Baku

[BradSpeedMan 6]

28 minutes ago, Sakae said:

FiA under pressure from primarily British media crumbled, and the incident has become a political decision to assist Hamilton in his bid for WDC. They have done it to Schumacher as well, and more than once. Articles are now appearing whether Ferrari should actually employ Vettel or hire instead some other darling they prefer, so they put Ferrari under political pressure as well.  Arrogance and disgraceful behavior of some people with access to a notebook keyboard is overwhelming. I am staying out of it, and what has to happen it will happen. Hamilton is known over the years to have difficulty with telling the truth, but his admires don't really care how dirty he wins, as long as he wins.

well put

[Caesar 0]

55 minutes ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

Guys what's happening, I thought that the forum would be bursting with messages for the latest developments of the Vettel saga and instead no one is talking about it...

http://www.grandprix247.com/2017/06/28/fia-to-re-examine-vettel-hamilton-collision/

Finally some good decision from FIA, after mild punishment for Vettle due to pressure from Ferrari.

I hope we will not see that kind of driving any more.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

11 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Finally some good decision from FIA, after mild punishment for Vettle due to pressure from Ferrari.

I hope we will not see that kind of driving any more.

It was refreshing to see it, a little bit of an edge to the season and championship

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

30 minutes ago, BradSpeedMan said:

well put

Vettel was silly, but now they are really picking on him, one has to wonder if after Monday at the FIA's on Tuesday Vettel will be summoned before the Spanish Inquisition... 

[Caesar 0]

20 minutes ago, BradSpeedMan said:

It was refreshing to see it, a little bit of an edge to the season and championship

I agree it was great to see, two drivers i don't like crashing. Lovely.

[Sakae 0]

51 minutes ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

Vettel was silly, but now they are really picking on him, one has to wonder if after Monday at the FIA's on Tuesday Vettel will be summoned before the Spanish Inquisition... 

His character assassination is progressig well.

[Sakae 0]

For the record, Hamilton slowed down from 80 to 53 km/hr at the exit from turn 15 without warning to a car that followed, yet Mr. Hamilton feels he has done nothing wrong (and behaved as honorable gentleman, correctly). Nice, warm and friendly fellow. 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

1 hour ago, Sakae said:

For the record, Hamilton slowed down from 80 to 53 km/hr at the exit from turn 15 without warning to a car that followed, yet Mr. Hamilton feels he has done nothing wrong (and behaved as honorable gentleman, correctly). Nice, warm and friendly fellow. 

Hamilton is a victim, always! When he leads he can take any line he likes and change his speed at leisure, when someone else leads they have to follow the racing line and maintain their speed!

I'm surprised that no one remembers this but not long time ago Hamilton was in a similar clash and... the view taken by the powers that be was the opposite of what they decided this time. I'm sure that you remember when Hamilton turned, on prupose!, into Rosberg who was guilty of not letting him through (let's be clear, Rosberg hadn't pushed him wide) and the stewards punished Rosberg   You can't make this up, and they even talk about sportmanship and fairness and rules  and that's not all, we have to endure Hamilton's sad little face telling us that he's a victim of nasty drivers (Hamilton is nearly always involved in this kind of accidents...) and that they, the nasty drivers, do not deserve their silverweare and are a bad example for the kids at home 

[VicVenom 0]

1 hour ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

Hamilton is a victim, always!

Well, when an idiot uses his car as a weapon against you, it's not unreasonable to feel hard done by.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

17 minutes ago, VicVenom said:

Well, when an idiot uses his car as a weapon against you, it's not unreasonable to feel hard done by.

like when Hamilton pushed Rosberg off track at Budapest in 2014? 

[VicVenom 0]

10 minutes ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

like when Hamilton pushed Rosberg off track at Budapest in 2014? 

And this has to do with this past weekend how? 

[Sakae 0]

Scipio, my dear friend, could you introduce emojis for all of those who do not grasp a concept of precedents and repeated offenders? Thanks, it might move this matter forward for some in here with use a lot of yellow color.

[VicVenom 0]

6 minutes ago, Sakae said:

Scipio, my dear friend, could you introduce emojis for all of those who do not grasp a concept of precedents and repeated offenders?

You really are stupid.

Just because Hamilton raced hard against a teammate some 3 years ago, it doesn't mean that he has no right to feel hard done by when a driver uses his car as a weapon against him in 2017. Face it, your hero ruined his reputation this weekend. 

