329 replies to this topic

[grichka]

It was 1'5 seconds faster, as we saw when he finally passed the ferrari

 

Alonso started to pull away easily from Vettel when they were making that drag race on the old main straight. Vettel was saved only because he was on the inside. It's clear Vettel has a  weaker engine.

[Goron3]

Alonso started to pull away easily from Vettel when they were making that drag race on the old main straight. Vettel was saved only because he was on the inside. It's clear Vettel has a  weaker engine.

Red Bull are geared VERY short and they can't change it, hence why Alonso was pulling away. At the end of hanger straight Alonso was regularly slower than Seb. AIf anything it highlights how stupid the gear ratio freeze is..awful rule. 

 

Also Seb was saved by how incredibly poor the Ferrari engine is at delivering power and again, blame that on the engine freeze.

[Briz]

Alonso was definitely on a mission and was doing everything possible - slowing down on the apex, dangerously chopping across, then imo Vettel pretty much decided "f... it" and disregarded the white line completely for the set up and execution of the pass at the end, that seemed the only way to make it stick, at least at that point. I loved every second of it even if I realise they were both dirty and whiny both were spectacular and put everything they got and more in that battle

 

Regarding track limits, can't deny Vettel has always been abusing, in previous years too. I wish they make it physically penalising to leave the track limits for this bs to end, having stewards decide who gets a penalty and not giving it every time is really bad

Edited by Briz, 08 July 2014 - 22:29.

[Madera]

This is what i wanted to say but kept it normal so as not to appear as bashing.

 

Reigning World Champion Vettel has now also been berated by the Austrian following his squabble with Fernando Alonso during the race.

Both drivers complained over the team radio over their rivals' on-track behaviour, but Lauda has taken exception to Vettel's moans.

"I don't understand Vettel and his screaming. He is going on like a small, frightened child and should let it go. They are two of the top drivers and this is top racing that the viewers want to see," he told Germany's Bild.

[Briz]

Seems like Lauda turned his right ear to Alonso's whining which was just the same Vettel at least acknowledged afterwards that it was silly

[bourbon]

This is what i wanted to say but kept it normal so as not to appear as bashing.

 

Reigning World Champion Vettel has now also been berated by the Austrian following his squabble with Fernando Alonso during the race.

Both drivers complained over the team radio over their rivals' on-track behaviour, but Lauda has taken exception to Vettel's moans.

"I don't understand Vettel and his screaming. He is going on like a small, frightened child and should let it go. They are two of the top drivers and this is top racing that the viewers want to see," he told Germany's Bild.

 

Lauda also said Vettel is as good as Senna and Prost - and that Vettel "is probably the best one we have had"

 

I guess that just shows he is not above criticizing a brilliant driver.

Edited by bourbon, 09 July 2014 - 02:12.

[Kenstate]

Emerson Fittipaldi had an interesting take: http://www.autoweek....08/F1/140709888

 

 

Fittipaldi said he enjoyed the long wheel-to-wheel battle between Alonso and reigning F1 champion Sebastian Vettel during the recent British Grand Prix at Silverstone.

 

"It was absolutely brilliant," he told Spain's AS sports newspaper. "Vettel the good driver, and Alonso the maestro."

[garagetinkerer]

Meh... Both were complaining (in my opinion, somewhat unnecessarily so)... but Vettel was amusing himself by returning the favour to Alonso.

[garagetinkerer]

What safety aspect? I saw no dangerous element at all in what was taking place between Vettel and Alonso.

 

To be perfectly honest, I get bored of hearing about 'track limits'. There's nothing more tedious than someone getting a penalty/being investigated for briefly going beyond the white line, when it probably has a very minimal impact on lap times anyway.

 

And really, if they want to stop drivers doing it, bring back more gravel traps or whatever, have a real incentive there to stop drivers going wide. What do they honestly expect will happen when everywhere is tarmac run off? It's like what happened with Raikkonen yesterday, keeping his foot in it even after running wide. If there had been grass or gravel or whatever that meant he lost some speed, that accident would most likely have never even happened.

 

Track limits were defined (as they're in regs now) so drivers couldn't cheat on lap-time. Now if one driver is somewhat crowding the other and the other has to 'improvise' a bit, i think it is fair enough as crowding itself is now questioned in regs. I think if they really have to be anal about it, this is about how much i can tolerate. Deleting laps willy nilly, random inconsistent penalties only raise the dissatisfaction of fans from the 'sport.' I thought i saw a lap which was voided where the driver couldn't possibly have gained any time, and that surprised me a bit. It is getting stupider by the minute it seems. They just need to understand why that rule was put in place, and just stick to basics.

