1541 replies to this topic

[Arska]

guess what, two race cars racing - neither of them can make the Apex!

 

Guess what? The one on the inside c-a-n. The rest of your message simply isn't worth replying. Cheers.

[Squeed]

you do realize Lewis has had penalties three times in a row now for pushing off Red Bull cars? Perhaps some reflection of his responsibilities is a bit more in place than to talk about aggressive competition?

 

Max has no points on his license for causing any accidents

-2 years ago he was in a much faster car than Albon in the closing laps and had a chance at the race win if he cleared Albon early.  

After the contact, Albon himself said it was a racing incident, but Lewis said he felt like he dive-bombed him and deserved a penalty.  

The stewards said that since one driver was already claiming responsibility, their work was done.

 

-Last year, Albon attempted to overtake on the outside at T4 in Austria, a turn where it is impossible to overtake unless one of the drivers concedes.  Despite what the stewards say, that was a racing incident pure and simple, just as it was when Norris nudged Perez off and Perez nudged Leclerc off at the same corner this year.  It is utterly ridiculous for stewards to give penalties in that turn like it’s a GP3 race.  There simply isn’t room for two F1 cars to get through, and it’s a corner where the inside car will be ahead on turn in but the outside car will be ahead about half way through, but they’ve both committed to a collision trajectory and both should have to live with the consequences without a penalty. 

 

-Hamilton doesn’t owe Red Bull anything aside from attempting to race hard but fair.  “Fair” is largely determined by how the guy you’re racing races you.  Max has forced Hamilton off track on more than one occasion, so it is perfectly fair to attempt to overtake Max on a line that might force him wide.  At that point, it’s up to Max if he wants to risk contact in order to stay on the line he prefers. 

Edited by Squeed, 30 July 2021 - 19:20.

[Myrvold]

Agreed. I thought what was more unfair was other drivers purposely happy with 3rd and lower

 

The age old "don't get involved in the championship fight". Which incidentally causes them to be more of a factor and involved...

[garoidb]

Agreed. I thought what was more unfair was other drivers purposely happy with 3rd and lower

 

I think they didn't want anything to do with Lewis's tactic and certainly didn't want to be involved in a controversial accident induced by it. Such an outcome would have been detrimental to F1 to put it mildly. It was nothing to do with favouring either driver. 

[masa90]

Thank god there is some racing this week. Hopefully people can move on.

 

Both teams have crossed the line a bit, fans aswell. Lets just race please.

[KeithD68]

What line has Mercedes crossed?

[RekF1]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

[Myrvold]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

 

 

"But what about...."

[Squeed]

Some of the other circuits should consider planting a shrub to maintain track limits like Turn 2 above ^

[OvDrone]

Does anyone know if Max is okay? That's the main thing. I'm concerned after Horner's comments that he may be in a life threatening condition.

I too am quite concerned.

 

Being so close to Red Bull Racing management cannot be good for your body and soul.

[absinthedude]

Guess what? The one on the inside c-a-n. The rest of your message simply isn't worth replying. Cheers.

 

1. This whole mythical concept that cars must be able to make the apex never existed in 120+ years of motor racing until two weeks ago when Horner made it up.

 

2. Neither car was going to make the apex given the lines they took. max ensured that when he squeezed Lewis towards the wall. That move was perfectly legitimate, but it meant that neither could take an ideal line into Copse. From that moment on either driver "hitting the apex" was a moot point.

[OvDrone]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

 

 

 

"But what about...."

 

 

Guys, this isn't a joke.

 

Max being half-Belgian opened him up to incessant online abuse.

 

Why, just look at that rabid mob at the Austrain double header. All those mad orange clad fans, barely holding back their rage at his mixed ethnicity. Horner was right, it's nothing short of a miracle that he got out of there alive.

Edited by OvDrone, 30 July 2021 - 21:30.

[Ultraviolet]

you do realize Lewis has had penalties three times in a row now for pushing off Red Bull cars? Perhaps some reflection of his responsibilities is a bit more in place than to talk about aggressive competition?

 

Max has no points on his license for causing any accidents

Yeah, it's amazing how easily you can avoid accidents when you spend pretty much a whole year driving around with no car within ten seconds of you.

[Ultraviolet]

Did Lewis leave Max enough room to negotiate the corner on an outside line that isn't badly compromised by having to avoid an errant Lewis avoiding the apex by a mile? No.

