47 replies to this topic

[Quiet One]

*An artificial controversy thread sponsored by Pirelli*

So, I was reading JAonF1 and found many arguments about this move. FYI, I have nothing to object to the move itself except that it is considered not too polite among drivers but otherwise perfectly legal.

But giving it more thought I found it very interesting as there are so many sides of it. Allow me to explain:

1) Regarding the move itself and the difference betwen Vettel and Alonso reactions: Vettel was crazy mad about it, Alonso was cool and in fact used it to his advantage. There is some degree of difference betwen the drivers (calm ALO not letting him by vs hot-headed VET being caught) but that is only half the truth. Other side equally as true is that when he unlapped VET it was a completely surprise move as no driver expects a backmarker to suddenly unlap himself to get in the middle of a battle for the lead. When HAM reached ALO, Fernando was more than aware so he could better play his cards on whether to take the risk of fighting and keeping him as a buffer or simply letting him go. Had the car positions be reversed between ALO and VET, probably we would have seen ALO waving his fist and VET fighting or not and we would have been congratulating him in any case for the way he reacted.

2) Regarding HAM: was he right or wrong, besides the rules?  His move obviously influenced the battle. Drivers at the front are never too fond of backmarkers interfering with the battle at the front but this case was unusual because this was not a case of a slower car hindering a faster one but the opposite and his moves could have been ultimately beneficial for his team mate. Hard to tell.It goes down to whether the drivers accept it or not. Ultimately, besides Vettel, it didn't seem to stir much controversy among his fellow drivers so it seems he was ok.

3) The main issue is, like with team orders, or number two drivers at teams, the tension between different approaches to a sport that is not a team sport, nor an individual sport per se. His move was great from a team sport POV, poor from an individual POV. I don't think that there is a way to modify the rules towards one approach or the other without sacrificing much of the charm F1 has.
Still, I'd like to see a little bit more of team tactics.

4) I still remember Shanghai 2006 when ALO and Fisi used to drive side by side down the straight to block Schumi. The guys at Ferrari went ballistic!
Of course, you need to be in the "right" frame of mind to enjoy that stuff (i.e. being a fan of the guy being benefited ) The problem is that the sport does not have a fixed frame, so these moves are inherently controversial.

Oh, I don't know, I'm still bored I guess. I could imagine being upset by those team tactics just as easily as I am delighted right now imagining them. I did enjoy HAM overtaking VET that's for sure

Comments?

[Massa]

I guess I'm not surprised that people think this is even controversial, but they shouldn't.  There is nothing controversial about someone with a faster car passing a slower car.  When a faster car yields to a slower car or holds back and stays behind, that's controversy, because slower cars behing ahead of faster cars isn't normal and it isn't the point of racing.  If Hamilton had held Vettel up so that Button could close in, fine, I'd understand some frustration there, but he didn't.  He was just running his own race and his overtake wasn't overly aggressive or anything (and he knew how to do it with four wheels on the track ).

Controversy, to me, would be having the faster car but letting Vettel go ahead.  That's doing something abnormal at the benefit of a driver.  Doing something normal at the detriment of your competitors is the sport.

I compare it to multi-class sports car racing.  Consider cars a lap down a separate class in their own race.  When a faster prototype cuts into the middle of a battle between GT cars, as a fan, you say "damn, that was going to be good," but it's not the faster prototype's driver's responsibility to ensure that GT has an exciting finish.  You don't want to wrong your competitors too much, but it's a selfish sport, it always has been, it always should be.  That's why Vettel was angry; he's selfish on the track.  That's why Hamilton made the pass to begin with; he's selfish on the track.  That's why every single driver does what they do in a race; they're selfish on the track, because if you aren't and never were, you must not have made it very far in the racing ladder.

I'm sure Hamilton didn't even give it any thought as to whether or not he should pass him, and I'm sure he hasn't given it any thought since.

[Quiet One]

Massa, on 24 July 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

I guess I'm not surprised that people think this is even controversial, but they shouldn't.  There is nothing controversial about someone with a faster car passing a slower car.  When a faster car yields to a slower car or holds back and stays behind, that's controversy, because slower cars behing ahead of faster cars isn't normal and it isn't the point of racing.  If Hamilton had held Vettel up so that Button could close in, fine, I'd understand some frustration there, but he didn't.  He was just running his own race and his overtake wasn't overly aggressive or anything (and he knew how to do it with four wheels on the track ).