Edited by garagetinkerer, 09 July 2014 - 04:27.

[tifosiMac]

Lauda also said Vettel is as good as Senna and Prost - and that Vettel "is probably the best one we have had"

 

I guess that just shows he is not above criticizing a brilliant driver.

Vettel is very good, we all know that. We also know there are at least a couple of other drivers on the grid at his level and Lauda's opinions change like the wind week on week. 

[Cesc]

It was great stuff, probably many drivers complain when having battles in the "heat" of the moment, simply that now we can hear it. I wouldn't give it more importance.

Alonso did some very agressive moves to defend position, great stuff. Vettel had better package at that point, but ALonso is at a extremely high level of performance.

 

Just for the newcomers, take a look at this fight is the very same circuit (I'm sure Prost was complaining over the radio that day).

 

Edited by Cesc, 09 July 2014 - 09:07.

[PayasYouRace]

It was great stuff, probably many drivers complain when having battles in the "heat" of the moment, simply that now we can hear it. I wouldn't give it more importance.

Alonso did some very agressive moves to defend position, great stuff. Vettel had better package at that point, but ALonso is at a extremely high level of performance.

 

Just for the newcomers, take a look at this fight is the very same circuit (I'm sure Prost was complaining over the radio that day).

 

 

Funnily enough, there was tarmac run-off at Copse even back then. Watch at 0:35.

[kosmos]

McNish opinion about the battle.

 

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/28214000

 

and some humour.

 

Edited by kosmos, 09 July 2014 - 11:43.

[Brackets]

Funnily enough, there was tarmac run-off at Copse even back then. Watch at 0:35.

Funnily enough, Senna didn't use it when he outbraked Prost on the inside.

It can be done. When they want to.

[Acathla]

McNish opinion about the battle.

 

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/28214000

 

and some humour.

 

 

And Sir McNIsh brings some sense in this thread.

[superden]

As I stated earlier in the thread, just enjoy it. In 10 years, you'll remember the duel, not the infringement.

 

Good racing lasts, rules change.

[RealRacing]

Seems like Lauda turned his right ear to Alonso's whining which was just the same Vettel at least acknowledged afterwards that it was silly

+1. Some people are mentally deaf, which is worse than any sequel poor NL may still have from his accident.

[RealRacing]

Funnily enough, there was tarmac run-off at Copse even back then. Watch at 0:35.

Is the narrator Elmer Fudd?

[Bleu]

Is the narrator Elmer Fudd?

No, Jonathan Ross.

[superden]

Elmer Fudd would be an improvement over Jonathan Ross.

[redreni]

It was great stuff, probably many drivers complain when having battles in the "heat" of the moment, simply that now we can hear it. I wouldn't give it more importance.

Alonso did some very agressive moves to defend position, great stuff. Vettel had better package at that point, but ALonso is at a extremely high level of performance.

 

Just for the newcomers, take a look at this fight is the very same circuit (I'm sure Prost was complaining over the radio that day).

 

 

I was stood on the banking next to the Hangar Straight level with the braking point for Stowe that day. Senna spent the entire Sunday morning warmup practicing his defensive lines all around the track, and into Stowe in particular. The battle was fantastic while it lasted but the Mclaren was so slow that there was a sense of inevitabiliy that Prost would come past him and then disappear, which he did. Credit to Senna for being prepared to make it difficult, but he seemed to lose interest once Prost and Schumacher had gone by. Compared to Senna that day, Alonso's defensive tactics this year were very moderate .

 

He just endeavoured to position his car so that Vettel couldn't stick his nose up the inside on the way out of Luffield and into Woodcote. And when Vettel finally gets him, it's by feigning to pass him on the outside then cutting back, causing Alonso to have a wobble as he tries to cover. But you have to ask why he was able to do it on that lap and not on previous laps. It's because Vettel drew alongside Alonso as the entered Brooklands, meaning Alonso had to run wide on the exit of Brooklands and run tighter into Luffield (unless he wanted to give Vettel the inside into Luffield). And why was Vettel able to get alongside into Brooklands? Because he ran wide off the circuit at Aintree.