[Sakae 0]

5 hours ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

Hamilton is a victim, always! When he leads he can take any line he likes and change his speed at leisure, when someone else leads they have to follow the racing line and maintain their speed!

I'm surprised that no one remembers this but not long time ago Hamilton was in a similar clash and... the view taken by the powers that be was the opposite of what they decided this time. I'm sure that you remember when Hamilton turned, on prupose!, into Rosberg who was guilty of not letting him through (let's be clear, Rosberg hadn't pushed him wide) and the stewards punished Rosberg   You can't make this up, and they even talk about sportmanship and fairness and rules  and that's not all, we have to endure Hamilton's sad little face telling us that he's a victim of nasty drivers (Hamilton is nearly always involved in this kind of accidents...) and that they, the nasty drivers, do not deserve their silverweare and are a bad example for the kids at home 

Ross Brawn is reported to welcome excitement of Baku as badly needed boost for F1 popularity. Now I am not sure if Hamilton's side will see it the same way. Apparently Button too is getting into the act, and asking to move on, for enough is enough.  

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

5 hours ago, VicVenom said:

And this has to do with this past weekend how? 

consistecy

[lipstick79 0]

Consistently second - first of the LOSERS !!

[Ruslan 0]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:40 AM, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

Guys what's happening, I thought that the forum would be bursting with messages for the latest developments of the Vettel saga and instead no one is talking about it...

http://www.grandprix247.com/2017/06/28/fia-to-re-examine-vettel-hamilton-collision/

Well, I have been trying to not get to involved in this discussion, because I feel that in many cases people's love of Vettel, or people's hatred of Hamilton, or people's hostility towards any commentary by the "British motor racing press" seems to have driven the discussion. It is a little too partisan for my taste.

Many observers have blamed Vettel for the initial hit or have not blamed Hamilton or have said it was business as usual. They are written off as biased.

Many observers are pretty outraged over what appears to be a deliberate hit by Vettel on Hamilton (and I don't think Vettel has even denied that he deliberately hit Hamilton). This includes Jackie Stewart.

The FIA is meeting on Monday to review the incident and possible dole out additional penalties. I think I will wait to see what they say. I would not be surprised if Vettel got a race ban, especially in light of his previous infractions with cursing Charlie Whiting out on the radio. A gather a number of people have said that he should, including lately Max Moseley (who while British, did spend WWII in prison because his father and mother were big fans of Hitler).

 

[Sakae 0]

And now we are back to Hitler... that is supposed to prove how guilty Sebastian Vettel is? Forgive me, but I find it new low.

No one is excusing Vettel and it would have been better if he hadn't done it, but fact is, short of him serving life sentence in jail, nothing will satisfy certain factions. Hamilton meanwhile goes Scott free, yet we can count numerous discrepancies or at least questionable conclusions how this case was evaluated, and comments published. (Especially claim that there was no change in speed trace how Hamilton drove through that turn).

I am repeating myself here in stating, whether Hamilton behaved "correctly" I thought was rather verbiage from media, as FiA actually remained silent, and no document was issued on that part of the incident one way or another.

JV, Stewart, Prost, Marko, BE, and now also Ross Brawn (as far as I counted) not really excused Vettel, but all are of opinion, that Hamilton acted in premeditated manner (when he slowed down from 80 to 53 km/hr on that particular location). I think in that context both drivers should have been penalized. The case however became political and manipulative with impact on WDC in mind, rather than effort in the name of justice.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

I think that no one is excusing Vettel, what he did was wrong. IMHO there are two sets of us issues:

1) how to deal with Hamilton's behaviour (which in my view was as bad as Vettel's), and

2) what are the long term implications of reopening this matter, irrespective of the fact that Vettel has already been punished, I find it scary that the FIA is reopening this issue (ne bis in idem? Double jeopardy?) only because Hamilton had a problem and so Vettel earned 2 points more than Hamilton, I'm afraid but if this is the reason why Hamilton's side has been so vocal and why the FIA is listening to them then it's a farce, the rules are there to be implemented irrespective of the advantages or not to certain drivers.

in the end this seems to have become a matter of (lack o) fairness and double standards

[Sakae 0]

It seems to me that FiA for some reasons did not investigated Hamilton culpability thoroughly, if at all. Focus was on Vettel, and Vettel only. 