Controversy, to me, would be having the faster car but letting Vettel go ahead.  That's doing something abnormal at the benefit of a driver.  Doing something normal at the detriment of your competitors is the sport.

I compare it to multi-class sports car racing.  Consider cars a lap down a separate class in their own race.  When a faster prototype cuts into the middle of a battle between GT cars, as a fan, you say "damn, that was going to be good," but it's not the faster prototype's driver's responsibility to ensure that GT has an exciting finish.

I'm sure Hamilton didn't even give it any thought as to whether or not he should pass him, and I'm sure he hasn't given it any thought since.

he was a backmarker, there was a battle for the lead. He was faster, ok, but there was no gain for him there. That is why it is considered legal, but not polite.In that sense, I can understand the frowning.

Again, from a team sport POV, that was a great idea, and brilliantly put by HAM, as well as fun to watch (unless you are Brad, of course ).

As I said, you can watch it from two different POVs at least. My personal feeling is that I would like to see the sport giving more attention to the "team" part of the sport so we can see more things like this, but not sure where to draw the line.

[Massa]

I see how it works from a team perspective, in theory, but I don't see how it doesn't work from an individual one.

Hamilton didn't make the move to hold up a Red Bull for his teammate, or to deny a Red Bull a chance at an extra seven points.  He simply passed him because he was faster and took off ahead down the road while Vettel got frustrated and continued to use more than the track.

I don't think there was anything "team-oriented" about it.  Continually impeding Vettel for Button?  Sure.  But that never happened?

[pabloh20]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

*An artificial controversy thread sponsored by Pirelli*

So, I was reading JAonF1 and found many arguments about this move. FYI, I have nothing to object to the move itself except that it is considered not too polite among drivers but otherwise perfectly legal.

But giving it more thought I found it very interesting as there are so many sides of it. Allow me to explain:

1) Regarding the move itself and the difference betwen Vettel and Alonso reactions: Vettel was crazy mad about it, Alonso was cool and in fact used it to his advantage. There is some degree of difference betwen the drivers (calm ALO not letting him by vs hot-headed VET being caught) but that is only half the truth. Other side equally as true is that when he unlapped VET it was a completely surprise move as no driver expects a backmarker to suddenly unlap himself to get in the middle of a battle for the lead. When HAM reached ALO, Fernando was more than aware so he could better play his cards on whether to take the risk of fighting and keeping him as a buffer or simply letting him go. Had the car positions be reversed between ALO and VET, probably we would have seen ALO waving his fist and VET fighting or not and we would have been congratulating him in any case for the way he reacted.

2) Regarding HAM: was he right or wrong, besides the rules?  His move obviously influenced the battle. Drivers at the front are never too fond of backmarkers interfering with the battle at the front but this case was unusual because this was not a case of a slower car hindering a faster one but the opposite and his moves could have been ultimately beneficial for his team mate. Hard to tell.It goes down to whether the drivers accept it or not. Ultimately, besides Vettel, it didn't seem to stir much controversy among his fellow drivers so it seems he was ok.

3) The main issue is, like with team orders, or number two drivers at teams, the tension between different approaches to a sport that is not a team sport, nor an individual sport per se. His move was great from a team sport POV, poor from an individual POV. I don't think that there is a way to modify the rules towards one approach or the other without sacrificing much of the charm F1 has.
Still, I'd like to see a little bit more of team tactics.

4) I still remember Shanghai 2006 when ALO and Fisi used to drive side by side down the straight to block Schumi. The guys at Ferrari went ballistic!
Of course, you need to be in the "right" frame of mind to enjoy that stuff (i.e. being a fan of the guy being benefited ) The problem is that the sport does not have a fixed frame, so these moves are inherently controversial.

Oh, I don't know, I'm still bored I guess. I could imagine being upset by those team tactics just as easily as I am delighted right now imagining them. I did enjoy HAM overtaking VET that's for sure

Comments?

1) Frustration that he couldn't catch Alonso, is the more likely option.

2) Of course he was right and it doesn't even go to being impolite, as far as I am concerned.  Impolite would have been Vettel overtaking Hamilton and then Hamilton getting back in front of him, as I think Eddie Irvine did to Senna once, was it?  Otherwise, in theory, you could have situation where the backmarker is a several seconds a lap quicker than the leaders (say a change in weather condtions, or whatever) and it is 'impolite' to overtake.

3)  In this instance, I don't think Hamilton lost anything from doing this at all and as you say, the team possibly gained.  Hamilton was nowhere, going nowhere and ending up nowhere, not even a safety car would have helped him, unless he got so lucky as to be luckier than a leprechaun who has been appointed Professor of Good Fortune at Oxford University.  His only hope was a downpour of epic proportions.