 

People have posted videos of the overtake in order to show what a great battle it was and/or how great Vettel is and/or that Alonso was over-aggressive, in which the video only starts three quarters of the way down the Wellington straight, after Vettel has already got a massive run on Alonso and Alonso is already defending about 15 feet off the racing line. That's frame 1 of the video that was posted. By that point the odds of Alonso still being ahead by Maggotts were already much worse than evens. Okay, it took three or four corners (and one further track limits violation for good measure) for Vettel to get it done, and it's always going to be a bit hairy when you run side-by-side into Copse, but without running off the circuit at Aintree and getting the run, there is no overtake that lap. That's not something that can be weighed up in the balance as if it meant the same as an incident, or even a series of incidents, earlier in the race where somebody runs a bit wide and gains a tenth but the positions remain unchanged. It can't be overlooked because the officials think the driver ahead is being too robust in the defence. It could maybe be overlooked if the officials consider that the attacking driver was forced off the track by the defensive driving of the driver he was trying to pass, but that was unequivocally not the case here. It's was a massive and decisive advantage in the battle between the two drivers, gained as a direct result of leaving the track and rejoining, and the rule is very clear that in those circumstances the advantage has to be given back promtly so that it doesn't become a lasting advantage. It's not a totting up exercise.

Edited by redreni, 12 July 2014 - 20:50.

[bourbon]

People have posted videos of the overtake in order to show what a great battle it was and/or how great Vettel is and/or that Alonso was over-aggressive, in which the video only starts three quarters of the way down the Wellington straight, after Vettel has already got a massive run on Alonso and Alonso is already defending about 15 feet off the racing line. That's frame 1 of the video that was posted. By that point the odds of Alonso still being ahead by Maggotts were already much worse than evens. Okay, it took three or four corners (and one further track limits violation for good measure) for Vettel to get it done, and it's always going to be a bit hairy when you run side-by-side into Copse, but without running off the circuit at Aintree and getting the run, there is no overtake that lap. That's not something that can be weighed up in the balance as if it meant the same as an incident, or even a series of incidents, earlier in the race where somebody runs a bit wide and gains a tenth but the positions remain unchanged. It can't be overlooked because the officials think the driver ahead is being too robust in the defence. It could maybe be overlooked if the officials consider that the attacking driver was forced off the track by the defensive driving of the driver he was trying to pass, but that was unequivocally not the case here. It's was a massive and decisive advantage in the battle between the two drivers, gained as a direct result of leaving the track and rejoining, and the rule is very clear that in those circumstances the advantage has to be given back promtly so that it doesn't become a lasting advantage. It's not a totting up exercise.

 

Okay Redreni, but Alonso was chopping Vettel left and right - not leaving enough space and cutting him off in an unsporting manner.  You don't care about that at all, so your going on and on about the above one thing and accepting Alonso's battling as above board and proper isn't playing well.  I frankly find Alonso's behavior worse as it was repeated, but I have let it go as the stewards did, grateful for a rare great battle.  Not sure why you wish to harp and harp on this point.  If Alonso hadn't chopped, Vettel would have held his position and gotten ahead on pure speed earlier on - so 6 one way 1/2 dozen the other as they say.

 

I say just enjoy the fact that we got a rare fantastic battle.

Edited by bourbon, 12 July 2014 - 22:12.

[redreni]

McNish opinion about the battle.

 

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/28214000

 

and some humour.

 

 

I agree with every word McNish writes, except where he says the officials were right to let it go. And even then I half-agree with him, in that I can see why they let the earlier infringements by both drivers slide. But what about what McNish doesn't say?

 

If you hadn't seen the race or any race footage and you just read McNish's account of the battle, you would not know why Alonso ran wide in Luffield, which is where McNish's explanation starts. Which is a bit disappointing because McNish knows perfectly well that the groundwork for that move started at Aintree if not before, and that's where Vettel left the track. You also wouldn't know whether Vettel managed to stay on the track when finishing the move off at Copse - McNish correctly mentions that Alonso stayed within the track limits when he passed Vettel there earlier on, but he doesn't say anthing about Vettel using the runoff area to get the job done on Alonso in return.

 

Those key facts are missing from McNish's analysis, and that in my view is why he arrives at the wrong conclusion. I agree with him that it would have been a shame if either of them had been given a 5-second penalty for persistently exceeding track limits, but I disagree that it was right not to insist that Vettel handed the place back. If Whiting had done that, Vettel would have had 5 laps in which to try to get the move done legitimately, so far from ruining the battle, it would have extended it.

