Discussion:
Ha - told yas so !
Add Reply
geoff
2018-09-02 15:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?

Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of "he
got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
him." ?

geoff
a425couple
2018-09-02 15:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>
> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of "he
> got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
> him." ?
> geoff

I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
damage. As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
geoff
2018-09-02 21:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>
>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of
>> "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>> running into him." ?
>> geoff
>
> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>


Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !). But
over-ambitious and clumsy.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 00:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>
>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of
>>> "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>> running into him." ?
>>> geoff
>>
>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>
>
>
> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
> over-ambitious and clumsy.

Vettel had the inside line into the corner.


What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could he
realistically have done?
geoff
2018-09-03 02:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>
>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of
>>>> "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>> running into him." ?
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>
> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.

They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.

>
> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could he
> realistically have done?

HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 07:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>
>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>
> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.

Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.

You might want to think about what that means.

I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.

That's just a fact.

>
>>
>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>> he realistically have done?
>
> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.

He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.

> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.

You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
Sir Tim
2018-09-03 08:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>
>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>
>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>
> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>
> You might want to think about what that means.
>
> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>
> That's just a fact.
>
>>
>>>
>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>> he realistically have done?
>>
>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>
> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>
>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
>
> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>
>

For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads which
revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
was a RACING INCIDENT.

--
Sir Tim
geoff
2018-09-03 09:13:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>
>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>
>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>
>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>
>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>
>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>
>> That's just a fact.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>
>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>
>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>
>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
>>
>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>
>>
>
> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads which
> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>

Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the participants.
Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend ROS thought so,as
well as (apparently) most of the paddock.

And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was adjudged
either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already more than
enough penalty.

What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).


Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing driver,
whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...

geoff
Sir Tim
2018-09-03 09:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
geoff <***@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>
>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>
>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>
>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>>
>>> That's just a fact.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>
>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>
>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>
>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
>>>
>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads which
>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>
>
> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the participants.
> Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend ROS thought so,as
> well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>
> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was adjudged
> either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already more than
> enough penalty.
>
> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>
>
> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing driver,
> whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>
> geoff
>

:-)

--
Sir Tim
larkim
2018-09-03 09:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 3 September 2018 10:14:01 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> > Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
> >>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> >>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
> >>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
> >>>>>>> running into him." ?
> >>>>>>> geoff
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
> >>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
> >>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
> >>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
> >>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
> >>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
> >>>
> >>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
> >>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
> >>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
> >>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
> >> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
> >>
> >> You might want to think about what that means.
> >>
> >> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
> >> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
> >>
> >> That's just a fact.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
> >>>> he realistically have done?
> >>>
> >>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
> >>
> >> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
> >>
> >>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
> >>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
> >>
> >> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads which
> > revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
> > seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
> > was a RACING INCIDENT.
> >
>
> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the participants.
> Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend ROS thought so,as
> well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>
> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was adjudged
> either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already more than
> enough penalty.
>
> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>
>
> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing driver,
> whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>
> geoff

I'm not too comfortable with a racing incident being "caused" by one of the
participants.

They both put their cars in vulnerable positions, but on a L/R chicane like
that a car with track position, even a small advantage, on the outside of
the first section will always be in a position where it is likely they will
be contacted by a car on the inside, if the car on the inside is going to
defend vigorously (i.e. not just being lapped, or racing against someone
for whom the battle is not as critical) by the time they arrive on the
tarmac between the two phases of the chicane.

It was risky on both sides, and that's what I want to see drivers doing -
risking their position and race.

Hamilton went in I'd say with a higher chance of coming out unscathed than
Vettel did, but if Vettel had been able to keep a little more to the left
he might have been able to force some overlap on the exit from the corner.

No-one's fault other than a consequence of racing for position on lap 1.

No need to say Seb or Lewis was primarily at fault.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-09-03 13:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
larkim wrote:

> On Monday, 3 September 2018 10:14:01 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> > On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> > > Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
> > >> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
> > >>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
> > >>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> > >>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
> > happens ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it
> > another case >>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get
> > him back, so I'll try >>>>>>> running into him." ?
> > >>>>>>> geoff
> > > > > > > >
> > >>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
> > >>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
> > >>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
> > >>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
> > >>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time
> > !).  But >>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
> > > > > >
> > >>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
> > > > >
> > >>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
> > without >>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had
> > the line for. VET >>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his
> > front wheel would not have hit >>> HAM amidships. You need to
> > re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
> > > >
> > >> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
> > when they >> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
> > > >
> > >> You might want to think about what that means.
> > > >
> > >> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they
> > made >> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to
> > the left.
> > > >
> > >> That's just a fact.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What
> > else could >>>> he realistically have done?
> > > > >
> > >>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into
> > HAM.
> > > >
> > >> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
> > > >
> > >>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
> > what he did >>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he
> > could have avoided it.
> > > >
> > >> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
> > > threads which revolve around the minute detail of an accident.
> > > The clash happened. It seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more
> > > to blame than Hamilton but it was a RACING INCIDENT.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
> > participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
> > friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
> >
> > And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
> > adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
> > already more than enough penalty.
> >
> > What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
> > HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
> >
> >
> > Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
> > driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
> >
> > geoff
>
> I'm not too comfortable with a racing incident being "caused" by one
> of the participants.
>

Why not, drivers make mistakes all the time under circumstances where
penalty is not appropriate... especially on lap 1 of the GP.


--
Trump averages eight falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Heron
2018-09-03 13:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>
>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>
>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>
>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>>
>>> That's just a fact.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>
>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>
>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>
>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he
>>>> did
>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>> avoided it.
>>>
>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads
>> which
>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>
>
> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the participants.
> Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend ROS thought so,as
> well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>
> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was adjudged
> either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already more than
> enough penalty.
>
> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>
>
> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing driver,
> whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>
> geoff

As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 15:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>>>> without
>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for.
>>>>> VET
>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have
>>>>> hit
>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>
>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>>>
>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>
>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>>
>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>
>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what
>>>>> he did
>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>
>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads
>>> which
>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend
>> ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>
>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already
>> more than enough penalty.
>>
>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
>> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>
>>
>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing driver,
>> whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>
>> geoff
>
> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.

Complete and utter bullshit.
Heron
2018-09-03 15:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll
>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>>>>>> for. VET
>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not
>>>>>> have hit
>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when
>>>>> they
>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what
>>>>>> he did
>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads
>>>> which
>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton
>>>> but it
>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend
>>> ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>
>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already
>>> more than enough penalty.
>>>
>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
>>> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>
>>>
>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.

I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
(among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
drivers and announcers.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 15:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>>>>>>> for. VET
>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not
>>>>>>> have hit
>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what
>>>>>>> he did
>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>> threads which
>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>> happened. It
>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton
>>>>> but it
>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend
>>>> ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>
>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being already
>>>> more than enough penalty.
>>>>
>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow HAM's
>>>> fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>
>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
> drivers and announcers.

Let's see the quotes where either of those...

OR ANYONE ELSE

...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
Heron
2018-09-03 16:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 10:55 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another
>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time
>>>>>>>>>> !). But
>>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>>>>>>>> for. VET
>>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not
>>>>>>>> have hit
>>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the
>>>>>>> left.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
>>>>>>>> what he did
>>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>>> threads which
>>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>>> happened. It
>>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton
>>>>>> but it
>>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best friend
>>>>> ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>>
>>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>
>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>
>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>> drivers and announcers.
>
> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>
> OR ANYONE ELSE
>
> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.