4)  Yes, that is because they were cheating scum who constantly moaned that F1 was not a sport anymore............when it suited them, of course.  Whereas, Schumi and Ferrari were as clean as a whistle, no controversies there

The thing is, would you have enjoyed it if Hamilton had overtaken Alonso as well and that enabled Vettel to overtake Alonso too?

[Quiet One]

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

2) Of course he was right and it doesn't even go to being impolite, as far as I am concerned.  Impolite would have been Vettel overtaking Hamilton and then Hamilton getting back in front of him, as I think Eddie Irvine did to Senna once, was it?  Otherwise, in theory, you could have situation where the backmarker is a several seconds a lap quicker than the leaders (say a change in weather condtions, or whatever) and it is 'impolite' to overtake.

Well, as soon as we start talking about "politeness" instead of legallity of the move it is clear that this is all very subjective. Yes, there are  many cases in which unlapping would not be regarded as impolite. But in this case, with cars in front so tightly bunched together, the influence of his move was more notable. It begs  more controversy than unlapping from VET if ALO were half a minute ahead, for example, or Button 10 secs behind.
Again, controversial does not mean wrong. Simply that more arguments would arise.

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

3)  In this instance, I don't think Hamilton lost anything from doing this at all and as you say, the team possibly gained.  Hamilton was nowhere, going nowhere and ending up nowhere, not even a safety car would have helped him, unless he got so lucky as to be luckier than a leprechaun who has been appointed Professor of Good Fortune at Oxford University.  His only hope was a downpour of epic proportions.

Yup.

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

4)  Yes, that is because they were cheating scum who constantly moaned that F1 was not a sport anymore............when it suited them, of course.  Whereas, Schumi and Ferrari were as clean as a whistle, no controversies there

Errrr...yeah....of course

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

The thing is, would you have enjoyed it if Hamilton had overtaken Alonso as well and that enabled Vettel to overtake Alonso too?

Now, wait a minute!!! That would have been completely illegal, you hear me? I-LLE-GAL!!!
That would have been a farce of a race, a mockery of a sport and that Lewis dude should be banned forever!!!
What's the fun watching a backmarker doing that huh? Why FIA does not put a stop on these things? What next? A crane to put him back on track??? FIA=McLaren!!!
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! KILL KILL KILL!!!

See? I would have enjoyed it. No problems there.

[Jean Todt]

Just that Vettel is being a bad loser....its part of his character or the ultra competitive nature....he is not perfect and he is young. He will be more wise with his choice of words in a couple of years.

Edited by Jean Todt, 24 July 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[pabloh20]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Well, as soon as we start talking about "politeness" instead of legallity of the move it is clear that this is all very subjective. Yes, there are  many cases in which unlapping would not be regarded as impolite. But in this case, with cars in front so tightly bunched together, the influence of his move was more notable. It begs  more controversy than unlapping from VET if ALO were half a minute ahead, for example, or Button 10 secs behind.
Again, controversial does not mean wrong. Simply that more arguments would arise.

Well, we have to talk about the 'impoliteness' aspect, as the move was perfectly legal.

I know what you mean, but the cars in front being bunched together can't be a factor in reality, because of the varying circumstances you could have, as mentioned previously.  Due to the closeness, the move was more notable, it's true, but that's racing, not everyone is going to be happy all the time, I guess.

Also, if they didn't, it might have been an idea for the team to use that thing, what's it called, the thing that keeps them in contact with driver all the time wirelessly trickery thing, that's it radio, to warn him that Lewis might unlap himself

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Now, wait a minute!!! That would have been completely illegal, you hear me? I-LLE-GAL!!!
That would have been a farce of a race, a mockery of a sport and that Lewis dude should be banned forever!!!
What's the fun watching a backmarker doing that huh? Why FIA does not put a stop on these things? What next? A crane to put him back on track??? FIA=McLaren!!!
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! KILL KILL KILL!!!

See? I would have enjoyed it. No problems there.

I could well imagine

[LabradoRacer]

Nothing wrong with unlapping. Grow up, Seb.

[Quiet One]

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Well, we have to talk about the 'impoliteness' aspect, as the move was perfectly legal.

I know what you mean, but the cars in front being bunched together can't be a factor in reality, because of the varying circumstances you could have, as mentioned previously.  Due to the closeness, the move was more notable, it's true, but that's racing, not everyone is going to be happy all the time, I guess.