[redreni]

Okay Redreni, but Alonso was chopping Vettel left and right - not leaving enough space and cutting him off in an unsporting manner.  You don't care about that at all, so your going on and on about the above one thing and accepting Alonso's battling as above board and proper isn't playing well.  I frankly find Alonso's behavior worse as it was repeated, but I have let it go as the stewards did, grateful for a rare great battle.  Not sure why you wish to harp and harp on this point.  If Alonso hadn't chopped, Vettel would have held his position and gotten ahead on pure speed earlier on - so 6 one way 1/2 dozen the other as they say.

 

 

Well we've got an eyewitness who says it wasn't six of one and half a dozen of the other from what he saw, it was 13 of one and 5 of the other, and his numbers didn't favour your driver. But leaving that aside, since it's not a totting up exercise as I say, the notion that if a driver defends too aggressively you can wait a few laps and then drive off the circuit to get past him is an entirely new argument in my experience, and I think it ought to be nipped in the bud now because it's a particularly stupid notion. If a driver oversteps the line of acceptable defending, he should be penalised e.g. Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary a couple of years ago. That's the sort of thing that carries a penalty in F1.

 

The sort of thing we saw in the Alonso-Vettel battle is fair enough, not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everybody who has posted on this thread, in the opinion of every pundit who expressed a view on this topic without any exception that I'm aware of (maybe you can point to an exception?), in Whiting's opinion (since he didn't warn Alonso about blocking and he didn't report him to the stewards, even though Alonso had already had a warning flag for something else) in Christian Horner's opinion and, judging by his post-race comments, even in Vettel's considered opinion. So if you think what Alonso did crossed the line of legality, you're in almost total isolation from the rest of the F1 world and, even then, you should be arguing that Alonso ought to have been penalised by the stewards, because you can't reasonably argue that Alonso's alleged transgressions make Vettel's pass somehow legal.

[bourbon]

Well we've got an eyewitness who says it wasn't six of one and half a dozen of the other from what he saw, it was 13 of one and 5 of the other, and his numbers didn't favour your driver. But leaving that aside, since it's not a totting up exercise as I say, the notion that if a driver defends too aggressively you can wait a few laps and then drive off the circuit to get past him is an entirely new argument in my experience, and I think it ought to be nipped in the bud now because it's a particularly stupid notion. If a driver oversteps the line of acceptable defending, he should be penalised e.g. Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary a couple of years ago. That's the sort of thing that carries a penalty in F1.

 

The sort of thing we saw in the Alonso-Vettel battle is fair enough, not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everybody who has posted on this thread, in the opinion of every pundit who expressed a view on this topic without any exception that I'm aware of (maybe you can point to an exception?), in Whiting's opinion (since he didn't warn Alonso about blocking and he didn't report him to the stewards, even though Alonso had already had a warning flag for something else) in Christian Horner's opinion and, judging by his post-race comments, even in Vettel's considered opinion. So if you think what Alonso did crossed the line of legality, you're in almost total isolation from the rest of the F1 world and, even then, you should be arguing that Alonso ought to have been penalised by the stewards, because you can't reasonably argue that Alonso's alleged transgressions make Vettel's pass somehow legal.

 

And the opinion of nearly everybody who has posted and of every pundit who epxressed a view on the topic has said that they are grateful no penalties were handed out and that both drivers transgressed.  Even Alonso said neither Vettel nor he should be penalized (post race interview).  So if nothing else, your argument here fails for equality. 

 

Why would I argue for penalties for Alonso?  I am happy with the idea that the stewards refrained from giving them to either driver.  Your problem is that you do not believe Alonso did anything wrong - and since video evidence has not convinced you, I will not be able to.  But I do feel Alonso violated the rules, so doing nothing was the best solution, imo.

 

The lasting memory for you may differ, but for most, it will be remembered as a rare, great battle between two great competitors.

 

 

**You responded before my edit - but there wasn't much difference, so I replaced it with the old version.

Edited by bourbon, 12 July 2014 - 22:13.

[HP]

Their battle reminded me a little bit of Montoya vs. Raikkonen. The difference was that the rules were not that silly regarding this back then. Also when the stewards deem this OK, there's IMO not much point to argue the legality. I rather enjoyed them battling it out the way they did. Since this battle was live and not being orchestrated, I'd expect drivers to rather going hard for it. It showed to me that both are still competitive, and hungry for more.

