Jump to content


Photo

Hamilton & Hulkenberg Brazil 2012 Incident [split]


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#101 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,604 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:49

Just one of those things. Mistakes like that happen in the wet. The penalty was probably consistent with other comparable incidents in the past couple of years.

Advertisement

#102 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,618 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:51

Except that's never been the rule.

Funny because Hulkenberg was penalized while others who spin without collecting another did not. So yeah, you are right, that's never been the rule. I wonder why Schumi was penalized when he hit the back of Vergne, he was not aggressive, just made a mistake during braking.

Edited by alg7_munif, 26 November 2012 - 12:55.


#103 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:54

Every collision is avoidable.

I do get what you're saying, it was 100% Hulk's fault but why should he be penalized? I saw other drivers doing half-spins and going out of the track and all sorts of minor mistakes, usual in the rain. They were just lucky they didn't touch other cars. Now every time you lose your car you get a penalty if you touch another car?

F*ck this everything-must-be-a-penalty bullshit attitude. You guys sound like card-happy Spanish football referees.

You crash somebody out of the race then you get penalised that seems quite obvious to me

#104 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:13

Funny because Hulkenberg was penalized while others who spin without collecting another did not. So yeah, you are right, that's never been the rule. I wonder why Schumi was penalized when he hit the back of Vergne, he was not aggressive, just made a mistake during braking.

Hamilton himself got penalised for spin turning in front of Di Resta causing him to drive off the track, there was no contact

#105 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:28

If spinning is reckless then penalize everyone who spins.


That implies outcome is irrelevant. If you lose control of your road car on the way to the supermarket and nothing happens should that be punished to the same extent as losing control of your car and killing someone?

Obviously Hulkenberg didn't mean to crash into Hamilton but the outcome of his error was the race leader retiring. Calling a drive through penalty "ridiculously harsh," as some are doing, for destroying someone elses race is silly hyperbole, particularly given the precedent the FIA has set over the last few years.

It also wasn't a racing incident: I consider a racing incident a situation where the two drivers involved both decide to cut it fine, to take a risk. If Schumacher and Raikkonen had made contact yesterday that would have been a perfect example. Hamilton made no attempt to engage Hulkenberg whatsoever, and knew the corner was lost. It wasn't like in Valencia where he definitely did engage Maldonado; he gave Hulkenberg a wide berth and still got harpooned.

#106 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:37

Every collision is avoidable.

I do get what you're saying, it was 100% Hulk's fault but why should he be penalized? I saw other drivers doing half-spins and going out of the track and all sorts of minor mistakes, usual in the rain. They were just lucky they didn't touch other cars. Now every time you lose your car you get a penalty if you touch another car?

F*ck this everything-must-be-a-penalty bullshit attitude. You guys sound like card-happy Spanish football referees.


What on earth? Well of course it depends on the consequences to some degree, just like how if you cut the track but don't gain a place it's not as severe, if you spin but don't touch anyone then you have only hurt yourself. Hulk tried a passing maneuver down the inside on the wet line, lost control of his car, and took out the race-leader or P2 man, technically Hulk was ahead at that point but that's a moot point really. Why wouldn't that be a penalty? Hamilton was taken out through no fault of his own from a valuable position due to a driving error of another car.

#107 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:39

Except that's never been the rule.


Well causing an avoidable collision is the rule, which he did. So that's the case closed, he broke the rule. Happy now?

Of course, every collision is avoidable, which is then when they look at the degree of blame of the two drivers. If both took an equal or almost-equal risk, it's seen as a racing incident as they both significantly contributed to the avoidable collision. If only one of the drivers significantly contributed to causing an avoidable collision, then he gets penalised. Hamilton did not significantly contribute to the collision.

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 13:40.


#108 Der Pate

Der Pate
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:39

It seems that some people would like to have every overtaking attempt penalized and only allowed in DRS-Zones...maybe some of you forgot (or never knew) Gilles and Rene...

