Discussion:
DotD?
(too old to reply)
John
2017-09-17 21:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ricciardo
Sir Tim
2017-09-17 21:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hamilton. A masterclass under difficult conditions and in a car not
particularly suited to the circuit.
Okay he was well placed to avoid the carnage at the start but he twice
built up an advantage over Ricciardo only to lose it because of the safety
car.
--
Sir Tim
geoff
2017-09-17 22:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Ricciardo
What, for repeatedly being left behind my Hamilton after SC restarts ?

geoff
Michael Gooding
2017-09-18 08:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
DotD is always Ricciardo! Do keep up!

Mike Gooding
--------------
John
2017-09-18 10:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by John
Ricciardo
What, for repeatedly being left behind my Hamilton after SC restarts ?
geoff
Yeah, by the Merc. The question is why didn't the other Merc pass him.
Bigbird
2017-09-18 10:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Post by geoff
Post by John
Ricciardo
What, for repeatedly being left behind my Hamilton after SC
restarts ?
geoff
Yeah, by the Merc. The question is why didn't the other Merc pass him.
Oil shortage.
:)
keefy
2017-09-20 22:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Post by geoff
Post by John
Ricciardo
What, for repeatedly being left behind my Hamilton after SC restarts ?
geoff
Yeah, by the Merc. The question is why didn't the other Merc pass him.
On that circuit? You know that don't you?
alister
2017-09-18 15:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
--
The people rule.
Mower Man
2017-09-18 19:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
alister
2017-09-18 21:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He did more than enogh
--
When you're dining out and you suspect something's wrong, you're probably
right.
~misfit~
2017-09-19 10:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He did more than enogh
He drove to the best of his ability.
--
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)
keefy
2017-09-20 23:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by alister
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He did more than enogh
He drove to the best of his ability.
Yes, very good analysis.
I have for a long time seen him as believing he is another Schumacher.
He is German and he is fast, but he does not in my view have
Schumacher's skills. Not car control, Vettel has that! But knowing what
move to make and when. How often did Schumacher make a move that ended
up taking his team mate out of the race? And I never was and am still
not really a fan of his. I do though believe in credit where it is due,
which is why I think misfit's comment on Vettel's driving is spot on.
Sir Tim
2017-09-21 07:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
How often did Schumacher make a move that ended
up taking his team mate out of the race?
Schumacher had No.1. status and compliant team mates but he certainly made
moves that took *opponents* out, ask Hill ... or Villeneuve.
--
Sir Tim
keefy
2017-09-21 13:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by keefy
How often did Schumacher make a move that ended
up taking his team mate out of the race?
Schumacher had No.1. status and compliant team mates but he certainly made
moves that took *opponents* out, ask Hill ... or Villeneuve.
I know he took opponents out, but taking your team mate out is a real
big no-no, and as I said I am not really a fan of his. I do not think
anyone should deliberately make a move that takes anyone out.
Phil Carmody
2017-09-19 23:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
--
In order for there to be rights, there must be wrongs - if you want to
get rid of wrongs, which great leaders do, you *must* get rid of rights.
Alan Baker
2017-09-19 23:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.

He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on countless race
starts.

Vettel was entitled to move to the left.

Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.

And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.

When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between RAI's
Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he didn't.

That having been said, he had very little time to react, because while
Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from his initial
position to his position just before the incident), VER's move left was
far less so, and that was to be expected.
larkim
2017-09-20 10:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on countless race
starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between RAI's
Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because while
Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from his initial
position to his position just before the incident), VER's move left was
far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.

RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.

It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.

What complicated it was that VET was also doing what drivers would normally
do at the start and squeezing VER, and VET didn't account for the fact that
he was defending against a car which itself was being overtaken - that's
quite an unusual circumstance - normally when you've got a car travelling
faster than you on the inside, there isn't someone else going even faster
still.

In the end it was just "one of those things". VET arguably should have
been more relaxed about ceding the lead given the overall champs position
but its not particularly realistic to expect a driver to be that level
headed at the start of a night GP in the rain in a split second.

VER might have opted to slow himself down or straighten up his line a bit.

RAI could have taken a few feet more on the inside which would have
compromised his first corner.

A combination of events which resulted in a very signficant change in the
dynamic of the championship. But no-one's fault really.
geoff
2017-09-20 11:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET would
have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was unable to move
across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.

Errors on all threes' part.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 16:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET would
have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was unable to move
across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.
Errors on all threes' part.
It's not really an "error" for Vettel to lack vision where none was
possible.
keefy
2017-09-20 23:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET
would have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was unable
to move across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.
Errors on all threes' part.
It's not really an "error" for Vettel to lack vision where none was
possible.
Would you have done what Vettel did?
How far do you try to push someone when you cannot see if they have the
room to move?
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 23:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET
would have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was
unable to move across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.
Errors on all threes' part.
It's not really an "error" for Vettel to lack vision where none was
possible.
Would you have done what Vettel did?
Yup.
Post by keefy
How far do you try to push someone when you cannot see if they have the
room to move?
Vettel knew that Verstappen had no one beside him at the start of the
race, so he was entitled to move to the left at least to the point where
Verstappen had only one car width exactly (a stupid rule, but that's
what it currently says) to the left of HIM.
keefy
2017-09-21 13:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET
would have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was
unable to move across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.
Errors on all threes' part.
It's not really an "error" for Vettel to lack vision where none was
possible.
Would you have done what Vettel did?
Yup.
Post by keefy
How far do you try to push someone when you cannot see if they have
the room to move?
Vettel knew that Verstappen had no one beside him at the start of the
race, so he was entitled to move to the left at least to the point where
Verstappen had only one car width exactly (a stupid rule, but that's
what it currently says) to the left of HIM.
I know he did not break any rules but I question the wisdom of his move.
He did not make a good start and surely moving a long way off the line
directly to the first corner makes the distance one has to travel longer
which would therefore take more time. That seems to me to hand more
advantage to the opponent. And I would not think anyone would want to
give VER any more advantage than they absolutely have to. So it seems to
me that VET would have been in a better position anyway had he just gone
in a straight line to the first turn, as well as the fact that he, RAI
and Ferrari may have scored some points. Just my way of looking at it.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Yes, contact between VER and RAI a split second before before VET
would have hit VER anyway, because VET hadn't seen that VER was
unable to move across in to the 'available space' because RAI was there.
Errors on all threes' part.
It's not really an "error" for Vettel to lack vision where none was
possible.
Would you have done what Vettel did?
Yup.
Post by keefy
How far do you try to push someone when you cannot see if they have
the room to move?
Vettel knew that Verstappen had no one beside him at the start of the
race, so he was entitled to move to the left at least to the point
where Verstappen had only one car width exactly (a stupid rule, but
that's what it currently says) to the left of HIM.
I know he did not break any rules but I question the wisdom of his move.
He did not make a good start and surely moving a long way off the line
directly to the first corner makes the distance one has to travel longer
which would therefore take more time. That seems to me to hand more
advantage to the opponent. And I would not think anyone would want to
give VER any more advantage than they absolutely have to. So it seems to
me that VET would have been in a better position anyway had he just gone
in a straight line to the first turn, as well as the fact that he, RAI
and Ferrari may have scored some points. Just my way of looking at it.
It is SLIGHTLY longer to drive over towards Verstappen than simply
straight lining it, but tactically, it's the right move every time.

