1129 replies to this topic

[Muppetmad]

Frankly, none of us should take seriously a piece that claims there is a "British lobby" in the FIA that wields the power to issue Verstappen penalties, just as we should not take seriously any claim that there is a "Dutch" or "German" or any other national lobby.

[Brian60]

There is no Dutch version of that website.

https://nl.motorspor...stappen/273717/

[Kao18]

I responded because I found it quite funny that you were giving some guy’s blog in evidence as if it had significance, I think. I expect he’s very nice but why is his opinion more important than anyone else’s, say, here on this board and in need of being refuted by me?

 

He is a journalist and you could say that about any article could you not?  Yet somehow now this is relevant because it is not a British article?

[Kao18]

https://nl.motorspor...stappen/273717/

 

Thats not motorpasion is it. Motorpasion is Spanish/Mexican only.

[MKSixer]

So I'm just going to address this as there seem to be two camps in the other point where Verstappen drove just fine and the other where Verstappen wasn't going to make the corner due speed and his line.

 

The whole "dodgy rule interpretation" boils down to everybody focusing on cars being along side, and how that's judged. But you're all chasing your tails. Because it doesn't matter if a car is along side or not or how it's judged, as the rules state that there are other factors that will be considered as well. A car being "along side"is just one factor, and the stewards in this instance, decided that it wasn't the only factor in attributing blame; it seems from their judgement, it was just as import as to how Max got his car into a certain position and what would potentially happen afterwards.

 

Well no....I'm not the one making the claim that one judgment is wrong because of some gate-keeping argument. I'm just applying your own logic to your own arguments. I don't have to apply it to mine because I'm not the person originally trying to discredit the stewards. 

 

 

Sure. Already covered. But I'll say it again for clarity.

 

Max carried too much speed into and out of T1, especially for the line shallow line he was going to follow. There was no way he was going to make T2 in a normal manner - he was always going to head out towards the outside of the exit and force the Mercedes wide. It was basically a "move or we crash" gambit. We'd seen exactly the same thing last season from him.  It was never going to be enough for Hamilton to simply leave room - he would have had to take avoiding action to not hit Max after the apex.

 

Sure, Hamilton could have left more room, can't disagree with that. But from my view the impact would still have happened unless Hamilton then took extra avoiding action on the exit of T2. Even after the bump, Max still carried on towards the outside of T2 exit, such was his momentum in that direction, relative to Hamilton's. If Verstappen's momentum and direction of travel was more on the typical racing line, the impact would have resulted in a turning moment to the right of the car, rather than allowing the car to travel more or less along the direction of travel before the impact.

 

It's a classic example of the impact force more or less being along the longitudinal axis of the car resulting from the sum velocity at the point of impact coming most from Verstappen's car. Because of this, and his apparebnt excess speed in getting "along side" Hamilton, I'm of the view that Verstappen never intended to take the corner as usual. It was always going to be about forcing the other car to take avoiding action. 

You are correct.  

 

Max himself said the only way of him to make the turn was for Lewis to back out.  Max knew there would be a crash if Lewis didn't yield.  I don't understand why people continue to debate this.

[Ellios]

This is just a regurgitation of 2021 discussing an incident, that, had it happened to any other driver than Hamilton wouldn’t even result in a thread. Hopefully this is closed asap.

 

Regurgitated about every 4 posts, in ever decreasing circles over and over and over. 

 

Which implies I'm done for the season already. 

 

For the topic, racing incident. 

 

Enjoy the last race of 2022, have a great Christmas and New Year! 

[Brian60]

Thats not motorpasion is it. Motorpasion is Spanish/Mexican only.

I never said it was. I said THIS website! Autosport and Motorsport are sister publications from the same publisher, so have one and the same articles in them, except Motorsport offers Dutch as well as other nationality to read.

[SophieB]

He is a journalist and you could say that about any article could you not?  Yet somehow now this is relevant because it is not a British article?

We *could* say that of any article and the answers would be things like: we listen to him or her because they were there, they’ve built up a respected career in the sport as a driver and/or an informed, insightful writer, etc etc.

 

And I’m not going to further dunk on someone who is just going about their business sharing their views on the internet, like we all can do and that’s fine, but I also don’t see why, in the absence of any of the above, see why his opinion is more relevant than anyone else’s.

[Kao18]

We *could* say that of any article and the answers would be things like: we listen to him or her because they were there, they’ve built up a respected career in the sport as a driver and/or an informed, insightful writer, etc etc.

