70 replies to this topic

[pingu666]

theres very few places in f1 where u cant go 2 wide, sure itll kill the speed, but you have to drive with that in mind.
offhand id say singapour sling, antony nodes at monoca, and maybe lowes hairpin, depending on cars

[Skinnyguy]

The fact that rule was actually written on the rulebook, and in a precise way, was a bless. Especially about the bit where you can´t fully slot back to line if the other guys has just been totally cleared, he deserves to be able to brake as late as he wants without even thinking that the guy ahead MIGHT pull back into line and cause an accident.

Drivers had been respecting each other and doing this 90% of times for a long long time, but there was no way to punish those still doing it when it was clearly not an accepted piece of racing. This "rule" helps drivers to be fully aware what they should do and it gives stewards the tools to enforce the right moves.

[Skinnyguy]

Yeah, you have to wonder how there wasn't carnage at every corner before those rules. Bless the FIA for saving the drivers from racing, cause that could be dangerous!

Only reason why they didn´t crash all the time was that the drivers behind knew the guys in front could play this cheap trick and acted accordingly.

And let´s not forget that this change isn´t that much of an FIA thing. Drivers stopped playing this trick more and more with time, and with time they started actively complaining about it. FIA only reacted to that change in the racing ettiquete, they didn´t write a rule from thin air. And if anything, what this rule has done is to FORCE the drivers to race, not to save them from doing so.

[as65p]

Only reason why they didn´t crash all the time was that the drivers behind knew the guys in front could play this cheap trick and acted accordingly.

Yeah, bless them drivers knowing how to attack, defend, anticipate, make rapid decisions... IOW: race. You just explained how racing survived as hundreth years without that rule, thanks for that!

And let´s not forget that this change isn´t that much of an FIA thing. Drivers stopped playing this trick more and more with time, and with time they started actively complaining about it. FIA only reacted to that change in the racing ettiquete, they didn´t write a rule from thin air.

If it were a genuine change in racing etiquette, there would be no need for any rules. In reality, racing etiquette is defined by the chances of doing things without getting penalized or hurt, as far as the drivers are concerned. And they'll change their opinion of what's fair or not every forthnight, depending on being on the receiving or the giving end of any manoeuvers.

[JaredS]

Reprimand, eh? You know they are as good as a pad on the back, as far as the consequences go?

Besides, nobody was "moving around" here. Alonsos was a constant trajectory in one direction which started way before the braking zone. I know it's a grippy phrase to damn someone, only problem is it doesn't fit the siuation at all.



Another , though that probably deserves more. Priceless terminologie you invented there. So Hamilton really tried to make way for Petrov, but stupid russian didn't get it?

Just because the move is a constant trajectory doesn't mean it's not a move. It doesn't have to be a wild swing of the steering wheel to make it a move. Of course the move was completed into the braking zone.

http://tinypic.com/v...?pic=qpgfu9&s=5

It was enough to take off the front wing endplate whilst Hamilton was already at the very edge of the track. Tosh that it takes "skill" to block a driver like that. Timing etc. all tosh. It depends entirely on the driver behind trying to avoid.

Re. weaving to break tow against Petrov, actually I think Hamilton should have gotten penalised for it, though my original point was that if moving more than once to break tow can be worthy of reprimand then surely moving more than once to block should as well be, at the very least.

And of course Hamilton wasn't moving to make way for Petrov, that's your poor interpretation yet again. Being "in the way" of Petrov was clearly assisting Petrov's tow, so the moving was obviously not for Petrov's benefit. Strange to interpret it any other way and honestly there's no need either to overreact calling Petrov a stupid Russian etc. That's just poor I know it's hard for some to forgive him for costing Alonso the title at the last race of 2010.

[as65p]

Just because the move is a constant trajectory doesn't mean it's not a move. It doesn't have to be a wild swing of the steering wheel to make it a move. Of course the move was completed into the braking zone.

http://tinypic.com/v...?pic=qpgfu9&s=5

It was enough to take off the front wing endplate whilst Hamilton was already at the very edge of the track. Tosh that it takes "skill" to block a driver like that. Timing etc. all tosh. It depends entirely on the driver behind trying to avoid.

