Discussion:
You HAVE heard of Jackie Stewart...
Add Reply
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 06:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...right?

Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.

'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.

“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”

<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>

But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
Edmund
2019-06-14 07:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
Well it doesn't matter, the elderly rule makers bluntly refuse to
implement and police the most basic regulations and at the same time
they spent forever inventing idiotic regulations that ( have killed )
kills racing altogether.
These silly elderly people then trying to restore "racing" again
by inventing even more idiotic regulations. That is going on for
decades now isn't it?

A simple thing : racing has to be ON THE RACETRACK, is way too
complicated for those bunch of elderly.
So we can have these discussions for the next decades too especially
when ones favorite is treated different that another ones favorite.

Edmund
Bigbird
2019-06-14 07:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?

Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?

(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not interested in
any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)

"It is fair to say that when it comes to picking my favourite people in
this wonderful sport, one of them is very definitely Emanuele Pirro. We
have known each other for 36 years, in fact he finished third in the
very first race I ever reported on. And, in the course of those 36
years, we have had many happy times in places all over the world. Of
all the drivers I know, Emanuele is the one who tries hardest to give
back to the sport. He works as a race official both in Formula 1 and in
other championships, he is involved in commission work at national and
international level and he is the President of the Grand Prix Drivers’
Club as well. He doesn’t need to do any of it, but he wants to do it.
So when I heard a bunch of F1 commentator types attacking him for the
decision to penalise Sebastian Vettel – and doing it in a nasty way in
several cases – I was irked.

Emanuele is a man with impeccable credentials that most F1 drivers
would – or should – respect. He was a top single seater racer, who
raced in Formula 1 for three seasons."
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 15:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not interested in
any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
Post by Bigbird
"It is fair to say that when it comes to picking my favourite people in
this wonderful sport, one of them is very definitely Emanuele Pirro. We
have known each other for 36 years, in fact he finished third in the
very first race I ever reported on. And, in the course of those 36
years, we have had many happy times in places all over the world. Of
all the drivers I know, Emanuele is the one who tries hardest to give
back to the sport. He works as a race official both in Formula 1 and in
other championships, he is involved in commission work at national and
international level and he is the President of the Grand Prix Drivers’
Club as well. He doesn’t need to do any of it, but he wants to do it.
So when I heard a bunch of F1 commentator types attacking him for the
decision to penalise Sebastian Vettel – and doing it in a nasty way in
several cases – I was irked.
Emanuele is a man with impeccable credentials that most F1 drivers
would – or should – respect. He was a top single seater racer, who
raced in Formula 1 for three seasons."
Despite you failing to provide a reference, yes, I do know who that is:

A journalist who has never been a racing driver.

Pirro was, at best, a journeyman F1 driver. He raced for 3 seasons—only
one of which was full and got precisely 3 points. By that standard,
Pastor Maldonado was a great F1 driver. In 1988, when his teammates were
running as high as 3rd and 4th, the best he could muster in the same car
was a 9th. 1989 was better, but not much, so it's no surprise that he
was in a Dallara the next year and out of F1 entirely the year after that.

Yes, he had success at LeMans...

...but only with the all-conquering Audi team from 1999-2008.

Jackie Stewart is only one of the most respect F1 drivers of all time.

I realize you don't get this and probably never will, but road race
driving is a very visually-driven activity. People who know this
activity can look at a in-car video and understand what is going on.

You can go on all you like about the telemetry, but even if they let us
see it (why won't they, BTW?) you wouldn't understand it anyway, but
here's a little taste:

<https://f1bythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/vet_telem2.svg>

I realize you won't be able to understand anything beyond "look: at some
point Vettel got to full throttle", but the little tiny bump at 2.5s is
when he hits the grass,

and he adds light throttle at about 3.25 to stabilize the rear end one
he's back on the asphalt.

Then for nearly 1.75 seconds, he's never above 25% throttle.

Then in the last 1.25s before he finally gets the car straight, he tries
adding a bit more power, feels the back end getting away and has to back
out of it (and has to open the steering wheel as a consequence) and then
FINALLY is back in control, and can gradually get from about 62% to full
throttle.

I realize that this will be too much for your tiny little brain, but
yes: there are times when you get oversteer that you need to INCREASE
throttle, and there are also times where you need to DECREASE throttle.