#109 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:41

It seems that some people would like to have every overtaking attempt penalized and only allowed in DRS-Zones...maybe some of you forgot (or never knew) Gilles and Rene...

I don't remember the two of them crashing each other out of the race?

#110 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:45

It seems that some people would like to have every overtaking attempt penalized and only allowed in DRS-Zones...maybe some of you forgot (or never knew) Gilles and Rene...


Yes guys, that's right, because a driver lost control of his car when overtaking for the lead and took out the faultless leader, whilst continuing himself, was penalised, we want to see NO OVERTAKING! That's a perfectly logical thing to take from this incident!
Put it this way- whenever the top guys have had a battle this year, it's been exceptionally clean racing. Yet often when there is a less experienced person in the mix, it's ended in a collision and a possible DNF for either or both.

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 13:46.


#111 Der Pate

Der Pate
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:47

I don't remember the two of them crashing each other out of the race?


If drivers nowadays would fight like these two drivers at Dijon 1979, they would be penalized for the rest of the season...sad how modern F1 changed...

#112 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:49

It seems that some people would like to have every overtaking attempt penalized and only allowed in DRS-Zones...maybe some of you forgot (or never knew) Gilles and Rene...


That battle probably would have been a bit less impressive if one of them actually crashed into the other. The reason that duel is revered is because it is two men on the edge putting complete trust in the other and that trust not being misplaced.

#113 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:50

Hamilton also could have moved away a bit.

#114 f1fastestlap

f1fastestlap
  • Member

  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:51

Hamilton also could have moved away a bit.

:lol:

#115 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:52

Hamilton also could have moved away a bit.

No he couldn't.

#116 Der Pate

Der Pate
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:52

Put it this way- whenever the top guys have had a battle this year, it's been exceptionally clean racing. Yet often when there is a less experienced person in the mix, it's ended in a collision and a possible DNF for either or both.


I wouldn´t call Hulkenberg less experienced...he drove a great race in difficult conditions...he was side by side with Hamilton at the start-finish-straight and at the beginning of the corner...if racing-drivers stop going for the corner, they stop being racing-drivers...


#117 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:52

Hamilton also could have moved away a bit.


Why on earth would he leave the dry line when he's already given plenty of room presuming the other driver doesn't spin out? So what you're saying is drivers should always leave enough room for the other driver to not only pass, but also to cleanly spin out too?

#118 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,245 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:55

Hamilton should have went on straight and use the old layout of the track

#119 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:55

I wouldn´t call Hulkenberg less experienced...he drove a great race in difficult conditions...he was side by side with Hamilton at the start-finish-straight and at the beginning of the corner...if racing-drivers stop going for the corner, they stop being racing-drivers...


It's not an insult, he's a fantastic driver, but he simply is less experienced than the others by virtue of his shorter time in F1 and his time spent battling at the front of the pack. All I mean is that Hamilton and Button gave a perfect example of how two drivers can fight without contact, same with Vettel and Alonso earlier in the season, Massa during the race also showed incredible racecraft. But when you get Maldonado vs Hamilton in Valencia, he leaves the track and harpoons Ham. Hulkenberg spins out and takes out a car. Grosjean has multiple incidents throughout the season. Kobayashi has hit a few cars..
All I mean is that sometimes you can tell why the front guys are at the front. Still, Hulkenberg is definitely a future star.

EDIT: I will admit Hamilton vs Massa in 2011 undermines my argument a little. Still, with them it's personal >:).

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 13:59.


Advertisement

#120 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,099 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 November 2012 - 13:56

I have no problems with the tort system of penalties, where you always penalize the driver for damage done to other drivers due to their negligence, regardless of intention, as long as that policy is made clear. When you know you will get a penalty even for an honest mistake, you will be a little more careful with other drivers' races. I do have to admit that in the back of my mind, I couldn't help but think that moving Hulkenberg from being in front of both Alonso and Vettel, to being between them, helped Alonso out immensely.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 26 November 2012 - 13:57.