 

And I’m not going to further dunk on someone who is just going about their business sharing their views on the internet, like we all can do and that’s fine, but I also don’t see why, in the absence of any of the above, see why his opinion is more relevant than anyone else’s.

 

I never said its more relevant did I? But I also dont see how it is any less relevant.

 

What we find informed and insightful is very personal ins't it. However I think you made your point you dont find this particulars journalists' piece informed or insightful. For someone that says they dont really care about this inicident you seem to go a long way to try and discredit the article and the writer though.

[AustinF1]

And your own analysis isn't self-serving speculation because why exactly? It doesn't matter if he completed T1 fully on track or not, that's not in question. Max still had to brake later and be off line for the entry into the following T2 to at least draw along side the Mercedes. It doesn't matter if other cars are not always on the optimum line or not - in this particular instance, Max wasn't going to make T2 in a clean or safe manner. And I have addressed the specific unsafe & unfair thing - Max essentially cutting off the path of the other car by taking a line that doesn't just make the other driver take a wider line.

 

Denying space for another car is one thing but Max, at least when defending against Lewis seems to quite often cut across the path of the cars travel. And that was what we saw at Interlagos last week, along with quite a few times last season. I suppose you could argue that Lewis was doing the same, but the differing factor is that Lewis was atleast following the general path of the track whilst Max was not.

 

Nope. I've looked at the video and whilst the suspension raises a little, that's because he's gone over the kerbs, not because the impact lifted the body and the wheel of the car. If anything, had Max's wheels been off the ground, the turning moment of the impact would have been even greater without any opposing forces generated by the front tires and the Red Bull would have been turned away from the outside of the track from part of the force that had a lateral component relative to Max's car. And no manufactured idea that it's all because Max wasn't left enough room will change that. 

My 'analysis' isn't self-serving specualtion, because I don't pretend to know things that we can't know. That's the entire point of what I'm saying. I presented multiple possibilities and then made the point that we can't know which (if any of them) would have happened, because Lewis denied Max any space for a different outcome. I have no idea what would have happened had Lewis left room. I don't know if Max would have left room or if he'd have completed the move. But that was never allowed to play out. Lewis didn't allow room, as he's supposed to do per the rules. That's what we know. If Lewis had allowed room, it's possible that a collision would still have occurred. But we'll never know. 

 

You seem to have a problem with Max denying space at times, which he definitely has done, but then you seem to think it's ok for Lewis to do the same, which he's also done in the past. My point is that no matter who denies the space, it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

 

Also, I keep hearing that Lewis was on the racing line - but he wasn't. Not even close. George was on the racing line ahead of Lewis. Lewis was about a car width to the right of George's line, obviously squeezing Max well before the apex, as soon as he exited T1, and then progressively squeezing him more as they got closer. You go on and on about Max being on a bad line, but he was there in large part because Lewis forced him there. Look at the video. It's all there. Lewis and Max are side by side at the apex of 1, with Max in the middle of the track but still leaving Lewis room. Immediately after the exit, Lewis dives across to the right, pushing Max to the edge of the track and then off of it. It's a combination of running a car off on exit (a Lewis classic) and cutting across the same car at the next apex. Max didn't leave the middle of the track until Lewis forced him to the right. It's plain as day in the video.

 

Pure fan fiction fantasy on your part. But hey, at least your guy got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, so it's all good to you I guess. I'm on the side of hard but fair racing. There was nothing fair about what Lewis did there.

Edited by AustinF1, 18 November 2022 - 17:06.

[AustinF1]

To me this is an incident like so many others. sometimes debatable, but always with at least one driver more at fault like the other.

It seems there is a clear HAM and VER camp in this forum, that cannot and will not admit to their favorite driver being ever at fault. Both are not gods and they *do* make mistakes.

 

Pretty sure that if the roles were reversed, many users here would adhere to the complete opposite reasoning they have now, just to defend their driver.

Exactly. My point is about the nonsense that's being allowed that will adversely affect the racing going forward. Who did/does it is irrelevant.

[Huffer]

My 'analysis' isn't self-serving specualtion, because I don't pretend to know things that we can't know. That's the entire point of what I'm saying. I presented multiple possibilities and then made the point that we can't know which would have happened, because Lewis denied Max any space for a different outcome. I have no idea what would have happened had Lewis left room. I don't know if Max would have left room or if he'd have completed the move. But that was never allowed to play out. Lewis didn't allow room, as he's supposed to do per the rules. That's what we know. If Lewis had allowed room, it's possible that a collision would still have occurred. But we'll never know. 