Also, if they didn't, it might have been an idea for the team to use that thing, what's it called, the thing that keeps them in contact with driver all the time wirelessly trickery thing, that's it radio, to warn him that Lewis might unlap himself



I could well imagine

Now, seriously, I think as most of us are not exactly Vettel fans, we cannot find this too awful, quite the contrary. I try to picture the same situation with Alonso being hindered and I think I would not be as mad but probably not too amused either, but that's easy to say when it's all theory.

Like I said, in theory, I would like to see more of these team tactics (was this actually a team tactic or HAM having some fun on his own?) but there's a fine line between team tactics and "this is a mockery of a sport, I won't watch F1 ever, ever again, please tell Bernie not to bother calling me to convince me to keep watching FFS!"
Austria 2002, Hockenheim 2010, they were team tactics, too,  let's not forget...Now, keeping those in mind: how to decide which ones are ok and which ones are not?

Just a rambling, I know.

[LabradoRacer]

Jean Todt, on 24 July 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

He will be more wise with his choice of words in a couple of years.

You mean he'll stop naming his cars "Kinky Kylie" or "Minxy Mandy"? That's a shame.

[JHS18]

What I don't understand is how Hamilton's car was fast enough to allow him to unlap the leaders, yet later his car was too "damaged" for him to finish the race. Yeah, sure looked damaged when he passed Vettel, didn't it?

Who is the sore loser on that basis? Oh I can't win so I might as well retire...what if everyone had that logic? We'd have twenty three cars in the pits every race.

On the basis he didn't even bother finishing the race, it seemed to be a bit of a pointless exercise to be honest, and one that if I'm being really cynical about was probably only to intefere with Vettel and Alonso's race to allow Button to close in.

And by the way - Vettel at no stage called Hamilton "stupid". He said it was a stupid move. There is a difference.

Of course, Hamilton called Vettel immature afterwards, but we'll ignore that, shall we?

Edited by JHS18, 24 July 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Quiet One]

I think you are too harsh on Lewis. He did not retire just because "he could not win" but because he has a car that "might actually win soon", so better to retire it and get a penalty-free gearbox change, for example.

It's  not a glorious thing to do, merely a tactical retirement. Retiring when he said "we should retire" would have been stupid. (And no, I am not calling Lewis stupid, people! ) They did the correct thing: keep Lewis around, use him as a tester for Button (and maybe even help him with the whole unlapping affair) and only aftewards retire to save engine and gearbox.

Why you don't  have 23 cars doing the same? Well, you pay a price in possibility of earning points, certainly a hit in popularity, with sponsors, etc. So only if the cost benefit is enough cars do it. HRT would win nothing from it. McLaren will have a stronger car for Hungary and Lewis is very well capable of winning there. To keep him around to see whether he would finish 17 or 14 was not much of a prize, anyways.

As for Vettel "stupid" remarks, I agree 100%. He never called Hamilton "stupid" and I found it very distateful from most news sites to headline their articles that way.

[pabloh20]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Now, seriously, I think as most of us are not exactly Vettel fans, we cannot find this too awful, quite the contrary. I try to picture the same situation with Alonso being hindered and I think I would not be as mad but probably not too amused either, but that's easy to say when it's all theory.

Like I said, in theory, I would like to see more of these team tactics (was this actually a team tactic or HAM having some fun on his own?) but there's a fine line between team tactics and "this is a mockery of a sport, I won't watch F1 ever, ever again, please tell Bernie not to bother calling me to convince me to keep watching FFS!"
Austria 2002, Hockenheim 2010, they were team tactics, too,  let's not forget...Now, keeping those in mind: how to decide which ones are ok and which ones are not?

Just a rambling, I know.

I don't mind Vettel, he's an un-German German

[pabloh20]

JHS18, on 24 July 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

What I don't understand is how Hamilton's car was fast enough to allow him to unlap the leaders, yet later his car was too "damaged" for him to finish the race. Yeah, sure looked damaged when he passed Vettel, didn't it?

Who is the sore loser on that basis? Oh I can't win so I might as well retire...what if everyone had that logic? We'd have twenty three cars in the pits every race.

On the basis he didn't even bother finishing the race, it seemed to be a bit of a pointless exercise to be honest, and one that if I'm being really cynical about was probably only to intefere with Vettel and Alonso's race to allow Button to close in.

And by the way - Vettel at no stage called Hamilton "stupid". He said it was a stupid move. There is a difference.