I keep trying not to get dragged back into discussing the accident itself, but the rule is that drivers must leave each other racing room. Both did. Lewis's penalty was not because he didn't leave Max enough room.

[FullOppositeLock]

Yeah, it's amazing how easily you can avoid accidents when you spend pretty much a whole year driving around with no car within ten seconds of you.

Is that in reference to Lewis in the hybrid era?

[Mark1865]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

I didn’t believe that was true until I watched the video of the interview. Unbelievable.

What a week for Horner and Red Bull. They have somehow managed to overshadow the actual incident itself by their classless comments and comedy appeal attempt.

I feel sorry for the Red Bull PR team. They have quite a bit of work to do.

[as65p]

Yeah, it's amazing how easily you can avoid accidents when you spend pretty much a whole year driving around with no car within ten seconds of you.

 

Then how come Hamilton failed at such an easy task?
 

[Augurk]

Yeah, it's amazing how easily you can avoid accidents when you spend pretty much a whole year driving around with no car within ten seconds of you.

Lewis did a fine job getting into some even though he had pretty much no car within ten seconds of him all year. 

[absinthedude]

Horner just confirmed that LH would have needed to brake 23 metres earlier to make the corner. Assuming a 270KpH entry speed, that’s a whole 0.3s earlier. It takes 0.12s for the brain to send a signal to muscle to move, leaving 0.18s for LH to judge how much to adjust everything by, and make those adjustments…. It takes a human 0.3s to blink.

Max was off the track for 0.8s in T1, enabling him defend and hold the lead - but this warrants no investigation.

If only Horner’s interviews could be 0.18s.

 

Horner also stated that the appeal, or whatever it was, was based on GPS "evidence".....which is woefully inaccurate compared to the telemetry  from the cars....I believe the FIA and stewards have access to this. 

[Marklar]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

Watch Marko saying tomorrow "All drivers matter" or something along those lines

[RekF1]

Watch Marko saying tomorrow "All drivers matter" or something along those lines

It's safe to assume that they hired prince Andrews PR guru.

[Ultraviolet]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

Oh, no he didn't, surely.

 

Mr Horner, put down the spade and step away slowly.

[ExEd]

https://mobile.twitt...114088025886728

Ffs.

 

I can't believe this... can't be true. 

Did he really? 

[Ultraviolet]

It's safe to assume that they hired prince Andrews PR guru.

I think it feels more like a Lynton Crosby dead cat strategy.

[Dolph]

Very good video showing how Hamilton misjudged the corner speed on lap 1:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=xGgpdb2WhRE

[solochamp07]

Can someone please produce an actual rule that says a driver overtaking on the inside is obliged to hit the apex and maximize the available space for their opponent? Ffs. Is the rule not that you must leave one car plus a hair’s width? Each driver left the other ample space, each chose not to use it. Ham crowded Ver and Ver tightened toward the apex, chopping the air off Ham’s front wing as they interlocked. Racing incident, so please dispense with the raving incidents.

[WOT]

......

In the Silverstone incident the Stewards were quite clear in the reasoning for their verdict. They penalized Hamilton for being predominantly at fault for the contact as there was room available on the inside (which is actually quite similar to the reasoning in Austria in reverse). There is no reason to consider the Silverstone incident in isolation given the clear wording of the Stewards. If Hamilton thinks what he did is right, but the Stewards did not, I think he should have a conversation with them (or Masi) to discuss what is and what is not allowed on track. Up until that point, I think any driver in F1 has an obligation to not do an action which has been deemed illegal. 

 

 

 

.......

The fact that they are in different cars is irrelevant, I agree with you there.  The fact that one had a penalty and the other didn't is not because it has a material connection to how the statements might be received.  Whether the driver intended it or not is pure speculation.  But the fact - and it is a fact - that Lewis was judged to have been predominantly responsible and was penalised for it is very relevant to any statement saying that he would do the same again, because any steward who hears that might be forgiven for feeling that their authority was being challenged.  Max doesn't have that extra factor to consider, which doesn't make him right, which seems to be the binary conclusion being drawn, but it does mean that he doesn't have to contend with that extra layer of interpretation that Lewis does.  And these are all facts, not speculation.

........

 

 

By virtue of the FACT that HAM was predominantly at fault/responsible, FACT is that VER was also at fault/responsible, but not predominantly.

 

Just wondering when both of you, and all the others out there that claim that VER is an innocent bystander, are going to discuss VER's culpability in this incident.