Yeah, which Hamilton failed to manage. The point stating it was a constant trajectory and NOT a sudden movement is all important, cause that's what is generally accepted among drivers, contrary to dive-bombing or sudden swerves in the braking zone. Whatever, by now I'm just stating that for the record, seeing as you think the art of defending is all tosh...

Re. weaving to break tow against Petrov, actually I think Hamilton should have gotten penalised for it, though my original point was that if moving more than once to break tow can be worthy of reprimand then surely moving more than once to block should as well be, at the very least.

I already said as much, with the rule as is Alonso was lucky to get away with it. Since, the discussion has moved on to the reasonability (or lack of) of that rule 20.3, try to keep up!

And of course Hamilton wasn't moving to make way for Petrov, that's your poor interpretation yet again.

Your words: "moving to get out of way of someone behind." I'm not interpreting, you really said that.

Being "in the way" of Petrov was clearly assisting Petrov's tow, so the moving was obviously not for Petrov's benefit. Strange to interpret it any other way and honestly there's no need either to overreact calling Petrov a stupid Russian etc. That's just poor I know it's hard for some to forgive him for costing Alonso the title at the last race of 2010.

Meh. It's like with your first incarnation here on the board, you just can't stop trying to read minds and project unrelated stuff from your mind onto others. Try to stick with the topic and what's actually been written, everything else is just tedious and boring.

[RealRacing]

I think one of the possible reasons no one bothered too much with this move (aside from the confusing nature of the rules and the lack of grasp of them by commentators and fans alike), is that, given DRS and the faster Ferrari, it just seemed normal that FA should be in front. In other words, why bother analyzing this if the Ferrari was going to be ahead anyway? To me another sign of the devalued nature of racing, and defending particularly, thanks to DRS and the excess of rules and stewarding. It seems F1 just wants to avoid these instances nowadays when before they were the most important part of races.

[PoleMan]

My 2 pence...

After Alonso blocked the inside while Lewis had DRS, he then "drifted" back left to get a better line to take the corner. The part I struggle with is whether he left a "car's width." It seems so to me, but you also had the pit lane entry, which could have created the illusion of more room. Bottom line is there was NO WAY 2 cars were going through that chicane, which is why no one discussed a penalty. Even Lewis, himself said what a "fair driver" Alonso was, so it doesn't seem like he really had a problem with it, despite the immediate radio call.

Not to go slightly off topic, but isn't the most important thing the fact that these 2 can race so close, creating FANTASTIC on track excitement for us to enjoy, while having great respect for each other?

[Skinnyguy]

If it were a genuine change in racing etiquette, there would be no need for any rules. In reality, racing etiquette is defined by the chances of doing things without getting penalized or hurt, as far as the drivers are concerned. And they'll change their opinion of what's fair or not every forthnight, depending on being on the receiving or the giving end of any manoeuvers.

Of course it needs a rule.

It is something that has started not too long ago, but it improves the situation a lot. Stewards don´t have to think now, and they don´t have the chance to make silly decissions regarding stuff that´s already written.

More specific rules like this regarding wheel to wheel would improve stewarding further, and bring more consistency.

Yeah, bless them drivers knowing how to attack, defend, anticipate, make rapid decisions... IOW: race. You just explained how racing survived as hundreth years without that rule, thanks for that!

We survived ages living in caves, but still houses were an improvement, weren´t they?

Bless both drivers and rulers. Drivers for stopping doing this dirty trick over time, and rulers for actually enforcing the change and punish (most of times) those still pulling it. And bless fans too because their attitude change helped. How?

I have little doubt than in mid 90´s, my first years as a proper fan of the series, the Spa clash between Kobayashi and Lewis would have been judged a fully different way. A numerous group would argue that Kobayashi was an idiot for keeping his nose in there without a chance to fight back, instead of blaming Lewis. Thank God 95% of people by 2011 were smart enough to understand that there´s no reason why Kamui should lift to fall behind just in case Lewis had a brainfade or wanted to end the move in a cheap and easy way.