Of course, Hamilton called Vettel immature afterwards, but we'll ignore that, shall we?

What's wrong with using Hamilton to help Button close in, if you can do it without being dangerous a la Alonso & Fisichella then you should do it, it's team sport after all.

It wasn't a stupid move, far from it and Vettel was being immature.  I don't think even baldy would disgree that a little while back Alonso would have reacted the same way as Vettel (amongst others, except Schumi, Schumi is perfect).  Now he is far more circumspect and it works for him.

[AleHop]

I got surprised at first, I was Then I thought Hamilton was going to either pass Alonso or Vettel would get ahead again very soon. Surprisingly Vettel never got close enough to Hamilton as to make stewards wave blue flags. That was all.

[Massa]

I can't not be amused at the thought process of Hamilton is a quitter for retiring, but wasn't supposed to pass slower cars.

Let's think it through.

If Hamilton has a faster car regardless of circumstances, and he doesn't pass slower cars, he is therefore quitting on his race.

If Hamilton has a faster car regardless of circumstances, and he does pass slower cars, he is not giving up.

So if you fault Hamilton for quitting, why are you faulting him for not giving up and going as fast as he could and clearing cars that were holding him up and driving his race until the very end?  That's such a double-standard, to me, to want him to give up on his race and not pass Vettel/Alonso (I didn't even realize he had passed Alonso; we were on an ad break here ), but to then say he gave up on his race by retiring early when, for all we know, there could have been millions of other reasons why he retired when he did.

Was Vettel's reaction logical?  No.  But racing drivers are selfish when driving, and I'm not going to fault him.  As a competitor, you need to find your own individual balance of letting fire motivate you and letting calmness keep you in it.  Vettel's ragged driving suggests he, individually, got a little too emotional about his KERS issues and Hamilton, but that's up to him to figure out how he needs to react to hings.  You can't really make a big deal about a guy who thinks he was wronged (and as one racing driver told me, when you're in the car, you're always right, and everyone else is always at fault), even if he wasn't wronged, putting his hand up.  Being cool has merit, too, and we can applaud Alonso, but it's two different situations and two different drivers; they're both in different positions, running different races, and how Alonso needs to motivate himself through adversity (which he wasn't facing at that moment) and how Vettel needs to motivate himself through adversity (which he thought was facing at that moment), that will vary.  "Competitive" and "immature" blur too much, and making a judgment does nothing to enhance the race for me so I won't.

As for doing it to ruin Alonso and Vettel's races, well, if that was Hamilton's goal, he sure failed miserably because he did nothing to seriously impede either or to help his teammate.

Having favorite drivers clouds good racing, the actions of real racers, and the spirit of competition...that's all I saw on Sunday...didn't give this any thought until this thread because to me, it was racing.

[JHS18]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

I think you are too harsh on Lewis. He did not retire just because "he could not win" but because he has a car that "might actually win soon", so better to retire it and get a penalty-free gearbox change, for example.

It's  not a glorious thing to do, merely a tactical retirement. Retiring when he said "we should retire" would have been stupid. (And no, I am not calling Lewis stupid, people! ) They did the correct thing: keep Lewis around, use him as a tester for Button (and maybe even help him with the whole unlapping affair) and only aftewards retire to save engine and gearbox.

Why you don't  have 23 cars doing the same? Well, you pay a price in possibility of earning points, certainly a hit in popularity, with sponsors, etc. So only if the cost benefit is enough cars do it. HRT would win nothing from it. McLaren will have a stronger car for Hungary and Lewis is very well capable of winning there. To keep him around to see whether he would finish 17 or 14 was not much of a prize, anyways.

Well, put it this way. Fans get annoyed when cars don't go out in Q3 in qualifying to save tyres. That's a strategy thing too.

I just thought it was a bit of a poor show really. Fans go there to see these cars be RACED after all, and to see someone "retire" when there is no real need is a bit of a shame.

Retiring through a genuine problem such as your car coming to a stop, or crashing, fair enough. But Hamilton's car was so badly damaged that for part of the race he was actually the fastest man on circuit. To retire because you're a lap down or whatever...that's not a real racer's spirit to me. You should never give up.

I'm not just saying it because it is Hamilton either. Anyone who "retires" with no genuine reason other than being far behind is not really on.

I'm not saying that I'm against him unlapping himself - I didn't make reference to that, just how he can do that and then retire with no obvious problem other than the "can't win won't race" logic.

I'm being perhaps a bit too harsh, but you get my point.