You need a remedial class on reading comprehension.
The two referenced pilots, as well as other announcers,
both stated that it was unusual for Vettel's car to be
the one to have gone around (the usual case would have
been Hamilton's car) in that scenario. The obvious
conclusion, which readily followed, of an intentional
act by an experienced champion, was mine. Try watching
the broadcast next time or find a rebroadcast (do your
own homework) to easily verify the veracity of the above
the stated facts.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 17:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 9:09 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 10:55 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time
>>>>>>>>>>> !). But
>>>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>>>>>>>>> for. VET
>>>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not
>>>>>>>>> have hit
>>>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>>>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the
>>>>>>>> left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What
>>>>>>>>>> else could
>>>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
>>>>>>>>> what he did
>>>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>>>> threads which
>>>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>>>> happened. It
>>>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton
>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
>>>>>> friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>
>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>>> drivers and announcers.
>>
>> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>>
>> OR ANYONE ELSE
>>
>> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
>
> You need a remedial class on reading comprehension.
> The two referenced pilots, as well as other announcers,
> both stated that it was unusual for Vettel's car to be
> the one to have gone around (the usual case would have
> been Hamilton's car) in that scenario. The obvious
> conclusion, which readily followed, of an intentional
> act by an experienced champion, was mine. Try watching
> the broadcast next time or find a rebroadcast (do your
> own homework) to easily verify the veracity of the above
> the stated facts.

So then you admit the whole thing is just your assumption.

Which is why I called it bullshit.
Heron
2018-09-03 19:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 12:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-03 9:09 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2018 10:55 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time
>>>>>>>>>>>> !). But
>>>>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled
>>>>>>>>>> ahead without
>>>>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>>>>>>>>>> for. VET
>>>>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not
>>>>>>>>>> have hit
>>>>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the
>>>>>>>>> left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What
>>>>>>>>>>> else could
>>>>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into
>>>>>>>>>> HAM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
>>>>>>>>>> what he did
>>>>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>>>>>>>>> avoided it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>>>>> threads which
>>>>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>>>>> happened. It
>>>>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than
>>>>>>>> Hamilton but it
>>>>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
>>>>>>> friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>>>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>>>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>>>> drivers and announcers.
>>>
>>> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>>>
>>> OR ANYONE ELSE
>>>
>>> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
>>
>> You need a remedial class on reading comprehension.
>> The two referenced pilots, as well as other announcers,
>> both stated that it was unusual for Vettel's car to be
>> the one to have gone around (the usual case would have
>> been Hamilton's car) in that scenario. The obvious
>> conclusion, which readily followed, of an intentional
>> act by an experienced champion, was mine. Try watching
>> the broadcast next time or find a rebroadcast (do your
>> own homework) to easily verify the veracity of the above
>> the stated facts.
>
> So then you admit the whole thing is just your assumption.

Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
then you remain hopeless, as always.

> Which is why I called it bullshit.

There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.
The bullshit artist, as always, continues to be you.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 19:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 12:01 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 12:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-03 9:09 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 10:55 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> !). But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled
>>>>>>>>>>> ahead without
>>>>>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the
>>>>>>>>>>> line for. VET
>>>>>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would
>>>>>>>>>>> not have hit
>>>>>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they
>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to
>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What
>>>>>>>>>>>> else could
>>>>>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into
>>>>>>>>>>> HAM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
>>>>>>>>>>> what he did
>>>>>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could
>>>>>>>>>>> have avoided it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>>>>>> threads which
>>>>>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>>>>>> happened. It
>>>>>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than
>>>>>>>>> Hamilton but it
>>>>>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>>>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
>>>>>>>> friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>>>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>>>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>>>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>>>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>>>>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>>>>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>>>>> drivers and announcers.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>>>>
>>>> OR ANYONE ELSE
>>>>
>>>> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
>>>
>>> You need a remedial class on reading comprehension.
>>> The two referenced pilots, as well as other announcers,
>>> both stated that it was unusual for Vettel's car to be
>>> the one to have gone around (the usual case would have
>>> been Hamilton's car) in that scenario. The obvious
>>> conclusion, which readily followed, of an intentional
>>> act by an experienced champion, was mine. Try watching
>>> the broadcast next time or find a rebroadcast (do your
>>> own homework) to easily verify the veracity of the above
>>> the stated facts.
>>
>> So then you admit the whole thing is just your assumption.
>
> Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
> then you remain hopeless, as always.
>
>> Which is why I called it bullshit.
>
> There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
> which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.

No. It does NOT follow that because the outcome was expect to be one
thing, then the action must have been deliberate.

That's what is bullshit.

> The bullshit artist, as always, continues to be you.
Heron
2018-09-03 19:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 2:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-03 12:01 PM, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2018 12:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-03 9:09 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2018 10:55 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I'll try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time !). But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled
>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead without
>>>>>>>>>>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the
>>>>>>>>>>>> line for. VET
>>>>>>>>>>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not have hit
>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>>>>>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but
>>>>>>>>>>> they made
>>>>>>>>>>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to
>>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed
>>>>>>>>>>>> into HAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> what he did
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could
>>>>>>>>>>>> have avoided it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>>>>>>> threads which
>>>>>>>>>> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash
>>>>>>>>>> happened. It
>>>>>>>>>> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than
>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton but it
>>>>>>>>>> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>>>>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
>>>>>>>>> friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the paddock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>>>>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>>>>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>>>>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>>>>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>>>>>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>>>>>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>>>>>> drivers and announcers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>>>>>
>>>>> OR ANYONE ELSE
>>>>>
>>>>> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
>>>>
>>>> You need a remedial class on reading comprehension.
>>>> The two referenced pilots, as well as other announcers,
>>>> both stated that it was unusual for Vettel's car to be
>>>> the one to have gone around (the usual case would have
>>>> been Hamilton's car) in that scenario. The obvious
>>>> conclusion, which readily followed, of an intentional
>>>> act by an experienced champion, was mine. Try watching
>>>> the broadcast next time or find a rebroadcast (do your
>>>> own homework) to easily verify the veracity of the above
>>>> the stated facts.
>>>
>>> So then you admit the whole thing is just your assumption.
>>
>> Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
>> then you remain hopeless, as always.
>>
>>> Which is why I called it bullshit.
>>
>> There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
>> which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.
>
> No. It does NOT follow that because the outcome was expect to be one
> thing, then the action must have been deliberate.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck, what you've probably got there is a duck.
But he's a well recognized poseur that not only doesn't
know really anything, he doesn't even suspect anything.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 21:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 12:49 PM, Heron wrote:
>>> Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
>>> then you remain hopeless, as always.
>>>
>>>> Which is why I called it bullshit.
>>>
>>> There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
>>> which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.
>>
>> No. It does NOT follow that because the outcome was expect to be one
>> thing, then the action must have been deliberate.
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
> like a duck, what you've probably got there is a duck.


You've never heard of Occam's Razor, I take it.