 

But it is. If you're disregarding one speculative view as rubbish then you must be supporting another view that you think is more likley. I could equally say that any claim that Max would have made the corner is self-serving speculation because it was a scenario that wasn't allowed to play out because he rammed the Mercedes.

 

But there is a difference here. I can at least say WHY I think my view is fairly valid (for the reason I've previously given). You are of course entitled to disagree with me. 

 

You seem to have a problem with Max denying space at times, which he definitely has done, but then you seem to think it's ok for Lewis to do the same, which he's also done in the past. My point is that no matter who denies the space, it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

 

 

I have a problem with Max's driving in general. Cutting across the path of another car is something he's done on several occasions, including in my view, Interlagos 2022 which was the main cause of the collision.

 

Also, I keep hearing that Lewis was on the racing line 

 

But not from me. My argument was that out the two, Lewis was the one following the general path of the track and Max wasn't. Out of the two, Max's line was the one most compromised and from the looks of it, not a line that was likely to make the corner in any normal way. He KNEW he wasn't going to make it and just decided to keep his foot in and ram the other car. 

 

 

But hey, at least your guy got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, so it's all good to you I guess.

 

The driver who was responsible for the incident got the punishment. If course I'm ok with that. If you're gravitating to insulting that I hold certain views because of a driver I support, then you really have nothing to say that I'm interested in responding to and we're done here. Besides, it's the final race weekend - no need to spend more time here discussing meaningless apportioning of blame that has already been rightfully decided by the stewards. 

Edited by Huffer, 18 November 2022 - 16:10.

[AustinF1]

But it is. If you're disregarding one speculative view as rubbish then you must be supporting another view that you think is more likley. 

Stopped reading after this, as there's no point wasting any more of my time when you can't bother to engage in an intellectually honest way or take my statements at face value rather than reading nonsense into them. 

 

As I have stated repeatedly, I have no idea what would have happened had Lewis left room. None. Zero. Nada. Neither do you. That's the point. I'm not espousing any view at all, other than the fact that we only know one thing that a driver did that's against the rules - Lewis cutting across Max from the exit to T1 until the apex of T2. After that happened, there were only two likely outcomes - Max backs out or goes off track, or there's a collision. If Lewis leaves space, any number of outcomes are possible, and nobody can know what would have happened.

[Joshrobins13]

other than the fact that we only know one thing that a driver did that's against the rules - Lewis cutting across Max from the exit to T1 until the apex of T2.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

[AustinF1]

This is an opinion, not a fact.

OK then, what other illegal actions were taken?

[Atreiu]

So, 23 pages? Has anyone had a change of mind?

[Joshrobins13]

OK then, what other illegal actions were taken?

I've argued that Max wasn't overtaking in a controlled manner and was therefore predominantly at fault, but that is just my opinion.

[AustinF1]

I've argued that Max wasn't overtaking in a controlled manner and was therefore predominantly at fault, but that is just my opinion.

OK, I understand that's your opinon and you're not claiming it as a fact, but in what manner was he out of control? Did he lock up? Did he have understeer or oversteer that he had to correct? Was he sawing at the wheel, on the edge of control? He was in the middle of the track and side by side with Lewis right up until Lewis forced him wide and then mostly off the track (which is a fact, as is the rule requiring you to leave space for a car that's alongside). 

[Joshrobins13]

OK, I understand that's your opinon and you're not claiming it as a fact, but in what manner was he out of control? Did he lock up? Did he have understeer or oversteer that he had to correct? Was he sawing at the wheel, on the edge of control? He was in the middle of the track and side by side with Lewis right up until Lewis forced him wide and then mostly off the track (which is a fact, as is the rule requiring you to leave space for a car that's alongside).

I thought Max took too much speed into T2 at the angle from which he entered the corner. I don't think he would have made the corner and I think that the only way he was making the corner was if he slowed to a point where Lewis would have pulled a full car length ahead anyway.

At T2 Max gained a lot on entry, at a compromised angle and at a corner where you don't typically gain much on entry - because it isn't really a braking zone. He then ran considerably wide. Both of these things indicate to me that he probably took too much speed in.

It isn't a fact though that Lewis was required to leave Max space. T1/T2 is effectively an elongated chicane which muddies the water somewhat on racing rules. The second part of a chicane is always a closing gap for an attacker on the outside.

Two examples involving Hamilton on the receiving end are Imola vs Verstappen and Canada vs Rosberg. In both these situations I think Lewis was going for a gap which simply wasn't there.