As for him not impeding anyone, I have to disagree. Button was behind Vettel before that happened, then came out ahead after the pit stops. I think it did help Button, because with Hamilton passing Vettel - it got to him, it messed with his head a little bit, and lost him time. Would he have come out behind Button had that NOT happened? I don't think it would've. But hey, retrospect is a great thing, isn't it?

Edited by JHS18, 24 July 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Massa]

JHS18, on 24 July 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Well, put it this way. Fans get annoyed when cars don't go out in Q3 in qualifying to save tyres. That's a strategy thing too.

I just thought it was a bit of a poor show really. Fans go there to see these cars be RACED after all, and to see someone "retire" when there is no real need is a bit of a shame.

Retiring through a genuine problem such as your car coming to a stop, or crashing, fair enough. But Hamilton's car was so badly damaged that for part of the race he was actually the fastest man on circuit. To retire because you're a lap down or whatever...that's not a real racer's spirit to me. You should never give up.

I'm not just saying it because it is Hamilton either. Anyone who "retires" with no genuine reason other than being far behind is not really on.

I'm not saying that I'm against him unlapping himself - I didn't make reference to that, just how he can do that and then retire with no obvious problem other than the "can't win won't race" logic.

I'm being perhaps a bit too harsh, but you get my point.

As for him not impeding anyone, I have to disagree. Button was behind Vettel before that happened, then came out ahead after the pit stops. I think it did help Button, because with Hamilton passing Vettel - it got to him, it messed with his head a little bit, and lost him time. Would he have come out behind Button had that NOT happened? I don't think it would've. But hey, retrospect is a great thing, isn't it?

Real racer's spirit...never give up...you mean like being a lap down and passing a slower car, right?

Fans want to see the cars being raced...like Hamilton did, by racing Vettel/Alonso...

I'll give you his "we need to retire" comment in the opening laps, because obviously they didn't, but it also makes no difference to me if he did quit or didn't quit or ruined Vettel's race or didn't ruin Vettel's race because I gave up on trying to evaluate drivers on character long ago.  He ran the race he ran whether he wanted to or not and that's all I'm interested in, for the sake of my own sanity.

If it got to Vettel, messed with Vettel, and lost Vettel time, that's Vettel's fault for not knowing how to respond.

Button's pit stop, by the way, took 2.5 seconds, best of the day.  Vettel's pit stop took somewhere around 3.2 if I'm remembering correctly.  That made a huge difference.  Vettel running wide a lot did, too.  I don't think Hamilton's goal was to get in Vettel's head...his goal was to get around him...whatever happened after is on Vettel, his pit crew, etc.  Hamilton did nothing to deliberately impede Vettel.

[Quiet One]

pabloh20, on 24 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

What's wrong with using Hamilton to help Button close in, if you can do it without being dangerous a la Alonso & Fisichella then you should do it, it's team sport after all.

It wasn't a stupid move, far from it and Vettel was being immature.  I don't think even baldy would disgree that a little while back Alonso would have reacted the same way as Vettel (amongst others, except Schumi, Schumi is perfect).  Now he is far more circumspect and it works for him.

As you and Alex just said, there was no danger and he was actually faster, had he been slower blue flags would have been waved for him.
It was a very interesting battle of bluffs and wits, if you consider it. Almost unique in its own way.

- HAM overtakes VET. Rattles the unGermanly German enough as to help Button get closer (would BUT have passed VET anyways? Maybe, but Lewis' actions didn't hurt). The sum of the unlapping and immediately the KERS issue ("are you kidding?" ssaid VET on the radio or something like that )
- HAM goes hunting ALO. He approaches at an equally ominous pace as he approached VET but crucially, he did not overtook Nando. Why?
- Ferrari is a supercar but there's a Nando fans conspiracy to show it otherwise? No, like I said, HAM was catching Alonso as fast as he caught Vettel.

- Because he and Nando are sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G? Well, maybe...there has been a lot of arse kissing going on between those two lately. Even Jense is getting jealous!

- My version: Alonso was by then on alert. He was warned by the team not to fight Lewis as they have nothing to gain and much to lose. Alonso thought that there was something to gain battling Lewis: keeping him behind as a buffer. It was a gamble. Would Lewis do something dumb like pulling a Maldonado (funny, last year we would have called it "pulling a Lewis") or will Hamilton rather not risk to be remembered as the guy who crashed the leader and play it safe behind Alonso?
Lewis feinted an attack. Alonso didn't flinch. Lewis called off his bluff and decided to stay put. F1 poker at the highest level!