[Skinnyguy]

...Bottom line is there was NO WAY 2 cars were going through that chicane, which is why no one discussed a penalty...

No, no, no, stop that lame line, I hate it. There´s few places where it isn´t possible. Drivers just have to adjust their speed if there´s a rival alongside that current ettiquete says that deserves room.

Last year in that very chicane Rosberg and Räikkönen went side by side through there respecting each other, it was a brilliant piece of racing.

Same lame line it´s usually said about Canada turns 3-4. They always crash going side by side in there, unless the driver outside takes evasive action and misses second apex. Why? Simply because the inside guy comes in too fast and doesn´t give room to the guy outside. But guess what, this year Bottas and Räikkönen wenbt side by side through there without contact and without anyone leaving the track limits.

[Skinnyguy]

Yeah, which Hamilton failed to manage. The point stating it was a constant trajectory and NOT a sudden movement is all important, cause that's what is generally accepted among drivers, contrary to dive-bombing or sudden swerves in the braking zone.

Hamilton didn´t have to avoid anything, we´re in 2013, not in 1988.

And the second part, that´s just in your mind. It´s irrelevant how smoothly you come back across in this move. It´s not accepted comming back to line with someone still out there no matter how smoothly or how agressively you move across. The guy out there has to get a chance to chose his own braking point without fearing a move across from the other guy.

[as65p]

Of course it needs a rule.

It is something that has started not too long ago, but it improves the situation a lot. Stewards don´t have to think now, and they don´t have the chance to make silly decissions regarding stuff that´s already written.

More specific rules like this regarding wheel to wheel would improve stewarding further, and bring more consistency.

Sounds pretty naive to me. As of now, I'm not even aware of the stewards enforcing the rule 20.3 (happy to be corrected, though). In any case they didn't in Canada, there wasn't even an investigation or anything. As I said before, to me it appears more of a standard FIA practice, write a lot of rules, but enforce or ignore them depending on what suits them best (for reasons of publicity, the championship, money, team&driver relations and whatnot).

We survived ages living in caves, but still houses were an improvement, weren´t they?

Bless both drivers and rulers. Drivers for stopping doing this dirty trick over time, and rulers for actually enforcing the change and punish (most of times) those still pulling it. And bless fans too because their attitude change helped.

I don't see the attitude change you propose, quite the contrary. Best illustrated by nobody (with the notable exception of one Hamilton fan here on the board) seemed to notice anything when it happened, not the commentators, not the stewards, not any journos, not the drivers themselves. Yeah Hamilton complained a bit over the radio, but NOT about Alonsos move in relation to any rule, but in a more general way, and then later proposed how fair it all was.

Now, when days later and half by accident we were becoming aware of the rule and suddenly it becomes all important, forgive me for not taking that too serious. At the time, the overwhelming majority of people were looking at it and saw nothing in the way of dirty driving or rules being violated. That alone pretty much smashes your claims about attitude changes.

[as65p]

Hamilton didn´t have to avoid anything, we´re in 2013, not in 1988.

And the second part, that´s just in your mind. It´s irrelevant how smoothly you come back across in this move. It´s not accepted comming back to line with someone still out there no matter how smoothly or how agressively you move across. The guy out there has to get a chance to chose his own braking point without fearing a move across from the other guy.

Reading your ideas about racing is fun in a way, but frankly I don't know where to start discussing it, it's for the most part the opposite of what I love about wheel-to-wheel racing.

So from my part I'll leave it at that, hope you can agree to disagree.

[PoleMan]

No, no, no, stop that lame line, I hate it. There´s few places where it isn´t possible. Drivers just have to adjust their speed if there´s a rival alongside that current ettiquete says that deserves room.

Last year in that very chicane Rosberg and Räikkönen went side by side through there respecting each other, it was a brilliant piece of racing.

Same lame line it´s usually said about Canada turns 3-4. They always crash going side by side in there, unless the driver outside takes evasive action and misses second apex. Why? Simply because the inside guy comes in too fast and doesn´t give room to the guy outside. But guess what, this year Bottas and Räikkönen wenbt side by side through there without contact and without anyone leaving the track limits.

