Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
KoolMonkey

Round 1, Fight!!!!

44 posts in this topic


I really cant see how you compare the 2 incidents and spew hipocracy. Honestly!

I know you can't, that's what causes these double standards.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all of those who are dumping on Lewis and trying to put the blame on him I suggest that you actually read the article (27.7) of the F1 Sporting Regulations that applies to this incident. I have copied it in its entirety below:

27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.

Take particular note of the second paragraph which makes it objectively clear that if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front then the leading car must leave space for the trailing car (i.e., it cannot use the full width of the track to defend). Viewing the incident it is abundantly clear that Lewis had his front wing (and even his front wheels) alongside Nico's rear wheel before Nico ran him off the track. There is no ambiguity here. The FIA reg. clearly states that Nico was thus required to leave space for Lewis. He did not so it is he who violated the sporting reg. and therefore was at fault. Lewis did nothing wrong. He merely attempted a typical slingshot pass (a common move in F1) under the appropriate circumstance for legitimately making such an attempt--that is, when you are very close and your speed is significantly greater. The speed differential between the two cars was so great that it's absurd to try to characterize his passing attempt as being overly ambitious. Any knowledgeable F1 fan knows that given the speed differential Lewis would easily have made the pass if not run off the track. By the sporting regs. the only thing overly ambitious was Nico's defending. It also appears that Lauda and the stewards need to re-read the regs. or improve their reading comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, problem is with your quote, that it is not applicable to this case. Application of the regulation has to be triggered by Hamilton's position relative to Rosberg. Read the judgement (Doc 33), in which stewards determined that relative position of both cars was such, that Nico was in his full right to close the gap. Put it differently, Hamilton was too far back for Rosberg to be concerned about him.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was an actual fine to any drivers throwing their steering wheels out of the car?

When I saw that, I wasn't happy. Those things can cost $100k and he tossed it due to anger. Sure ok, they can afford it but it's not the point.

Stewart makes some good points and ones we've made ourselves too. You don't win the race on the first lap, and you must have some patience. Hamilton doesn't have any it seems.

Anyway onto Monaco where Nico will win again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all of those who are dumping on Lewis and trying to put the blame on him I suggest that you actually read the article (27.7) of the F1 Sporting Regulations that applies to this incident. I have copied it in its entirety below:

27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.

Take particular note of the second paragraph which makes it objectively clear that if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front then the leading car must leave space for the trailing car (i.e., it cannot use the full width of the track to defend). Viewing the incident it is abundantly clear that Lewis had his front wing (and even his front wheels) alongside Nico's rear wheel before Nico ran him off the track. There is no ambiguity here. The FIA reg. clearly states that Nico was thus required to leave space for Lewis. He did not so it is he who violated the sporting reg. and therefore was at fault. Lewis did nothing wrong. He merely attempted a typical slingshot pass (a common move in F1) under the appropriate circumstance for legitimately making such an attempt--that is, when you are very close and your speed is significantly greater. The speed differential between the two cars was so great that it's absurd to try to characterize his passing attempt as being overly ambitious. Any knowledgeable F1 fan knows that given the speed differential Lewis would easily have made the pass if not run off the track. By the sporting regs. the only thing overly ambitious was Nico's defending. It also appears that Lauda and the stewards need to re-read the regs. or improve their reading comprehension.

Ohh god not another Lewis fan, how long it take you to type that? Ohh and nice to meet you to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakae—in response to your comments, Article 27.7 most certainly is applicable in this case. In fact, it’s the one that the stewards kept referring to. As often seems to be the case, the problem here is in the interpretation of this article by the stewards. Stewards have certainly been known to be wrong; their judgments shouldn’t automatically be taken as being correct (especially since stewards change from venue to venue, which is at the root of the inconsistency in rulings that has plagued F1). In this case they have added things to this article that simply don’t exist in it. There are no statements in this article that have anything to do with timeframes or any mention that the passing driver has to be alongside the lead car at the time that the lead car starts his move across the track, etc. In plain language, it simply states that if a significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside the defending car (and this is clearly defined as any part of the front wing being alongside the rear wheel of the lead car) then the defending car is not allowed to use the full width of the track during its first move (and by the general rules noted elsewhere, must leave a car’s width space for the other car). That’s it! There are none of the qualifiers or other drivel that the stewards have added to it. So, by this regulation as written, Nico was the one who was at fault because the moment Lewis got a significant portion of his car (i.e., any part of his front wing) alongside Nico’s rear wheel (and Nico’s car was still in the middle third of the track when Lewis accomplished this and Lewis was still fully on the track) Nico was no longer allowed to use the full width of the track and had to leave space for Lewis. By Article 27.7 as written, this is the position of Hamilton’s car relative to Rosberg’s that is applicable in this case—not whatever it is that they pulled out of their magic hat which Article 27.7 makes no mention of. By this article, Nico did not have enough speed relative to Lewis to be able to pull off a legal full track-width blocking move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bs a move is determined a move when the front wing is alongside the side pod, not anything before, Lewis was in no range to even call that a passing attempt but at the same time he would've had no idea rosberg would've moved over so viciously so that's why it is deemed a racing incident and no one got penalised, could see that before all this crap afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is, that a lot of people are confused by Whiting's department. (Admittedly I could be one of them). I do recall an incident between Button and Vettel, which ended up (surprise!) FiA shafting Vettel, when he was pushed off the track, and overtook Button. My argument had rested on two rullings:

1. Front car must yield (allowing track space), when overtaking car has a front wing aligned with rear axel. (Stipulated verbally by Whiting).