Strategically, it would probably have been better not to worry about
Verstappen at all. Except for the fact that there is a large premium for
finishing first over finishing second, what Vettel needed to do was to
start to creep up the points standings toward Hamilton.

But be under no illusions about the move's tactical logic. On a track
where passing is difficult, you care about being the guy in first into
the first turn, because that's probably where you'll stay. If you let
the other guy get ahead of you by not dominating positionally, you'll
probably end up in second, and then stay there for the race.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 16:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on countless race
starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between RAI's
Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because while
Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from his initial
position to his position just before the incident), VER's move left was
far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER either
failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout of change
of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.

And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the track
at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete the
overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
Post by larkim
What complicated it was that VET was also doing what drivers would normally
do at the start and squeezing VER, and VET didn't account for the fact that
he was defending against a car which itself was being overtaken - that's
quite an unusual circumstance - normally when you've got a car travelling
faster than you on the inside, there isn't someone else going even faster
still.
I agree.
Post by larkim
In the end it was just "one of those things". VET arguably should have
been more relaxed about ceding the lead given the overall champs position
but its not particularly realistic to expect a driver to be that level
headed at the start of a night GP in the rain in a split second.
Also agreed.
Post by larkim
VER might have opted to slow himself down or straighten up his line a bit.
Actually, slowing down was what Verstappen was doing when contact
happened. There's a small chance that if he hadn't, it all might have
been avoided; a very small chance, but still.
Post by larkim
RAI could have taken a few feet more on the inside which would have
compromised his first corner.
Change "could have" to "should have" nad you've got it.
Post by larkim
A combination of events which resulted in a very signficant change in the
dynamic of the championship. But no-one's fault really.
I agree.
Bigbird
2017-09-20 19:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.

It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.

He has nothing sensible to say.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 19:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.

2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Post by Bigbird
He has nothing sensible to say.
Mower Man
2017-09-20 20:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Post by Bigbird
He has nothing sensible to say.
Have any of you read the excellent Mark Hughes "Motor Sport" report on
Singapore 2017? Amongst other quotes is this - "The Merc may not have
been a quick car in the dry of Friday and Saturday but for some reason
the team doesn’t understand, it absolutely flies on intermediates. Give
such a car to Hamilton in these conditions and he’s going to be gone –
which he was. Even without the incidents, Hamilton began this race
convinced: “As soon as it began to rain, I knew what position I was
going to finish in.”"

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Bigbird
2017-09-20 21:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.

If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".

Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.

Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-20 21:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
enough said.
Good, fuck off.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 22:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.

"ahead" is not "well ahead"

But it doesn't matter

It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.

If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
Alan LeHun
2017-09-20 23:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.

"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
--
Alan LeHun
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 23:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.
"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
Nope. Never said anything remotely like that.
Geoff
2017-09-21 00:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.
"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
... because you have to be able to safely complete your pass before he
swerves or is pushed into you !

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 00:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.
"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
... because you have to be able to safely complete your pass before he
swerves or is pushed into you !
It's basic to the rules of racing:

The overtaking driver is responsible for completing the maneuver safely.
His obligation doesn't end when his nose is an inch ahead.
Geoff
2017-09-21 01:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.
"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
... because you have to be able to safely complete your pass before he
swerves or is pushed into you !
The overtaking driver is responsible for completing the maneuver safely.
His obligation doesn't end when his nose is an inch ahead.
So if somebody is three-quarters-overtaken, then it's OK to simply
swerve into him and it is somehow his fault ?!!!

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-21 01:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
?!!!
The 3 exclamation marks are feminine, queer-like.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 02:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Baker school of racing.
"If someone is overtaking you, drive into him and let him take the
blame."
... because you have to be able to safely complete your pass before
he swerves or is pushed into you !
The overtaking driver is responsible for completing the maneuver
safely. His obligation doesn't end when his nose is an inch ahead.
So if somebody is three-quarters-overtaken, then it's OK to simply
swerve into him and it is somehow his fault ?!!!
No of course not. Don't be idiotic.

The driver being overtaken has obligations as well.
Alan LeHun
2017-09-21 08:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
No of course not. Don't be idiotic.
The driver being overtaken has obligations as well.
Hurrah!

We are getting somewhere.

Not quite the end of story that you thought it was.
--
Alan LeHun
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 17:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
No of course not. Don't be idiotic.
The driver being overtaken has obligations as well.
Hurrah!
We are getting somewhere.
Not quite the end of story that you thought it was.
Except that Verstappen did nothing to violate his obligations.