Sorry you think it's lame. Ok, perhaps saying "No way" that 2 cars going through there is too absolutist, but it's rare that 2 cars can go through that chicane side by side(as any review of the incident would show you) unless there is a significant speed advantage as Kimi had over Rosberg and Bottas. That is NOT a normal passing zone, and it is pretty easy for the front driver to stay ahead, particularly if they're in the faster car! Racers generally are looking to stay ahead, NOT cooperate in letting someone past. Lewis was the slower, not the faster in this situation, so I don't think he had the traction to pull off that move, even with the help of DRS. He says Alonso's driving was "fair," so I'll stick to this being a non-incident in the driver's minds, and that their battle was an exhibition or two of racing's best engaging in an exhilarating wheel to wheel contest.

[Skinnyguy]

Ok, perhaps saying "No way" that 2 cars going through there is too absolutist, but it's rare that 2 cars can go through that chicane side by side(as any review of the incident would show you) unless there is a significant speed advantage as Kimi had over Rosberg and Bottas.

You don´t know what pass I´m talking about, last year Rosberg passed Räikkönen, not the other way around. And there was no big pace advantage, he simply got DRS on him on Kimi´s outlap managing to stay close all through the lap and pulled a brilliant move. And then he didn´t pull away, the pace was tight between them.

Yes, Bottas lacked a lot of pace this year in T 3-4 action, but that´s irrelevant. They managed to stay on track because the guy inside went in with the correct speed to allow the other to stay on track.

That is NOT a normal passing zone, and it is pretty easy for the front driver to stay ahead, particularly if they're in the faster car! Racers generally are looking to stay ahead, NOT cooperate in letting someone past. Lewis was the slower, not the faster in this situation, so I don't think he had the traction to pull off that move, even with the help of DRS. He says Alonso's driving was "fair," so I'll stick to this being a non-incident in the driver's minds, and that their battle was an exhibition or two of racing's best engaging in an exhilarating wheel to wheel contest.

First of all, no circuit zone or pace advantage level allows drivers to ignore rules and ettiquete.

And mind you, even if it doesn´t matter at all, if last chicane is not a passing zone, there´s none at Canada.

[PoleMan]

You don´t know what pass I´m talking about, last year Rosberg passed Räikkönen, not the other way around. And there was no big pace advantage, he simply got DRS on him on Kimi´s outlap managing to stay close all through the lap and pulled a brilliant move. And then he didn´t pull away, the pace was tight between them.

Yes, Bottas lacked a lot of pace this year in T 3-4 action, but that´s irrelevant. They managed to stay on track because the guy inside went in with the correct speed to allow the other to stay on track.



First of all, no circuit zone or pace advantage level allows drivers to ignore rules and ettiquete.

And mind you, even if it doesn´t matter at all, if last chicane is not a passing zone, there´s none at Canada.

First bolded: Apparently, you think this is "Miss Manners" they are playing and not F1. You don't adjust your speed (slower) to help your opponent take the corner when they are behind you as Lewis was.

Second bolded: Please show me where Alonso is cited for ignoring rules and etiquette? Please don't use this musing thread as evidence.

[Skinnyguy]

First bolded: Apparently, you think this is "Miss Manners" they are playing and not F1. You don't adjust your speed (slower) to help your opponent take the corner when they are behind you as Lewis was.

You´re either failing to keep up on the discussion, or intentionally mixing up topics, pulling a strawman (check out, this is how it actually works, ThirdTennor).

You´re right, no you don´t do that. You just have to adjust your speed if the other guy manages to stay alongside through the corner. My mentions on this practice is a general answer on your "you can´t go two wide throug X section", not regarding this particular incident. In fact it was said talking about the Bottas Räikkönen fight.

As they hadn´t even arrived to the corner, topic in that particular incident is that Alonso came fully back to line when he wasn´t allowed to do so. Alonso would have most likely retained the place, and if Lewis tried to hang around the outside, he would likely have rightly been pushed wide on the second apex as he wouldn´t be enough alongside to gain right to room. But any of this happened, as Alonso chose to cancel out any chance of racing before the corner, and that´s not accepted.

