Discussion:
For clarity on Hamilton's actions
(too old to reply)
Alan Baker
2017-06-27 23:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
At the time of the incident, Hamilton:

Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.

4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.

10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle

12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes

He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.

That's not a normal maneuver.
Geoff
2017-06-28 00:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
It is if it is the last corner before a straight when you have to make
space to the safety car. As you and Seb should know.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-06-28 01:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
It is if it is the last corner before a straight when you have to make
space to the safety car. As you and Seb should know.
Nope. He could have chosen to slow up his pace far more gradually.

Again, rule 39.13:

'In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car
returns to the pits, from the
point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed
at a pace which
involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre
which is likely to endanger
other drivers or impede the restart'
<http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/SportlichesReglement-2016.pdf>
Edmund
2017-06-28 09:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
It is if it is the last corner before a straight when you have to make
space to the safety car. As you and Seb should know.
geoff
without endangering others as he damn well knows too.
So, slowing down directly after corner is dirty play as -admittedly- is
to expected from the team player.
Bigbird
2017-06-28 06:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip b/c WTF not]

WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.

His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.

There is no need for a more detailed analysis by no nothing armchair
critics.

You were wrong about the SC regs and you are wrong again here.
Alan Baker
2017-06-28 06:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
Post by Bigbird
There is no need for a more detailed analysis by no nothing armchair
critics.
You were wrong about the SC regs and you are wrong again here.
Geoff
2017-06-28 21:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Sudden braking all in your mind dude.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
A car which should have known the circumstances of the car ahead in that
situation. Was not his concern, and neither should have been.


geoff
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 16:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Sudden braking all in your mind dude.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
A car which should have known the circumstances of the car ahead in that
situation. Was not his concern, and neither should have been.
If you'll examine the rulebook, you'll see that basic idea is wrong.

There are strong constraints on what a driver can do base on where the
car behind is in relation to him.
alister
2017-06-30 12:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Sudden braking all in your mind dude.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
A car which should have known the circumstances of the car ahead in
that situation. Was not his concern, and neither should have been.
If you'll examine the rulebook, you'll see that basic idea is wrong.
There are strong constraints on what a driver can do base on where the
car behind is in relation to him.
I believe you have stated the rulebook says that a driver should not
perform in an "unpredictable manner".

Telemetry has shown that Ham behaved identically (within tolerances
obviously before you start auguring about fractions of a seconds of
difference).

Therefore Ham did not be have unpredictably, which means Vet was
anticipating when Ham would "Hoof it", miss judged it & went early.

the only person to blame is Vet, I am not sure if racing indecent could
be considered a valid outcome considering the cars were under saftey care
conditions.
--
There is only one way to kill capitalism -- by taxes, taxes, and more
taxes.
-- Karl Marx
Bigbird
2017-06-29 05:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Read the above. If you can't find the answer there you are just being
obtuse.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
I think you will find the car behind him is in control of that aspect.
There was no call for Vettel to be so close, the SC was only a few
yards down the road. It's not as if he thought Hamilton was going
anywhere. He was playing games, badly. He got badly caught out because
he wasn't paying attention on the previous restart.

As you imply Vettel was trying to affect Hamilton's restart. He doesn't
have a right to do that. It was Hamilton's job to set the pace... and
certainly not a "constant pace".
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
There is no need for a more detailed analysis by no nothing armchair
critics.
You were wrong about the SC regs and you are wrong again here.
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Read the above. If you can't find the answer there you are just being
obtuse.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
I think you will find the car behind him is in control of that aspect.
There was no call for Vettel to be so close, the SC was only a few
yards down the road. It's not as if he thought Hamilton was going
anywhere. He was playing games, badly. He got badly caught out because
he wasn't paying attention on the previous restart.
As you imply Vettel was trying to affect Hamilton's restart. He doesn't
have a right to do that. It was Hamilton's job to set the pace... and
certainly not a "constant pace".
No. Hamilton was trying to affect Vettel's restart. Otherwise why slow
up so quickly. You DO understand that he could have done so far more
gradually, right?
News
2017-06-29 17:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
[snip b/c WTF not]
WTF is wrong with you. It's very simple, Seb should not have been so
far up his arse. Hamilton did nothing wrong nor abnormal for the
circumstances. The SC had just pulled away.
And that makes suddenly braking well beyond the apex acceptable?
Read the above. If you can't find the answer there you are just being
obtuse.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
His action were entirley consistent with the circumstances and no
different from the previous SC period as formally confirmed by the
stewards.
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
I think you will find the car behind him is in control of that aspect.
There was no call for Vettel to be so close, the SC was only a few
yards down the road. It's not as if he thought Hamilton was going
anywhere. He was playing games, badly. He got badly caught out because
he wasn't paying attention on the previous restart.
As you imply Vettel was trying to affect Hamilton's restart. He doesn't
have a right to do that. It was Hamilton's job to set the pace... and
certainly not a "constant pace".
No. Hamilton was trying to affect Vettel's restart. Otherwise why slow
up so quickly. You DO understand that he could have done so far more
gradually, right?
Not to mention contemporaneous video shows the SC to be so far ahead to
be out of view.
Bigbird
2017-06-29 18:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
Only to the blind and/or stupid.

I am unsurprised that you fit either or both given your comments.
Bigbird
2017-06-29 19:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.


Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
News
2017-06-29 21:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.

SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET is side by
side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Bigbird
2017-06-30 05:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET is side
by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.

...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.

So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack seconds
before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes, while all the
shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12 seconds) to get from 15
to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?

Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a twat you
make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent of your
prejudice.
News
2017-06-30 11:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET is side
by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.
...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.
So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack seconds
before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes, while all the
shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12 seconds) to get from 15
to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?
Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a twat you
make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent of your
prejudice.
Keep squawking and fouling yourself. Use a diaper next time.
Sir Tim
2017-06-30 12:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET is side
by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.
...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.
So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack seconds
before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes, while all the
shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12 seconds) to get from 15
to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?
Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a twat you
make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent of your
prejudice.
Keep squawking and fouling yourself. Use a diaper next time.
Nothing like presenting a carefully reasoned argument is there?
News
2017-06-30 12:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET is side
by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.
...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.
So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack seconds
before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes, while all the
shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12 seconds) to get from 15
to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?
Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a twat you
make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent of your
prejudice.
Keep squawking and fouling yourself. Use a diaper next time.
Nothing like presenting a carefully reasoned argument is there?
Appropriate to the OP's rant.
Bigbird
2017-06-30 14:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Sir Tim
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET
is side by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.
...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.
So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack
seconds before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes,
while all the shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12
seconds) to get from 15 to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?
Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a
twat you make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent
of your prejudice.
Keep squawking and fouling yourself. Use a diaper next time.
Nothing like presenting a carefully reasoned argument is there?
Appropriate to the OP's rant.
Appropriate for an abusive liar who has no shame.
News
2017-06-30 14:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Sir Tim
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Not to mention contemporaneous video
? as opposed to video filmed later? What a fuckwit!
Post by News
shows the SC to be so far ahead
to be out of view.
http://youtu.be/LuPPHgF0xEM
Say you can't see the SC and you qualify for a white stick.
Shove said dipstick up yer ass.
SC is down the straight, headed around the corner while VET
is side by side flipping off a still slowing HAM-wit.
Hail the Lord, A MIRACLE!!! the Blind can see again.
...even if somewhat myopic and with no sense of time and motion.
So you could also see the SC go into 15 just ahead of the pack
seconds before Vettel first rammed the then acting SC. Yes,
while all the shennaigans went on behind the SC had time (12
seconds) to get from 15 to 16. Did you expect it to stop moving?
Glad you can see again even if not so much as to see what a
twat you make of yourself... but enough to reinforce the extent
of your prejudice.
Keep squawking and fouling yourself. Use a diaper next time.
Nothing like presenting a carefully reasoned argument is there?
Appropriate to the OP's rant.
Appropriate for an abusive liar who has no shame.
Which you would know from first hand experience.
Bigbird
2017-06-30 18:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Appropriate to the OP's rant.
Appropriate for an abusive liar who has no shame.
Which you would know from first hand experience.
Again your childish rhetoric and inability to rebut scores an own goal.

Have a last word and see if you can make it one that doesn't dig you
deeper. Personally I think it beyond you.

GNF
t***@gmail.com
2017-06-30 21:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
your childish rhetoric
This coming the resident fool.
Grant
2017-07-01 02:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not to mention contemporaneous video shows the SC to be so far ahead to be
out of view.
It appeared to be a long way ahead but it was close enough for a F1 car to
pass it before the first safety car line that's why the lead car becomes the
safety car and controls the pace so that when they restart the real safety
car is safely out of the way.
Bigbird
2017-06-29 18:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Except for the proximity of a car behind him...
I think you will find the car behind him is in control of that
aspect. There was no call for Vettel to be so close, the SC was
only a few yards down the road. It's not as if he thought Hamilton
was going anywhere. He was playing games, badly. He got badly
caught out because he wasn't paying attention on the previous
restart.
As you imply Vettel was trying to affect Hamilton's restart. He
doesn't have a right to do that. It was Hamilton's job to set the
pace... and certainly not a "constant pace".
No.
Obviously a ridiculous answer confirmed by your inabilty to answer,
having been asked numerous times, why Vettel should be so close behind.
geoff
2017-06-29 21:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
No. Hamilton was trying to affect Vettel's restart.
Of course. He would have been inept not to attempt to restart to somehow
advantage followers !
Post by Alan Baker
Otherwise why slow up so quickly. You DO understand that he could have
done so far more gradually, right?
What 'slow up so quickly" ? Telemetry and visual evidence shows no such
thing, except in your interpretation.

geoff
alister
2017-06-30 12:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
No. Hamilton was trying to affect Vettel's restart.
Of course. He would have been inept not to attempt to restart to somehow
advantage followers !
Post by Alan Baker
Otherwise why slow up so quickly. You DO understand that he could have
done so far more gradually, right?
What 'slow up so quickly" ? Telemetry and visual evidence shows no such
thing, except in your interpretation.
geoff
indeed the telemetry even goes so far as to demonstrate that Ham did
exactly the same thing at the previous restart.
in which case Vet should have expected it
In which case Ham did not behave in an unexpected & unpredictable manner.

Bakers whole argument is therefore out of the window.
.
--
Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
-- Quentin Crisp
Grant
2017-07-01 02:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No. Hamilton was trying to affect Vettel's restart. Otherwise why slow up
so quickly. You DO understand that he could have done so far more
gradually, right?>
You stupid idiot he didn't "slow up so quickly" (what shit English that is )
Its in the telemetry.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-01 02:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grant
You stupid idiot
You dumb cunt piece shit
jtees4
2017-06-28 13:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
C***@Invisible.man
2017-06-28 17:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV.
Ah yes, the specter of false equivalency again rises from the ashes
and shows its disgustingly ugly face.
Post by jtees4
Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
--
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
Alan Baker
2017-06-28 17:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...

...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?