Edited by WOT, 31 July 2021 - 03:19.

[Sardukar]

I just wanna say, that the level of spin that has occurred from Hamilton deliberately taking out a competitor (something we have seen in F1 many many times before) to him becoming the victim yet again is absolutely amazing from everyone at his team and Mercedes, bravo.

[Gary Davies]

So regarding Marko's "...significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned", can we now say that dear Helmut is the little boy who cried Wolff?

[gillesfan76]

I think you are misinterpreting completely.  I'm simply saying that if a driver receives a penalty and then declares shortly afterwards that they would do exactly the same in future, then they are sending the message that they don't respect the stewards' decision, which is different from saying that they disagree with the penalty, but still respect it.  

 

Whatever the experts may think is irrelevant.  It's not about judging the incident itself, as I'd like to think / hope we've moved past that, so no need for any supporting stats, but about how the statement may be perceived, given the fact he had received a penalty for not taking a specific course of action and then declared he would do exactly the same again.  It's as simple as that, really.

 

In the unlikely event that the exact same circumstances present themselves and the stewards give a different ruling just because there's a different steward, then all that will do is highlight that something needs to change with the stewards themselves because they are supposed to be applying the rules to each situation, not putting their own personal preferences on things.  If they can't be consistent the that's a bigger problem than whatever Lewis might do IMO.

 

Thanks for your patience in trying to understand my point of view. I sincerely try to do the same. I agree with you that Lewis, by saying he would do the same thing again (as opposed to just thinking it, but not saying it) is going one step above just disagreeing with the penalty but also does not respect it.

 

Though I think the key difference in our perspectives is the significance you attach to that compared to me (maybe I’m mistaken on that too and have perceived you attach more significance than you actually do). I don’t attach any significance to it and don’t think that what Lewis said is disrespectful in the wide understanding of that term. I think to say someone is being disrespectful conjures up a certain impression and I don’t get that impression from his statement. What I get from it is a stronger version of him saying he disagrees with the penalty.

 

Neither do I think he’s being stubborn. He knows his move was risky and he contributed to the collision but he clearly thinks also that Max contributed equally, or maybe even more, such that he feels that if he was in the same situation where he was 33 points behind, in a slower car and needed to turn the tide on points, he would take the same risk again. I understand that. I think each driver expected the other to back out. But only the one that is going to lose the championship anyway if the previous trend continued, is going to be less likely to back out.

[Requiem84]

1. This whole mythical concept that cars must be able to make the apex never existed in 120+ years of motor racing until two weeks ago when Horner made it up.

2. Neither car was going to make the apex given the lines they took. max ensured that when he squeezed Lewis towards the wall. That move was perfectly legitimate, but it meant that neither could take an ideal line into Copse. From that moment on either driver "hitting the apex" was a moot point.

1. Horner AND the Stewards, in the sense that they didnt mention the apex, but at least they require the inside car to be on the available inside line.

2. The outside car is not supposed to hit the apex is there is an inside car alongside.

Cone on guys, racing basics.

[Huffer]

 

Just wondering when both of you, and all the others out there that claim that VER is an innocent bystander, are going to discuss VER's culpability in this incident.

 

 

That's not going to happen. I've just accepted that there are going to be people in this discussion who can't or won't accept that Max is also victim of his own actions in Silverstone. But then, RBR don't think that either and also think that Hamilton did so in purpose, or rather this is what they want people to think. And they've committed to those fairy tales with such fervour, that they went as far as to manufacture evidence for an appeal!

When you realised that a F1 team full of highly-paid, well informed, smart people can be so obtuse; it becomes a lot easier to understand why random non-entities on the internet can be just as extreme in their views / beliefs.

 

People believe what they believe. Let 'em keep on believing. They're not doing anybody any harm.

Edited by Huffer, 31 July 2021 - 05:54.

[shure]

By virtue of the FACT that HAM was predominantly at fault/responsible, FACT is that VER was also at fault/responsible, but not predominantly.

Just wondering when both of you, and all the others out there that claim that VER is an innocent bystander, are going to discuss VER's culpability in this incident.

done it already. Not strictly relevant to the point being made that HAM’s statement has an added layer of interpretation due to the penalty.

[SilverArrow31]

I just wanna say, that the level of spin that has occurred from Hamilton deliberately taking out a competitor (something we have seen in F1 many many times before) to him becoming the victim yet again is absolutely amazing from everyone at his team and Mercedes, bravo.