The video clearly shows Vettel's hands don't open (not that you'd know
what "open" means in the context of racing anyway—it means to straighten
the wheel) at all.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WVc8GFTcg4>

So where is the deliberate move into Hamilton?

It was simply a case of the car undeersteering.

Not to mention that any F1 driver understands that hitting one's own
tire up against any part of an opponents bodywork is:

1. Unlikely to upset the balance of the car when the contac is near the
centre of mass (as this one was).

2. Fairly likely to give you a puncture.

> But he's a well recognized poseur that not only doesn't
> know really anything, he doesn't even suspect anything.

I've actually been out there, and have actually had the moment of
understeer that put me into contact with a competitor. Only in my case,
it was contact between his rear tire and my front tire as he attempted
to overtake and left me no room at all on the inside of a corner.

And also in my case, it happened that he (Doug) ended up in a quarter
spin right in front of me, and my nose speared his left sidepod which
very shortly put him out of the race.

But I can tell you that at no time would I so much as considered making
such a hit deliberately.

And the commentator's initial thought that it should have been Hamilton
who spun were based on incomplete knowledge at that point, where he
clearly assumed the contact had been front wheel to rear wheel.
Heron
2018-09-03 21:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 4:00 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-03 12:49 PM, Heron wrote:
>>>> Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
>>>> then you remain hopeless, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I called it bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
>>>> which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.
>>>
>>> No. It does NOT follow that because the outcome was expect to be one
>>> thing, then the action must have been deliberate.
>>
>> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
>> like a duck, what you've probably got there is a duck.
>
>
> You've never heard of Occam's Razor, I take it.
>
> The video clearly shows Vettel's hands don't open (not that you'd know
> what "open" means in the context of racing anyway—it means to straighten
> the wheel) at all.
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WVc8GFTcg4>
>
> So where is the deliberate move into Hamilton?
>
> It was simply a case of the car undeersteering.
>
> Not to mention that any F1 driver understands that hitting one's own
> tire up against any part of an opponents bodywork is:
>
> 1. Unlikely to upset the balance of the car when the contac is near the
> centre of mass (as this one was).
>
> 2. Fairly likely to give you a puncture.
>
>> But he's a well recognized poseur that not only doesn't
>> know really anything, he doesn't even suspect anything.
>
> I've actually been out there, and have actually had the moment of
> understeer that put me into contact with a competitor. Only in my case,
> it was contact between his rear tire and my front tire as he attempted
> to overtake and left me no room at all on the inside of a corner.
>
> And also in my case, it happened that he (Doug) ended up in a quarter
> spin right in front of me, and my nose speared his left sidepod which
> very shortly put him out of the race.
>
> But I can tell you that at no time would I so much as considered making
> such a hit deliberately.
>
> And the commentator's initial thought that it should have been Hamilton
> who spun were based on incomplete knowledge at that point, where he
> clearly assumed the contact had been front wheel to rear wheel.

Talk about bullshit, stacked high and deep.
larkim
2018-09-03 21:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Utter nonsense.

In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram Hamilton off the circuit knowing that any F1 car has a broadly 50:50 chance of coming off worse in a collision than the car your aim at.

I do agree that often the car on the outside gets spun around, but there's no way on this planet that what Vettel did was in any way deliberate.

IMHO.
Heron
2018-09-03 21:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
> Utter nonsense.
>
> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram Hamilton off the circuit

Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
tactic just didn't work out for him

> knowing that any F1 car has a broadly 50:50 chance of coming off worse in a collision than the car your aim at.

> I do agree that often the car on the outside gets spun around, but there's no way on this planet that what Vettel did was in any way deliberate.
>
> IMHO.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 21:55:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 2:39 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the day,
>> there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram Hamilton
>> off the circuit
>
> Again, not the claim.

That was your claim.

> SV was going to squeeze LH
> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
> tactic just didn't work out for him

Bullshit, again!

There are too many variable to be trying that with so much of the season
left.

Maybe...

MAYBE!

...in the final few laps of the last GP of the year you might try that
if you thought it was your only chance for the championship, but you
don't do it earlier for the same reason that teams that are behind in a
hockey game don't pull the goalie with an entire period left in the game:

It's an extremely low percentage play that is only worth it if there is
no other chance for success and nothing left to lose.

Vettel's car was faster than Hamilton's in qualifying and there was
literally an entire race to get past Hamilton, so why on earth take that
big a risk on the opening lap?
~misfit~
2018-09-04 01:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
>> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
>> Hamilton off the circuit
>
> Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
> tactic just didn't work out for him

Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would have
done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car and on
the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and run wide.
It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a move
is that the outside driver is worse off.

That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
factored into his decision to go for it.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

>> knowing that any F1 car has a broadly 50:50 chance of coming off
>> worse in a collision than the car your aim at.
>
>> I do agree that often the car on the outside gets spun around, but
>> there's no way on this planet that what Vettel did was in any way
>> deliberate. IMHO.
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 07:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 6:18 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
>>> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
>>> Hamilton off the circuit
>>
>> Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
>> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
>> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
>> tactic just didn't work out for him
>
> Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would have
> done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car and on
> the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and run wide.
> It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a move
> is that the outside driver is worse off.
>
> That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
> factored into his decision to go for it.
>

What was his alternative?

I mean after he made the decision to have a look down the inside to see
if he could pick off Kimi.
larkim
2018-09-04 15:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 02:18:59 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
> > On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
> >> Utter nonsense.
> >>
> >> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
> >> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
> >> Hamilton off the circuit
> >
> > Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
> > such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
> > on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
> > tactic just didn't work out for him
>
> Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would have
> done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car and on
> the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and run wide.
> It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a move
> is that the outside driver is worse off.
>
> That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
> factored into his decision to go for it.

I seriously doubt there was any "decision" other than instinct at that
speed.

I'm intrigued about the speed differential that you might have expected
him to utilise (a slower speed) at that point though, given that broadly
everyone goes through that corner on the first lap nose to tail, even
side by side.

Now that F1 allows some nice HD youtube vids you can go through it frame
by frame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1ppvK9npY

The racing instinct of LH and SV put them in the positions they were in.

They are both outstanding drivers, and they've both made some mistakes in
the past.

On this occasion there is nothing to see (IMHO) other than close proximity
racing causing a very very small overlap of cars such that one hit the
other.

I'm sure if SV had the chance again he'd consider two alternatives - either
arrive in the corner faster and make more contact which might have more
impact on LH, or arrive in the corner slower, make the turns insofar as LH
allows him track space, and then overtake LH on the main straight on the run
down to T1 again.

But it was just a racing incident, no fault on either side.
Heron
2018-09-04 16:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/4/2018 10:49 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 02:18:59 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
>>>> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
>>>> Hamilton off the circuit
>>>
>>> Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
>>> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
>>> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
>>> tactic just didn't work out for him
>>
>> Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would have
>> done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car and on
>> the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and run wide.
>> It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a move
>> is that the outside driver is worse off.
>>
>> That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
>> factored into his decision to go for it.
>
> I seriously doubt there was any "decision" other than instinct at that
> speed.
>
> I'm intrigued about the speed differential that you might have expected
> him to utilise (a slower speed) at that point though, given that broadly
> everyone goes through that corner on the first lap nose to tail, even
> side by side.
>
> Now that F1 allows some nice HD youtube vids you can go through it frame
> by frame.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1ppvK9npY
>
> The racing instinct of LH and SV put them in the positions they were in.
>
> They are both outstanding drivers, and they've both made some mistakes in
> the past.
>
> On this occasion there is nothing to see (IMHO) other than close proximity
> racing causing a very very small overlap of cars such that one hit the
> other.
>
> I'm sure if SV had the chance again he'd consider two alternatives - either
> arrive in the corner faster and make more contact which might have more
> impact on LH, or arrive in the corner slower, make the turns insofar as LH
> allows him track space, and then overtake LH on the main straight on the run
> down to T1 again.
>
> But it was just a racing incident, no fault on either side.