2. This instruction does applies on straights, but not in turns.

Problems:

1. Where is FiA marker which determines turn-start for negating this condition?

2. Where is concrete evidence what actually happened?

My determination then was, that Vettel reached Button well before turn, and Button not only ignored rulling, but complained to his team to have them "call Charlie to look at it".

I do not want to get into this again, but as I see it, racing is overregulated, and in some cases too vague, thus we would be better without it. Let them race!

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope your not talking about spa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know a reckless overtaking move when we see one and it is those moves that should be punished and taken out of the sport. I would not describe Hamilton's move against Rosberg as reckless and the end result is that Hamilton is the biggest loser by not scoring in the race. I don't like it when the rule book comes out on these matters as often the rules appear to be written by people who have no concept of what racing entails. I'm all for the drivers to sort it out themselves on the race track rather than people looking at endless slow-mo replays of an incident and then decreeing that driver A did not comply with rule 3.1.6.7 paragraph B sub-section (ii).

I think now that there exists a professional standard amongst the drivers not seen since the 1970's maybe. They appear to obey the "natural rules" of racing (as I would describe them) quite well, for example we don't see weaving very much.

I have a great respect for Jackie Stewart and his driving standards and achievements, but I disagree with his conclusion that Hamilton was to blame. Once Hamilton saw that like flash on Rosberg's car I am sure he determined he was going to get an opportunity to overtake and he was going to take it, it's his natural response. If Stewart had been in that situation I am sure he would have tried himself and then maybe pulled out of it, if he could because the gap was closing quickly, as that would be his natural response. Two drivers, two different mentalities. Both are right. And one approach should not be used against the other and say this is right, that is wrong.

What I'm saying is let the drivers race and lets not have people sitting in front of monitors or lawyers determine race results and the championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responsibility for the incident in Spain was placed on Hamilton's doorstep by more people, notably ex-racers, than just Stewart. I shall end this here, because I have feeling that nothing will be achieved, and no minds will be changed. Certainly his fans aren't in slightest of moods to accept any responsibilty. These are borderline conditions, and I do trust racer's instinct what is and what isn't feasible. Just because there is a gap of some width ahead, it doesn't really always follow, it belongs to automatically to a car that is overtaking, especially when you have a righthander ahead. I thought Kvyat was overly optimistic, and I think so was Hamilton in this case. Thinking that Rosberg is freightened and will not put up any defense is big F, as we know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know a reckless overtaking move when we see one and it is those moves that should be punished and taken out of the sport. I would not describe Hamilton's move against Rosberg as reckless and the end result is that Hamilton is the biggest loser by not scoring in the race. I don't like it when the rule book comes out on these matters as often the rules appear to be written by people who have no concept of what racing entails. I'm all for the drivers to sort it out themselves on the race track rather than people looking at endless slow-mo replays of an incident and then decreeing that driver A did not comply with rule 3.1.6.7 paragraph B sub-section (ii).

I think now that there exists a professional standard amongst the drivers not seen since the 1970's maybe. They appear to obey the "natural rules" of racing (as I would describe them) quite well, for example we don't see weaving very much.

I have a great respect for Jackie Stewart and his driving standards and achievements, but I disagree with his conclusion that Hamilton was to blame. Once Hamilton saw that like flash on Rosberg's car I am sure he determined he was going to get an opportunity to overtake and he was going to take it, it's his natural response. If Stewart had been in that situation I am sure he would have tried himself and then maybe pulled out of it, if he could because the gap was closing quickly, as that would be his natural response. Two drivers, two different mentalities. Both are right. And one approach should not be used against the other and say this is right, that is wrong.

What I'm saying is let the drivers race and lets not have people sitting in front of monitors or lawyers determine race results and the championship.

I know what your saying, back in those days it was a "gentleman's agreement" when I came to the rules. Every driver knew what type of respect was needed towards each other and very rarely over stepped the mark as this was the code of conduct the sport ran on. Today, it's all about getting any advantage possible, stepping on people to get ahead, that's the mentality, no one wants to fight on equal terms anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakae—Note that now J. Villeneuve has stated that Rosberg was 100% wrong. But yes, we have exchanged opinions on the matter several times now so I agree that it’s time to agree to disagree.

Emmcee—For a third time now I refer you to Article 27.7 which I copied DIRECTLY from the official F1Sporting Regulations and it clearly says alongside the rear wheel, not the sidepod. And I reiterate the point that Article 27.7 makes no mention that this condition has to be met before the defending driver begins his move or attaches any other timeframe to meeting this condition. It simply states that under this condition the defending car is not allowed to use the full width of the track.

27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's new to me, must have changed not long ago but that's beside the point, you can't lay blame at anyone for this. As for Villeneuve, I wouldn't listen to word that clown says, don't know how many different versions of jacques are in there but his personality changes with every stupid comment he makes. The other thing to concider is these things do have a "blind spot" maybe rosberg was unaware just how close Lewis was until it was to late, remember schumi and frentzen Canada 98 ? Just a theory

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JV has a nonbiding opinion. Sometimes we agree with him, sometimes we agree in part, and sometimes we call him a clown when we disagree. I am not sure why anyone is actually calling him at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he's so quick to give his oppinion. He's the goto guy for a soundbite for the media. Lauda used to be that guy, but since taking on his role at Merc, clearly he's had a bit of sense and not been so eager to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lauda know realises that the sport even though with the experience he has, is different now and although his wisdom in the garage is appreciated, he is still learning about all the new things of today's game. Villeneuve just shoots from the hip every time, and as time goes by makes himself look like an absolute idiot. The way he throws his two cents in every 5 minutes you would think he is a TV pundit, just let it go jacques do what the rest of the retirees do and watch it at home and when's it's over, turn it of and go to bed like everyone else instead of going on an idiotic explosion that's only hipercrital of 80% of the things he did in his career.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0