The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
.
2017-06-28 17:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Right, I'm sure you'll get unanimous approval across the board
that *that's* exactly how a race car driver should compete, by
doing only what is expected at all times.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Alan Baker
2017-06-28 18:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Right, I'm sure you'll get unanimous approval across the board
that *that's* exactly how a race car driver should compete, by
doing only what is expected at all times.
There are and always have been reasonable limits on the ways you can
drive unexpectedly. There are things which are great tactics that are
specifically called out as illegal, and there is a specific rule about
how you are allowed to maneuver on a restart.
Grant
2017-06-29 12:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There are and always have been reasonable limits on the ways you can drive
unexpectedly. There are things which are great tactics that are
specifically called out as illegal, and there is a specific rule about how
you are allowed to maneuver on a restart.
Yes and the stewards and pundits and the worlds press all agree Hamilton did
nothing wrong.
You are a Prick. And yes everyone agrees.
jtees4
2017-06-28 18:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Right, I'm sure you'll get unanimous approval across the board
that *that's* exactly how a race car driver should compete, by
doing only what is expected at all times.
I don't care about anyone's approval. Since there are accidents caused
by driver error all the time in all forms of racing, they obviously
don't or "can't" always do what is expected at all times.
.
2017-06-28 19:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jtees4
Post by .
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Right, I'm sure you'll get unanimous approval across the board
that *that's* exactly how a race car driver should compete, by
doing only what is expected at all times.
I don't care about anyone's approval. Since there are accidents caused
by driver error all the time in all forms of racing, they obviously
don't or "can't" always do what is expected at all times.
And one can rest assured in the certain knowledge that any driver
who always does only exactly as expected during competition is
not a champion. The same could also be said for many athletes
and other competitors.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
jtees4
2017-06-28 18:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Because Vettel made a mistake. His fault. But that doesn't mean LH
wasn't "messing" with him. And I never claimed to be logical ;-)
Alan Baker
2017-06-28 18:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Post by jtees4
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
This is simply my own opinion. I am a Ferarri fan, and a Hamilton
hater...though I have a lot of respect for him as a driver. The fault
goes squarely to SV. The part whrere he turns into LH is terrible, a
very bad reaction from SV. Hamilton also knew exactly what he was
doing, he was doing it to annoy SV, he did not expect to cause an
accident. It is part of the game and Hamilton is too good to not know
exactly what he was doing, and the same can be said of SV. Again, the
blame goes to SV in this case. But they are both way too good to even
be having this discussion about who did what, they both did things on
purpose.....SV reaction was bad for hitting LH and extremely bad for
turning into him on purpose. I think a suspension would be deserved
for SV. And I still want Ferarri to win this year.
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
Because Vettel made a mistake. His fault. But that doesn't mean LH
wasn't "messing" with him. And I never claimed to be logical ;-)
And the rules place limits on just how much "messing" is allowed.

We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.

We KNOW that Hamilton braked far beyond the apex of the corner and never
accelerated at all.
Bigbird
2017-06-28 19:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.
He hit a car he had no need to be following so closely; you saying he
did it on purpose?
Geoff
2017-06-28 21:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
And the rules place limits on just how much "messing" is allowed.
We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.
We KNOW that Hamilton braked far beyond the apex of the corner and never
accelerated at all.
Yes, and that has been pretty much accepted by almost everybody that
this was completely as to be expected in that SC situation.

Hell, even the Ferrari team haven't been asking for HAM's actions to be
looked at !

Just Seb and his little fan-boy, and a few HAM-haters. And not even most
of the HAM-haters !

geoff
Sir Tim
2017-06-29 07:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
And the rules place limits on just how much "messing" is allowed.
We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.
We KNOW that Hamilton braked far beyond the apex of the corner and never
accelerated at all.
Yes, and that has been pretty much accepted by almost everybody that
this was completely as to be expected in that SC situation.
Hell, even the Ferrari team haven't been asking for HAM's actions to be
looked at !
Just Seb and his little fan-boy, and a few HAM-haters. And not even most
of the HAM-haters !
geoff
Yeah, "news" has been notably quiet on the subject :-)
--
Sir Tim
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 16:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
And the rules place limits on just how much "messing" is allowed.
We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.
We KNOW that Hamilton braked far beyond the apex of the corner and never
accelerated at all.
Yes, and that has been pretty much accepted by almost everybody that
this was completely as to be expected in that SC situation.
Hell, even the Ferrari team haven't been asking for HAM's actions to be
looked at !
Perhaps Ferrari has learned that there are times when it it better to
stay quiet. Vettel's action immediately after the first impact make it
pretty impolitic to bring up why it happened.
Post by Geoff
Just Seb and his little fan-boy, and a few HAM-haters. And not even most
of the HAM-haters !
geoff
Bigbird
2017-06-29 19:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
And the rules place limits on just how much "messing" is allowed.
We don't know that Vettel made a mistake.
We KNOW that Hamilton braked far beyond the apex of the corner
and never accelerated at all.
Yes, and that has been pretty much accepted by almost everybody
that this was completely as to be expected in that SC situation.
Hell, even the Ferrari team haven't been asking for HAM's actions
to be looked at !
Perhaps Ferrari has learned that there are times when it it better to
stay quiet.
Like when all official opinion of the evidence says their man was in
the wrong?
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel's action immediately after the first impact make
it pretty impolitic to bring up why it happened.
Yeah, because mitigation never helped anyone, riiiight!
Bobster
2017-06-29 19:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ever since Monaco 2006 I believe the stewards when it comes to assessing on-track incidents. That was a defining incident. They were able to look at the throttle and steering inputs and speed into corners and rule that Schumacher had not been on a hot lap only to have his car stall, but had come in slower than on his hot laps and made steering inputs that made no sense unless he was intending to stop where he did.

Since then I take their rulings, my confidence growing each year as they get more, better quality data.

Things may look different to us watching on TV, but the stewards ultimately have the best seat in the house, and have access to data we will never see.

And if they say Hamilton didn't do anything significantly different to what he did on previous restarts, that he didn't brake test Vettel, then I accept that that is what happened. I might have seen more room for disagreeing or questioning 20 years ago, but now I take their rulings at face value.

Vettel was a dozy twonk for hitting Hamilton, and a dick head for a what happened next.
Sir Tim
2017-06-29 20:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Vettel was a dozy twonk for hitting Hamilton, and a dick head for a what happened next.
A very succinctly summary :-)
--
Sir Tim
Alan LeHun
2017-06-28 23:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
So why didn't Vettel hit him on the previous SC, when it has been shown
that LH drove in exactly the same way?

The logical inference is that logic isn't your strong point.
--
Alan LeHun
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 00:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
So why didn't Vettel hit him on the previous SC, when it has been shown
that LH drove in exactly the same way?
And you know it was EXACTLY the same way... ...how?

Also, what is an acceptable maneuver at any given time on a race track
depends on the situation with other cars in your vicinity.

If you suddenly wanted to brake going down the straight, it's perfectly
alright if there isn't a car directly behind you.

Similarly, weaving on a straight (something you might actually want to
do in order to get heat into tires) isn't against the rules...