Hello Helmut...

[WOT]

done it already. Not strictly relevant to the point being made that HAM’s statement has an added layer of interpretation due to the penalty.

 

Sorry, I must have missed that, I did try to read most posts - gets a bit difficult.... Any chance of a few quick pointers to post numbers in that regard? No, probably not, it would be a waste of your time wouldn't it.

 

To your second sentence, not particularly relevant to my question.

[smitten]

I just wanna say, that the level of spin that has occurred from Hamilton deliberately taking out a competitor (something we have seen in F1 many many times before) to him becoming the victim yet again is absolutely amazing from everyone at his team and Mercedes, bravo.

You may wanna say it, but you'll still be so wrong on so many levels.

[DeKnyff]

I just wanna say, that the level of spin that has occurred from Hamilton deliberately taking out a competitor (something we have seen in F1 many many times before) to him becoming the victim yet again is absolutely amazing from everyone at his team and Mercedes, bravo.

 

Have we?

[shure]

That's not going to happen. I've just accepted that there are going to be people in this discussion who can't or won't accept that Max is also victim of his own actions in Silverstone. But then, RBR don't think that either and also think that Hamilton did so in purpose, or rather this is what they want people to think. And they've committed to those fairy tales with such fervour, that they went as far as to manufacture evidence for an appeal!

When you realised that a F1 team full of highly-paid, well informed, smart people can be so obtuse; it becomes a lot easier to understand why random non-entities on the internet can be just as extreme in their views / beliefs.

 

People believe what they believe. Let 'em keep on believing. They're not doing anybody any harm.

Great to see that the fine tradition of strawmannery is alive and well and being maintained by a dedicated fanbase on internet forums.  

 

For the hard of reading, my post, which is one that WOT was referencing in his question, was about the statements of the two drivers, not about the incident itself, and in particular how the penalty added an extra dimension to how Hamilton's might be received.  Culpability itself wasn't the point, nor was any discussion on the accident.  Which you and WOT would know if you'd bothered to read the conversation that particular quote was hijacked from.  And you don't even have to go very far - it's part of the very same post that WOT selectively pulled that bit from.

[shure]

Sorry, I must have missed that, I did try to read most posts - gets a bit difficult.... Any chance of a few quick pointers to post numbers in that regard? No, probably not, it would be a waste of your time wouldn't it.

 

To your second sentence, not particularly relevant to my question.

The second point is entirely relevant, because you were referencing a quote that you took from one of my posts.  And if you had read most posts as you claim you will of course have noted that I've stated on more than one occasion that I'm not interested in debating the actual incident anymore, as that's been done to death already and anybody's opinions on it are already set by mow, unless you've been swayed by Horner's damning new evidence, of course. The discussion I was having was about the statements from the two drivers, and how their different circumstances might lead to a different interpretation.

[WOT]

Great to see that the fine tradition of strawmannery is alive and well and being maintained by a dedicated fanbase on internet forums.  

 

For the hard of reading, my post, which is one that WOT was referencing in his question, was about the statements of the two drivers, not about the incident itself, and in particular how the penalty added an extra dimension to how Hamilton's might be received.  Culpability itself wasn't the point, nor was any discussion on the accident.  Which you and WOT would know if you'd bothered to read the conversation that particular quote was hijacked from.  And you don't even have to go very far - it's part of the very same post that WOT selectively pulled that bit from.

 

Sorry, I'm confused, which isn't difficult, but what part of "But the fact - and it is a fact - that Lewis was judged to have been predominantly responsible and was penalised", regardless of what context it is in, can be construed to mean anything but what it says.

[WOT]

The second point is entirely relevant, because you were referencing a quote that you took from one of my posts.  And if you had read most posts as you claim you will of course have noted that I've stated on more than one occasion that I'm not interested in debating the actual incident anymore, as that's been done to death already and anybody's opinions on it are already set by mow, unless you've been swayed by Horner's damning new evidence, of course. The discussion I was having was about the statements from the two drivers, and how their different circumstances might lead to a different interpretation.

 

Sorry, but you can't put something like "They penalized Hamilton for being predominantly at fault" in a post and not expect it to be analysed, and expect people to believe that you're not interested in debating the incident any further.

[jcbc3]

[mod]

Posts removed. Which mean some context may be missing for posts left behind. Too bad.

 

Review petition denied. So is this thread. Enjoy the Hungarian Grand Prix!

[/mod]