Youtube is blocked here at work, but go there and check out Mansell chopping Senna at Estoril 1991.
That was near criminal, but they just sucked it up back then.

I don't remember titles decided by drivers continuously pushing people off.
Of course moves like Jerez 1997 should be harsly punished, but not by grid penalties.

OK, I don't know how long you've been watching F1.

It used to be almost routine for the championship to be decided by the leading driver colliding with the challenger.

Prost and Senna did it to one another, MS did it to Hill and Villeneuve (unsuccessful).

It was ridiculous, made a mockery of the championship.

Me too.

That is not what Nico ask for, he want a clarification of what is allowed and what is not, so that no one have to be punished wrongly while basic safety is still maintained. There was a bit too many blockings at Interlagos, simply because overtaking opportunities appeared. If they appear again, the blocking will be even more brutal, considering everyone got away with it in Brazil. That in turn would lead to no overtaking at all before long. It is just not worth a front wing.

The thing is that some of the recent blocking has been made when the driver behind is too close to be able to do something. That shouldn't be allowed. Neither should it be allowed to force people to the grass or in the wall when you're side by side.

It is one thing to "block" one time when the other driver has somewhere to go and another thing to do it when they are too close and don't have anywhere to go. That shouldn't be allowed.

I also think this is VERY easy to solve if you really want to. Yes, this has been done in the past but now it seems it is getting more and my guess is that some drivers think well if Webber and Trulli can do it why can't we...

But what you don't remember is that DC had been told, before he employed the "chop" himself, that his complaints were just that and they would be ignored by the stewards. It seems pretty normal to me that he then decides to do on his opponents as they did on him. If the FIA says the chop is OK and you should shut up, then why wouldn't he have used it?

It is because the FIA ignored guys like Hill and Coulthard when they complained that things got to where they are now (and also because of the fallout of the Prost/Senna incidents). Nico is right in that Schumachers Spa move was barely even complained about - after all, Mika still won. He is also right that the driving in Brazil 2 weeks ago was way over the limit, but the stewards did nothing (except against Kovalainen who himself didn't really do anything wrong - no surprises there).

Kimi doesnt care and neither should you.I agree with Nico that there must be rules and they cant be different from race to race,because of amateur marshalls.

That's the biggest issue, you need a single authoritative referee to make decisions on these issues. We need a single in race steward with an assistant with an editing system to give quick access to all the replays.

All the decisions for this type of incident are slow, inconsistent and often incomprehensible. There would be mistakes but I'd rather have that mistake stand without any questions over the incident because it was down to the judgment of the referee then the current dithering and vagaries we have in place now.

Why does it take 10 laps to tell us they are investigating? There are barely any overtaking moves in F1 these days, a small team headed by a referee could look at them quickly with ease with modern video technology. The teams could have a system where they could see which moves were currently under review and could flag up any that they felt the ref had missed. It might need a small team of assistants but it'd be worth it to have quick final decisions.

That's not a terribly big deal compared to what I see these days.

There is a point however before the cars overlap in which the speed differental between the two cars means that that the driver behind will not have a chance to react if you move onto his line. I believe that's the case in the Kimi/Webber incident. Whose fault that makes it when the accident occcurs, I don't know.

That's what I meant, but it it was still potentially dangerous. I never liked Senna because of his questionable race ethics, but I don't think he would have done what Webber did. Racing, or sport in general, is getting more and more cynical. Read today about a trainer for a (female) handball team that rushed out on the court and tackled an opponent that was free with the goalie. He got a red card and was proud of what he had done "I knew I risked a red card, but I saved my team from losing". Totally unrelated to F1, but somehow an example of a "win at all cost" attitude that is becoming more and more accepted.

With the risk of being called fanboy I would say it is totally and all Webber's fault. And it wasn't the first time he did a stupid move either. He is a disaster waiting to happen.

Sorry, my comment was more directed at Conosur.

Semmantics/grammar, I meant more than one collision during a season, not collisions thorugh different seasons.

Sure, but Kimi had no choice - he even took to the grass in trying to avert it!


Such a long way that he didn't have any alternative......

Hitting Webber as a direct logical result of being "a long way from being alongside" sounds a bit like 'creative reasoning'

That guy and two three others have been trolling in the designated accident thread as well. They just want to provoke and is best ignored.

Any opinion that doesn't align with yours is "trolling"?

Good grief!

I've read your posts and whilst you are entitled to your opinions, don't assume others won't view them as anything other than infantile, illogical and ignorant of the realities of motor-racing.

I thought your "golden rule of 3 seconds" sermon was particularly amusing...

Thanks for all the laughs...

Kimi had a choice - he could've gone to the right of Webber. As has been mentioned by others on this BB, seeing as Mark was always going left (his one move) he could've cut back to the right and had Webber on toast - Mark wouldn't have been able to cover him by going to the right as this would've constituted a second move and would've been penalised. As it was Kimi didn't do that and instead he committed himself to going left, Webber was commited left - and with Kimi's KERS speed it ended in tears...

As for my saying 'he was a long way from being alongside' - well people are banging on like Kimi was beside Webber when Webber moved left which isn't true at all. It was a hard defensive move but legal - when you have the speed differences between KERS and non-KERS cars there is bound to be some tears occassionaly, but that's racing...




Offering a different view is 'wanting to provoke'? And I have a different opinion to you so must I be a troll...

Oh well, seeing as my point of view on the Webber/Kimi incident is the same as such lowlifes as Martin Brundle and Anthony Davidson - I'm comfortable with the label...

It is called "putting things into perspective". A very common method when you are trying to explain something for very stupid people.

The mere fact that you thought your "explanation" would somehow contribute to the debate or enhance the knowledge of others, shows just how far out of your depth you really are...

Keep the comedic work going though. It's entertaining...

Any news of what came out of the drivers meeting regarding this issue?