...unless there is another car trying to pass.
Post by Alan LeHun
The logical inference is that logic isn't your strong point.
Grant
2017-06-29 13:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
So why didn't Vettel hit him on the previous SC, when it has been shown
that LH drove in exactly the same way?
And you know it was EXACTLY the same way... ...how?
The stewards with all the telemetary said so.
Post by Alan Baker
Also, what is an acceptable maneuver at any given time on a race track
depends on the situation with other cars in your vicinity.
The stewards said Hamilton did nothing wrong. Therefore what he did was
aceptable.
Post by Alan Baker
If you suddenly wanted to brake going down the straight, it's perfectly
alright if there isn't a car directly behind you.
Hamilton did not suddenly brake. The stewards said he didnt therefore he
didnt. They looked at all the telemetary.
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 16:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
Except if you're acknowledging they both know how the game is played...
...then why did Vettel hit him from behind in the first place?
The logical inference is that Hamilton WASN'T doing what was expected.
So why didn't Vettel hit him on the previous SC, when it has been shown
that LH drove in exactly the same way?
And you know it was EXACTLY the same way... ...how?
The stewards with all the telemetary said so.
But what did they MEAN? "Exactly" is actually a tricky word, because
people pretty much never do things "exactly the same way" twice.
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Also, what is an acceptable maneuver at any given time on a race track
depends on the situation with other cars in your vicinity.
The stewards said Hamilton did nothing wrong. Therefore what he did was
aceptable.
So is there any amount of sudden slowing that should be unacceptable in
your view?
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
If you suddenly wanted to brake going down the straight, it's perfectly
alright if there isn't a car directly behind you.
Hamilton did not suddenly brake. The stewards said he didnt therefore he
didnt. They looked at all the telemetary.
Hamilton CONTINUED to brake where braking was unexpected. That's
equivalent to suddenly braking where braking is not expected.
geoff
2017-06-29 21:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton CONTINUED to brake where braking was unexpected. That's
equivalent to suddenly braking where braking is not expected.
Unexpected ? By VET in his fervor possibly, but immaterial.

Maybe VET's team hadn't warned him that HAM had been tipped off the
previous restart that not leaving sufficient gap had almost had him pass
the SC prematurely. But still no excuse.

geoff
Grant
2017-07-01 02:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton CONTINUED to brake where braking was unexpected. That's
equivalent to suddenly braking where braking is not expected.
No he acted exactly the same way in the two earlier restarts. so it was not
unexpected. The trutj is Vet was panicky because he nearly got passed by
Massa on the previous restart. That fully explains Vets actions and he even
alluded to it after the race.
Grant
2017-06-29 12:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in for
the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially on
full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back on
the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.

Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to properly
analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.

They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and concluded
the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not brake or lift
off excessively and maintained a more or less constant speed.

The language in that statement leaves room for doubt as to whether Hamilton
slowed down before Vettel hit him.

Some on social media have reacted to on-board video from Hamilton's car,
claiming telemetry graphics indicated he did brake shortly before the
initial impact, and used it as evidence that Vettel was right to accuse
Hamilton of 'brake-testing' him.

But the video does not show this. Close analysis of the footage shows
Hamilton is slowing as he approaches the apex of the corner, and keeps the
brakes on lightly past the apex. His minimum speed is 51km/h as he exits the
corner. But he has come off the brakes and is coasting before Vettel hits
him.

At this point, Hamilton was preparing for the restart, and managing his gap
to Vettel while bunching up the pack, trying to ensure he had the most
advantageous position. As the leader, that is his prerogative.

The FIA says there was no heavy braking or anything contrary to the rules.
Alan Baker
2017-06-29 16:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grant
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in for
the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially on
full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back on
the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to properly
analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and concluded
the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not brake or lift
off excessively and maintained a more or less constant speed.
That's bullshit right there. His speed fell from 63kph at the apex to a
minimum of 51kph before contact.
Post by Grant
The language in that statement leaves room for doubt as to whether Hamilton
slowed down before Vettel hit him.
True. Which shows how bullshit the FIA can be. I'm literally looking at
the video replay which included telemetry on screen right now.
Post by Grant
Some on social media have reacted to on-board video from Hamilton's car,
claiming telemetry graphics indicated he did brake shortly before the
initial impact, and used it as evidence that Vettel was right to accuse
Hamilton of 'brake-testing' him.
But the video does not show this. Close analysis of the footage shows
Hamilton is slowing as he approaches the apex of the corner, and keeps the
brakes on lightly past the apex. His minimum speed is 51km/h as he exits the
corner. But he has come off the brakes and is coasting before Vettel hits
him.
Then he didn't "maintain a constant speed", did he?
Post by Grant
At this point, Hamilton was preparing for the restart, and managing his gap
to Vettel while bunching up the pack, trying to ensure he had the most
advantageous position. As the leader, that is his prerogative.
The FIA says there was no heavy braking or anything contrary to the rules.
Organizations say a lot of things after the fact. "CYA".
geoff
2017-06-29 21:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
True. Which shows how bullshit the FIA can be. I'm literally looking
at the video replay which included telemetry on screen right now.
And a little twerp toy racing driver knows more than the likes of the
stewards, the FIA, and EJ and DC to name but a few ?
Post by Alan Baker
Then he didn't "maintain a constant speed", did he?
No, but he equally did nothing sudden or nothing wrong. Instead of
obsessing (wrongly) over the telemetry, look at the video from VET's
camera and tell us where a sudden change of rate happens, or what
happened to give VET the cue that it was in fact time to accelerate.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Grant
The FIA says there was no heavy braking or anything contrary to the rules.
Which is pretty obvious to (almost) everybody.

geoff
Edmund
2017-06-30 11:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.

Facts don't matter anyway, Ham fans will explain everything away, they
even go as far as calling his whining to order Bottas to slow down as a
"team" thing. :-) Yep he is widely known as a real team player.