[AustinF1]

I thought Max took too much speed into T2 at the angle from which he entered the corner. I don't think he would have made the corner and I think that the only way he was making the corner was if he slowed to a point where Lewis would have pulled a full car length ahead anyway.

At T2 Max gained a lot on entry, at a compromised angle and at a corner where you don't typically gain much on entry - because it isn't really a braking zone. He then ran considerably wide. Both of these things indicate to me that he probably took too much speed in.

It isn't a fact though that Lewis was required to leave Max space. T1/T2 is effectively an elongated chicane which muddies the water somewhat on racing rules. The second part of a chicane is always a closing gap for an attacker on the outside.

Two examples involving Hamilton on the receiving end are Imola vs Verstappen and Canada vs Rosberg. In both these situations I think Lewis was going for a gap which simply wasn't there.

OK, you think that, and you might even be right, but there was no more indication of Max being out of control or carrying too much speed than there was with Lewis. Lewis was also not on the optimium line and was approaching the apex at a compromised angle, having moved to the right of the actual racing line to squeeze Max off.

 

Re: the rule, if Max hadn't been alongside all the way through the sequence, I might tend to agree with you. But he was there from before T1 to T2. He didn't make a late lunge or any of that. If the best defense is that it's a chicane, so the rule doesn't apply, then you're basically saying nobody can pass in a chicane, but we see it very often.

 

Thanks for the good discussion!

[Ivanhoe]

If the best defense is that it's a chicane, so the rule doesn't apply, then you're basically saying nobody can pass in a chicane, but we see it very often.

The situation for chicanes and S-bends is covered in the guidelines

 

Guidelines for chicanes and S-bends

The above guidelines would apply similarly for each corner.

 

[Joshrobins13]

OK, you think that, and you might even be right, but there was no more indication of Max being out of control or carrying too much speed than there was with Lewis. Lewis was also not on the optimium line and was approaching the apex at a compromised angle, having moved to the right of the actual racing line to squeeze Max off.

Re: the rule, if Max hadn't been alongside all the way through the sequence, I might tend to agree with you. But he was there from before T1 to T2. He didn't make a late lunge or any of that. If the best defense is that it's a chicane, so the rule doesn't apply, then you're basically saying nobody can pass in a chicane, but we see it very often.

Thanks for the good discussion!

That's fair enough. It's not clear cut either way and the Stewards interpret the rules just as we try to.

The one thing I would add is that I think the driver needs to be level with the front axel of the defender throughout the corner if they are to make a clean pass around the outside of a chicane. It's the only way I've really seen drivers be successful in making that move stick.

[AustinF1]

That's fair enough. It's not clear cut either way and the Stewards interpret the rules just as we try to.

The one thing I would add is that I think the driver needs to be level with the front axel of the defender throughout the corner if they are to make a clean pass around the outside of a chicane. It's the only way I've really seen drivers be successful in making that move stick.

Maybe so. I'm in no way saying that Max would have made the move stick had Lewis left room - just that Lewis took that possibility away with the move. IMHO, the most likely outcome is that Lewis would have won out in the end, since he had the stronger car that weekend, and he probably would have won the race. But we'll never know because instead, he cut across Max.

Edited by AustinF1, 18 November 2022 - 20:16.

[AustinF1]

 

The situation for chicanes and S-bends is covered in the guidelines

Thanks. Nice find!

[Joshrobins13]

The situation for chicanes and S-bends is covered in the guidelines

I'm not sure these guidelines make sense. The two corners of a chicane are bound to each other, as the exit of one is the entrance of the other. I don't think you can assess one without considering what happens in the other. But that's a discussion for another day.

[Ivanhoe]

I'm not sure these guidelines make sense. The two corners of a chicane are bound to each other, as the exit of one is the entrance of the other. I don't think you can assess one without considering what happens in the other. But that's a discussion for another day.

I’m just the messenger, these are the FIA guidelines. Based on these guidelines Verstappen (being the outside attacking driver) had to be fully alongside at the apex of T1 to be entitled to sufficient room on the exit of T1. For turn 2 (being on the inside line) a significant portion of his car should have been alongside Hamilton’s at the apex to be entitled to sufficient room on the inside. So what’s a ‘significant portion’? 
 

Here’s a link to the guidelines for reference.

