Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HandyNZL

I Am Just Singaporing In The Rain

Recommended Posts

So Lewis does it again.

Crap bone head move that lands him in trouble. Then drives rather well to come back up to 5th. Why oh why......

Jense drove well too.

Schui.... mate, get some glasses blink.gif

Other than a fairly dull race. Even the crashes did not liven it up that much.

And how come only a few laps after the safety car the cars were so spaced out.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he has typically shown intelligence behind the wheel it seems to me that this season, more than ever, Button exercises a crafty guile come race day. Irrespective of practice and even qualifying results his usual smooth, skillful - if somewhat unspectacular - approach yields rewards; and opportunities, as they develop, are rarely ignored. He has simply figured out that you don't need to have the fastest car to win. Failing that, he will snatch points away from others who are faster. Re-imagine the season to date with him in a Red Bull and think how he would, at the very least, keep Vettel honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Lewis does it again.

Crap bone head move that lands him in trouble. Then drives rather well to come back up to 5th. Why oh why......

Jense drove well too.

Schui.... mate, get some glasses blink.gif

Other than a fairly dull race. Even the crashes did not liven it up that much.

And how come only a few laps after the safety car the cars were so spaced out.....?

I can answer your question with one word: chicane.

Considering street courses have zero runoff, and nothing but a concrete wall, when a chicane gets place on the course it puts cars into single file from the very first lap. And that, my friend is why chicanes suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answer your question with one word: chicane.

Considering street courses have zero runoff, and nothing but a concrete wall, when a chicane gets place on the course it puts cars into single file from the very first lap. And that, my friend is why chicanes suck.

I have another word for that: Backmakers.

Seriously F1 should line up the car in the race order during a safety car period, Vettel had a more than 8 seconds lead at the end of first lap after the SC just because of those backmakers I guess the same happened to the rest of the drivers that were making their way through them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another word for that: Backmakers.

Seriously F1 should line up the car in the race order during a safety car period, Vettel had a more than 8 seconds lead at the end of first lap after the SC just because of those backmakers I guess the same happened to the rest of the drivers that were making their way through them.

Yes - but to be fair, he had more than an eight second lead before crash happened and the SC came out. So really it would be unfair to let Button get straight onto him for the restart - more fun for us, yes.

Anywho - I don't think it had any affect on the end result. The race was Vettel's all the way.

Now they just need Hamilton to crash into Vettel for the remaining races and Button to win all of them. :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - but to be fair, he had more than an eight second lead before crash happened and the SC came out. So really it would be unfair to let Button get straight onto him for the restart - more fun for us, yes.

Anywho - I don't think it had any affect on the end result. The race was Vettel's all the way.

Now they just need Hamilton to crash into Vettel for the remaining races and Button to win all of them. :naughty:

:lol: Yes you are right about that but SC is part of the strategy in a circuit like this, so this cars are even fueled taking that into consideration, so maybe they are not attacking as much as they can in the early stages of the race counting on a SC to be deployed, at the end of this race Vettel was on saving mode while Button was on attacking mode and like you say it would have been more fun us but talking about being fairness there used to be a rule in F1 were your time was saved in a situation like this sometimes car that were physically on second place were actually in first because of that time cushion, that rule were banned if they really want to be fear they should bring back that rule but I really don't see any reason why they don't allow cars to take their race position during a SC like other series do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis... *slow clapping of hands*

Rosberg *slow clapping of hands*

Schumi *slow clapping of hands*

Now Im tired.

I hope nobody can see you when your watching F1 as you must look, well, a bit simple, really :lol:

Out of curiosity, seems you're a Lewis hater by trade and pretty much a hater of verything except Alonso and Renault anyway, do you think the stewards are dishing out punishments based on damage?

Do you know, I think Lewis drove much better when his Dad was his manager..............:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis took a wide line on corner entry to get a sling shot on corner exit but misjudged how close he was to Massa. He caused an unintentional puncture. The end.

Or we could uber analyse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis took a wide line on corner entry to get a sling shot on corner exit but misjudged how close he was to Massa. He caused an unintentional puncture. The end.

ah, and so common sense prevail :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis took a wide line on corner entry to get a sling shot on corner exit but misjudged how close he was to Massa. He caused an unintentional puncture. The end.

Or we could uber analyse.