Edmund
alister
2017-06-30 12:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and
back on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway,
Not when the disagree with you bigoted stupidity anyway.
you have been presented with facts from the in-car telemetry
why would the FIA be lying? Ham does not drive a red car & has never been
the FIA's golden boy.
Post by Edmund
Ham fans will explain everything away, they
even go as far as calling his whining to order Bottas to slow down as a
"team" thing. :-) Yep he is widely known as a real team player.
Edmund
--
HOST SYSTEM RESPONDING, PROBABLY UP...
Edmund
2017-06-30 13:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still
essentially on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and
back on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway,
Not when the disagree with you bigoted stupidity anyway.
you have been presented with facts from the in-car telemetry why would
the FIA be lying?
Why don't you ask them?
It was simply on TV showing Ham lifted completely, brakes on, shifting to
first gear and speed reducing from about 100km/h to less then 50 km/h.
Now explain it away all day I really don't care and don't expect anything
else.
But tell me,do you think someone manipulated that TV broadcast, really?

Edmund
alister
2017-06-30 17:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning
in for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still
essentially on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and
back on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway,
Not when the disagree with you bigoted stupidity anyway.
you have been presented with facts from the in-car telemetry why would
the FIA be lying?
Why don't you ask them?
It was simply on TV showing Ham lifted completely, brakes on, shifting
to first gear and speed reducing from about 100km/h to less then 50
km/h. Now explain it away all day I really don't care and don't expect
anything else.
But tell me,do you think someone manipulated that TV broadcast, really?
Edmund
No I think you are so biased against Hamilton that you conclude that he
must have been at least partially at fault regardless of any evidence
presented.

FIA investigation confirmed he did nothing different on that restart to
the previous two they have ALL the telemetry & know how to understand it
properly, you do not (that is you do not have it all & you would not know
how to understand it if you did).

Hamilton has been guilty in a number of incidents & partially at fault in
some others, this was not one, accept it or continue to lower you own
credibility even further
--
The world is coming to an end! Repent and return those library books!
.
2017-06-30 18:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning
in for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still
essentially on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and
back on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway,
Not when the disagree with you bigoted stupidity anyway.
you have been presented with facts from the in-car telemetry why would
the FIA be lying?
Why don't you ask them?
It was simply on TV showing Ham lifted completely, brakes on, shifting
to first gear and speed reducing from about 100km/h to less then 50
km/h. Now explain it away all day I really don't care and don't expect
anything else.
But tell me,do you think someone manipulated that TV broadcast, really?
Edmund
No I think you are so biased against Hamilton that you conclude that he
must have been at least partially at fault regardless of any evidence
presented.
FIA investigation confirmed he did nothing different on that restart to
the previous two they have ALL the telemetry & know how to understand it
properly, you do not (that is you do not have it all & you would not know
how to understand it if you did).
Hamilton has been guilty in a number of incidents & partially at fault in
some others, this was not one, accept it or continue to lower you own
credibility even further
I can't begin to imagine how.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Edmund
2017-07-01 07:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by alister
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning
in for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still
essentially on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and
back on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway,
Not when the disagree with you bigoted stupidity anyway.
you have been presented with facts from the in-car telemetry why would
the FIA be lying?
Why don't you ask them?
It was simply on TV showing Ham lifted completely, brakes on, shifting
to first gear and speed reducing from about 100km/h to less then 50
km/h. Now explain it away all day I really don't care and don't expect
anything else.
But tell me,do you think someone manipulated that TV broadcast, really?
Edmund
No I think you are so biased against Hamilton
bla bla and that caused the tv broadcast with this data shown, OK I get
it now, thanks.

Edmund
geoff
2017-06-30 12:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
Post by Alan Baker
Is on full brake and gearing down to first at 80kph before turning in
for the corner.
4 frames later, he begins his turn in at 76kph while still essentially
on full brakes.
10 frames later, still before the apex, he's off the brake and just
slightly on the throttle
12 frames later, just short of the apex, he's off the throttle and back
on the brakes
He stays on the brakes for 31 frames; well past the apex.
That's not a normal maneuver.
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
Facts don't matter anyway, Ham fans will explain everything away, they
even go as far as calling his whining to order Bottas to slow down as a
"team" thing. :-) Yep he is widely known as a real team player.
Edmund
Good to see you sticking up for your hero, or rather steadfastly
sticking down for your anti-hero, for whatever reason that might be.

For AB it is obviously simply because he is a would-be auto-racing
twerp. For you it seems like something more sinister,l but I could be
wrong and it is just that you feel HAM is the only real challenge to
your stiffy-focus idol ALO. And a very few others for whatever IMO
misguided reason they may have.

The opposite POV from of a hell of a lot of others far more expert than
any of us. Problably not far from 99% of them.

But I don't expect anything to change your POV.

geoff
Bigbird
2017-06-30 14:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Facts don't matter anyway, Ham fans will explain everything away,
they even go as far as calling his whining to order Bottas to slow
down as a "team" thing. :-) Yep he is widely known as a real team
player.
The alternative being the words of someone who's only constant is
extreme and irrational bias.

I think most people will either ignore or treat with massive sceptisism
anything the likes of you and "." have to say and be quite comfortable
with the majority opinion.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-01 02:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
I think most people
Are you talking rotten toothed,
british homosexuals?
Bobster
2017-07-01 12:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner and used his brakes.

That's not the same as doing something wrong.

He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in. He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up the cars behind him.

In this context, he did nothing wrong.
Alan Baker
2017-07-01 22:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in. He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and then
immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
geoff
2017-07-01 22:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in.
He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up
the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and then
immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
No. That would be sudden and unexpected. As VET or any other driver
would have driven exactly as HAM did at that point, it could not have
been considered unexpected, and was not sudden.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-07-01 23:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in.
He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up
the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and
then immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
No. That would be sudden and unexpected. As VET or any other driver
would have driven exactly as HAM did at that point, it could not have
been considered unexpected, and was not sudden.
geoff
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
.
2017-07-02 00:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did not
brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less constant
speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no further
explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come
in. He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to
back up the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and
then immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
No. That would be sudden and unexpected. As VET or any other driver
would have driven exactly as HAM did at that point, it could not have
been considered unexpected, and was not sudden.
geoff
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
Sophistry, at its most putrid.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-02 03:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Sophistry, at its most putrid.
Can you be anymore fucking useless?
geoff
2017-07-02 02:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
Have you really had your head up your arse so long that you have not
read or heard that pretty much all(?) other drivers (real racing drivers
that is), team officials, other official, etc, do NOT think that
'behaviour' was unexpected or out of the normal in that situation.