I say this to stop the ridiculous "ah-ha!" moment you'll try to have in
your reply.
Bigbird
2019-06-14 16:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not interested
in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.

:)
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 17:05:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not interested
in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.
:)
It is your prerogative to be a hypocrite if you wish.
Bigbird
2019-06-14 20:41:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not
interested in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.
:)
It is your prerogative to be a hypocrite if you wish.
I am not being hypocritical

You fucking moron.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 03:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the greater
experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not
interested in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.
:)
It is your prerogative to be a hypocrite if you wish.
I am not being hypocritical
Sure you are.

See if you can figure out why that's true all without help.

:-)
Bigbird
2019-06-18 11:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the
greater experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not
interested in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.
:)
It is your prerogative to be a hypocrite if you wish.
I am not being hypocritical
Sure you are.
See if you can figure out why that's true all without help.
:-)
Shussh now Alan. Enough of your lies.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 15:53:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
You have heard of this guy... right?
Which of them had access to all the data and has the
greater experience as a steward?
(It's rhetorical, there is only one answer and I am not
interested in any more of your lies and pig headed conceit.)
And yet you can't resist chiming in...
That is my prerogative.
:)
It is your prerogative to be a hypocrite if you wish.
I am not being hypocritical
Sure you are.
See if you can figure out why that's true all without help.
:-)
Shussh now Alan. Enough of your lies.
As I said, your prerogative to be a hypocrite.

:-)
CS
2019-06-14 10:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1 has changed over the years.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 15:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1 has changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the sport
through those years.

And because you obviously don't know it:

PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
CS
2019-06-14 15:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
No you dipstick - only the rules have. And stop shouting like a 2 year old tantrum.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 15:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
No you dipstick - only the rules have. And stop shouting like a 2 year old tantrum.
The rules have changed; no doubt about it.

Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even know
what those rule changes are?
Bigbird
2019-06-14 16:56:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even know
what those rule changes are?
No. There's no reason to assume he does.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 17:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even know
what those rule changes are?
No. There's no reason to assume he does.
LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Bigbird
2019-06-14 20:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even
know what those rule changes are?
No. There's no reason to assume he does.
LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
You fucking moron.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
~misfit~
2019-06-15 00:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even know
what those rule changes are?
No. There's no reason to assume he does.
Indeed. He'd rather be seen swanning around the paddock than actually keeping up to date with the
regs and giving up his valuable time being a steward. After all they're the only people whose
opinions matter in this. Not long-retired drivers basking in the afterglow of their decades-old
achievements with little if any first-hand knowledge of the current rules and regs*.

* Obviously - or they wouldn't be arguing against a slam-dunk penalty.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 03:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Do you think that maybe Jackie Stewart might know that; and even know
what those rule changes are?
No. There's no reason to assume he does.
Indeed. He'd rather be seen swanning around the paddock than actually
keeping up to date with the regs and giving up his valuable time being a
steward. After all they're the only people whose opinions matter in
this. Not long-retired drivers basking in the afterglow of their
decades-old achievements with little if any first-hand knowledge of the
current rules and regs*.
* Obviously - or they wouldn't be arguing against a slam-dunk penalty.
Ummm...

The driver representative in each group of stewards is almost always
"ong-retired drivers basking in the afterglow"...
Mark
2019-06-17 08:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1 has
changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the sport
through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
For me, there are three separate issues here:

1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?

And (for me) the answers are:

1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
3. Yes
3. a) If he had slowed more such that he had made the corner, he
would have been in a worse position after the corner. Whether
Hamilton would have passed is hard to say.
b) If he had been able to rejoin safely, he definitely would have
been in a worse position as Hamilton would definitely have
passed.

For (1) and (2), Physics apply. I don't think many feel that once he
was in the corner that there was much he could do other than what he
did...or hit something stationary.