Sorry.
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-21 20:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
So if somebody is three-quarters-overtaken, then it's OK to simply
swerve into him and it is somehow his fault ?!!!
Don't be idiotic.
x2
keefy
2017-09-20 23:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 23:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Vettel is allowed to go off line to defend as long as he leaves a car
width between Verstappen and the wall.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
He's allowed to move left.

Anyone in his position would have done the same.
Sir Tim
2017-09-21 07:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Vettel is allowed to go off line to defend as long as he leaves a car
width between Verstappen and the wall.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
He's allowed to move left.
Oh he's *allowed* to. The question, as Verstappen (who already seems more
mature than Vettel) asked is: was it wise given his tenuous lead in the
championship?
Post by Alan Baker
Anyone in his position would have done the same.
I very much doubt that. Vettel allowed his racer's instincts to get the
better of good sense.
--
Sir Tim
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Vettel is allowed to go off line to defend as long as he leaves a car
width between Verstappen and the wall.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
He's allowed to move left.
Oh he's *allowed* to. The question, as Verstappen (who already seems more
mature than Vettel) asked is: was it wise given his tenuous lead in the
championship?
Strategically, it was almost certainly wrong.

The season is far from over and picking up second place points rather
than first wouldn't have been the end of the world.
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Alan Baker
Anyone in his position would have done the same.
I very much doubt that. Vettel allowed his racer's instincts to get the
better of good sense.
I was speaking tactically, not regarding his place in the championship.
Geoff
2017-09-21 00:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there is
ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
... and if he can't see somebody beside him, how is he supposed to know
to leave a car width. Not just him - anybody. Maybe they have peripheral
vision after all.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 00:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead is
"ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
But surely the point is that RAI and VER collided as a result of VET's
action, ie going wildly off line
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his door;
enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there
is ANY blame to be assessed".
How you can blame anyone but VET for this incident I just do not
understand. I am sure if VET had gone more or less straight from the
outset VER and RAI would have avoided each other.
... and if he can't see somebody beside him, how is he supposed to know
to leave a car width. Not just him - anybody. Maybe they have peripheral
vision after all.
You don't have to have vision all the way to the side of you to tell
when your car is a car width away from the road's edge, now do you?
Bigbird
2017-09-21 06:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead
is "ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
Ocon is irrelevant. So you are changing your claim that 6 inches
overlap is "alongside"? So for future reference how much of an overlap
do you consider worthy of the term "alongside"?
Post by Alan Baker
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
Well done. You accept he was ahead.

But a nose ahead is ahead, right?

When a car goes across the line and wins by half a length he's not in
front?

The point is you know fucking well what Larkim was saying and there was
nothing wrong with his phrasing but you are too fuckwitted to accept it
because you are a fuckwit.
Post by Alan Baker
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the blame was
always put on the overtaking car. If a car is overtaking on a straight,
is fully alongside or ahead and keeps going straight then the other car
comes over on him no-one but you would put him at fault.

If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his
door; enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there
is ANY blame to be assessed".
Semantics. You couldn't let it lie so you lie.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 06:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose ahead
is "ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
Ocon is irrelevant. So you are changing your claim that 6 inches
overlap is "alongside"? So for future reference how much of an overlap
do you consider worthy of the term "alongside"?
You're the one who brought it into the discussion...
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
Well done. You accept he was ahead.
But a nose ahead is ahead, right?
It's ahead... ...but it's not a complete pass.
Post by Bigbird
When a car goes across the line and wins by half a length he's not in
front?
The point is you know fucking well what Larkim was saying and there was
nothing wrong with his phrasing but you are too fuckwitted to accept it
because you are a fuckwit.
Post by Alan Baker
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the blame was
always put on the overtaking car. If a car is overtaking on a straight,
is fully alongside or ahead and keeps going straight then the other car
comes over on him no-one but you would put him at fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so you're just
erecting a strawman.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Stop being an arse.
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
So flipping what.
So he had room to get by without contacting Verstappen.
Post by Bigbird
Only arsehole would try to lame the blame for the accident at his
door; enough said.
I didn't say that he should be found in the wrong. I said "IF there
is ANY blame to be assessed".
Semantics. You couldn't let it lie so you lie.
I did what I always do: call it as I see it.

I see this as a racing incident, but Kimi made a mistake.

He had room to make his pass without incident that he didn't use, and he
had the best view of the domino effect that happened. He could see
Vettel moving over and had to know that Verstappen would probably move
some as well.
Bigbird
2017-09-21 09:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying
the same to a driver who is well ahead.
1. If Raikkonen was "well ahead" there would have been no contact.
Fuckwitted semantics.
If an overlap of 6 inches is "alongside" having even his nose
ahead is "ahead".
Ocon's overlap was much more than 6 inches.
Ocon is irrelevant. So you are changing your claim that 6 inches
overlap is "alongside"? So for future reference how much of an
overlap do you consider worthy of the term "alongside"?
You're the one who brought it into the discussion...
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
"ahead" is not "well ahead"
Well done. You accept he was ahead.
But a nose ahead is ahead, right?
It's ahead... ...but it's not a complete pass.
Post by Bigbird
When a car goes across the line and wins by half a length he's not
in front?
The point is you know fucking well what Larkim was saying and there
was nothing wrong with his phrasing but you are too fuckwitted to
accept it because you are a fuckwit.
Post by Alan Baker
But it doesn't matter
It is the overtaking driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely.
If he comes together with the car he's passing, he hasn't done that.
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the blame was
always put on the overtaking car. If a car is overtaking on a
straight, is fully alongside or ahead and keeps going straight then
the other car comes over on him no-one but you would put him at
fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so you're
just erecting a strawman.
Not at all; I am following what you assert, "It is the overtaking
driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely." in as far as it
can possibly be applied to Kimi.