Oh, that's right, our pet toy-racer actually knows better than all of
them....

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-02 02:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
Have you really had your head up your arse so long that you have not
read or heard that pretty much all(?) other drivers (real racing drivers
that is), team officials, other official, etc, do NOT think that
'behaviour' was unexpected or out of the normal in that situation.
Oh, that's right, our pet toy-racer actually knows better than all of
them....
geoff
STFU you raging homosexual.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-02 02:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
your head up your arse
While your penis head is up your boyfriends arse.
Fuck off, stupid.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-02 02:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
our pet toy-racer
Is 'our' new zealand homosexuals sucking cock?
alister
2017-07-02 16:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he
did not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want
to call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in.
He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up
the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and
then immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
No. That would be sudden and unexpected. As VET or any other driver
would have driven exactly as HAM did at that point, it could not have
been considered unexpected, and was not sudden.
geoff
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
when he had driven the same way on the 2 previous restarts is was NOT
unexpected
--
People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people
have been left out on the pleasure.
-- Russell Baker
Alan Baker
2017-07-03 00:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he
did not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want
to call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in.
He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up
the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
So could he wait until after the corner with a car close behind and
then immediately brake at maximum? Would that be alright in your view?
No. That would be sudden and unexpected. As VET or any other driver
would have driven exactly as HAM did at that point, it could not have
been considered unexpected, and was not sudden.
geoff
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is also
sudden and unexpected.
when he had driven the same way on the 2 previous restarts is was NOT
unexpected
To what level of "the same way" are we talking?

You don't know.
Bigbird
2017-07-02 19:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel rammed
Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Alan Baker
2017-07-02 23:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel rammed
Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Jackie Stewart disagrees.

I also looked at the split screen that was done on one site between the
first restart and the second, and in that one can clearly see that
Hamilton doesn't continue slowing past the corner apex the first time.
Bigbird
2017-07-03 05:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel
rammed Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Jackie Stewart disagrees.
Have you always agreed 100% with Jackie Stewart? If so you have a lot
of retractions and apologies to make.

Again you rely on irrelevance over fact.
Alan Baker
2017-07-03 05:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel
rammed Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Jackie Stewart disagrees.
Have you always agreed 100% with Jackie Stewart? If so you have a lot
of retractions and apologies to make.
Such as?
Post by Bigbird
Again you rely on irrelevance over fact.
Bigbird
2017-07-03 05:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel
rammed Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Jackie Stewart disagrees.
For clarity I'll say it was unexpected by Vettel, a 76 year old man and
at least one other person, but it shouldn't have been.

I see you have *still* failed to give a reason for Vettel's proximty to
Hamilton and not paying proper attention when a restart was some time
away, what with the SC was just a few seconds ahead and some 30 seconds
from the pits.
Alan Baker
2017-07-03 05:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel
rammed Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
Jackie Stewart disagrees.
For clarity I'll say it was unexpected by Vettel, a 76 year old man and
at least one other person, but it shouldn't have been.
And what is your basis for what to expect on a race course after a
safety car?
Post by Bigbird
I see you have *still* failed to give a reason for Vettel's proximty to
Hamilton and not paying proper attention when a restart was some time
away, what with the SC was just a few seconds ahead and some 30 seconds
from the pits.
Alan Baker
2017-07-02 23:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Continuing to brake when the expected behaviour is not to brake is
also sudden and unexpected.
An irrelevant hypothetical; nothing that happened, before Vettel rammed
Hamilton, should have been unexpected.
'“But at the same time what created the incident is what occurred when
Lewis slowed down so quickly in a very unlikely place. You have got to
take that into account.

“That was a shock to Sebastian, and that is why he came alongside Lewis
to ask ‘what the hell are you doing?’ What Vettel then did was to
unquestionably collide with Hamilton. There is no room for that, no
excuse for that and it is wrong. It is inappropriate behaviour.
“It would be very simple to put the complete blame on one man, but what
initiated the bad behaviour was what happened before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4640546/Hamilton-accept-blame-Baku-bust-Vettel--Jackie-Stewart.html>

BTW, for clarity's sake, I'll state I completely agree with Jackie that
what Vettel did afterward was wrong.
Edmund
2017-07-02 08:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner
and used his brakes.
Well some seems to suggest slowing down more then 50% is maintaining
constant speed.
Post by Bobster
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in. He
is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up the
cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
I already said I don't care if stewards rule that legal, it nevertheless
is a dirty trick and IMO it clearly violates the regulations as posted
here by Alan Baker :

Again, rule 39.13:

'In order to avoid the likelihood of
accidents before the safety car
returns to the pits, from the
point at which the lights on the car are
turned out drivers must proceed
at a pace which
involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor
any other manoeuvre
which is likely to endanger
other drivers or impede the restart'
<http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/SportlichesReglement-2016.pdf>

A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)

Edmund
geoff
2017-07-02 08:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?

geoff
Edmund
2017-07-02 10:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't deny
what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is shown on
TV?

Edmund
geoff
2017-07-02 11:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't deny
what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is shown on
TV?
Edmund
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.

Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.

That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a few
others here, than all those others.

geoff
~misfit~
2017-07-02 11:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't
deny what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is
shown on TV?
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.
Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.
That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a
few others here, than all those others.
I think that one of the biggest problems, and this is what keeps people like
Edmund and Baker ranting on, is that the FOM live feed at the time of the
incident was on-board with Vettel. From that PoV it wasn't obvious how much
Vettel accelerated out of the corner in anticipation and so it *looked like*
Hamilton braked.

I winced and thought "That didn't look good - I want to see that from
another angle"- then we stayed on-baord as Vettel drove alongside and banged
wheels with Hamilton (which reinforced Hamiltonophobes / Vettelophiles
opinions that Hamilton'd done wrong). Once I'd seen it from outside Vettels
car it became obvious that Vettel had anticipated Hamilton accelerating and
so did so himself with no margin for error - and he made an error.