[Quiet One]

JHS18, on 24 July 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Well, put it this way. Fans get annoyed when cars don't go out in Q3 in qualifying to save tyres. That's a strategy thing too.

I just thought it was a bit of a poor show really. Fans go there to see these cars be RACED after all, and to see someone "retire" when there is no real need is a bit of a shame.

Retiring through a genuine problem such as your car coming to a stop, or crashing, fair enough. But Hamilton's car was so badly damaged that for part of the race he was actually the fastest man on circuit. To retire because you're a lap down or whatever...that's not a real racer's spirit to me. You should never give up.

I'm not just saying it because it is Hamilton either. Anyone who "retires" with no genuine reason other than being far behind is not really on.

I'm not saying that I'm against him unlapping himself - I didn't make reference to that, just how he can do that and then retire with no obvious problem other than the "can't win won't race" logic.

I'm being perhaps a bit too harsh, but you get my point.

As for him not impeding anyone, I have to disagree. Button was behind Vettel before that happened, then came out ahead after the pit stops. I think it did help Button, because with Hamilton passing Vettel - it got to him, it messed with his head a little bit, and lost him time. Would he have come out behind Button had that NOT happened? I don't think it would've. But hey, retrospect is a great thing, isn't it?

I think we all want different  things and probably none of us is 100% satisfied. Like I said, I would like more team tactics, probably most people would disagree, and it depends on what type. I don't want refuelling back, nor tire wars. i'd like stupid mandatory using of both compounds would be removed. Very hard to judge and keep us all happy
But I also think that most of us are reasonably happy with this championship.

After all, Alonso is winning. Isn't that what humankind yearned for since the beginning of their existence?

[JHS18]

Massa, on 24 July 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Real racer's spirit...never give up...you mean like being a lap down and passing a slower car, right?

Fans want to see the cars being raced...like Hamilton did, by racing Vettel/Alonso...

Yes. For position.

No, I'm joking. I get your point. All I'm saying was that it was a bit pointless to do that if you're not even going to carry on to see the checkered flag.

Unlapping himself was spectacular, but when you retire with no real problem only a few laps later, what was the point? Did McLaren think it'd help Button? I guess we'll never know fully.

Edited by JHS18, 24 July 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[AleHop]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

- My version: Alonso was by then on alert. He was warned by the team not to fight Lewis as they have nothing to gain and much to lose. Alonso thought that there was something to gain battling Lewis: keeping him behind as a buffer. It was a gamble. Would Lewis do something dumb like pulling a Maldonado (funny, last year we would have called it "pulling a Lewis ) or will Hamilton rather not risk to be remembered as the guy who crashed the leader and play it safe behind Alonso?
Lewis feinted an attack. Alonso didn't flinch. Lewis called off his bluff and decided to stay put. F1 poker at the highest level!

I agree. At one point I thought Hamilton was trying too hard and I thought Alonso was going to yield but after the race Alonso said Hamilton wasn't too agressive so I guess it was all fine. Vettel should have pushed harder (maybe he did), it was too risky trying a move on  Hamilton out of nothing but he just needed to get close enough to make a safe pass under blue flags. That's what puzzled me during the race seeing Vettel unable to get close enough to Hamilton while Hamilton was comfortably following Alonso. Differences between different cars you have to think.

[Quiet One]

AleHop, on 24 July 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

I agree. At one point I thought Hamilton was trying too hard and I thought Alonso was going to yield but after the race Alonso said Hamilton wasn't too agressive so I guess it was all fine. Vettel should have pushed harder (maybe he did), it was too risky trying a move on  Hamilton out of nothing but he just needed to get close enough to make a safe pass under blue flags. That's what puzzled me during the race seeing Vettel unable to get close enough to Hamilton while Hamilton was comfortably following Alonso. Differences between different cars you have to think.

Vettel (and probably Webbo as well) were having serious gear ratios issues. It was notorious when they showed Vettel hunting down Alonso down the straight that the car kept hitting the georgedamn rev limiter way too soon. He just lacked enough speed down  the straight to overtake Alonso. Ferrari has improved a lot in that sense. And no, my dear Alonso beraters, the Ferrari is still the 3rd best car in the field, max. In these past days that was recognized by Horner, Button, Hamilton Whitmarsh and Vettel. It is close, very close to the Maccas and RBRs, enough to let Alonso win a race in a relatively easy for overtaking track like Hockenheim, but only because he started from pole. Had he started from 3rd or lower, and provided that the guys in front were flawless or nearby, he wouldn't  have stood a chance.