Okay then, supply some clear and relevant examples that support your
assertions as far as you are willing to assert.
Bigbird
2017-09-23 09:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the blame
was always put on the overtaking car. If a car is overtaking on a
straight, is fully alongside or ahead and keeps going straight
then the other car comes over on him no-one but you would put him
at fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so you're
just erecting a strawman.
Not at all; I am following what you assert, "It is the overtaking
driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely." in as far as it
can possibly be applied to Kimi.
Okay then, supply some clear and relevant examples that support your
assertions as far as you are willing to assert.
<crickets>
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-23 16:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
<crickets>
fool
Alan Baker
2017-09-23 16:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the blame
was always put on the overtaking car. If a car is overtaking on a
straight, is fully alongside or ahead and keeps going straight
then the other car comes over on him no-one but you would put him
at fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so you're
just erecting a strawman.
Not at all; I am following what you assert, "It is the overtaking
driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely." in as far as it
can possibly be applied to Kimi.
Okay then, supply some clear and relevant examples that support your
assertions as far as you are willing to assert.
<crickets>
For a guy who says I'm going on about this far too long...

(and gets it wrong about what I think the incident was—a racing
incident, btw)

...you sure are going on about this.

:-)
Bigbird
2017-09-23 17:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the
blame was always put on the overtaking car. If a car is
overtaking on a straight, is fully alongside or ahead and
keeps going straight then the other car comes over on him
no-one but you would put him at fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so
you're just erecting a strawman.
Not at all; I am following what you assert, "It is the overtaking
driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely." in as far
as it can possibly be applied to Kimi.
Okay then, supply some clear and relevant examples that support
your assertions as far as you are willing to assert.
<crickets>

You have nothing. Not a single example to support your bullshit
assertions that you have repeated dozens of times.

It's well past time you wound your neck in. You are simple acting out
your RAT nickname.
Alan Baker
2017-09-23 17:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Fuckwitted nonsense. We'd hardly need stewards if all the
blame was always put on the overtaking car. If a car is
overtaking on a straight, is fully alongside or ahead and
keeps going straight then the other car comes over on him
no-one but you would put him at fault.
If you are right there must be many examples. Supply a few.
All the blame ISN'T always placed on the overtaking car, so
you're just erecting a strawman.
Not at all; I am following what you assert, "It is the overtaking
driver's responsibility to complete the pass safely." in as far
as it can possibly be applied to Kimi.
Okay then, supply some clear and relevant examples that support
your assertions as far as you are willing to assert.
<crickets>
You have nothing. Not a single example to support your bullshit
assertions that you have repeated dozens of times.
It's well past time you wound your neck in. You are simple acting out
your RAT nickname.
Irony.

Bigbird
2017-09-20 21:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Additionally:

Wrong, another repeated falsehood. Perhaps not even half that... and it
probably would have made no difference. Vettels Chop was severe.
There's a good chance he would have touched Verstappens front wing
whatever.

https://ibb.co/jOK6Ok

BTW who is ahead at that point?

GNF
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 22:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Wrong, another repeated falsehood. Perhaps not even half that... and it
probably would have made no difference. Vettels Chop was severe.
There's a good chance he would have touched Verstappens front wing
whatever.
https://ibb.co/jOK6Ok
BTW who is ahead at that point?
GNF
Is Raikkonen still responsible for keeping his overtaking maneuver safe?

Yes.

End of story.
Alan LeHun
2017-09-20 23:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Is Raikkonen still responsible for keeping his overtaking maneuver safe?
Yes.
Are all other drivers therefore absolved of responsibility?
Post by Alan Baker
End of story.
<shakes head>
--
Alan LeHun
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Alan Baker
Is Raikkonen still responsible for keeping his overtaking maneuver safe?
Yes.
Are all other drivers therefore absolved of responsibility?
What did the other drivers involved do that was against any rule?
Bigbird
2017-09-21 09:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Wrong, another repeated falsehood. Perhaps not even half that...
and it probably would have made no difference. Vettels Chop was
severe. There's a good chance he would have touched Verstappens
front wing whatever.
https://ibb.co/jOK6Ok
BTW who is ahead at that point?
GNF
Is Raikkonen still responsible for keeping his overtaking maneuver safe?
Yes.
He did nothing to make it unsafe. The same cannot be said of the driver
closing in on the other side.
Post by Alan Baker
End of story.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 22:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Wrong, another repeated falsehood. Perhaps not even half that...
and it probably would have made no difference. Vettels Chop was
severe. There's a good chance he would have touched Verstappens
front wing whatever.
https://ibb.co/jOK6Ok
BTW who is ahead at that point?
GNF
Is Raikkonen still responsible for keeping his overtaking maneuver safe?
Yes.
He did nothing to make it unsafe. The same cannot be said of the driver
closing in on the other side.
He failed to keep clear of a car that was entitled to move left becauses
of another car that was entitled to move left.

All Raikkonen was entitled to was not to be crowded off the racing
surface, and as he had more than a meter to the left of him before the
beginning of the painted surface, that didn't happen.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
End of story.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 22:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
2. Raikkonen had 3 feet or more of room to his left.
Wrong, another repeated falsehood. Perhaps not even half that... and it
probably would have made no difference. Vettels Chop was severe.
There's a good chance he would have touched Verstappens front wing
whatever.
https://ibb.co/jOK6Ok
BTW who is ahead at that point?
GNF
And you need to little about photo analysis and the current width of an
F1 front tire:

1 FOOT.

https://ibb.co/fHBZtk

I deliberately left a little space between those lines. Each is
identical in length to the first, although in fact a each succeeding one
foot segment in the photo would actually be getting fractional shorter
as you move to the right in the image.
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 20:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
Straight from the SCCA GCR:

"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is responsible to
be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who
appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black
flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."

The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that Ocon
had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
News
2017-09-20 20:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is responsible to
be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who
appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black
flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that Ocon
had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered to
be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 22:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is responsible
to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who
appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black
flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered to
be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.