However there are some people who fixate on what they first see and give it
too much wieght, not waiting for more data (it's a known psychological
phenomena). It's obvious that Eddie and Baker fall into that category. I bet
if we'd not been in-car with Vettel at the time this thread would have died
a while back. As it is they've formed such a strong opinion based on first
impressions that you might as well piss into a fan as try telling them
different.
--
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)
Edmund
2017-07-02 15:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't
deny what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is
shown on TV?
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.
Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.
That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a few
others here, than all those others.
I think that one of the biggest problems, and this is what keeps people
like Edmund and Baker ranting on, is that the FOM live feed at the time
of the incident was on-board with Vettel. From that PoV it wasn't
obvious how much Vettel accelerated out of the corner in anticipation
and so it *looked like*
Hamilton braked.
Yes it most certainly looked that way, maybe, just maybe it looked that
way because he slowed down from about 100 km/h to less then 50 km/h.

Edmund
Alan Baker
2017-07-03 00:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't
deny what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is
shown on TV?
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.
Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.
That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a
few others here, than all those others.
I think that one of the biggest problems, and this is what keeps people like
Edmund and Baker ranting on, is that the FOM live feed at the time of the
incident was on-board with Vettel. From that PoV it wasn't obvious how much
Vettel accelerated out of the corner in anticipation and so it *looked like*
Hamilton braked.
There's no "look like" about it.

I've seen the on-board with Hamilton's telemetry being displayed.

He was still braking well past the apex.
Post by ~misfit~
I winced and thought "That didn't look good - I want to see that from
another angle"- then we stayed on-baord as Vettel drove alongside and banged
wheels with Hamilton (which reinforced Hamiltonophobes / Vettelophiles
opinions that Hamilton'd done wrong). Once I'd seen it from outside Vettels
car it became obvious that Vettel had anticipated Hamilton accelerating and
so did so himself with no margin for error - and he made an error.
However there are some people who fixate on what they first see and give it
too much wieght, not waiting for more data (it's a known psychological
phenomena). It's obvious that Eddie and Baker fall into that category. I bet
if we'd not been in-car with Vettel at the time this thread would have died
a while back. As it is they've formed such a strong opinion based on first
impressions that you might as well piss into a fan as try telling them
different.
On the contrary, when I first commented on this, I thought that Hamilton
had done nothing wrong.

It was only later after I saw the telemetry data that I realized how
long he'd stayed on the brakes.
Edmund
2017-07-02 15:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't deny
what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is shown on
TV?
Edmund
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.
Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.
That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a few
others here, than all those others.
geoff
This is not an explanation why you deny the data shown on TV.
Wanna try again?

Edmund
Alan Baker
2017-07-02 23:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
Post by geoff
Post by Edmund
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Edmund
Well he is possibly getting a little senile. What's your excuse ?
geoff
Well both Jackie and me can read the data shown on TV and we don't deny
what is shown. Now do you care to explain why you deny what is shown on
TV?
Edmund
Maybe Jackie's eyesight is as impaired as your blind loathing colours
your comprehension.
Without actively seeking to find more opinions, Eddie Jordan, David
Coultard, Daniel Ricciardo, and others have said it was just fine, and
very few have said it wasn't.
Let's see the quotes...
Post by geoff
That you appear unable to interpret and comprehend the significance of
the data that everybody that matters can, says more about you and a few
others here, than all those others.
geoff
Bobster
2017-07-02 16:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner
and used his brakes.
Well some seems to suggest slowing down more then 50% is maintaining
constant speed.
That's some. Let's keep things separate and conflate the stewards with some.
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in. He
is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up the
cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
I already said I don't care if stewards rule that legal, it nevertheless
is a dirty trick and IMO it clearly violates the regulations as posted
'In order to avoid the likelihood of
accidents before the safety car
returns to the pits, from the
point at which the lights on the car are
turned out drivers must proceed
at a pace which
involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor
any other manoeuvre
which is likely to endanger
other drivers or impede the restart'
<http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/SportlichesReglement-2016.pdf>
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Stewart also said that Vettel was at fault. There is no getting away from that. Even if Vettel thought that he'd been brake tested, he was wrong to draw level with Hamilton and side swipe him. There is no defending or recontextualising what he did.

This leaves us with Hamilton and what he did. You cite a three times World Champion who also thinks that Hamilton provoked Vettel.

It seems to me that many sports now face a problem that the increasing use of technology in adjudicating incidents throws up decisions that seem contrary to what the naked eye and what we call common sense say happened.

There's been a lot of this in cricket, for example, especially in the case of the Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan who was repeatedly condemned for having an illegal action but who was eventually exonerated by technology and human movement scientists.

What we see on TV, what even a retired world champion sees, may not be all there is to an early incident.