#121 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,806 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:01

Funny because Hulkenberg was penalized while others who spin without collecting another did not. So yeah, you are right, that's never been the rule. I wonder why Schumi was penalized when he hit the back of Vergne, he was not aggressive, just made a mistake during braking.


Cheers for the sarcasm.

Schumi braked far too late, whereas Hulk lost the rear midcorner in the wet. Different circumstances, I consider Schumi's move to be a lot more reckless. I would, reluctantly, agree with his penalty.

You crash somebody out of the race then you get penalised that seems quite obvious to me


Not always been the case in the past, and certainly not the further back you go in time. Kimi/Sutil, Monaco 2008. We even had the other extreme with drivers punting out others on purpose and not being given anything at all not even a reprimand - Senna/Prost, Suzuka 1990. But that was a extreme example and certainly not fair at all.

I'm sure there's hundreds of other examples but I'm struggling to remember particular instances. Pretty certain it's only been in recent years they've started to penalize this, before they'd only do it in extremely reckless circumstances (wasn't there something about Irvine taking out a series of cars in Interlagos and nearly killing someone?).

That implies outcome is irrelevant. If you lose control of your road car on the way to the supermarket and nothing happens should that be punished to the same extent as losing control of your car and killing someone?

Obviously Hulkenberg didn't mean to crash into Hamilton but the outcome of his error was the race leader retiring. Calling a drive through penalty "ridiculously harsh," as some are doing, for destroying someone elses race is silly hyperbole, particularly given the precedent the FIA has set over the last few years.

It also wasn't a racing incident: I consider a racing incident a situation where the two drivers involved both decide to cut it fine, to take a risk. If Schumacher and Raikkonen had made contact yesterday that would have been a perfect example. Hamilton made no attempt to engage Hulkenberg whatsoever, and knew the corner was lost. It wasn't like in Valencia where he definitely did engage Maldonado; he gave Hulkenberg a wide berth and still got harpooned.


What on earth? Well of course it depends on the consequences to some degree, just like how if you cut the track but don't gain a place it's not as severe, if you spin but don't touch anyone then you have only hurt yourself. Hulk tried a passing maneuver down the inside on the wet line, lost control of his car, and took out the race-leader or P2 man, technically Hulk was ahead at that point but that's a moot point really. Why wouldn't that be a penalty? Hamilton was taken out through no fault of his own from a valuable position due to a driving error of another car.


Outcome isn't irrelevant but certainly intent is the most important thing?

If you murder someone you're very screwed with the law. If you accidentally murder someone by being reckless you'll get less time in jail but still be screwed. If you murder someone completely by accident you might get away with it.

Same in football, a two footed tackle from behind will get you a red card even if you miss the player. Now you might get away with it if you injure someone by accident (though it's hard to imagine such scenario).

Well causing an avoidable collision is the rule, which he did. So that's the case closed, he broke the rule. Happy now?

Of course, every collision is avoidable, which is then when they look at the degree of blame of the two drivers. If both took an equal or almost-equal risk, it's seen as a racing incident as they both significantly contributed to the avoidable collision. If only one of the drivers significantly contributed to causing an avoidable collision, then he gets penalised. Hamilton did not significantly contribute to the collision.


It's a deliberately very vague wording that allows for any interpretation - inherently all collisions are avoidable. It's not just about if blame relies on driver A, driver B, or a bit of both. If all blame relies on driver A but he didn't do anything awfully wrong or dangerous, he used to be able to get away with it.

Otherwise it's a mindset that all collisions should be inherently penalized unless both drivers are at fault. I don't agree with that and they didn't use to apply the rules that way.

#122 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,845 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:02

Yes guys, that's right, because a driver lost control of his car when overtaking for the lead and took out the faultless leader...