 

This messing with the rules and people to get an advantage seems really getting out of hand, as demonstrated by ex F1 drivers reactions over the Raikkonen shunt (one of them even sending a twitter during the race to the one who he thought was racer-steward over the weekend). At least I am happy that I am so far not aware of comments from ex F1 drivers about penalizing either Vettel or Alonso. When ex F1 drivers whine about Raikkonen's shunt and wanting a penalty, but not about the battle discussed here, then I know that it was OK for people used to drive F1 cars competitively at full speed.

 

Could have done without the driver to pit com, but I guess those marketing F1 were happy about it, hence I fully expect them to further transmit such silliness. They need to make the drivers work harder behind the wheel. While it's awesome that they have the time to complain about it, it shows that they were not being taxed to the utmost with the actual driving.

[redreni]

And the opinion of nearly everybody who has posted and of every pundit who epxressed a view on the topic has said that they are grateful no penalties were handed out and that both drivers transgressed.  Even Alonso said neither Vettel nor he should be penalized (post race interview).  So if nothing else, your argument here fails for equality. 

 

Why would I argue for penalties for Alonso?  I am happy with the idea that the stewards refrained from giving them to either driver.  Your problem is that you do not believe Alonso did anything wrong - and since video evidence has not convinced you, I will not be able to.  But I do feel Alonso violated the rules, so doing nothing was the best solution, imo.

 

The lasting memory for you may differ, but for most, it will be remembered as a rare, great battle between two great competitors.

 

 

**You responded before my edit - but there wasn't much difference, so I replaced it with the old version.

 

I think I've been fairly clear I don't think a penalty would have been necessary as such, only that Whiting should have got on the blower to Red Bull and told them to give the place back, i.e. instructed them to do what they should have been doing anyway, as set out in the sporting regulations. A post-race penalty would only have been necessary if Red Bull repeated the error that they made at Hockenheim in 2012 and failed to give the advantage back. EDIT: A dishonourable mention has to go to David Coulthard and Ben Edwards here, too, because they had Christian Horner live on the air on the BBC at the time of the contested pass, and they failed to ask him whether he thought they would have to give the place back.

 

Alonso definitely said that Vettel passed him by leaving the track. He wasn't bothered because he reckoned the pass was inevitable anyway, but my point is that it's down to Vettel to make the pass legally and if he doesn't, that's down to him.

 

I agree, though, generally speaking I am in exceptionally good company in saying the officials needed to intervene in this case, namely my own. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. And the fact that you disagree with virtually everybody about the legality of Alonso's defence doesn't make you wrong either, but I do think you're on shakier ground than I am because there's a very well established body of precedents that say if you make a pass by going off the track, you have to give the place back, and there are no precedents for anybody being pulled up or even warned for the kind of defensive driving we saw from Alonso last weekend. And you haven't explained why you think two wrongs make a right in this case.

Edited by redreni, 13 July 2014 - 00:01.

[bourbon]

I think I've been fairly clear I don't think a penalty would have been necessary as such, only that Whiting should have got on the blower to Red Bull and told them to give the place back, i.e. instructed them to do what they should have been doing anyway, as set out in the sporting regulations. A post-race penalty would only have been necessary if Red Bull repeated the error that they made at Hockenheim in 2012 and failed to give the advantage back. EDIT: A dishonourable mention has to go to David Coulthard and Ben Edwards here, too, because they had Christian Horner live on the air on the BBC at the time of the contested pass, and they failed to ask him whether he thought they would have to give the place back.

 

Alonso definitely said that Vettel passed him by leaving the track. He wasn't bothered because he reckoned the pass was inevitable anyway, but my point is that it's down to Vettel to make the pass legally and if he doesn't, that's down to him.

 

I agree, though, generally speaking I am in exceptionally good company in saying the officials needed to intervene in this case, namely my own. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. And the fact that you disagree with virtually everybody about the legality of Alonso's defence doesn't make you wrong either, but I do think you're on shakier ground than I am because there's a very well established body of precedents that say if you make a pass by going off the track, you have to give the place back, and there are no precedents for anybody being pulled up or even warned for the kind of defensive driving we saw from Alonso last weekend. And you haven't explained why you think two wrongs make a right in this case.

 

Well of course two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree it is stupid to assert that one wrong gives a credit for a future infraction from a wronged competitor.  However, what I am saying is that nobody wished to see the ruination of what was a great battle.  Alonso and Vettel fought long and hard, with Alonso claiming victory after victory and in the end, Vettel claimed the final victory and took off.  It was a classic and it would make a sham of it for Whiting to have rung up Vettel and told him to get off the gas so Alonso could catch him up and pass him (with Mags on his tail) and they should restart the racing bit without either driver going wide and no chopping from Alonso.  That'd be a brilliant way to deflate what had been an intense span of excitement for fans.  Too many unanswered questions in the moment for it to be anything else.