[Ruslan 0]

4 hours ago, Sakae said:

And now we are back to Hitler... that is supposed to prove how guilty Sebastian Vettel is? Forgive me, but I find it new low.

Do you actually read what I wrote? It was a slam on the Mosleys and some of the Mitford sisters (who are a pretty embarrassing lot).

Next time read what I actually wrote before you respond. 

[Ruslan 0]

Well, from a practical point of view, FIA's three stewards have already made a judgment that no action was required in the first incident (when Vettel ran into the back of Hamilton). Is FIA really going to overturn the judgment of its stewards? Is there enough contrary evidence to justify such a step? If you were head of FIA, would you overrule your own appointed stewards?

(Granted there is plenty of historical precedence for this.....for example Jacky Ickx once ended the Monoco Grand Prix early because the rain was too heavy, resulting in Prost winning while Senna and Brundle were closing in on him rapidly. Ickx was later fined by FIA for making the wrong judgment as a steward in their mind).

So, from a practical point of view, I think the first issue is settled as far as FIA is concerned, regardless of whether it is in people's minds or not.

It is the second collision that is the issue....and I would not be surprised if Vettel gets suspended for a race. I suspect the primary reason he would not be is because he is leading the championship (as again, I don't think even Vettel is claiming it was an accident).

 

 

[BradSpeedMan 6]

10 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Well, from a practical point of view, FIA's three stewards have already made a judgment that no action was required in the first incident (when Vettel ran into the back of Hamilton). Is FIA really going to overturn the judgment of its stewards? Is there enough contrary evidence to justify such a step? If you were head of FIA, would you overrule you own appointed stewards?

(Granted there is plenty of historical precedence for this.....for example Jacky Ickx once ended the Monoco Grand Prix early because the rain was too heavy, resulting in Prost winning while Senna and Brundle were closing in on him rapidly. Ickx was later fined by FIA for making the wrong judgment as a steward in their mind).

So, from a practical point of view, I think the first issue is settled as far as FIA is concerned, regardless of whether it is in people's minds or not.

It is the second collision that is the issue....and I would not be surprised if Vettel gets suspended for a race. I suspect the primary reason he would not be is because he is leading the championship (as again, I don't think even Vettel is claiming it was an accident).

 

 

FIA would be making a ruling againts it's stewards also on the 2nd incident, because they already gave Vettel a penalty in the race.

 

I don't understand this unhappiness from Todt. When he was team principal of Ferrari, there were many questionable incidents and controversy under his watch. I mean... really!

[Publius Cornelius Scipio 0]

13 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Jacky Ickx once ended the Monoco Grand Prix early because the rain was too heavy, resulting in Prost winning while Senna and Brundle were closing in on him rapidly. Ickx was later fined by FIA for making the wrong judgment as a steward in their mind

 

 

Interesting example but it's a totally different situation from Baku: in Baku the FIA's representatives took a decision (in the name of FIA) and now the FIA is saying "guys we were joking, we haven't really made up our mind yet and we might change of decision", clearly a case of double jeopardy. At Monaco in 1984 it was a totally different situation, a FIA representative took a decision, the FIA was of the view that their representative had made a mistake in applying the FIA's sporting regulations and gave their representative a fine but they didn't change the decision that the FIA's representative had taken (so no double jeopardy).

finally the guys catching both Prost and Senna was the great Stefan Bellof

[Sakae 0]

Stewart:

Quote

"There is no doubt in my opinion that Vettel was completely wrong, irresponsible in colliding with Lewis," Stewart told The Flying Lap. "Whether that was a moment of anger, or whatever it may have been, it was still not correct.

"However, there's another side to that which I think is more important.

"The reason that it happened was that Lewis either lifted off completely from the gas pedal or brushed the brakes at a time when no racing driver behind the leader would have expected anybody to do that it.

"Vettel, even with the fast reactions of an F1 world champion of four times, still ran into the back of Lewis, not by any intention at all, but by the fact that it was such a severe retardation while he, and every other driver for that matter, was ready to accelerate down the straight because the pace car had already disappeared.

"That provoked, no doubt, Vettel's frame of mind. And the mind management wasn't working.

Well, FiA didn't care apparently enough, and media decided that Hamilton behave "absolutely correctly" (as there was no punishment for him).