For (3), though, I can see the case for a penalty. It's hard enough to
pass in F1 without drivers being allowed to overcommit in corners yet be
allowed to do what Vettel did without a penalty. Really unfortunate for
the race and Vettel, but I think the penalty is fair.
Bigbird
2019-06-17 10:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1
has >> changed over the years.
Post by Alan Baker
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the
sport through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
3. Yes
3. a) If he had slowed more such that he had made the corner, he
would have been in a worse position after the corner. Whether
Hamilton would have passed is hard to say.
b) If he had been able to rejoin safely, he definitely would
have been in a worse position as Hamilton would definitely
have passed.
For (1) and (2), Physics apply. I don't think many feel that once he
was in the corner that there was much he could do other than what he
did...or hit something stationary.
For (3), though, I can see the case for a penalty. It's hard enough
to pass in F1 without drivers being allowed to overcommit in corners
yet be allowed to do what Vettel did without a penalty. Really
unfortunate for the race and Vettel, but I think the penalty is fair.
I can't see that, if your analysis were correct, it is *worse* than
deliberate blocking / unsafe manoeuvres and we see enough of that go
without a mention not even a driving standards warning. I think I would
like to see them making use of the driving standards flag (I don't
recall ever seeing used) in F1. It give stewards a way to officially
and publicly sanction without affecting the race and also a stepping
stone to a penalty should the driver repeat.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Mark
2019-06-17 13:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
For (1) and (2), Physics apply. I don't think many feel that once he
was in the corner that there was much he could do other than what he
did...or hit something stationary.
For (3), though, I can see the case for a penalty. It's hard enough
to pass in F1 without drivers being allowed to overcommit in corners
yet be allowed to do what Vettel did without a penalty. Really
unfortunate for the race and Vettel, but I think the penalty is fair.
I can't see that, if your analysis were correct, it is *worse* than
deliberate blocking / unsafe manoeuvres and we see enough of that go
without a mention not even a driving standards warning. I think I would
like to see them making use of the driving standards flag (I don't
recall ever seeing used) in F1. It give stewards a way to officially
and publicly sanction without affecting the race and also a stepping
stone to a penalty should the driver repeat.
Hmm. I don't disagree with the driving standards issue, but in this
case you'd first have to confirm that the issue was the driving. I'm
saying that the fact that he left the track and then couldn't avoid the
rather dangerous rejoin* which disadvantage the other driver is
sufficient for the penalty. It could be that it wasn't that, but rather
an unanticipated loss (at that stage) in traction. I don't think we
would want drivers being forced to stay so far from the limits of
adhesion that excursions *never* happened, but I do think that making
mistakes should carry consequences and (where possible) disadvantaging
other drivers is recognised.

If it could be demonstrated that it was a driving standard issue (which
I haven't heard anyone saying), I think the penalty was insufficient.
As it has played out, however (and I said so at the time) the 5s seemed
right by recognising the advantage, but allowing Vettel to realistically
chase for the win by stretching out a 5s lead. He wasn't able to, but
he wasn't as disadvantaged as he would through other penalties, or had
he hit something.

* Clearly, if we assume he *could* avoid the situation, we'd be having a
different conversation.
Alan Baker
2019-06-17 17:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1
has >> changed over the years.
Post by Alan Baker
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the
sport through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
3. Yes
3. a) If he had slowed more such that he had made the corner, he
would have been in a worse position after the corner. Whether
Hamilton would have passed is hard to say.
b) If he had been able to rejoin safely, he definitely would
have been in a worse position as Hamilton would definitely
have passed.
For (1) and (2), Physics apply. I don't think many feel that once he
was in the corner that there was much he could do other than what he
did...or hit something stationary.
For (3), though, I can see the case for a penalty. It's hard enough
to pass in F1 without drivers being allowed to overcommit in corners
yet be allowed to do what Vettel did without a penalty. Really
unfortunate for the race and Vettel, but I think the penalty is fair.
I can't see that, if your analysis were correct, it is *worse* than
deliberate blocking / unsafe manoeuvres and we see enough of that go
without a mention not even a driving standards warning. I think I would
like to see them making use of the driving standards flag (I don't
recall ever seeing used) in F1. It give stewards a way to officially
and publicly sanction without affecting the race and also a stepping
stone to a penalty should the driver repeat.
Given that Vettel ended up with less gap to Hamilton right after the
incident, I don't think the penalty was fair. The penalty is scaled on
the assumption that the driver has committed a deliberate act of
returning to the track unsafely, and there is something absolutely
perverse that one can get that penalty for being unable to change the
laws of physics when Hamilton doesn't get any penalty at all in Monaco
for a deliberate act of block Riccardio after blowing the chicane after
the tunnel.