Hence my earlier comment about the stewards having the best seat in the house. They alone get all available camera footage, all the telemetry, all the radio chat. They are the best placed to rule on what happened, and drivers these days dont get away with much.
Post by Edmund
Edmund
Bobster
2017-07-02 16:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner
and used his brakes.
Well some seems to suggest slowing down more then 50% is maintaining
constant speed.
That's some. Let's keep things separate and conflate the stewards with some.
Doh! Should read "...and NOT conflate..."
Edmund
2017-07-02 17:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he
did not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or
less constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as
he did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want
to call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that
corner and used his brakes.
Well some seems to suggest slowing down more then 50% is maintaining
constant speed.
That's some. Let's keep things separate and conflate the stewards with some.
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in.
He is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up
the cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
I already said I don't care if stewards rule that legal, it
nevertheless is a dirty trick and IMO it clearly violates the
'In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents
before the safety car
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
returns to the pits, from the point at
which the lights on the car are
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
turned out drivers must proceed at a pace
which involves no erratic
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is
likely to
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
endanger other drivers or impede the restart'
<http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/SportlichesReglement-2016.pdf>
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Stewart also said that Vettel was at fault. There is no getting away
from that. Even if Vettel thought that he'd been brake tested, he was
wrong to draw level with Hamilton and side swipe him. There is no
defending or recontextualising what he did.
I agree.
Post by Bobster
This leaves us with Hamilton and what he did. You cite a three times
World Champion who also thinks that Hamilton provoked Vettel.
It seems to me that many sports now face a problem that the increasing
use of technology in adjudicating incidents throws up decisions that
seem contrary to what the naked eye and what we call common sense say
happened.
There's been a lot of this in cricket, for example, especially in the
case of the Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan who was repeatedly
condemned for having an illegal action but who was eventually exonerated
by technology and human movement scientists.
What we see on TV, what even a retired world champion sees, may not be
all there is to an early incident.
Hence my earlier comment about the stewards having the best seat in the
house. They alone get all available camera footage, all the telemetry,
all the radio chat. They are the best placed to rule on what happened,
and drivers these days dont get away with much.
Post by Edmund
Edmund
Alan Baker
2017-07-02 23:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Grant
From BBC Read and STFU.
Did Hamilton do anything wrong?
The red-flag period gave the race stewards in Baku the chance to
properly analyse telemetry data from Hamilton's car.
They looked at his behaviour at all three safety-car restarts and
concluded the Mercedes driver did nothing wrong. The FIA said he did
not brake or lift off excessively and maintained a more or less
constant speed.
So they are obviously lying.
He lifted -completely- so there is no way to lift more then 100 % as he
did.
He DID brake!
He DID NOT maintain a more or less constant speed unless they want to
call slowing down 50% more or less constant speed which needs no
further explanation to be absolute BS.
I dont think anybody disputes that Hamilton was slow through that corner
and used his brakes.
Well some seems to suggest slowing down more then 50% is maintaining
constant speed.
That's some. Let's keep things separate and conflate the stewards with some.
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
That's not the same as doing something wrong.
He was the lead driver behind a safety car that was about to come in. He
is thus entitled to control the pace and, if he wants, to back up the
cars behind him.
In this context, he did nothing wrong.
I already said I don't care if stewards rule that legal, it nevertheless
is a dirty trick and IMO it clearly violates the regulations as posted
'In order to avoid the likelihood of
accidents before the safety car
returns to the pits, from the
point at which the lights on the car are
turned out drivers must proceed
at a pace which
involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor
any other manoeuvre
which is likely to endanger
other drivers or impede the restart'
<http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/SportlichesReglement-2016.pdf>
A certain Jackie Stewart said basically the same as me and is also
branded as a Hamilton hater. :-)
Stewart also said that Vettel was at fault. There is no getting away from that. Even if Vettel thought that he'd been brake tested, he was wrong to draw level with Hamilton and side swipe him. There is no defending or recontextualising what he did.
This leaves us with Hamilton and what he did. You cite a three times World Champion who also thinks that Hamilton provoked Vettel.
It seems to me that many sports now face a problem that the increasing use of technology in adjudicating incidents throws up decisions that seem contrary to what the naked eye and what we call common sense say happened.
There's been a lot of this in cricket, for example, especially in the case of the Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan who was repeatedly condemned for having an illegal action but who was eventually exonerated by technology and human movement scientists.
What we see on TV, what even a retired world champion sees, may not be all there is to an early incident.
Hence my earlier comment about the stewards having the best seat in the house. They alone get all available camera footage, all the telemetry, all the radio chat. They are the best placed to rule on what happened, and drivers these days dont get away with much.
Except they're forced to make a decision in a relatively short space of
time.

You have to acknowledge that the opinion of as experienced an F1 driver,
commentator and team owner is not to be simply dismissed.

He saw precisely what I saw: a driver braking where braking was unexpected.
Geoff
2017-07-03 00:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
You have to acknowledge that the opinion of as experienced an F1 driver,
commentator and team owner is not to be simply dismissed.
He saw precisely what I saw: a driver braking where braking was unexpected.
You seem ready and happy to dismiss the opinions of many current and
recent F1 drivers (and others) who saw precisely what you saw ....

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-07-03 05:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
You have to acknowledge that the opinion of as experienced an F1 driver,
commentator and team owner is not to be simply dismissed.
He saw precisely what I saw: a driver braking where braking was unexpected.
You seem ready and happy to dismiss the opinions of many current and
recent F1 drivers (and others) who saw precisely what you saw ....
geoff
I've yet to see what any "current and recent f1 driver" has ACTUALLY SAID.
Bobster
2017-07-03 05:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bobster
Stewart also said that Vettel was at fault. There is no getting away from that. Even if Vettel thought that he'd been brake tested, he was wrong to draw level with Hamilton and side swipe him. There is no defending or recontextualising what he did.
This leaves us with Hamilton and what he did. You cite a three times World Champion who also thinks that Hamilton provoked Vettel.
It seems to me that many sports now face a problem that the increasing use of technology in adjudicating incidents throws up decisions that seem contrary to what the naked eye and what we call common sense say happened.
There's been a lot of this in cricket, for example, especially in the case of the Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan who was repeatedly condemned for having an illegal action but who was eventually exonerated by technology and human movement scientists.
What we see on TV, what even a retired world champion sees, may not be all there is to an early incident.
Hence my earlier comment about the stewards having the best seat in the house. They alone get all available camera footage, all the telemetry, all the radio chat. They are the best placed to rule on what happened, and drivers these days dont get away with much.
Except they're forced to make a decision in a relatively short space of
time.
Really? The decision against Vettel was handed down after the race had run 2 laps, had been red flagged, restarted and then run some laps.
Post by Alan Baker
You have to acknowledge that the opinion of as experienced an F1 driver,
commentator and team owner is not to be simply dismissed.
I haven't simply dismissed it.
Post by Alan Baker
He saw precisely what I saw: a driver braking where braking was unexpected.
He didn't see what the stewards saw, and could not.
Bobster
2017-06-30 23:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
That's not a normal maneuver.
I think it's normal for a leader behind a safety car, trying to slow the pack down immediately before the restart.

Especially if his name is Hamilton. It's the way he usually does it.

Sure, in many contexts this would be unusual, but not in this context.
Loading...