Many news sites report that Rosberg, no fan of Lewis,
judges it 100% SV's fault. Here's but one:
https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/2485/rosberg-vettel-hamilton-crash-100-sebastian-s-fault/
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 18:29:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 9:06 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/4/2018 10:49 AM, larkim wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 02:18:59 UTC+1, ~misfit~  wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
>>>>> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
>>>>> Hamilton off the circuit
>>>>
>>>> Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
>>>> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
>>>> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
>>>> tactic just didn't work out for him
>>>
>>> Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would
>>> have
>>> done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car
>>> and on
>>> the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and
>>> run wide.
>>> It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a
>>> move
>>> is that the outside driver is worse off.
>>>
>>> That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
>>> factored into his decision to go for it.
>>
>> I seriously doubt there was any "decision" other than instinct at that
>> speed.
>>
>> I'm intrigued about the speed differential that you might have expected
>> him to utilise (a slower speed) at that point though, given that broadly
>> everyone goes through that corner on the first lap nose to tail, even
>> side by side.
>>
>> Now that F1 allows some nice HD youtube vids you can go through it frame
>> by frame.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1ppvK9npY
>>
>> The racing instinct of LH and SV put them in the positions they were in.
>>
>> They are both outstanding drivers, and they've both made some mistakes in
>> the past.
>>
>> On this occasion there is nothing to see (IMHO) other than close
>> proximity
>> racing causing a very very small overlap of cars such that one hit the
>> other.
>>
>> I'm sure if SV had the chance again he'd consider two alternatives -
>> either
>> arrive in the corner faster and make more contact which might have more
>> impact on LH, or arrive in the corner slower, make the turns insofar
>> as LH
>> allows him track space, and then overtake LH on the main straight on
>> the run
>> down to T1 again.
>>
>> But it was just a racing incident, no fault on either side.
>
> Many news sites report that Rosberg, no fan of Lewis,
> judges it 100% SV's fault. Here's but one:
> https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/2485/rosberg-vettel-hamilton-crash-100-sebastian-s-fault/
>

"Fault" in the sense that it was Vettel's car that moved more than
Hamilton's.

Hamilton absolutely had the right to be there, and it was Vettel's car
that understeered into him.

If you think that Rosberg was saying that Vettel did it deliberately...

...you're still full of it.
geoff
2018-09-04 21:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/09/2018 6:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

>
> "Fault" in the sense that it was Vettel's car that moved more than
> Hamilton's.
>
> Hamilton absolutely had the right to be there, and it was Vettel's car
> that understeered into him.
>
> If you think that Rosberg was saying that Vettel did it deliberately...
>
> ...you're still full of it.

No, that VET entered the corner at too sharp an angle for the speed.
That's *why* it under-steered into HAM.

Probably not deliberate for sure, but a mistake none-the-less. Otherwise
it simply wouldn't have happened. Worthy of a penalty (spin
notwithstanding), probably not either.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 22:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 2:00 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 5/09/2018 6:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> "Fault" in the sense that it was Vettel's car that moved more than
>> Hamilton's.
>>
>> Hamilton absolutely had the right to be there, and it was Vettel's car
>> that understeered into him.
>>
>> If you think that Rosberg was saying that Vettel did it deliberately...
>>
>> ...you're still full of it.
>
> No, that VET entered the corner at too sharp an angle for the speed.
> That's *why* it under-steered into HAM.

Nope. It's more complicated than that.

Certainly the presence of two other cars so close to the front right
wing would have reduced its downforce.

>
> Probably not deliberate for sure, but a mistake none-the-less. Otherwise
> it simply wouldn't have happened. Worthy of a penalty (spin
> notwithstanding), probably not either.

Again, it's not that simple.

Drivers aren't prescient, and there are decisions that you make that
later lead to consequences that can't (reasonably) be forseen.

It WAS a mistake, but the mistake was strategic.
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 18:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 8:49 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 02:18:59 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 4:27 PM, larkim wrote:
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the
>>>> day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram
>>>> Hamilton off the circuit
>>>
>>> Again, not the claim. SV was going to squeeze LH
>>> such that were there to be contact, he'd come out
>>> on the winning end. They play the percentages, the
>>> tactic just didn't work out for him
>>
>> Because he drove into the corner at a similar speed to what he would have
>> done in clear air. Doing that when you're closely following one car and on
>> the inside of another is a sure way to have the front wash out and run wide.
>> It's a move typical of a red mist driver. The usual outcome of such a move
>> is that the outside driver is worse off.
>>
>> That the result was *he* was spun around was unusual and I bet wasn't
>> factored into his decision to go for it.
>
> I seriously doubt there was any "decision" other than instinct at that
> speed.

Yup. Vettel tried a maneuver on Raikkonen which left him vulnerable to
Hamilton.

>
> I'm intrigued about the speed differential that you might have expected
> him to utilise (a slower speed) at that point though, given that broadly
> everyone goes through that corner on the first lap nose to tail, even
> side by side.
>
> Now that F1 allows some nice HD youtube vids you can go through it frame
> by frame.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1ppvK9npY
>
> The racing instinct of LH and SV put them in the positions they were in.
>
> They are both outstanding drivers, and they've both made some mistakes in
> the past.
>
> On this occasion there is nothing to see (IMHO) other than close proximity
> racing causing a very very small overlap of cars such that one hit the
> other.
>
> I'm sure if SV had the chance again he'd consider two alternatives - either
> arrive in the corner faster and make more contact which might have more
> impact on LH, or arrive in the corner slower, make the turns insofar as LH
> allows him track space, and then overtake LH on the main straight on the run
> down to T1 again.
>
> But it was just a racing incident, no fault on either side.
>

Precisely.

All the talk of a deliberate move is just so much bullshit.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 21:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 2:27 PM, larkim wrote:
> Utter nonsense.
>
> In a car which everyone agreed was going to be the fastest on the day, there is no way on earth that Vettel suddenly decided to ram Hamilton off the circuit knowing that any F1 car has a broadly 50:50 chance of coming off worse in a collision than the car your aim at.

Thank you!