[Joshrobins13]

I’m just the messenger, these are the FIA guidelines. Based on these guidelines Verstappen (being the outside attacking driver) had to be fully alongside at the apex of T1 to be entitled to sufficient room on the exit of T1. For turn 2 (being on the inside line) a significant portion of his car should have been alongside Hamilton’s at the apex to be entitled to sufficient room on the inside. So what’s a ‘significant portion’?

Here’s a link to the guidelines for reference.

Yeah, I know you are only quoting the FIA. I don't agree with a lot of what's in the guidelines. It seems hastily put together and not entirely thought out to me.

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, I know you are only quoting the FIA. I don't agree with a lot of what's in the guidelines. It seems hastily put together and not entirely thought out to me.

Fair enough and agreed. They also stil leave some room for interpretation, especially for an overtake on the inside. But it’s all we have at the moment.

[Ragamuffin]

So, 23 pages? Has anyone had a change of mind?

Yep, I've gone from being mildly curious to not giving a ****.

[gillesfan76]

I thought that they had clarified it not long ago to be 'significantly' alongside ... not all the way alongside or barely alongside, but in between the two. I could be wrong though. I've slept since then. ; )

 

ETA: Here it is ...

https://racingnews36...ines-are-issued

 

Yes I was aware that the guidance wording pertained to ‘significantly’ alongside and I agree that the logical interpretation of the wording in context is that any part of the car on the inside being alongside any part of the car on the outside thereby constitutes being ‘significantly alongside’. But even, why can’t they simply put a clear measure on it like they did with the same guidance given for overtaking on the outside? Instead, the wording for overtaking on the inside is not black and white and introduces shades of grey.

 

For example, I think if the front wheels of the overtaking car on the inside is only alongside the rear wheels of the car on the outside, then while maybe the guidance would consider it ‘significantly alongside’, I personally think the inside car isn’t and doesn’t deserve a car’s width of space. If the inside car’s front wheels are at least halfway alongside the car on the outside, then I think it is significantly alongside and deserves a car’s width space.

 

The rules and associated guidance needs to be clear and infringement rulings of those needs to be clear and consistent.

 

The car in front by the apex gets to dictate the corner, BUT he must keep space. Which means the overtaking car on the inside must be prepared to take a tight and probably slow line.

 

The clarification of the rules was made to prevent a Brazil incident again where Max took advantage of the rules as they where before that even if you go in too fast to make the corner, it was technically your corner.

 

I wholly agree with your first sentence.

 

I think you’re being disingenuous with your second sentence, possibly unintentionally. In 2021 Brazil when Max went wide in turn 4, then what you say above only holds true if he at least stayed on track. He didn’t. I’m only half kidding when I say that I couldn’t tell if he was trying to take a short cut to Venezuela or Ecuador. The ‘rules as they were’ at the time did not allow a driver to completely crowd out another driver to the point where the driver defending on the inside goes completely off track. That wasn’t a slight misjudgement of entry speed and grip by Max. Certainly not for a driver of his calibre on a dry track and one where he’s got many racing laps of data of the available grip from both track and tyres. No, that was an intentional action by Max to ensure that his speed into that corner was such as to ensure his car position kept level with Lewis at all points as they both traversed around the corner.

 

Lewis was on a wider line and had more grip from his tyres at the time, while in comparison Max was on a tighter line and had less grip. No problem says Max, I’ll just run wider if I need to, don’t worry about the consequence be that crash or penalty, I just make sure that I maintain my car position to keep level with Lewis and deal with whatever consequence comes my way after. If I don’t do that, it’s a certainty that Lewis overtakes and takes a bagful of points. If I do whatever I do to try and prevent an overtake, now that certainty of Lewis getting ahead is replaced with the uncertainty of him possibly not getting ahead (better than he getting ahead); or we both crash (still better than he getting ahead); or he avoids contact and I get a time penalty (worth that chance as I have a fast enough car to still finish P2 which is the position I would anyway be if Lewis got ahead); or he avoids contact and I don’t get a time penalty (better than he getting ahead).

 

So please, let’s not pretend that Max was allowed to do what he did at turn 4 Brazil last year because of the ‘rules as they were’ and proven by the fact that he didn’t get a penalty, anymore than you dislike seeing some of Lewis fans pretending that Lewis was allowed to do what he did at turn 2 Brazil this year and proven by the fact that it was Max who got a penalty. In both cases, the FIA got it wrong and in both cases I can understand why Max and Lewis did what they did, because with inconsistent stewarding and vague rules, playing the probability game of risking contact or penalty is worth it given the alternative of an almost certainty where the other driver gets ahead.