted pass was a huge risk.You can pass at that corner, its been done numerous times. Dont know what you're on about?
Whincup wasn't far enough ahead for the pass to be a certainty. The burden of responsibility to execute the pass was on him.Mostert couldn't see only because he was missing his mirror which makes it an unfortunate circumstance and therefore a racing incident.
Of course you can - but only if the other driver makes a mistake, has a problem, or decides early to let you through. None of which happened here, and so the attempted pass was a huge risk.
Whincup wasn't far enough ahead for the pass to be a certainty. The burden of responsibility to execute the pass was on him.
Which would be an excellent point - if Whincup was entitled to the space. But a successful pass was by no means guaranteed at that time, and Mostert was entitled to the racing line. The same racing line that he was taking into the corner.It's then up to Mostert to give him the space he's entitled to
I covered precisely that in my post before.Well explain Whincup on McLaughlin the year before. There was no mistake or problem and most certainly did not let him pass.
..................................................................................................................................McLaughlin made it through because he was expecting a car on the inside of him, so he was far over to the right. That is a much greater deciding factor in the crash. If Chaz had've been far right, Whincup could've had a go by all means, but when you have a car taking its normal line, you have no right to jam your car where it won't go.
What I don't get is this viewpoint. Should every driver drive with enough space for a car to shoot straight past? If Mostert had moved over, he would be willingly giving up a spot he had every right to. It's not up to Mostert to do anything other than drive the racing line as he normally would. It's Whincup's job to not try and pass where he clearly won't. That's just not how racing works.Yes your right the pass was not a certainty (which we all clearly saw) but it takes two drivers for a clean overtake. Whincup was as far left as possible. It's then up to Mostert to give him the space he's entitled to
and Mostert was entitled to the racing line. The same racing line that he was taking into the corner.
What I don't get is this viewpoint. Should every driver drive with enough space for a car to shoot straight past? If Mostert had moved over, he would be willingly giving up a spot he had every right to. It's not up to Mostert to do anything other than drive the racing line as he normally would. It's Whincup's job to not try and pass where he clearly won't. That's just not how racing works.
Of course you can - but only if the other driver makes a mistake, has a problem, or decides early to let you through. None of which happened here, and so the attempted pass was a huge risk.
Whincup wasn't far enough ahead for the pass to be a certainty. The burden of responsibility to execute the pass was on him.
Except that Whincup would have to brake harder to make the corner, negating whatever ground he had gained. Getting a nose alongside the B-pillar doesn't entitle you to a pass. It's half a pass.Not if Whincup was along side Mostert's B-pillar like he was.
Except that Whincup would have to brake harder to make the corner, negating whatever ground he had gained. Getting a nose alongside the B-pillar doesn't entitle you to a pass. It's half a pass.