>
> I do agree that often the car on the outside gets spun around, but there's no way on this planet that what Vettel did was in any way deliberate.
>
> IMHO.
>
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 21:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 2:18 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2018 4:00 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-03 12:49 PM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> Again, if that what you've gleaned from the discussion,
>>>>> then you remain hopeless, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why I called it bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was only one clearly stated and obvious assumption
>>>>> which followed from each clearly stated, inarguable fact.
>>>>
>>>> No. It does NOT follow that because the outcome was expect to be one
>>>> thing, then the action must have been deliberate.
>>>
>>> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
>>> like a duck, what you've probably got there is a duck.
>>
>>
>> You've never heard of Occam's Razor, I take it.
>>
>> The video clearly shows Vettel's hands don't open (not that you'd know
>> what "open" means in the context of racing anyway—it means to
>> straighten the wheel) at all.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WVc8GFTcg4>
>>
>> So where is the deliberate move into Hamilton?
>>
>> It was simply a case of the car undeersteering.
>>
>> Not to mention that any F1 driver understands that hitting one's own
>> tire up against any part of an opponents bodywork is:
>>
>> 1. Unlikely to upset the balance of the car when the contac is near
>> the centre of mass (as this one was).
>>
>> 2. Fairly likely to give you a puncture.
>>
>>> But he's a well recognized poseur that not only doesn't
>>> know really anything, he doesn't even suspect anything.
>>
>> I've actually been out there, and have actually had the moment of
>> understeer that put me into contact with a competitor. Only in my
>> case, it was contact between his rear tire and my front tire as he
>> attempted to overtake and left me no room at all on the inside of a
>> corner.
>>
>> And also in my case, it happened that he (Doug) ended up in a quarter
>> spin right in front of me, and my nose speared his left sidepod which
>> very shortly put him out of the race.
>>
>> But I can tell you that at no time would I so much as considered
>> making such a hit deliberately.
>>
>> And the commentator's initial thought that it should have been
>> Hamilton who spun were based on incomplete knowledge at that point,
>> where he clearly assumed the contact had been front wheel to rear wheel.
>
> Talk about bullshit, stacked high and deep.

Lots of specific points and you have nothing.

You simply assumed that because there COULD have been an outcome that
would have been beneficial to Vettel then he MUST have been intending it.
Bigbird
2018-09-03 16:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
> > On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:

> > > >
> > > > As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> > > > and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> > > > car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> > > > Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> > > > in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> > > > of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
> > >
> > > Complete and utter bullshit.
> >
> > I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
> > (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
> > examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
> > drivers and announcers.
>
> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>
> OR ANYONE ELSE
>
> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.

Goal post move. That is not what was claimed.

So indeed your rebuttal was inadequate it *appears* you did not
comprehend the post you replied to or perhaps your goalpost move was
more deliberate. :)
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 17:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 9:25 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>
>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
>>> (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
>>> examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
>>> drivers and announcers.
>>
>> Let's see the quotes where either of those...
>>
>> OR ANYONE ELSE
>>
>> ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
>
> Goal post move. That is not what was claimed.

That WAS what was claimed (no shock that you snipped it, huh?):

'which is exactly what Vettel was counting on and a strong indication
that SV in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another of his
dirty trick attempts backfired this time.'


>
> So indeed your rebuttal was inadequate it *appears* you did not
> comprehend the post you replied to or perhaps your goalpost move was
> more deliberate. :)
>
Bigbird
2018-09-03 22:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-03 9:25 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-09-03 8:39 AM, Heron wrote:
> > > > On 9/3/2018 10:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> > > > > > and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> > > > > > car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> > > > > > Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> > > > > > in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> > > > > > of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Complete and utter bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you know much better than Brundle and DiResta
> > > > (among others). And so well rebutted replete with facts,
> > > > examples and the referenced remarks of experienced F1
> > > > drivers and announcers.
> > >
> > > Let's see the quotes where either of those...
> > >
> > > OR ANYONE ELSE
> > >
> > > ...actually said that Vettel ran into Hamilton deliberately.
> >
> > Goal post move. That is not what was claimed.
>
> That WAS what was claimed (no shock that you snipped it, huh?):
>

I snipped nothing of relevance. No shock you are you blatantly lying
again.

> 'which is exactly what Vettel was counting on and a strong indication
> that SV in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another of
> his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.'
>

I certainly didn't snip that Fuckwit, look above.

Fuck off and get an English lesson.

>
> >
> > So indeed your rebuttal was inadequate it appears you did not
> > comprehend the post you replied to or perhaps your goalpost move was
> > more deliberate. :)
> >

^^^^
FACT!
Bigbird
2018-09-03 16:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
> > On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
> > > On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> >>>Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
> > > > > On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and
> > > > > > > > > > what happens ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was
> > > > > > > > > > it another case of "he got past me, I haven't
> > > > > > > > > > managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
> > > > > > > > > > him." ? geoff
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
> > > > > > > > > If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
> > > > > > > > > damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
> > > > > > > > > against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
> > > > > > > > > to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this
> > > > > > > > time !).  But over-ambitious and clumsy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled
> > > > > > ahead without incident. They were heading to the next
> > > > > > which HAM had the line for. VET was not ahead, not even
> > > > > > beside, else his front wheel would not have hit HAM
> > > > > > amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
> > > > > when they made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might want to think about what that means.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said anything about their relative positions, but
> > > > > they made contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still
> > > > > turning to the left.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's just a fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly?
> > > > > > > What else could he realistically have done?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed
> > > > > > into HAM.
> > > > >
> > > > > He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so
> > > > > > doing what he did to get that under-steer was
> > > > > > over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You really have no clue at all about driving a race car.
> > > > > Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
> > > > threads which revolve around the minute detail of an accident.
> > > > The clash happened. It seemed to me that Vettel was slightly
> > > > more to blame than Hamilton but it was a RACING INCIDENT.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
> > > participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
> > > friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the
> > > paddock.
> > >
> > > And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
> > > adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
> > > already more than enough penalty.
> > >
> > > What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
> > > HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
> > >
> > >
> > > Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
> > > driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
> > >
> > > geoff
> >
> > As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> > and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> > car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> > Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> > in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> > of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.

Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 16:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 9:08 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2018 4:13 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 8:39 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and
>>>>>>>>>>> what happens ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was
>>>>>>>>>>> it another case of "he got past me, I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>> managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
>>>>>>>>>>> him." ? geoff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this
>>>>>>>>> time !).  But over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled
>>>>>>> ahead without incident. They were heading to the next
>>>>>>> which HAM had the line for. VET was not ahead, not even
>>>>>>> beside, else his front wheel would not have hit HAM
>>>>>>> amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car
>>>>>> when they made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but
>>>>>> they made contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still
>>>>>> turning to the left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly?
>>>>>>>> What else could he realistically have done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed
>>>>>>> into HAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so
>>>>>>> doing what he did to get that under-steer was
>>>>>>> over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car.
>>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable
>>>>> threads which revolve around the minute detail of an accident.
>>>>> The clash happened. It seemed to me that Vettel was slightly
>>>>> more to blame than Hamilton but it was a RACING INCIDENT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, as RACING INCIDENT nevertheless caused by one of the
>>>> participants. Surely VET was totally to blame. Even HAM best
>>>> friend ROS thought so,as well as (apparently) most of the
>>>> paddock.
>>>>
>>>> And blame being one thing, penalty would be another, which was
>>>> adjudged either not worthy of, or the dropping to last being
>>>> already more than enough penalty.
>>>>
>>>> What makes it all an ISSUE is VET claiming that it was somehow
>>>> HAM's fault, leaving him not enough space (about 1.5 car widths).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Said my bit. Let BAK have the last word because he is a racing
>>>> driver, whereas ROS never was so what would he know ...
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>
>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
>

It was as "convincing" as required by the material.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-09-03 16:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-03 9:08 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
> > > > As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> > > > and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> > > > car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> > > > Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> > > > in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> > > > of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
> > >
> > > Complete and utter bullshit.
> >
> > Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
> >
>
> It was as "convincing" as required by the material.