Six seconds in.
keefy
2017-09-20 23:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If no-one
did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the race? How
many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire when no-one
did anything wrong?
Alan Baker
2017-09-20 23:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If no-one
did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the race? How
many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire when no-one
did anything wrong?
I didn't say that no-one did anything wrong. I said that I don't think
anyone did anything wrong enough to penalize.

The only one who did anything wrong in terms of the rules was Raikkonen.
An overtaking driver is obliged to complete the overtake safely, and he
failed to do that. But not in a big way. He just reacted too late to
Verstappen inevitably moving a little left (legal) in response to Vettel
moving a lot left (also legal).

Look at this:

https://ibb.co/diFfzQ

Raikkonen had more than half a car width—something more than 39.375
inches—to move to the left and needed only to move left maybe 12 inches.
larkim
2017-09-21 09:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If no-one
did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the race? How
many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire when no-one
did anything wrong?
I didn't say that no-one did anything wrong. I said that I don't think
anyone did anything wrong enough to penalize.
The only one who did anything wrong in terms of the rules was Raikkonen.
An overtaking driver is obliged to complete the overtake safely, and he
failed to do that. But not in a big way. He just reacted too late to
Verstappen inevitably moving a little left (legal) in response to Vettel
moving a lot left (also legal).
https://ibb.co/diFfzQ
Raikkonen had more than half a car width—something more than 39.375
inches—to move to the left and needed only to move left maybe 12 inches.
On this I 100% disagree - that RAI broke any rules.

When you are driving in a straight line, and a driver starts to veer left
towards you there is no rule that you must get out of their way.

I don't think any rules were broken in this scenario.

VET acted instinctively (but legally).

VER acted instinctively (but legally).

RAI acted instinctively (but legally).

It just so happens that the combination of those instincts IN THAT SCENARIO
meant that three cars were put on varying collision courses.

There are scenarios where it could all have worked out fine - less squeeze
from VET, backing out by VER, moving left by RAI. But these drivers aren't
paid to take the course of least risk all of the time, so sometimes crashes
happen through instinct. It happens.
~misfit~
2017-09-21 10:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved
over, but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from his initial position to his position just before
the incident), VER's move left was far less so, and that was
to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when
VER either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a
small amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear
ended up climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI
had the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room
to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so
far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the
wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If
no-one did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the
race? How many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to
retire when no-one did anything wrong?
I didn't say that no-one did anything wrong. I said that I don't
think anyone did anything wrong enough to penalize.
The only one who did anything wrong in terms of the rules was
Raikkonen. An overtaking driver is obliged to complete the overtake
safely, and he failed to do that. But not in a big way. He just
reacted too late to Verstappen inevitably moving a little left
(legal) in response to Vettel moving a lot left (also legal).
https://ibb.co/diFfzQ
Raikkonen had more than half a car width-something more than 39.375
inches-to move to the left and needed only to move left maybe 12
inches.
On this I 100% disagree - that RAI broke any rules.
When you are driving in a straight line, and a driver starts to veer
left towards you there is no rule that you must get out of their way.
I don't think any rules were broken in this scenario.
VET acted instinctively (but legally).
VER acted instinctively (but legally).
RAI acted instinctively (but legally).
It just so happens that the combination of those instincts IN THAT
SCENARIO meant that three cars were put on varying collision courses.
There are scenarios where it could all have worked out fine - less
squeeze from VET, backing out by VER, moving left by RAI. But these
drivers aren't paid to take the course of least risk all of the time,
so sometimes crashes happen through instinct. It happens.
Verstapped said that by the time he realised he'd have to back out he was
trapped (because the rears of the cars are wider and his view was of the
fronts of the Ferraris). He tried to back out nontheless but those closing
in wide Ferrari rears caught him.
--
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)
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 17:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved
over, but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from his initial position to his position just before
the incident), VER's move left was far less so, and that was
to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when
VER either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a
small amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear
ended up climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI
had the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room
to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so
far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the
wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If
no-one did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the
race? How many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to
retire when no-one did anything wrong?
I didn't say that no-one did anything wrong. I said that I don't
think anyone did anything wrong enough to penalize.
The only one who did anything wrong in terms of the rules was
Raikkonen. An overtaking driver is obliged to complete the overtake
safely, and he failed to do that. But not in a big way. He just
reacted too late to Verstappen inevitably moving a little left
(legal) in response to Vettel moving a lot left (also legal).
https://ibb.co/diFfzQ
Raikkonen had more than half a car width-something more than 39.375
inches-to move to the left and needed only to move left maybe 12
inches.
On this I 100% disagree - that RAI broke any rules.
When you are driving in a straight line, and a driver starts to veer
left towards you there is no rule that you must get out of their way.
I don't think any rules were broken in this scenario.
VET acted instinctively (but legally).
VER acted instinctively (but legally).
RAI acted instinctively (but legally).
It just so happens that the combination of those instincts IN THAT
SCENARIO meant that three cars were put on varying collision courses.
There are scenarios where it could all have worked out fine - less
squeeze from VET, backing out by VER, moving left by RAI. But these
drivers aren't paid to take the course of least risk all of the time,
so sometimes crashes happen through instinct. It happens.
Verstapped said that by the time he realised he'd have to back out he was
trapped (because the rears of the cars are wider and his view was of the
fronts of the Ferraris). He tried to back out nontheless but those closing
in wide Ferrari rears caught him.
Yup. He would have been better off NOT trying to back out, and hope that
all there was was light wheel-to-sidepod contact, rather than the
wheel-to-wheel contact with Raikkonen that resulted.

I had a similar incident (at least as far as backing out being a bad
idea) with a Formula Vee last year:

While trying to stay ahead of a hard-charging Formula Ford behind me, I
thought I saw an opportunity in a Formula Vee we were about to lap. The
driver was always very aware of blue flags, and our position on the
track was such that if I passed him going into turn 8, I thought he'd
hold my competitor for just a moment.