I know its not the point that you're making, but since some people have mentioned it...
Frankly I dont think it should matter where in the field an incident occurs. Whether it is 2nd place taking out 1st place, or that 19th place taking out 18th place, the investigation and penalties should be done exactly the same way.

Not always in practise, but in society it is meant to be the same way. Whether I stab a homeless bum, the pope, the queen, or an ordinary citizen, the penatly should be the same. Not "more important people" creating larger penatlies for that crime. (Or "lets not bother investigating this crime, because that victim is not important")



#123 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:03

If drivers nowadays would fight like these two drivers at Dijon 1979, they would be penalized for the rest of the season...sad how modern F1 changed...

Just watched it again, that was incredible racing side by side occasional rubbing, no weaving down the straights, shame some of todays drivers can't race like that without crashing each other out

#124 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:04

No he couldn't.

Yes, he could.

StefanArk:

Why on earth would he leave the dry line when he's already given plenty of room presuming the other driver doesn't spin out? So what you're saying is drivers should always leave enough room for the other driver to not only pass, but also to cleanly spin out too?

He does not have to. He could have been a bit more thoughtful. Under normal circumstances, the space he left would have saved him. But this is wet race, the inside line is wet. There was lot of space on the outside. He could have reacted with bit more caution. But he was intent on a tight fight. That was not wrong. But things could go wrong in tricky conditions such as this.

As for my general opinion on this incident, so that some don't think I am blaming Hamilton for the incident. I have already mentioned it after the race, and I assume they would have been split to this thread. J

#125 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:05

Hamilton also could have moved away a bit.

Well he could have driven off the track i suppose

#126 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:08

Cheers for the sarcasm.

Schumi braked far too late, whereas Hulk lost the rear midcorner in the wet. Different circumstances, I consider Schumi's move to be a lot more reckless. I would, reluctantly, agree with his penalty.



Not always been the case in the past, and certainly not the further back you go in time. Kimi/Sutil, Monaco 2008. We even had the other extreme with drivers punting out others on purpose and not being given anything at all not even a reprimand - Senna/Prost, Suzuka 1990. But that was a extreme example and certainly not fair at all.

I'm sure there's hundreds of other examples but I'm struggling to remember particular instances. Pretty certain it's only been in recent years they've started to penalize this, before they'd only do it in extremely reckless circumstances (wasn't there something about Irvine taking out a series of cars in Interlagos and nearly killing someone?).





Outcome isn't irrelevant but certainly intent is the most important thing?

If you murder someone you're very screwed with the law. If you accidentally murder someone by being reckless you'll get less time in jail but still be screwed. If you murder someone completely by accident you might get away with it.

Same in football, a two footed tackle from behind will get you a red card even if you miss the player. Now you might get away with it if you injure someone by accident (though it's hard to imagine such scenario).


No, the rules don't mention intent at all with regard to this provision. Of course, if it is found to be intentional, you'll most likely be disqualified from the race or the entire season. The rule is whether or not you cause an avoidable collision.

It's a deliberately very vague wording that allows for any interpretation - inherently all collisions are avoidable. It's not just about if blame relies on driver A, driver B, or a bit of both. If all blame relies on driver A but he didn't do anything awfully wrong or dangerous, he used to be able to get away with it.

Otherwise it's a mindset that all collisions should be inherently penalized unless both drivers are at fault. I don't agree with that and they didn't use to apply the rules that way.


I already mentioned that. Well firstly, not all collisions are avoidable unless you take an existential view of it- for example if you are driving down the start finish straight and a car ahead crashes causing a huge cloud of smoke and your visibility is reduced to zero. You slow to a crawl but out of the smoke a car careers towards you and you go into it; in terms of the rules, this would be unavoidable. Of course, existentially it would have been avoided if the person had not crashed in the first place, or if you had not woke up that morning, but the F1 governing body aren't philosophers, they're writing practical rules.