If someone wanted to make a rule that said "if you over-commit and leave
the track when being followed by 1 second or less [say], you must cede
the place to the following driver", I'd be fine with it. It's
essentially what F1 does when they require drivers to use a re-entry
bollard at corners that allow it: it makes them take a route which is
effectively the penalty for that over-commitment.
Bigbird
2019-06-17 19:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Alan Baker wrote:

Shush now Alan; you have nothing to add.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 01:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Shush now Alan; you have nothing to add.
LOL


Which is why you snipped it rather than actually rebutted.
Bigbird
2019-06-18 11:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Shush now Alan; you have nothing to add.
LOL
Which is why you snipped it rather than actually rebutted.
I only snipped what I didn't read.

Shush now. You've embarrassed yourself quite enough.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-19 16:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Shush now Alan; you have nothing to add.
LOL
Which is why you snipped it rather than actually rebutted.
I only snipped what I didn't read.
Above your reading level, was it?
Post by Bigbird
Shush now. You've embarrassed yourself quite enough.
Given that Vettel ended up with less gap to Hamilton right after the
incident, I don't think the penalty was fair.

The penalty is scaled on the assumption that the driver has committed a
deliberate act of returning to the track unsafely, and there is
something absolutely perverse that one can get that penalty for being
unable to change the laws of physics when Hamilton doesn't get any
penalty at all in Monaco for a deliberate act of block Riccardio after
blowing the chicane after the tunnel.

If someone wanted to make a rule that said "if you over-commit and leave
the track when being followed by 1 second or less [say], you must cede
the place to the following driver", I'd be fine with it. It's
essentially what F1 does when they require drivers to use a re-entry
bollard at corners that allow it: it makes them take a route which is
effectively the penalty for that over-commitment.

What was unreasonable about any of that, "Bigbird"?
geoff
2019-06-17 21:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you. In case you hadn't noticed F1 has
changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the sport
through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
Palmer in his comprehensive analysis suggested maybe not quite so "not
really", especially towards the end of the event


geoff.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 01:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you.  In case you hadn't noticed F1 has
changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to the sport
through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
    manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
Palmer in his comprehensive analysis suggested maybe not quite so "not
really", especially towards the end of the event
How many F1 drivers did the FIA have to ask before they found one who'd
agree? Will they be putting videos from any of the huge majority of F1
drivers who disagree?
Bigbird
2019-06-18 11:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you.  In case you hadn't
noticed F1 has changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to
the sport through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
    manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
Palmer in his comprehensive analysis suggested maybe not quite so
"not really", especially towards the end of the event
How many F1 drivers did the FIA have to ask before they found one
who'd agree? Will they be putting videos from any of the huge
majority of F1 drivers who disagree?
Dumb question.

Get a clue.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 15:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
More historical bollards from you.  In case you hadn't
noticed F1 has changed over the years.
In case you hadn't notice, Jackie Stewart has stayed close to
the sport through those years.
PHYSICS HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL!
1. Did he leave the track and, having done so, rejoin in an unsafe
    manner.
2. Did he have much choice in the matter?
3. Did he benefit from the situation and/or disadvantage another driver?
1. Yes.
2. No - not really.
Palmer in his comprehensive analysis suggested maybe not quite so
"not really", especially towards the end of the event
How many F1 drivers did the FIA have to ask before they found one
who'd agree? Will they be putting videos from any of the huge
majority of F1 drivers who disagree?
Dumb question.
A rhetorical question.

:-)
Post by Bigbird
Get a clue.
Willsy
2019-06-20 08:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.

I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.

Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
News
2019-06-20 13:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?

He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 16:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
No.

Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
News
2019-06-20 17:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
No.
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 17:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
No.
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
Correct.
Bigbird
2019-06-20 18:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that does not
define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver runs over a
chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise have lost that is
seen as gaining an advantage.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 18:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that does not
define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver runs over a
chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise have lost that is
seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?

