562 replies to this topic

[Myrvold]

At 0:56, Arnoux did the same as Ricciardo, had the same result with both cars continuing and no one complained.

 

Just to nitpick, but the situations are not similar at all, as Ricciardo is behind, and eases slowly up so his front wheel pushes Raikkonen out wide by punting his rear wheel.

In the fight you link to, Arnoux is in front, then they are side by side, and properly side by side as well, out of the right hander, stays side by side in to the left hander, and when there is contact, Arnoux is having his left wheels on the white lines. The two are as comparable as dinner before, and after you've eaten it... 

[TomFitch]

I have a pretty simple rule of thumb on things like these. Like every rule of thumb, this one too obviously has its limitations.

 

That being said, the rule of thumb is this. If two cars touch in a corner and the car trying to make a pass had its front wheel past the rear wheel of the defending car, the car making the move had, in my opinion, a fair right to try a pass. And the defending car should have left more room. If the attacking car"s front wheel is not past the defending car"s rear wheel, he was in no real position to make a move and should have backed off.

 

Applied to this incident, this would result in the conclusion that Kimi was in the wrong.

 

However, to Kimi's defence, I think he was overly optimistic throughout that fast left sweeper just prior to the actual right hander. I think his line out of that corner compromised his braking ability for the right hander and he ended up with nowhere to go.

 

Then again, racing is not an exact science.

 

Tom

[Seanspeed]

I have a pretty simple rule of thumb on things like these. Like every rule of thumb, this one too obviously has its limitations.
 
That being said, the rule of thumb is this. If two cars touch in a corner and the car trying to make a pass had its front wheel past the rear wheel of the defending car, the car making the move had, in my opinion, a fair right to try a pass. And the defending car should have left more room. If the attacking car"s front wheel is not past the defending car"s rear wheel, he was in no real position to make a move and should have backed off.

It's a bit more complicated than that, though.

*When* a car gets alongside is hugely important, for instance. What type of corner also matters.

The situation here is far more simple. Kimi was *way* too far back to attempt a move.

[josepatches]

Older footage doesnt sell today. One it is not Monaco and two those cars were not as reliant on aero like today's cars are. There is no comparison.

The dive by RIC at Monaco was optimistic and he even punted Kimi off to make way. You start justifying and accepting that and you will have a crash fest around Monaco.

Agree. i would say kimi's move here was much worse but RIC was lucky at monaco. Anyway what said Kimi then? I guess he didnt complain about it. But not, kimi said Ricciardo deserved a penalty....

Edited by josepatches, 16 October 2015 - 22:29.

[Acathla]

It's a bit more complicated than that, though.

*When* a car gets alongside is hugely important, for instance. What type of corner also matters.

The situation here is far more simple. Kimi was *way* too far back to attempt a move.

 

Jeez, this long of a thread. Just simply THIS. 

[Button4life]

This thread gets more amazing every day. Seeing people saying a driver who's defending should anticipate a divebomb from a driver who's attacking. It's like I'm playing F1 2015 online, but this is  real F1. So a driver who defends can never anticipate this. As you expect the attacker to race cleanly. Because like I said, this is no F1 game.

[Marklar]

This thread gets more amazing every day. Seeing people saying a driver who's defending should anticipate a divebomb from a driver who's attacking. It's like I'm playing F1 2015 online, but this is  real F1. So a driver who defends can never anticipate this. As you expect the attacker to race cleanly. Because like I said, this is no F1 game.

Max Verstappen disagrees ;)

[Oho]

Agree. i would say kimi's move here was much worse but RIC was lucky at monaco. Anyway what said Kimi then? I guess he didnt complain about it. But not, kimi said Ricciardo deserved a penalty....

 

Well a pertinent diffrence is that in Russia Räikkönen made a mistake which it seem she tried to back out but was hopelessly late hence collission. At Monaco Riccirado did not make a mistake it seemed fully intentional, he pushed Räikkönen out of the way by design using front wheel to push rear wheel and up until that moment he was never further along side.

Edited by Oho, 17 October 2015 - 04:28.

[Myrvold]

Well a pertinent diffrence is that in Russia Räikkönen made a mistake which it seem she tried to back out but was hopelessly late hence collission. At Monaco Riccirado did not make a mistake it seemed fully intentional, he pushed Räikkönen out of the way by design using front wheel to push rear wheel and up until that moment he was never further along side.

That takes some skill though, to intentionally nudge another driver, without getting any damage...

[motorhead]

Well a pertinent diffrence is that in Russia Räikkönen made a mistake which it seem she tried to back out but was hopelessly late hence collission. At Monaco Riccirado did not make a mistake it seemed fully intentional, he pushed Räikkönen out of the way by design using front wheel to push rear wheel and up until that moment he was never further along side.

 

Ricciardo was a lucky boy, becouse you never know what the opponent will do. BTW If he cabable of doing that why he isn´t he doing it more often, it is clearly efficient way to pass people

[ardbeg]

This thread gets more amazing every day. Seeing people saying a driver who's defending should anticipate a divebomb from a driver who's attacking. It's like I'm playing F1 2015 online, but this is  real F1. So a driver who defends can never anticipate this. As you expect the attacker to race cleanly. Because like I said, this is no F1 game.

Bottas was not defending. I think that is the point. Bottas did not see or anticipate an attack. He should have. That does not absolve Kimi from blame for causing it, but Bottas could have been the one avoiding it. And for those who now will reply "but Kimi was too far back", remember that is only true after the fact.  

 

EDIT: And for those who wonder what the fact in "after the fact" is, it is simply that they touched.

Edited by ardbeg, 17 October 2015 - 10:50.

[Marklar]

@Ardbeg Your fave word is 'fact', isnt it?

[ardbeg]

@Ardbeg Your fave word is 'fact', isnt it?

I'd like people to understand the meaning of that word.