Second bolded: Please show me where Alonso is cited for ignoring rules and etiquette? Please don't use this musing thread as evidence.;)

If you know the rules and the ettiquete, and you´ve seen the video, you don´t need such a thing.

Unless you think that only stuff happening is the one pundits mention But hey, if you´re that kind of guy, and want some media noise on a carbon copy incident, check out Canada 2010 outrage on Schumacher´s driving against Massa.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 20 June 2013 - 12:41.

[PoleMan]

You´re either failing to keep up on the discussion, or intentionally mixing up topics, pulling a strawman (check out, this is how it actually works, ThirdTennor).

You´re right, no you don´t do that. You just have to adjust your speed if the other guy manages to stay alongside through the corner. My mentions on this practice is a general answer on your "you can´t go two wide throug X section", not regarding this particular incident. In fact it was said talking about the Bottas Räikkönen fight.

As they hadn´t even arrived to the corner, topic in that particular incident is that Alonso came fully back to line when he wasn´t allowed to do so. Alonso would have most likely retained the place, and if Lewis tried to hang around the outside, he would likely have rightly been pushed wide on the second apex as he wouldn´t be enough alongside to gain right to room. But any of this happened, as Alonso chose to cancel out any chance of racing before the corner, and that´s not accepted.


If you know the rules and the ettiquete, and you´ve seen the video, you don´t need such a thing.

Unless you think that only stuff happening is the one pundits mention But hey, if you´re that kind of guy, and want some media noise on a carbon copy incident, check out Canada 2010 outrage on Schumacher´s driving against Massa.

I fear it's you not keeping up. The point of this discussion is Alonso/Hamilton in Canada 2013. Lewis was never alongside. Not quite sure what all your other babble is about. As my initial post stated, it's not clear to me that Alonso didn't leave a car's width for Lewis, though I allow that the pit entrance being there might have created the "illusion" of more room.

As for my second bold, I guess in the yawning gap between your ears that makes up your world, things can ONLY be the way that YOU interpret them to be. Frankly, that explains a lot. I'll choose to take Hamilton's view. You know, that guy who is the supposed aggrieved party in this scenario, that the racing was fair. You can continue to be self-assured that a penalty was warranted as you stroke your unicorn.

[Skinnyguy]

I fear it's you not keeping up.

I´m not the one mixing up incidents and not having knowledge about previous similar ones.

The point of this discussion is Alonso/Hamilton in Canada 2013. Lewis was never alongside. Not quite sure what all your other babble is about. As my initial post stated, it's not clear to me that Alonso didn't leave a car's width for Lewis, though I allow that the pit entrance being there might have created the "illusion" of more room.

If by now you don´t understand what this is about, you´ll never do. My babble is about the fact that you can not slot in the face of a guy on the racing line after having covered the inside. They touched, and Lewis was as far left as possible. It´s perfectly clear the move back to the racing line was not OK, it bothered the guy out there, didn´t allow him to pick his own braking point.

As for my second bold, I guess in the yawning gap between your ears that makes up your world, things can ONLY be the way that YOU interpret them to be. Frankly, that explains a lot. I'll choose to take Hamilton's view. You know, that guy who is the supposed aggrieved party in this scenario, that the racing was fair. You can continue to be self-assured that a penalty was warranted as you stroke your unicorn.;)

What you talk about? There´s no interpretation at all, it´s all about pictures that I didn´t film and defined rules that I didn´t write. Alonso moved to cover, Lewis accepted the outside, and closing into the chicane Alonso took the racing line again resulting in contact. Not a single word about this is made up by me, it´s in the video, and it´s not an allowed move.

And for your info, I wouldn´t have penalized Alonso. But I´d surely have had a talk to him, gave him a reprimand, and make sure he doesn´t do it again. No one´s asking for a penalty here, just clearing up who was at fault for contact.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 20 June 2013 - 16:40.

[TomNokoe]

Thought it was relevant to bring this thread back after Sutil/Ricciardo. If they're going to have the rule, but not enforce it....

[Louis Mr. F1]

that was my thought too and was wondering if Toro Rosso had at least complaint to the stewards.