The only problem was (as it turned out), because I run a slightly
different line into turn 7, the Vee driver only saw my competitor, and
not me, so what I took as him giving way entering turn 8 was just him
taking his normal (wider) entry into the corner (momentum cars, Vees),
and when he started back to the apex, I tried to back out of it rather
than have nowhere to go between him and the apex of the corner.

Unfortunately, trying to back out of it put his rear tire into my front,
sending us both into an interlocking spin that (thankfully) resulted in
no damage to my car (one A-arm had the paint polished off it) and just a
broken nose piece on his car.

We had a good talk about it afterward where he acknowledged he should
have known I was there, and I accepted that I'd failed to complete a
pass safely (as the rules require the overtaking driver to do).

But I look back and wonder, if I had just matched speeds and ridden the
car almost completely inside the apex curb at turn 8, whether I could
have avoided the incident entirely.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 17:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If no-one
did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the race? How
many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire when no-one
did anything wrong?
I didn't say that no-one did anything wrong. I said that I don't think
anyone did anything wrong enough to penalize.
The only one who did anything wrong in terms of the rules was Raikkonen.
An overtaking driver is obliged to complete the overtake safely, and he
failed to do that. But not in a big way. He just reacted too late to
Verstappen inevitably moving a little left (legal) in response to Vettel
moving a lot left (also legal).
https://ibb.co/diFfzQ
Raikkonen had more than half a car width—something more than 39.375
inches—to move to the left and needed only to move left maybe 12 inches.
On this I 100% disagree - that RAI broke any rules.
When you are driving in a straight line, and a driver starts to veer left
towards you there is no rule that you must get out of their way.
You are wrong. There are limits on what a driver being overtaken is
allowed to do, but he isn't required not to move at all.
Post by larkim
I don't think any rules were broken in this scenario.
VET acted instinctively (but legally).
Agreed.
Post by larkim
VER acted instinctively (but legally).
I think so, but it's odd that you do. You claim both that a driver
overtaking doesn't have to "get out of the way" of a driver veering in
his direction, and now you're claiming that that veering is also legal?
Post by larkim
RAI acted instinctively (but legally).
He erred in that he had space to make his pass safely that he didn't
use, and the rules require the overtaking driver to complete his pass
safely.
Post by larkim
It just so happens that the combination of those instincts IN THAT SCENARIO
meant that three cars were put on varying collision courses.
There are scenarios where it could all have worked out fine - less squeeze
from VET, backing out by VER, moving left by RAI. But these drivers aren't
paid to take the course of least risk all of the time, so sometimes crashes
happen through instinct. It happens.
I agree. No one did anything worthy of being penalized...

...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
geoff
2017-09-21 19:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.

geoff
Bigbird
2017-09-21 20:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
Careful. You only have yourself to blame if you get hit by Alan
backpedaling.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
geoff
Nope. I never said anything like that.

There are limits on what a driver being overtaken can do. Moving
slightly left as Verstappen did is within those limits.
Geoff
2017-09-21 22:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
geoff
Nope. I never said anything like that.
There are limits on what a driver being overtaken can do. Moving
slightly left as Verstappen did is within those limits.
Wasn't referring to VER.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 22:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
geoff
Nope. I never said anything like that.
There are limits on what a driver being overtaken can do. Moving
slightly left as Verstappen did is within those limits.
Wasn't referring to VER.
Strange. Since I was discussing Raikkonen's pass.


But what I wrote applies equally well to Vettel.

Vettel is entitled to move to the left to defend, provided he leaves
Verstappen room to drive on the track. Which he did.
Geoff
2017-09-21 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
geoff
Nope. I never said anything like that.
There are limits on what a driver being overtaken can do. Moving
slightly left as Verstappen did is within those limits.
Wasn't referring to VER.
Strange. Since I was discussing Raikkonen's pass.
But what I wrote applies equally well to Vettel.
Vettel is entitled to move to the left to defend, provided he leaves
Verstappen room to drive on the track. Which he did.
Apart from one small detail - RAI. So no room for VER.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 22:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
...but Raikkonen had an obligation to keep clear and he failed in that.
So new rule for avoiding being overtaken. It's OK to veer into an
overtaking car, because if you manage to hit him it must be his fault.
geoff
Nope. I never said anything like that.
There are limits on what a driver being overtaken can do. Moving
slightly left as Verstappen did is within those limits.
Wasn't referring to VER.
Strange. Since I was discussing Raikkonen's pass.
But what I wrote applies equally well to Vettel.
Vettel is entitled to move to the left to defend, provided he leaves
Verstappen room to drive on the track. Which he did.
Apart from one small detail - RAI. So no room for VER.
Right.

But since VER was entitled to move left towards RAI until RAI was only
left one car width, RAI should have moved left...

...which he didn't.
~misfit~
2017-09-21 01:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over,
but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from his initial position to his position just before the
incident), VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be
expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small
amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended
up climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had
the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede
or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear
view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting
to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in
Section 7." The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in
Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If
no-one did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the
race? How many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire
when no-one did anything wrong?
Four drivers had to retire due to that 'incident'.
--
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)
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 02:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over,
but he didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from his initial position to his position just before the
incident), VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be
expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small
amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended
up climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had
the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede
or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear
view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting
to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in
Section 7." The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in
Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong. If
no-one did anything wrong why did 3 drivers have to retire from the
race? How many times do you know of when 3 drivers have had to retire
when no-one did anything wrong?
Four drivers had to retire due to that 'incident'.
Yup. It's racing. Drivers aren't robots and they make mistakes.
Sir Tim
2017-09-21 08:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong.
Actually, in this case, a very plausible argument. This seems to me to be
one of the rare cases of a genuine "racing accident", as the stewards
concluded.
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2017-09-21 09:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between >>>>>>>> RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved
over, but he >>>>>>>> didn't.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because >>>>>>>> while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from >>>>>>>> his initial position to his position just before
the incident), >>>>>>>> VER's move left was far less so, and that was
to be expected. >>>>>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when
VER >>>>>>> either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a
small amout >>>>>>> of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear
ended up >>>>>> climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI
had the >>>>>>> track at that point.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete >>>>>> the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide. >>>>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch >>>>> overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a >>>>> driver who is well ahead.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or >>>> block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view >>>> mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass >>>> may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7." >>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium
and >>>> Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen
room to >>>> pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved
over so far that >>>> Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India
and the wall. >>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered >>> to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him." >>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong.
Actually, in this case, a very plausible argument. This seems to me
to be one of the rare cases of a genuine "racing accident", as the
stewards concluded.
+1