It wasn't Lewis' move I was analysing. Lewis made a mistake, he got punished, no complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched off the race after Lewis got the penalty. It was a ridiculous penalty. The rule about causing a collision is supposed to avert conscious decisions to slam into another driver, it's not meant to punish drivers for mistakes. The race stewards should be ashamed of themselves. I've lost count of how many mistakes other drivers have made that *weren't* subject to a stewards' review. A few of those were exactly like Lewis'. It was a pathetic decision by pathetic stewards who want to justify their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Mike, they have set a precedent in penalising these sorts of coming togethers in the past....and everyone would scream bias if it wasn't carried over into following races in some sort of consistent way. So, blame the first guy really...the rest are just following along behind.

Lets hope that they have a rethink for next year on it, otherwise the racing will get pretty muted.

Nice pass by Webber on Alonso though....showing that you can overtake without touching. They must be friends or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Mike, they have set a precedent in penalising these sorts of coming togethers in the past....and everyone would scream bias if it wasn't carried over into following races in some sort of consistent way. So, blame the first guy really...the rest are just following along behind.

Lets hope that they have a rethink for next year on it, otherwise the racing will get pretty muted.

Nice pass by Webber on Alonso though....showing that you can overtake without touching. They must be friends or something.

I don't think that's it, to be honest, because there is such a variance in the way incidents are treated even in the same race. The only way I can see Schumi's mistake was any different to Lewis' was the fact that Schumi took himself out and didn't damage the other car. And that's in the same race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or we could uber analyse.

Ooo ooo can we, can we! pleeeeeease!

great...

to punish a driver for the ultimate results of his crime rather than the crime itself is not any kind of justice.

lets use a metaphor - imagine a cleaner who left a broom out of the cupboard one night. the next day an office worker walks in with his hot coffee and trips over the broom, spilling the scalding coffee over an associate in a wheelchair who in shock rocks his wheelchair back, thus tipping it over the top of the stairwell and falling down the stairs. on the way down his wheelchair collides with a dwarf, a woman of ill repute and a donkey who have been asked to come in to celebrate the birthday of the office boss. they all die.

would a judge find the cleaner guilty of murdering a cripple, a donkey, a dwarf and a prostitute? no.

we all know that had massa's wheel not been punctured but in all other ways the incident had been exactly the same, hamilton would not have got the penalty.

this has nothing to do with whether it's hamilton, schumacher or gonzo from the muppets.

it simply demonstrate another slip in the quality of F1 marshalling.

but then since we all know it's been on a downward slope for some time now, that comes as little surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's it, to be honest, because there is such a variance in the way incidents are treated even in the same race. The only way I can see Schumi's mistake was any different to Lewis' was the fact that Schumi took himself out and didn't damage the other car. And that's in the same race.

Yep. Both incidents were obvious misjudgements and Ham and Schu were clearly at fault. Since fault doesn't seem to be the issue, the main difference is apparently damage. But even then consider that Schumi did cause damage to Perez, who as a result of the incident had to pit, which obviously impacts upon his race. Is the idea then that as Schumacher was out of the race completely, that is some form of "natural justice" which balances out his error? If that is the reasoning, then it could be argued Lewis also suffered from "natural justice" too, as he damaged his wing, lost lap time on the in lap, and had to pit out of sync with his strategy. And how far does that concept extend, does it mean no matter how ridiculous the mistake, providing the driver suffers enough from it, he won't be penalised? Doesn't seem correct.

So even the damage argument (if that is even what the stewards considered) seems to have its problems, and I don't see how you can differentiate between the two incidents on that basis (..and if anything, Schu's mistake was much more of a dangerous and bigger misjudgement anyway). So yes, logically the stewards were definitely inconsistent in that race alone. Either punish both incidents, or neither. From my pov neither is the better option, as in each case the driver who made the error suffered from it themselves (out of race & loss of lap time/forced pit stop); punishing them does not undo the damage done to the other driver (so no "justice" element is served); and there is no deterrence value in the penalty (you can deter against a crime, but not a blunder).

Funnily enough, wasn't it Schumacher who made a similar error (running into the back of a car) in difficult track conditions at Silverstone? In that case, he received a penalty. So it is not like these stewards are simply applying precedent from previous races as Handy suggests. There is no precedent system whatsoever, whereby previous incidents are referred to/considered. A system like that would be difficult to introduce during the race anyway, as there is limited time to review incidents, and only four stewards to do so. In fact at Monza driver steward Derek Daly admitted he never even saw some of Schumi's more bold moves as he was busy reviewing another incident; it seems they are a touch understaffed. So, a precedent system would be difficult to introduce which leaves us with the obvious answer: To achieve better consistency the rules need to be much clearer and precise in the first place, so less interpretation is required, and less discretion (which is open to bias) is needed.