 

I know you don't think Alonso did anything wrong enough to be penalized for, but that is also true with respect to going wide.  Alonso did go wide a number of times earlier - and forget the impact aspect - think about the penalty.  Repeated violations merely merited a black and white flag warning.  Granted, that is a hefty warning.  But I think it showed that the stewards were clearly not disposed to handing out tough penalties for that particular infraction.  I consider that the stewards, one of whom is a driver's racer, may not have agreed with Charlie on the sinfullness of going wide - hence the lack of penalties on that front throughout the race.  So applying this to the matter at hand:  when both drivers were going off and Alonso was overdoing it with the defending, and Vettel went wide to good effect - perhaps they were still simply not disposed to handing out tough penalties for those things, and in addition, they were not disposed to ruining what was clearly a classic battle.  So in a nutshell, my take on it is that the stewards were not disposed to handing out tough, game changing, penalties during that battle.

Edited by bourbon, 13 July 2014 - 01:13.

[redreni]

Well of course two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree it is stupid to assert that one wrong gives a credit for a future infraction from a wronged competitor.  However, what I am saying is that nobody wished to see the ruination of what was a great battle.  Alonso and Vettel fought long and hard, with Alonso claiming victory after victory and in the end, Vettel claimed the final victory and took off.  It was a classic and it would make a sham of it for Whiting to have rung up Vettel and told him to get off the gas so Alonso could catch him up and pass him (with Mags on his tail) and they should restart the racing bit without either driver going wide and no chopping from Alonso.  That'd be a brilliant way to deflate what had been an intense span of excitement for fans.  Too many unanswered questions in the moment for it to be anything else.

 

I know you don't think Alonso did anything wrong enough to be penalized for, but that is also true with respect to going wide.  Alonso did go wide a number of times earlier - and forget the impact aspect - think about the penalty.  Repeated violations merely merited a black and white flag warning.  Granted, that is a hefty warning.  But I think it showed that the stewards were clearly not disposed to handing out tough penalties for that particular infraction.  I consider that the stewards, one of whom is a driver's racer, may not have agreed with Charlie on the sinfullness of going wide - hence the lack of penalties on that front throughout the race.  So applying this to the matter at hand:  when both drivers were going off and Alonso was overdoing it with the defending, and Vettel went wide to good effect - perhaps they were still simply not disposed to handing out tough penalties for those things, and in addition, they were not disposed to ruining what was clearly a classic battle.  So in a nutshell, my take on it is that the stewards were not disposed to handing out tough, game changing, penalties during that battle.

 

Well firstly it's got nothing to do with the stewards because, if you look on the FIA website, you'll see that the stewards only made six decisions last Sunday and none of them concerned track limits, which tells you that Whiting never referred any track limits violations to them for consideration and that's why there were no penalties. Had the stewards been asked to consider these matters there would have been a message on live timing and on television to say they were under investigation, and a written decision would have been published even if the decision was "no further action". The black & white flag comes from the Race Director, not the stewards.

 

Secondly I think you've correctly identified the factor that led Whiting to let this one go, and led most of the pundits and fans to agree with him, which is a kind of a vague feeling that an on-track battle of that quality shouldn't be interfered with. As well as following motor racing I'm also a football fan and I can tell you, if you suggested to a football fan, even if that fan was neutral with respect to the game being played, that a late winning goal should be allowed to stand even though the goalscorer was a couple of yards offside because it had been such a good game, and we wouldn't want the officials to get involved unnecessarily, you'd get a  pretty funny look. Maybe I'm bringing that mentality to bear on this situation, but unltimately rules are rules, and the rule in this case is clear, and I'm not persuaded that we should forget about the rules for the sake of the show.

 

And thirdly, if by now you still either don't grasp or don't agree with the notion that the rules explicitly state that running wide and gaining nothing and running wide and gaining a position are to be treated completely differently, and therefore the argument that there were transgressions on both sides simply doesn't hold up, then I don't think we're going to be able to agree on this, so for my part I'm happy to let it rest. It's all water under the bridge now anyway, although as I've mentioned, the next time somebody is told to hand a position back because of track limits, don't be surprised if this case is raised by way of comparison.

[kosmos]

 

Fernando explaining the battle, really good video.

Edited by kosmos, 21 July 2014 - 03:24.