No, it realy wasn't... or perhaps you simply "have no clue about
driving a racing car." :)

--
Trump averages eight falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 17:29:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 9:26 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-03 9:08 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>
>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>
>>> Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
>>>
>>
>> It was as "convincing" as required by the material.
>
> No, it realy wasn't... or perhaps you simply "have no clue about
> driving a racing car." :)
>

Let's see:

Someone takes a statement that "all of the announcers" were surprised by
the outcome of a touch between and outside front and the mid-point of a
car and that gets spun into them saying Vettel did it deliberately?

1. It's not that unusual that a hit on the outside front tire could
trigger a spin, and the initial comments by "all of the announcers"
("initial" being the important word) were made without a full
understanding of where the contact had happened.

Vettel's front tire hit Hamilton's car pretty much at the centre of
mass. That imparts no rotation, just some lateral movement. On the other
hand, the contact with Hamilton's car gave the heavily loaded front
right of Vettel's car just enough relief that it regained grip at the
same time as Vettel had lots of steering lock in.

2. Ignoring all of the foregoing, no commentator suggested that what
Vettel did was deliberate. Not even Rosberg said it was deliberate.

Those are just facts.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-09-03 22:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-03 9:26 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-09-03 9:08 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
> > > > > > As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
> > > > > > and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
> > > > > > car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
> > > > > > Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
> > > > > > in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
> > > > > > of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Complete and utter bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was as "convincing" as required by the material.
> >
> > No, it realy wasn't... or perhaps you simply "have no clue about
> > driving a racing car." :)
> >
>
> Let's see:
>
> Someone takes a statement that "all of the announcers" were surprised
> by the outcome of a touch between and outside front and the mid-point
> of a car and that gets spun into them saying Vettel did it
> deliberately?
>

Here we having you paraphrasing so that you can distort what was said
in a paragraph of almost eqial length.

This is the problem I have with you Alan. You are fundamentally
dishonest. You revert to dishonesty instead of admitting a mistake or
error.


--
Trump averages eight falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 22:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 3:08 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-03 9:26 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-09-03 9:08 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-09-03 6:25 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>>> As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
>>>>>>> and were surprised by, usually it would have been the LH
>>>>>>> car that spun in that scenario, which is exactly what
>>>>>>> Vettel was counting on and a strong indication that SV
>>>>>>> in fact did it on purpose, but to his dismay, yet another
>>>>>>> of his dirty trick attempts backfired this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Complete and utter bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol, not exactly a convincing rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was as "convincing" as required by the material.
>>>
>>> No, it realy wasn't... or perhaps you simply "have no clue about
>>> driving a racing car." :)
>>>
>>
>> Let's see:
>>
>> Someone takes a statement that "all of the announcers" were surprised
>> by the outcome of a touch between and outside front and the mid-point
>> of a car and that gets spun into them saying Vettel did it
>> deliberately?
>>
>
> Here we having you paraphrasing so that you can distort what was said
> in a paragraph of almost eqial length.
>
> This is the problem I have with you Alan. You are fundamentally
> dishonest. You revert to dishonesty instead of admitting a mistake or
> error.
>
>

"As all of the announcers (some, former racers) commented
and were surprised by"

How did I "paraphrase that to distort it?

Be precise... ...please.
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 15:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 1:39 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan Baker <***@ness.biz> wrote:
>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>
>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>
>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead without
>>> incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line for. VET
>>> was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would not have hit
>>> HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>>
>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
>> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>
>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>
>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>
>> That's just a fact.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>>> he realistically have done?
>>>
>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>
>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>>
>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he did
>>> to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have avoided it.
>>
>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>>
>>
>
> For God’s sake don’t lets get into one of those interminable threads which
> revolve around the minute detail of an accident. The clash happened. It
> seemed to me that Vettel was slightly more to blame than Hamilton but it
> was a RACING INCIDENT.
>

I agree. I wouldn't actually assign blame to anyone.
geoff
2018-09-03 09:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/09/2018 7:31 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try
>>>>>> running into him." ?
>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).  But
>>>> over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>
>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>
>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>> without incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the line
>> for. VET was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel would
>> not have hit HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your eyeglasses.
>
> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when they
> made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>
> You might want to think about what that means.
>
> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>
> That's just a fact.
>
>>
>>>
>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else could
>>> he realistically have done?
>>
>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>
> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.

Yes, but he was *failing* to turn left, which meant he had been trying
too hard. As in 'over-ambitious'. Yes, I do realise that it all happens
very quickly.


>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he
>> did to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>> avoided it.
>
> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.

You are sorry. That's why you've never progress beyond your peddle cars.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 17:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-03 2:07 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/09/2018 7:31 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-02 7:07 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2018 12:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-02 2:58 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2018 3:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2018 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case
>>>>>>> of "he got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll
>>>>>>> try running into him." ?
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not think, that it was your last suggestion.
>>>>>> If it was intended, he would have caused Hamilton
>>>>>> damage.  As it was, Vettel damaged his own wing
>>>>>> against Hamilton's side pod, and caused himself
>>>>>> to spin, without harming Hamilton at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah I don't really think that it was deliberate (this time !).
>>>>> But over-ambitious and clumsy.
>>>>
>>>> Vettel had the inside line into the corner.
>>>
>>> They were past that corner HAM having successfully pulled ahead
>>> without incident. They were heading to the next which HAM had the
>>> line for. VET was not ahead, not even beside, else his front wheel
>>> would not have hit HAM amidships. You need to re-calibrate your
>>> eyeglasses.
>>
>> Sorry, but Vettel still had a ton of left steering in the car when
>> they made contact and he spun TO THE LEFT.
>>
>> You might want to think about what that means.
>>
>> I never said anything about their relative positions, but they made
>> contact while Vettel (at least Vettel) was still turning to the left.
>>
>> That's just a fact.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What was "over-ambitious" about his driving, exactly? What else
>>>> could he realistically have done?
>>>
>>> HAM was ahead. VET had plenty of track had he not slewed into HAM.
>>
>> He was trying to turn left. That was AWAY from Hamilton.
>
> Yes, but he was *failing* to turn left, which meant he had been trying
> too hard. As in 'over-ambitious'. Yes, I do realise that it all happens
> very quickly.

No. There are circumstances unforeseeable.

>
>
>>> Presumably his slewing into HAM was not deliberate, so doing what he
>>> did to get that under-steer was over-ambitious, else he could have
>>> avoided it.
>>
>> You really have no clue at all about driving a race car. Sorry.
>
> You are sorry. That's why you've never progress beyond your peddle cars.

In my "peddle car", I broke last year's track record for Formula F, so
I'm not exactly slow.

And what racing of any kind have you done? Have you EVER been wheel to
wheel with anyone in anything more powerful than the go-karts they'll
let anyone take out?
Sir Tim
2018-09-02 15:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
geoff <***@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>
> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of "he
> got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
> him." ?
>
Whilst we know that Seb is quite capable of driving into another car out of
sheer pique (Baku) I think this was a case of hard racing. However he seems
to get easily flustered and that could prove to be the crucial factor in
his battle with Lewis.