Secondly, the wording isn't vague at all. If a driver causes an avoidable collision, it's against the rules, and it's then up to the stewards to decide what level of penalisation could be applied. It ranges from nothing to DSQ, and this is a much better way of doing it. If the rules were termed in another way, the stewards hands would be tied in being unable to penalise certain cases. As it is, they are capable of penalising virtually any case of contact but may use their discretion to the degree of penalty.
The mindset is currently that if a driver is at fault for destroying the race of another driver, and the other driver is faultless, that the driver is penalised. I don't disagree with this, you obviously do. If they had simply nudged each other relatively hard but Hulk had made the pass and continued, there may have been an investigation (as, again, it's against the wording of the rules) but no penalty may be applied.

#127 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:10

Yes, he could.

StefanArk:
He does not have to. He could have been a bit more thoughtful. Under normal circumstances, the space he left would have saved him. But this is wet race, the inside line is wet. There was lot of space on the outside. He could have reacted with bit more caution. But he was intent on a tight fight. That was not wrong. But things could go wrong in tricky conditions such as this.

As for my general opinion on this incident, so that some don't think I am blaming Hamilton for the incident. I have already mentioned it after the race, and I assume they would have been split to this thread. J


There is a lot of space on the WET line outside, yeah. You think he wants to go for a spin himself like Hulkenberg did?
Besides, the backmarker was confusing the issue: http://i48.tinypic.com/21nqo8n.jpg

If he went to the outside he'd be attempting an outside pass on the Caterham on the wet line! And what's the say the Caterham mightn't have lost control and taken Hamilton out anyway, then he'd be criticised for that too! At the end of the day, you can't race in a way that presumes the other car is going to spin out all the time. That's the following driver's responsibility, and he broke it, and he was therefore penalised and lost a lot of points for the team.

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 14:13.


#128 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 2,518 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:11

Hulkenberg made a little mistake. Understandable. Hamilton did nothing wrong. I agree with the penalty. You have to be careful when overtaking, especially in those types of conditions.

#129 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:34

There is a lot of space on the WET line outside, yeah. You think he wants to go for a spin himself like Hulkenberg did?
Besides, the backmarker was confusing the issue: http://i48.tinypic.com/21nqo8n.jpg

If he went to the outside he'd be attempting an outside pass on the Caterham on the wet line! And what's the say the Caterham mightn't have lost control and taken Hamilton out anyway, then he'd be criticised for that too! At the end of the day, you can't race in a way that presumes the other car is going to spin out all the time. That's the following driver's responsibility, and he broke it, and he was therefore penalised and lost a lot of points for the team.

Later in the frame, I think Hamilton had time to move out a bit. By then, the hard braking was completed, and he could have seen how unstable Hulkenberg was getting. This is not the first time this season. Even in Valencia, against Maldonado, he need not have fought hard with Maldonado keeping it so tight, even though that was also clearly Maldonado's mistake. He can easily argue in both cases, it was not his mistake, and he would win the cases hands down. But he lost 37 points.

#130 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:43

Outcome isn't irrelevant but certainly intent is the most important thing?

If you murder someone you're very screwed with the law. If you accidentally murder someone by being reckless you'll get less time in jail but still be screwed. If you murder someone completely by accident you might get away with it.

Same in football, a two footed tackle from behind will get you a red card even if you miss the player. Now you might get away with it if you injure someone by accident (though it's hard to imagine such scenario).


And if you murder someone who actually turns out to be a blow up doll you are guaranteed to get away with it, because it isn't murder (in F1 terms, not affecting another driver's race with your mistake). There are certainly different levels of transgression, and of course drivers who go into an on track battle with actual "intent" to affect their rival in a damaging way should be given the maximum penalty (I don't mean death by the way). At the other end, a driver who takes a rival out of the race due to a slight misjudgement rather than any ill intent should only get a small penalty, in this case a drive through. Compared to the penalty inflicted on Hamilton, an innocent party, a drive through seems rather trivial.