That is roughly my uber-analytical opinion on this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good analysis oh person formerly known as Rainmaster :)

As has been said by others the quality of judgments has dropped somewhat.

I remember going back a few years Hakkinen went through a spate of bumping into people and on the third of such incidents he was suspended as I recall for a race and no doubt told to calm down a bit. I happen to think Hakkinen was very good and he moved on and became less crashy....

The system needs to be revised as now every tiny incident causes an inquiry. Ultimately stewards need to assess:

- Is there a case of cheating? (e.g. the old "skipping across the chicane and gaining an advantage" situation) or

- Did someone deliberately take someone out or cause damage? or

- Is the car or driver compromised in some way and likely to cause damage to others (carrying on driving at high speed with half a front wing) or

- The final criteria is one of driver safety - is someone driving in a dangerous way?

The last one is the most difficult to assess as it is where close and aggressive racing (which is exciting) overlaps with "you buffoon!". The issue I think is that they try to deliver "punishment" during the race, pressure on to make a quick decision and sometimes/often decisions can be inconsistent, whereas maybe they need time to review evidence, talk to drivers, etc. I'm not a fan particularly of post-race changes but I do wonder if, having more time to consider would make for different decision making?

The stewards need to ignore racing errors (which are inevitable) and focus on dangerous driving. The whole notion of "causing an avoidable accident" is a nonsense as by definition, almost all accidents are avoidable :) (you just drive further apart! which makes for dull racing). So clamp down on persistent offenders who maybe need more of a slap on the wrist than a drive through. And if all else fails, stick both drivers in a giant vat of goo and let them fight it out until one wins (OK, Steph, they can be naked, I'll just leave the room at that point (unless Danica joins F1) :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the drivers bear some responsibility in all this. After all, weren't the GPDA the entity that asked the FIA, via the stewards, to investigate every little incident? I may be wrong, but I never am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thoughts;

1. Lewis overtakes people. He sometimes makes contact. He gets penalised when he does. Because he does this more than others it creates a perception that he is victimised.

2. I have not seen a single instance of restraint from a driver because he feels he may be penalised if he overtakes (I have only seen restraint from a driver who thinks he might be nerfed off if he goes or the move and as such holds station a la Lewis and Michael at Monza)

3. If a driver makes contact with another and adversely affects their race - they should be penalised.

4. Having a rule to accomodate variables from this is confusing and misleading. It's very easy. Please give examples of how and why it should be more complex -

5. Overtake others but do it clean. If you are being overtaken, be professional enough to know when you are beaten.

6. If you cannot overtake another driver cleanly in this era of drag reduction flaps and electro boost buttons, you are impatient/lack judgement/think the other drivers owe you/ are stupid.

7. There is a frustrating trend toward everybody getting pre-occupied with penalities, their fairness or otherwise. Look at who the main offenders are and why. There is no bias from the FIA and/or stewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I (think) I agree with Chris and Steve here.

What FIA needs is an overhaul of the penalties/warning system. It needs to be more consistent, it needs to be more rational, it needs to handle a lot more scenarios than it does now. Lewis was punished for being a consuetudinary offender. The problem is, there is no specific penalty for that, except the Yuji Ide's solution :P

And, for the record, in 4 races all that Ide did was ran over a mechanic's foot, spun more than Massa's average and crashed against an early braking Albers (who admitted it was not entirely Ide's fault) into a spectacular roll. And THAT was as entertaining as watching Lewis slicing Massa's rear tire, or Schu's Merc trying to cornhole Perez' car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vettel is too much of a class act for all the field at the moment

At what point will SV achievements really be acknowledge, maybe when he does'nt drive a Adrian Newey car and still wins. Ferrari's comments of late seems to really tell a jealousy pen-man envy, because they have to convince themselves that they have the best and complete driver on the grid, which is very questionable when you look at what SV has achieved this year. Has Alfonso ever dominated in the best car in a year like SV does. He had to rely on leaders breaking down and inheriting wins, and teammates moving over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point will SV achievements really be acknowledge, maybe when he does'nt drive a Adrian Newey car and still wins. Ferrari's comments of late seems to really tell a jealousy pen-man envy, because they have to convince themselves that they have the best and complete driver on the grid, which is very questionable when you look at what SV has achieved this year. Has Alfonso ever dominated in the best car in a year like SV does. He had to rely on leaders breaking down and inheriting wins, and teammates moving over.