--
Sir Tim
Alan Baker
2018-09-03 00:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-02 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> HAM gets past VET. VET gets a bit alongside HAM and what happens ?
>
> Was it simply losing it under hard racing, or was it another case of "he
> got past me, I haven't managed to get him back, so I'll try running into
> him." ?

It was pretty obvious on the replay that he picked up some understeer at
that moment. He doesn't unwind the wheel, but the car doesn't turn as
much as it was a moment or two before the incident.
CS
2018-09-04 11:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SV panicked and went in too fast, slid wide and contact. After Spa, he and Ferrari never though LH would be anywhere near them after the first chicane. So they hadn't thought through the tactics if LH got past one or both of them.

What was amazing was LH ability to follow KR closely and not trash his tyres or overheat.
larkim
2018-09-04 15:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:49:50 UTC+1, CS wrote:
> SV panicked and went in too fast, slid wide and contact. After Spa, he and Ferrari never though LH would be anywhere near them after the first chicane. So they hadn't thought through the tactics if LH got past one or both of them.
>
> What was amazing was LH ability to follow KR closely and not trash his tyres or overheat.

Agree with this 100%. It's been a characteristic of the Merc this year and
last that they *couldn't* follow closely without trashing their tyres.

Perhaps it's just following SV that gives the Merc it's truobles, if KR
was slower than SV would be.

But to see Lewis hovering around 1s for huge portions of the race was a real
change to what we've seen before.
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 16:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 8:22 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:49:50 UTC+1, CS wrote:
>> SV panicked and went in too fast, slid wide and contact. After Spa, he and Ferrari never though LH would be anywhere near them after the first chicane. So they hadn't thought through the tactics if LH got past one or both of them.
>>
>> What was amazing was LH ability to follow KR closely and not trash his tyres or overheat.
>
> Agree with this 100%. It's been a characteristic of the Merc this year and
> last that they *couldn't* follow closely without trashing their tyres.

Except he WAS trashing his tires once he got close.

It's just that Raikkonen's tires were older AND (more importantly) he
spent many laps with Bottas backing him into Hamilton.

>
> Perhaps it's just following SV that gives the Merc it's truobles, if KR
> was slower than SV would be.
>
> But to see Lewis hovering around 1s for huge portions of the race was a real
> change to what we've seen before.
>
geoff
2018-09-04 20:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/09/2018 4:06 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-04 8:22 AM, larkim wrote:

>>
>> Agree with this 100%.  It's been a characteristic of the Merc this
>> year and
>> last that they *couldn't* follow closely without trashing their tyres.
>
> Except he WAS trashing his tires once he got close.
>
> It's just that Raikkonen's tires were older AND (more importantly) he
> spent many laps with Bottas backing him into Hamilton.
>



Yeah, whatever you do don't give any credit to HAM - it was purely and
simply RAI's degradation from following BOT.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-04 21:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 1:54 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 5/09/2018 4:06 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-04 8:22 AM, larkim wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Agree with this 100%.  It's been a characteristic of the Merc this
>>> year and
>>> last that they *couldn't* follow closely without trashing their tyres.
>>
>> Except he WAS trashing his tires once he got close.
>>
>> It's just that Raikkonen's tires were older AND (more importantly) he
>> spent many laps with Bottas backing him into Hamilton.
>>
>
>
>
> Yeah, whatever you do don't give any credit to HAM - it was  purely and
> simply RAI's degradation from following BOT.

He gets credit. He's one of the best racers out there.

But the simple fact is that Bottas was used to back up Raikkonen into
Hamilton and that took time. Time that cost Raikkonen tire degradation
that Hamilton didn't get.

From lap 28 to lap 35 inclusive, Raikkonen was running close behind
either Hamilton or Bottas. Hamilton, on tires that were 8 laps younger,
got less of that because he dropped to more than 5 seconds behind Raikkonen.

Sorry, but these are the facts.
geoff
2018-09-04 21:42:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/09/2018 9:00 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
.
>
> Sorry, but these are the facts.



No. A 'fact' is the bit of skin between the muck-hole and the f-hole.
Break through that and then you're in the shit.

geoff
larkim
2018-09-05 06:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It was the first section I was thinking of.

Hamilton followed Kimi closely all the way to Kimi’s pit stop and then had tyres that were capable of a bit of “hammer time” for a few laps, so whilst they weren’t perfect they did last for a short while longer, even accepting that kimi pitted for tactical reasons in the main.
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 06:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-04 11:26 PM, larkim wrote:
> It was the first section I was thinking of.
>
> Hamilton followed Kimi closely all the way to Kimi’s pit stop and
> then had tyres that were capable of a bit of “hammer time” for a few
> laps, so whilst they weren’t perfect they did last for a short while
> longer, even accepting that kimi pitted for tactical reasons in the
> main.
>


The first section was on different tires, so not necessarily representative.
larkim
2018-09-05 08:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 07:33:59 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-04 11:26 PM, larkim wrote:
> > It was the first section I was thinking of.
> >
> > Hamilton followed Kimi closely all the way to Kimi’s pit stop and
> > then had tyres that were capable of a bit of “hammer time” for a few
> > laps, so whilst they weren’t perfect they did last for a short while
> > longer, even accepting that kimi pitted for tactical reasons in the
> > main.
> >
>
>
> The first section was on different tires, so not necessarily representative.

Indeed. But what I wrote was that I was surprised that LH could follow
KR closely, I didn't specify first or second section, and it was in response
to a post dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident with SV.

The Merc and the Ferrari were both on the red tyres at the start, and
throughout that first section the Merc could follow the Ferrari closely
without putting the tyres on the Merc into a situation where they lasted
noticeably more poorly than the Ferrari.

As you say, the second stint was different in that they had different
patterns of use - KR had to go hard on the yellow tyres for a few laps,
LH had the advantage of running in clean air on his tyres at first plus
they were newer. And KR then had to follow Bottas for a while.

But my point was only about the first section where they were on identical
rubber and close following was, for a change, not disadvantaging the Merc.
D Munz
2018-09-05 12:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:38:29 AM UTC-5, larkim wrote:

<snip>

>
> Indeed. But what I wrote was that I was surprised that LH could follow
> KR closely, I didn't specify first or second section, and it was in response
> to a post dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident with SV.
>
> The Merc and the Ferrari were both on the red tyres at the start, and
> throughout that first section the Merc could follow the Ferrari closely
> without putting the tyres on the Merc into a situation where they lasted
> noticeably more poorly than the Ferrari.
>
> As you say, the second stint was different in that they had different
> patterns of use - KR had to go hard on the yellow tyres for a few laps,
> LH had the advantage of running in clean air on his tyres at first plus
> they were newer. And KR then had to follow Bottas for a while.
>
> But my point was only about the first section where they were on identical
> rubber and close following was, for a change, not disadvantaging the Merc.

I too was surprised that HAM managed to keep his tires good following Kimi around for the time he did.

One of the Sky team made a comment that Ferrari had fewer yellow tires available for the weekend. I take this to mean that they might not have had the same data (knowledge of degradation) as Merc. Or, the other way around, maybe the Mercs were set up better to advantage the yellow tires.

I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.