Outcome should still be the deciding factor in my opinion (particularly because there is almost never the intention to make contact with another car). If Hamilton had been able to continue unscathed and Hulkenberg had to pit for a new front wing, say, then a penalty would have been unnecessary.

#131 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 26 November 2012 - 14:46

I agree with Bob Fernley's opinion on the safety car decision.



#132 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 15:17

Hulkenberg made a little mistake. Understandable. Hamilton did nothing wrong. I agree with the penalty. You have to be careful when overtaking, especially in those types of conditions.

I agree. Being on the edge brings a lot of unpredictability and Hamilton got thrown out of the race.

But I don't see comments on that lapped car (Petrov?) being far from cooperative there, when at the start a driver like Raikkonen chose to go out of the track in order to not influence the title battle. Here we speak about the battle for the lead and it is not less important.

#133 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 15:25

Hulkenberg lost it during wheel to wheel action. I don´t think this should be penalised but understand why they would do it after the precedents this season, like Maldonado losing it racing Perez in Silverstone.

#134 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 15:45

Later in the frame, I think Hamilton had time to move out a bit. By then, the hard braking was completed, and he could have seen how unstable Hulkenberg was getting. This is not the first time this season. Even in Valencia, against Maldonado, he need not have fought hard with Maldonado keeping it so tight, even though that was also clearly Maldonado's mistake. He can easily argue in both cases, it was not his mistake, and he would win the cases hands down. But he lost 37 points.


Anylses like this aren't really how it goes down though, it's not like he had time to see Hulkenberg 'getting unstable'. One second he was totally stable, the next split-second he was spinning into Hamilton. He would have had to already made the decision based on the possibility of Hulkenberg spinning, and no-one drives like that. Hamilton didn't contest the overtake, and he was taken out. I don't see what any other driver would have done differently. Who else would seriously go off the dry line on the outside of a backmarker, onto the ice-slippy wet line, losing tyre temp and grip, even though they are already leaving space? Additionally the Caterham added into the confusion. I really don't see any of the other top drivers doing anything different whatsoever.
I don't believe any driver in F1 would leave any more space than is necessary. Hamilton did indeed lose points, but if he asks himself about the incident there's nothing he would do differently. Hulkenberg lost points, and if he asks himself, he would do it very differently.

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 15:47.


#135 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:01

He did, check out lewis's 'official' post race comments

Oh OK, after he'd cooled down. Fair play.

#136 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:10

I agree with Bob Fernley's opinion on the safety car decision.

Rosberg got a puncture on the debris, i believe this is what brought the SC out and was necessary, Bob Fernley is bound to be biased in this

#137 John B

John B
  • Member

  • 6,328 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:12

The Hulkenburg penalty is just another in the lack of common sense that has plagued many auto racing series in recent years. This wassimply an instance of racing for a hard-fought win in traffic on a wet track. I find it hard to imagine these ex-drivers who are part of the incident reviewers feel good about assessing penalties for these situations, unless the motivation was to add some late-race drama for the title fight.

On the other extreme in NASCAR one can drive slowly around to set up a big intentional wreck that involves other innocent drivers and affects the outcome of the race and championship, or launch someone into a flip at the series fastest track and get a wrist slap (and win the next week like Gordon recently). Where's the middle ground?


Edited by John B, 26 November 2012 - 16:15.


#138 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:18

The Hulkenburg penalty is just another in the lack of common sense that has plagued many auto racing series in recent years. This wassimply an instance of racing for a hard-fought win in traffic on a wet track. I find it hard to imagine these ex-drivers who are part of the incident reviewers feel good about assessing penalties for these situations, unless the motivation was to add some late-race drama for the title fight.

On the other extreme in NASCAR one can drive slowly around to set up a big intentional wreck that involves other innocent drivers and affects the outcome of the race and championship, or launch someone into a flip at the series fastest track and get a wrist slap (and win the next week like Gordon recently). Where's the middle ground?