alfonso never had the best car in a year, but, damon hill and jenson button did and they dominated.

we have thread called " schumacher myths destroyed one by one" but we could make one called " vettel myths created one by one " . people easily create in their mind picture that driver is the only one that makes the results.

it is easy to create myth about someone.all you need is great car and a great team. if we didn't see vettel in 2010 he would be a young god now. so would be damon hill and jenson button if we didn't knew them before they won their championships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alfonso never had the best car in a year, but, damon hill and jenson button did and they dominated.

we have thread called " schumacher myths destroyed one by one" but we could make one called " vettel myths created one by one " . people easily create in their mind picture that driver is the only one that makes the results.

it is easy to create myth about someone.all you need is great car and a great team. if we didn't see vettel in 2010 he would be a young god now. so would be damon hill and jenson button if we didn't knew them before they won their championships.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "learning from mistakes and improving"? :P Even Bobby Fischer lost a chess match once upon a time. So, I'd be wary of basing my current opinion on past performances (although Vettel's previous to this year is actually very good, a championship, a win in a non championship car, debut points, impressing in Friday practice sessions etc), yes he made a few errors last year in close racing, but none of which he repeated on the occasions when he needed to overtake this year. And he is a young god.

As for the "picture that driver is the only one that makes the results" the argument works both ways, I think . So it is wrong to say "he is the best because he wins" but it would be equally foolish to think "he is not that special because he has the best car/team". As usual it is not as black and white as either of those, and it is possible to have a great driver in a great car. What is easy to see and impossible to deny with Vettel is that he has delivered what the car is capable of results wise this year, and has maximised every single opportunity without making any mistakes I can think of, which is what good champions do.

He also showed a few examples of spare capacity, presence of mind and being generally more 'switched on' than many others: in the Singapore pitlane when a Team Lotus car came in behind him, he watched the Team Lotus pit lights in anticipation of it being released, obviously wary of a collision (and indeed it was released unsafely); in the Valencia race (iirc) he enquired on the radio about Webber's laptimes on prime tyres (the team had not informed him of Webber's tyres, he had been watching on TV screens); he was the only driver to visit Pirelli before the season started, which is not necessarily something which made a material difference to his driving, but is nonetheless a smart thing to do; as is keeping such a close relationship with Ecclestone, a nice ally to have I'm sure. Whether you look at driving or off track activities, this year Vettel is playing the F1 game smarter than the others.

All of this from someone who thinks Alonso, and a Ham using his head, are probably better than SV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of the concept of "learning from mistakes and improving"? :P Even Bobby Fischer lost a chess match once upon a time. So, I'd be wary of basing my current opinion on past performances (although Vettel's previous to this year is actually very good, a championship, a win in a non championship car, debut points, impressing in Friday practice sessions etc), yes he made a few errors last year in close racing, but none of which he repeated on the occasions when he needed to overtake this year. And he is a young god.

As for the "picture that driver is the only one that makes the results" the argument works both ways, I think . So it is wrong to say "he is the best because he wins" but it would be equally foolish to think "he is not that special because he has the best car/team". As usual it is not as black and white as either of those, and it is possible to have a great driver in a great car. What is easy to see and impossible to deny with Vettel is that he has delivered what the car is capable of results wise this year, and has maximised every single opportunity without making any mistakes I can think of, which is what good champions do.

He also showed a few examples of spare capacity, presence of mind and being generally more 'switched on' than many others: in the Singapore pitlane when a Team Lotus car came in behind him, he watched the Team Lotus pit lights in anticipation of it being released, obviously wary of a collision (and indeed it was released unsafely); in the Valencia race (iirc) he enquired on the radio about Webber's laptimes on prime tyres (the team had not informed him of Webber's tyres, he had been watching on TV screens); he was the only driver to visit Pirelli before the season started, which is not necessarily something which made a material difference to his driving, but is nonetheless a smart thing to do; as is keeping such a close relationship with Ecclestone, a nice ally to have I'm sure. Whether you look at driving or off track activities, this year Vettel is playing the F1 game smarter than the others.

All of this from someone who thinks Alonso, and a Ham using his head, are probably better than SV.

Damned-near perfect post. :thbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...