[AleHop]

Quiet One, on 24 July 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

...but only because he started from pole. Had he started from 3rd or lower, and provided that the guys in front were flawless or nearby, he wouldn&'t  have stood a chance.

That reminds me about something Marc Gené said after the race. He said it had been 1st normal win and on a dry track for Ferrari. He forgot Alonso got P1 on a very wet track, a pole and win he would have never achieved on a completely dry weekend.

[dribbler]

Fortgive me, I have not read everyone's posts, but I think we're all agreeing with one another here; Hamilton was quite correct in unlapping himself. Backmarkers in conventional circumstances are cars which are slower than the leaders. For one of them to get into the mix (although visually quite hilarious) is a bit daft and would instantly be in a blue flag situation.

However, Hamilton was out of position with a fast car, faster than the Red Bull at that time. As such (and thank God that common sense prevailed with no showing of blue flags) he was quite right to unlap himself. I wonder what Sebastian would have done in the same situation, held back? Er, I don't think so.

As for the whole 'guys, we need to retire' situation. I think that's rather clear cut too; When Hamilton called it, he had a puncture and suspected further damage (but didn;t have any instant damage at that time). He went out and was able to set quick times. Then as a result of the puncture, damage developed.

Two other things; Hamilton does not give up. Whitmarsh mentioned that extra damage had occurred. I dont think he would have said that if he thought Lewis really had given up. He may be trying to schmooze him for 2013, but no one wants a quitter in the car. It's cardinal sin number one and Whitmarsh would have been visually p!ssed about it. He wasn't.

[Quiet One]

dribbler, on 25 July 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Fortgive me, I have not read everyone's posts, but I think we're all agreeing with one another here; Hamilton was quite correct in unlapping himself. Backmarkers in conventional circumstances are cars which are slower than the leaders. For one of them to get into the mix (although visually quite hilarious) is a bit daft and would instantly be in a blue flag situation.

However, Hamilton was out of position with a fast car, faster than the Red Bull at that time. As such (and thank God that common sense prevailed with no showing of blue flags) he was quite right to unlap himself. I wonder what Sebastian would have done in the same situation, held back? Er, I don't think so.

As for the whole 'guys, we need to retire' situation. I think that's rather clear cut too; When Hamilton called it, he had a puncture and suspected further damage (but didn;t have any instant damage at that time). He went out and was able to set quick times. Then as a result of the puncture, damage developed.

Two other things; Hamilton does not give up. Whitmarsh mentioned that extra damage had occurred. I dont think he would have said that if he thought Lewis really had given up. He may be trying to schmooze him for 2013, but no one wants a quitter in the car. It's cardinal sin number one and Whitmarsh would have been visually p!ssed about it. He wasn't.

Yes, nobody is questioning the legality of Hamilton's move. We were more discussing how it is regarded by other drivers as apparently  there's a "gentleman's agreement" on these kind of manoeuvres. The total lack of reaction according to the news seems to point that this was not ill regarded among the paddock as well so that's basically it.

The other point I was making is that moves like this one are actually good as team tactics, and I think team tactics on track are great ways of spicing up the races but I do not know where to draw the line between moves like this, which look fun, and Austria 2002 or Hockenheim 2010 which look cheap. My gut feeling is that any attempt to draw a line by means of new rules will only make things worse and better to leave them at teams sense of good taste and discretion,  letting public opinion help distinguish which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"

Not sure if any of that made any sense.

[pabloh20]

Quiet One, on 25 July 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yes, nobody is questioning the legality of Hamilton's move. We were more discussing how it is regarded by other drivers as apparently  there's a "gentleman's agreement" on these kind of manoeuvres. The total lack of reaction according to the news seems to point that this was not ill regarded among the paddock as well so that's basically it.

The other point I was making is that moves like this one are actually good as team tactics, and I think team tactics on track are great ways of spicing up the races but I do not know where to draw the line between moves like this, which look fun, and Austria 2002 or Hockenheim 2010 which look cheap. My gut feeling is that any attempt to draw a line by means of new rules will only make things worse and better to leave them at teams sense of good taste and discretion,  letting public opinion help distinguish which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"

Not sure if any of that made any sense.

More sense than you normally make, if that helps??

[Quiet One]

pabloh20, on 25 July 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

More sense than you normally make, if that helps??

Yes! Thank you! Very kind of you!

Wait...

[pabloh20]

Quiet One, on 25 July 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Yes! Thank you! Very kind of you!

Wait...