Hamilton was behind by a larger margin when Vettel entered turn 3 than
he was after they both exited turn 4.
geoff
2019-06-20 19:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that does not
define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver runs over a
chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise have lost that is
seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?
Only in that it wasn't a chicane.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 20:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that does not
define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver runs over a
chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise have lost that is
seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?
Only in that it wasn't a chicane.
Vettel didn't gain on the exchange: he lost advantage.
Bigbird
2019-06-20 20:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and
re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that
does not define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver
runs over a chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise
have lost that is seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?
Only in that it wasn't a chicane.
Ignore the wanker, he has no concept of a discussion.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 20:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and
re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that
does not define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver
runs over a chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise
have lost that is seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?
Only in that it wasn't a chicane.
Ignore the wanker, he has no concept of a discussion.
I understand discussion very well.

Driving over a chicane to protect a place you would have lost is a CHOICE.

Vettel didn't CHOOSE to drive over the grass.

Protect a place means keeping an advantage.

If Vettel had negotiated the corner successfully, he'd have maintained
his time advantage over Hamilton, but because of his off-track
excursion, Hamilton ended up closer.

Vettel LOST advantage.
geoff
2019-06-20 20:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Driving over a chicane to protect a place you would have lost is a CHOICE.
Not necessarily the case at all !
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel didn't CHOOSE to drive over the grass.
His poor decision made cutting the corner inevitable
Post by Alan Baker
Protect a place means keeping an advantage.
Yes, exactly.
Post by Alan Baker
If Vettel had negotiated the corner successfully, he'd have maintained
his time advantage over Hamilton, but because of his off-track
excursion, Hamilton ended up closer.
He would not and could not have negotiated the corner successfully after
being pressured into his error. And that he didn't negotiate the corner
demonstrated that he was unlikely to have maintained his diminishing
advantage.
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel LOST advantage.
That's why he crossed the finish line ahead. Some loss ....

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-20 22:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Driving over a chicane to protect a place you would have lost is a CHOICE.
Not necessarily the case at all !
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel didn't CHOOSE to drive over the grass.
His poor decision made cutting the corner inevitable
Post by Alan Baker
Protect a place means keeping an advantage.
Yes, exactly.
Post by Alan Baker
If Vettel had negotiated the corner successfully, he'd have maintained
his time advantage over Hamilton, but because of his off-track
excursion, Hamilton ended up closer.
He would not and could not have negotiated the corner successfully after
being pressured into his error. And that he didn't negotiate the corner
demonstrated that he was unlikely to have maintained his diminishing
advantage.
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel LOST advantage.
That's why he crossed the finish line ahead. Some loss ....
geoff
Ya dont scratch the paint. Get over it
Alan Baker
2019-06-21 17:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Driving over a chicane to protect a place you would have lost is a CHOICE.
Not necessarily the case at all !
If one does something to achieve a particular goal, one has clearly done
so by choice.
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel didn't CHOOSE to drive over the grass.
His poor decision made cutting the corner inevitable
Sorry, but you don't know that. As numerous people, far more
knowledgeable than either of us have pointed out, he could simply have
caught a bit of bad air from the cars immediately ahead.
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Protect a place means keeping an advantage.
Yes, exactly.
Post by Alan Baker
If Vettel had negotiated the corner successfully, he'd have maintained
his time advantage over Hamilton, but because of his off-track
excursion, Hamilton ended up closer.
He would not and could not have negotiated the corner successfully after
being pressured into his error. And that he didn't negotiate the corner
demonstrated that he was unlikely to have maintained his diminishing
advantage.
You're being deliberately obtuse... ...at least I HOPE you are.
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Vettel LOST advantage.
That's why he crossed the finish line ahead. Some loss
So if a driver is—say—5 seconds ahead and has an off track moment that
decreases that interval to half a second...

...that's not losing advantage?

If Hamilton had been out of DRS and Vettel's mistake put him into DRS
range, would that suffice for you?
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-20 23:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Because Hamilton was closer to him after the incident than before.
Meaning he did not extract advantage from the 4-off and re-entry.
No. If you've watched a few of these things you'll notice that
does not define "gaining an advantage". For instance if a driver
runs over a chicane in order to protect a place he may otherwise
have lost that is seen as gaining an advantage.
But that didn't happen here, did it?
Only in that it wasn't a chicane.
Ignore the wanker, he has no concept of a discussion.
Oh fuck. Have some pride. You spineless fuck.
geoff
2019-06-20 19:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
By going off the track, and then crowding the following car
(purposefully or not).