FWIW
DLM
geoff
2018-09-05 20:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:

>
> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>
> FWIW
> DLM
>

I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved' after
being overtaken.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 20:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full credit
>> to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>>
>
> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved' after
> being overtaken.

Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?

You can try as you like on tires that are done...

...but they're still done.

Been there, done that.
geoff
2018-09-05 20:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full credit
>>> to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>
>>> FWIW
>>> DLM
>>>
>>
>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved' after
>> being overtaken.
>
> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>
> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>
> ...but they're still done.
>
> Been there, done that.


Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.

Sorry to deny you a nice argument there.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 20:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 1:36 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full credit
>>>> to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved' after
>>> being overtaken.
>>
>> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>>
>> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>>
>> ...but they're still done.
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>
>
> Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.

Then it wasn't any kind of "caving" at all.

Why'd you use that term if not to denigrate him?
geoff
2018-09-05 22:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 8:48 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 1:36 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full
>>>>> credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW
>>>>> DLM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved' after
>>>> being overtaken.
>>>
>>> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>>>
>>> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>>>
>>> ...but they're still done.
>>>
>>> Been there, done that.
>>
>>
>> Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.
>
> Then it wasn't any kind of "caving" at all.
>
> Why'd you use that term if not to denigrate him?


Only you it seem manage to personalise every comment people make ?

The car, the driver, the tyres, the psyche, whatever - the performance
of the whole unit caved. Yes, primarily because of the tyres.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 23:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 3:45 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 8:48 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 1:36 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full
>>>>>> credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved'
>>>>> after being overtaken.
>>>>
>>>> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>>>>
>>>> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>>>>
>>>> ...but they're still done.
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.
>>
>> Then it wasn't any kind of "caving" at all.
>>
>> Why'd you use that term if not to denigrate him?
>
>
> Only you it seem manage to personalise every comment people make ?

I call things as I see them.

Your choice of language reveals your biases.

>
> The car, the driver, the tyres, the psyche, whatever - the performance
> of the whole unit caved. Yes, primarily because of the tyres.

So not "he".

That's progress... ...good for you!

:-)
geoff
2018-09-06 00:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 11:19 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 3:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 6/09/2018 8:48 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 1:36 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full
>>>>>>> credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved'
>>>>>> after being overtaken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but they're still done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.
>>>
>>> Then it wasn't any kind of "caving" at all.
>>>
>>> Why'd you use that term if not to denigrate him?
>>
>>
>> Only you it seem manage to personalise every comment people make ?
>
> I call things as I see them.
>
> Your choice of language reveals your biases.
>
>>
>> The car, the driver, the tyres, the psyche, whatever - the performance
>> of the whole unit caved. Yes, primarily because of the tyres.
>
> So not "he".
>
> That's progress... ...good for you!
>
> :-)

Wrong again.

The psyche is part of 'he', which may be a small factor having been
overtaken and knowing that the tyres are impaired. A little
disheartening, no ?

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-06 00:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 5:13 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 11:19 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 3:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 6/09/2018 8:48 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-05 1:36 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 6/09/2018 8:29 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-05 1:21 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/09/2018 12:54 AM, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm dissapointed that Kimi didn't win but I have to give full
>>>>>>>> credit to the Merc team for a race well managed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was surprised/disappointed by the degree to which he 'caved'
>>>>>>> after being overtaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who "caved" in your vastly experience "estimation", Geoff? Kimi?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can try as you like on tires that are done...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but they're still done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been there, done that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes 'caved' because of the tyres. But quite spectacularly.
>>>>
>>>> Then it wasn't any kind of "caving" at all.
>>>>
>>>> Why'd you use that term if not to denigrate him?
>>>
>>>
>>> Only you it seem manage to personalise every comment people make ?
>>
>> I call things as I see them.
>>
>> Your choice of language reveals your biases.
>>
>>>
>>> The car, the driver, the tyres, the psyche, whatever - the
>>> performance of the whole unit caved. Yes, primarily because of the
>>> tyres.
>>
>> So not "he".
>>
>> That's progress... ...good for you!
>>
>> :-)
>
> Wrong again.
>
> The psyche is part of 'he', which may be a small factor having been
> overtaken and knowing that the tyres are impaired. A little
> disheartening, no ?
>
> geoff

The psyche might be part of 'he'...

...but the tires definitely aren't.
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 14:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 1:38 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 07:33:59 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-04 11:26 PM, larkim wrote:
>>> It was the first section I was thinking of.
>>>
>>> Hamilton followed Kimi closely all the way to Kimi’s pit stop and
>>> then had tyres that were capable of a bit of “hammer time” for a few
>>> laps, so whilst they weren’t perfect they did last for a short while
>>> longer, even accepting that kimi pitted for tactical reasons in the
>>> main.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The first section was on different tires, so not necessarily representative.
>
> Indeed. But what I wrote was that I was surprised that LH could follow
> KR closely, I didn't specify first or second section, and it was in response
> to a post dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident with SV.

Actually, it was pretty clear that Lewis was hanging back just a little
in that first segment.

>
> The Merc and the Ferrari were both on the red tyres at the start, and
> throughout that first section the Merc could follow the Ferrari closely
> without putting the tyres on the Merc into a situation where they lasted
> noticeably more poorly than the Ferrari.
>
> As you say, the second stint was different in that they had different
> patterns of use - KR had to go hard on the yellow tyres for a few laps,
> LH had the advantage of running in clean air on his tyres at first plus
> they were newer. And KR then had to follow Bottas for a while.
>
> But my point was only about the first section where they were on identical
> rubber and close following was, for a change, not disadvantaging the Merc.
>

If you look closely, you'll see that Lewis was something like half a
second further back (most of the time) than Kimi was on Bottas.
larkim
2018-09-06 10:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 15:42:27 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 1:38 AM, larkim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 07:33:59 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-04 11:26 PM, larkim wrote:
> >>> It was the first section I was thinking of.
> >>>
> >>> Hamilton followed Kimi closely all the way to Kimi’s pit stop and
> >>> then had tyres that were capable of a bit of “hammer time” for a few
> >>> laps, so whilst they weren’t perfect they did last for a short while
> >>> longer, even accepting that kimi pitted for tactical reasons in the
> >>> main.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The first section was on different tires, so not necessarily representative.
> >
> > Indeed. But what I wrote was that I was surprised that LH could follow
> > KR closely, I didn't specify first or second section, and it was in response
> > to a post dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident with SV.
>
> Actually, it was pretty clear that Lewis was hanging back just a little
> in that first segment.

Not clear to me, no.

Up to lap 19 when KR pitted, there were only 2 laps where Lewis was further
than 1.2s behind KR.

Gaps from lap three onwards:-
0.3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0

It's more usual to see the Merc drop to 2.5s or so behind to avoid too
much turbulence. Visually to me it seemed that Lewis was closer throughout
the lap but suffered through Parabolica so the gaps on the straight were
slightly bigger than they were being reported throughout the rest of the
lap.

I agree that KR was closer to VB in that portion of the race (there were
four laps when he was at 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8) but that was for a short period
of time and should have been at a phase when KR was on superior rubber as
VB hadn't pitted. And in hindsight, perhaps those 4 laps were a significant
contributor towards KRs later struggles with tyre life compared to LH.
Loading...