It's fuckwittery to try to asign blame. At most it revisits the
acceptance of the start line chop.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 22:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so)
between >>>>>>>> RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved
over, but he >>>>>>>> didn't.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
That having been said, he had very little time to react,
because >>>>>>>> while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to
move from >>>>>>>> his initial position to his position just before
the incident), >>>>>>>> VER's move left was far less so, and that was
to be expected. >>>>>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when
VER >>>>>>> either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a
small amout >>>>>>> of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear
ended up >>>>>> climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI
had the >>>>>>> track at that point.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to
complete >>>>>> the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars
collide. >>>>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six
inch >>>>> overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the
same to a >>>>> driver who is well ahead.
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or >>>> block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view >>>> mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass >>>> may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7." >>>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium
and >>>> Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen
room to >>>> pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved
over so far that >>>> Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India
and the wall. >>>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered >>> to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass
him." >>
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong.
Actually, in this case, a very plausible argument. This seems to me
to be one of the rare cases of a genuine "racing accident", as the
stewards concluded.
+1
It's fuckwittery to try to asign blame. At most it revisits the
acceptance of the start line chop.
Moving to the left over a span of two seconds is not a chop.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by keefy
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
It appears your contention is that no-one did anything wrong.
Actually, in this case, a very plausible argument. This seems to me to be
one of the rare cases of a genuine "racing accident", as the stewards
concluded.
With which, I agree.

Vettel's doing what he's entitled to do by the rules, Verstappen is too,
and Raikkonen just had a moment where he got it wrong.
News
2017-09-21 02:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 02:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...

...but he still had more than 3 feet of track to move left:

<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
News
2017-09-21 03:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede
or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear
view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to
pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section
7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far
that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done except
move him further left into the paint? And still likely have collected him.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 03:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede
or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear
view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting
to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in
Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room
to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so
far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done except
move him further left into the paint? And still likely have collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...

...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?

He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass safely.
Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which where there isn't
a wall is considered to be a little less than a car width between VER
and the track boundary.

Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
News
2017-09-21 11:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede
or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear
view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting
to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in
Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room
to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so
far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done except
move him further left into the paint? And still likely have collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass safely.
Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which where there isn't
a wall is considered to be a little less than a car width between VER
and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 17:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium
and Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen
room to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved
over so far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India
and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done
except move him further left into the paint? And still likely have
collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass
safely. Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which where
there isn't a wall is considered to be a little less than a car width
between VER and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?

That pic clearly shows more than a half a car width (39.375" or 1 metre
for the metrically inclined) to the left of Raikkonen before he even
gets to the painted surface...

...and then there's the painted surface!
News
2017-09-21 21:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by alister
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel
Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver
is responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to
impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use
his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car
attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as
specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium
and Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen
room to pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved
over so far that Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India
and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is
considered to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
The wall is blue. The 'silver' is the low-grip, wet, painted area
outside track limits.
Right. I figured that out...
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done
except move him further left into the paint? And still likely have
collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass
safely. Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which where
there isn't a wall is considered to be a little less than a car width
between VER and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?
That pic clearly shows more than a half a car width (39.375" or 1 metre
for the metrically inclined) to the left of Raikkonen before he even
gets to the painted surface...
...and then there's the painted surface!
You'd dive for the wet paint, right?
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done
except move him further left into the paint? And still likely have
collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass
safely. Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which where
there isn't a wall is considered to be a little less than a car
width between VER and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?
That pic clearly shows more than a half a car width (39.375" or 1
metre for the metrically inclined) to the left of Raikkonen before he
even gets to the painted surface...
...and then there's the painted surface!
You'd dive for the wet paint, right?
Wow. Just... ...wow.

What part of "he had more than 3 feet of track before he got to the
paint" don't you understand?
News
2017-09-21 21:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done
except move him further left into the paint? And still likely have
collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass
safely. Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which
where there isn't a wall is considered to be a little less than a
car width between VER and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?
That pic clearly shows more than a half a car width (39.375" or 1
metre for the metrically inclined) to the left of Raikkonen before he
even gets to the painted surface...
...and then there's the painted surface!
You'd dive for the wet paint, right?
Wow. Just... ...wow.
What part of "he had more than 3 feet of track before he got to the
paint" don't you understand?
OK, and an F1 car is how wide, adding passing margin? How far into the
paint is that again?
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 21:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
And if he gave up track position left, what would VER have done
except move him further left into the paint? And still likely
have collected him.
Or maybe Verstappen wouldn't have...
...but how does running into Verstappen serve his goals?
He's the overtaking driver: he is obligated to complete the pass
safely. Verstappen is obligated to leave him racing room which
where there isn't a wall is considered to be a little less than a
car width between VER and the track boundary.
Fact: Raikkonen had space. You now absolutely agree with that, right?
You just illustrated otherwise.
How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?
That pic clearly shows more than a half a car width (39.375" or 1
metre for the metrically inclined) to the left of Raikkonen before
he even gets to the painted surface...
...and then there's the painted surface!
You'd dive for the wet paint, right?
Wow. Just... ...wow.
What part of "he had more than 3 feet of track before he got to the
paint" don't you understand?
OK, and an F1 car is how wide, adding passing margin? How far into the
paint is that again?
None. None into the paint.