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 20:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
By going off the track, and then crowding the following car
(purposefully or not).
No. Hamilton was CLOSER after the incident.
larkim
2019-06-24 09:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
By going off the track, and then crowding the following car
(purposefully or not).
No. Hamilton was CLOSER after the incident.
But given that he wasn't punished for the "gaining an advantage" offence,
he was penalised for unsafe re-entry, it's a completely moot point.
Alan Baker
2019-06-24 16:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by News
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
"Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage"?
He HAD an advantage, and maintained it.
By going off the track, and then crowding the following car
(purposefully or not).
No. Hamilton was CLOSER after the incident.
But given that he wasn't punished for the "gaining an advantage" offence,
he was penalised for unsafe re-entry, it's a completely moot point.
People have raised it:

'I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.'
larkim
2019-06-24 19:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
People raise lots of things, but they aren't always relevant.

I don't disagree that if he'd issues himself with a self inflicted penalty he might not have been doled out an official one.

But that's not the same thing as him being actually sanctioned for gaining an advantage.
Alan Baker
2019-06-24 20:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
People raise lots of things, but they aren't always relevant.
The stewards had the ability to decide how to present their rejection.

They carefully enumerated their reasons for rejecting each element.

And what they said was obviously nonsense.
Post by larkim
I don't disagree that if he'd issues himself with a self inflicted
penalty he might not have been doled out an official one.
But that's not the same thing as him being actually sanctioned for gaining an advantage.
I never said he was sanctioned for gaining an advantage.

This sort of thing is precisely WHY I leave previous text intact.

People in this group insist that his "gaining an advantage" was an
element of it...

...except he LOST advantage.

People insisted volition wasn't an element of the unsafe re-entry rule...

...except the stewards made it clear that it was by claiming Vettel's
second opening of the wheel was a deliberate act to block Hamilton.

Despite claiming to have enough data to make that determination, none of
us have been allowed to see it?

Experienced F1 drivers have mostly declared that what they see is a
driver struggling for control and managing to regain it just slightly
before hitting the wall.

I realize this hasn't occurred to a whole bunch of folks here, but
having corrected one large handful of oversteer, Vettel would naturally
be cautious about trying to steer too much to the left. Using as much of
the track as possible is the SAFER option when the alternative is a spin
and a crash which would almost certainly have taken out both cars.
CS
2019-06-25 16:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Using as much of the track as possible is the SAFER option when the alternative is a spin
and a crash which would almost certainly have taken out both cars.

LH was halfway alongside SV and braked to avoid a collision, which SV would have preferred as a points neutral option. On most other circuits, LH could have avoided going right and probably still overtaken SV.

Interesting the crowding rule came in after Senna and particularly Schumacher developed crowding off the circuit as a valid manoeuvre.
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 17:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Willsy
Post by Alan Baker
...right?
Only one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
'“When Sebastian came off the grass he had nowhere to go. His car was
carrying a huge amount of speed.
“In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn’t blocking Lewis. I am
damn sure he didn’t even know where Lewis was in the milliseconds that
the incident took place. He had no option but to do what he did.”
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-contest-canada-gp-result-controversial-jackie-stewart-a8953381.html>
But... ...what would he know: he's only been driving and observing
longer than most of you have known F1 existed.
I agree with his interpretation 100%. It's the subsequent penalty/rules
that seem to be contraversial.
I'm going to posit that had Vettel yeilded the place to Hamilton, there
would have been no penalty.
Is it that Vettel was seen to get an advantage (unintentional, granted)
that led to the penalty being issued?
Nope. According to the stewards it was his supposedly volitional action
of turning more towards the right side of the course. (This puts paid to
the contention by some here that the rule regarding unsafe re-entry
covers involuntary re-entry to the track, BTW).

But while Formula1 has now shown us a superficial analysis of Vettel's
"telemetry" (nothing more than gets shown on the actual broadcast
video), they haven't shown us the information about g-forces and yaw
rates that would easily prove if Vettel's actions were intended to block
Hamilton or just to save the car.
Loading...