I don't think F1 will be looking to take lessons from NASCAR

#139 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,597 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:31

Rosberg got a puncture on the debris, i believe this is what brought the SC out and was necessary, Bob Fernley is bound to be biased in this


I believe hamilton got a puncture from a big pile of debris earlier in the year, yet there was no SC. SC's are generally reserved for cars in dangerous positions, debris is removed under yellow flags.

Advertisement

#140 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 November 2012 - 16:59

Anylses like this aren't really how it goes down though, it's not like he had time to see Hulkenberg 'getting unstable'. One second he was totally stable, the next split-second he was spinning into Hamilton. He would have had to already made the decision based on the possibility of Hulkenberg spinning, and no-one drives like that. Hamilton didn't contest the overtake, and he was taken out. I don't see what any other driver would have done differently. Who else would seriously go off the dry line on the outside of a backmarker, onto the ice-slippy wet line, losing tyre temp and grip, even though they are already leaving space? Additionally the Caterham added into the confusion. I really don't see any of the other top drivers doing anything different whatsoever.
I don't believe any driver in F1 would leave any more space than is necessary. Hamilton did indeed lose points, but if he asks himself about the incident there's nothing he would do differently. Hulkenberg lost points, and if he asks himself, he would do it very differently.

He had ample time to react. If Hulkenberg hadn't stayed on the inside, Hamiton might have just carried on whatever he did. But the moment Hulkenberg dived inside and stayed there, Hamilton need not have played tight. That's the sort of thing you do during close fight. Even though you may have space in other place, you still place the car tight to make it as difficult as possible for another car. After all, that is the right thing to do, and you should put up a fight, but that is under normal circumstances. Yesterday's conditions were not normal.

#141 BigBadBless

BigBadBless
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 17:09

He had ample time to react. If Hulkenberg hadn't stayed on the inside, Hamiton might have just carried on whatever he did. But the moment Hulkenberg dived inside and stayed there, Hamilton need not have played tight. That's the sort of thing you do during close fight. Even though you may have space in other place, you still place the car tight to make it as difficult as possible for another car. After all, that is the right thing to do, and you should put up a fight, but that is under normal circumstances. Yesterday's conditions were not normal.


So you seriously believe any other driver in Mclaren, Redbull or Ferrari would have gone onto the outside wet line of that corner, with the Caterham where it was? Give me a break pal. I guess we'll agree to disagree, personally you might as well be telling me that the moon is made of cheese, what you're saying is pretty unreasonable in my view.
I mean, watching the replay from the reverse angle (https://www.youtube....MjVEbQprk#t=50s) you notice that any wider and he'd have been totally off-line for the next of the Senna S's, you have to remember Hamilton of course intends to get the place back in the DRS zone. If he went even half a cars width more, he'd be sandwiched between the edge of the track and the Caterham (the Caterham would be wanting to turn right, into Hamilton, at some point as well), off-line for the next corner, on the wet track, while trying to re-pass, all this and he had already left enough space!
I really struggle to understand how you can think that any F1 driver would really do that.

Edited by StefanArak, 26 November 2012 - 17:13.


#142 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 17:14

I believe hamilton got a puncture from a big pile of debris earlier in the year, yet there was no SC. SC's are generally reserved for cars in dangerous positions, debris is removed under yellow flags.

I think in this case though there was debris on several parts of the track

#143 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 17:18

He had ample time to react. If Hulkenberg hadn't stayed on the inside, Hamiton might have just carried on whatever he did. But the moment Hulkenberg dived inside and stayed there, Hamilton need not have played tight. That's the sort of thing you do during close fight. Even though you may have space in other place, you still place the car tight to make it as difficult as possible for another car. After all, that is the right thing to do, and you should put up a fight, but that is under normal circumstances. Yesterday's conditions were not normal.