Why can't you get this?

When RAI and VER came into contact, the Ferrari's rear wheel was
overlapped with the Red Bull's front wheel by something less than a
front wheel width; about 8" it looks to me.

At that moment, there was MORE than a metre of race track surface
between the left-most part of Raikkonen's car and the beginning of the
painted surface.

Do you get it?

He had more than a METRE (39.375") of room to move left before he so
much as grazed the painted surface...

...and he only need to move something a little more than 8 INCHES

Put it another way:

If he moves over twice the overlap, he would still have had more than 2
FEET between the left edge of his tires and the paint.
alister
2017-09-21 09:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on countless
race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from his
initial position to his position just before the incident), VER's
move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small amout
of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had the
track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is responsible
to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who
appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black
flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
I guess you are blind then as there clearly is a small section of kerb/
painted area between the track & the wall.

at the time of the collision kimi had all 4 wheel inside the track limits
(so could have moved over at least another couple of feet)
if you has posted an overhead clip you would have seen this even clearer
in fact at the point of impact kimi still had room within track limits


As i see things
vet moved to block the bass by ves, ves was forced to move over & was not
aware of kimi
kimi did not see ves coming & move over

Racing incident.
--
Here I am at the flea market but nobody is buying my urine sample
bottles ...
alister
2017-09-21 09:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small
amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had
the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
I guess you are blind then as there clearly is a small section of kerb/
painted area between the track & the wall.
at the time of the collision kimi had all 4 wheel inside the track
limits (so could have moved over at least another couple of feet)
if you has posted an overhead clip you would have seen this even clearer
in fact at the point of impact kimi still had room within track limits
http://youtu.be/PPuyooS0QqY
As i see things vet moved to block the bass by ves, ves was forced to
move over & was not aware of kimi kimi did not see ves coming & move
over
Racing incident.
sorry
I see from further posts that you have realised tat kimi did indeed have
room to move
--
"Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
Alan Baker
2017-09-21 17:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Vettel Well he certainly made my day :-)
Mine too. Even if he didn't actually "drive" much...
He drove Verstappen into Kimi, that's more than enough.
Ummm... ...no.
He moved to defend his position, as drivers have done on
countless race starts.
Vettel was entitled to move to the left.
Verstappen was entitled to move to the left in response.
And Raikkonen failed to keep clear as he was overtaking.
When RAI and VER touched, there was still 3 feet (or so) between
RAI's Ferrari and the wall. He should have moved over, but he
didn't.
That having been said, he had very little time to react, because
while Vettel's move on VER was gradual (2 seconds to move from
his initial position to his position just before the incident),
VER's move left was far less so, and that was to be expected.
I disagree.
RAI kept a 100% straight line, and was in front of VER when VER
either failed to stop a change of direction, or added a small
amout of change of direction into the path of RAI.
Keeping a 100% straight line isn't the standard.
And he wasn't in front of Verstappen, since his right rear ended up
climbing over Verstappen's left front.
Post by larkim
It was VER front and RAI rear tyres which collided, and RAI had
the track at that point.
Nope. When you are overtaking, you have the obligation to complete
the overtake cleanly. It isn't clean if the two cars collide.
What a fuckwit.
It is hilarious to have him claim one week that having a six inch
overlap entitles a driver to racing room but denying the same to a
driver who is well ahead.
He has nothing sensible to say.
"The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass
another car and to accomplish it safely.T he overtaken driver is
responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or
block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view
mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass
may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7."
The difference between Perez's behaviour with Ocon in Belgium and
Verstappen's in Singapore is that Verstappen left Raikkonen room to
pass him, whereas Perez "blocked" Ocon when he moved over so far that
Ocon had no space between Perez's Force India and the wall.
If the painted, wet, low-grip area outside track limits is considered
to be room, "Verstappen left Raikkonen room to pass him."
There was no such area to the left of Raikkonen when they collided.
http://youtu.be/Pi-qitmfvlI
Six seconds in.
I guess you are blind then as there clearly is a small section of kerb/
painted area between the track & the wall.
at the time of the collision kimi had all 4 wheel inside the track
limits (so could have moved over at least another couple of feet)
if you has posted an overhead clip you would have seen this even clearer
in fact at the point of impact kimi still had room within track limits
http://youtu.be/PPuyooS0QqY
As i see things vet moved to block the bass by ves, ves was forced to
move over & was not aware of kimi kimi did not see ves coming & move
over
Racing incident.
sorry
I see from further posts that you have realised tat kimi did indeed have
room to move
No worries.

I always knew it. :-)
Phil Carmody
2017-09-19 23:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Ricciardo
Good, not great, lucky to lose a place at the start, too.
Hamilton was almost textbook. Could have detected the drying better, perhaps. (Button would have swapped to slicks 2 laps earlier.)

Phil
--
In order for there to be rights, there must be wrongs - if you want to
get rid of wrongs, which great leaders do, you *must* get rid of rights.
Bigbird
2017-09-20 06:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Carmody
Post by John
Ricciardo
Good, not great, lucky to lose a place at the start, too.
Hamilton was almost textbook. Could have detected the drying better,
perhaps. (Button would have swapped to slicks 2 laps earlier.)
(strategic decision. LOst nothing, including track position and avoided
traffic.)
Mower Man
2017-09-20 20:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Ricciardo
Mark Hughes of Motor Sport...

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-singapore-grand-prix-report?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MarkHughes&utm_content=SingaporeGP

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
~misfit~
2017-09-21 10:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mower Man
Post by John
Ricciardo
Mark Hughes of Motor Sport...
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-singapore-grand-prix-report?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MarkHughes&utm_content=SingaporeGP

--
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)
Loading...