But Hamilton stayed out wide and gave Hulkenburg room

#144 andrewf1

andrewf1
  • Member

  • 589 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 19:15

Outcome isn't irrelevant but certainly intent is the most important thing?


When there is clear evidence that it wasn't intentional - i.e. almost all racing incidents, then outcome becomes the most important thing.
Severity of the outcome is an essential part of the offence, always has been. It builds the whole basis behind culpable negligence.

Edited by andrewf1, 26 November 2012 - 19:16.


#145 ElDictatore

ElDictatore
  • Member

  • 918 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 21:57

Well I understand that someone wants a penalty for that, although i wouldn't have given one, because I don't have that "punish-everything" thing. It was Nicos mistake but, It's a wet race! Something like that can happen. Also the parking Lotus who just cannot know what's going on played a part there too. I would even go as far as to say that without Heikki there, Nico wouldn't have spun. It's really just that many factors came together and therefore bad luck. That's it. To demand that Nico shouldn't try that move is preposterous. I don't understand why people are so grumpy about that. I'm a McLaren fan and actually wanted Alonso to win the championship, but dayum. The real winner yesterday was clearly Formula 1 as a whole! Even if you didn't win yesterday, it was fun to watch as ever and we should be thankful to be a able to be a part of it. So it's actually sad to see some disputes like that and even worse that Senna's Facebook page was full of insults from Vettel "fans". The german RTL commentator even gave him the award of the "idiot of the year". Come on guys, take a break, see the whole picture and try to appreciate it! At the end of the day, we watch Formula 1 because of more or less the same reason.

Edited by ElDictatore, 26 November 2012 - 21:57.


#146 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 3,404 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 November 2012 - 22:26

it was just a race incident, Nico didn't do it on purpose, he just lost control and punishing it with a drive-through was way too harsh, especially since Hülkenberg was already punished by that ridiculous pace car, Hamilton normally wouldn't have been running even remotely near Hülkenberg without that pacecar (he was running +-45 sec. behind Button & Hülkenberg). It's obvious that they just penalised Nico to get Alonso on the podium so that the championship fight would be more exciting.

#147 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,784 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 November 2012 - 22:30

F1 does punish mistakes if you hit another driver. Schumacher with Koba last year (it was also wet) and with Senna (who wasn't 100% innocent) and Vergne (innocent) prove just that.
Yes, Kimi vs Sutil would have also been a penalty in 2012. That's just how the stewards award them. I don't like it but it's consistent

#148 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 3,404 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 November 2012 - 22:35

F1 does punish mistakes if you hit another driver.


Only in recent years, it didn't used to be like that. But I guess you weren't watching F1 in the '80s or '90s. I think it's wrong to always look for a guilty person, accidents can happen, you don't crash on purpose in to someone (at least most don't, Prost, Senna & Schumacher have done it though), I think it's sad that someone has to be punished when it is clearly unintentional, imho only the worst accidents / mistakes or most blatant ones should be punished. And I'm talking in general now, not just about this incident.

Edited by William Hunt, 26 November 2012 - 22:38.


#149 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,618 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:01

I believe hamilton got a puncture from a big pile of debris earlier in the year, yet there was no SC. SC's are generally reserved for cars in dangerous positions, debris is removed under yellow flags.

You rather put the life of the marshalls at risk than call out the safety car? :down:

#150 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:19

Only in recent years, it didn't used to be like that. But I guess you weren't watching F1 in the '80s or '90s. I think it's wrong to always look for a guilty person, accidents can happen, you don't crash on purpose in to someone (at least most don't, Prost, Senna & Schumacher have done it though), I think it's sad that someone has to be punished when it is clearly unintentional, imho only the worst accidents / mistakes or most blatant ones should be punished. And I'm talking in general now, not just about this incident.

When Grosjean took out a boat load of cars at Spa it was unintentional, do you really think he meant that?