Discussion:
Vet pen?
Add Reply
larkim
2019-06-09 19:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Something to talk about!
Alister
2019-06-09 19:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
prob now going to be dqd for not following procedure into park ferme &
podium
Alister
2019-06-09 19:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alister
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
prob now going to be dqd for not following procedure into park ferme &
podium
looks like someone has talked sence to him
build
2019-06-09 19:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alister
Post by Alister
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
prob now going to be dqd for not following procedure into park ferme &
podium
looks like someone has talked sence to him
or dollars and cents
larkim
2019-06-09 20:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I get why he did it.

But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.

I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own cock up.
geoff
2019-06-09 21:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own cock up.
VET cocked up, left the track, and gained an advantage (whether
purposefully or not) on rejoining in both retaining the lead, and
preventing HAM from overtaking.

A better penalty would have been to concede the position on-track, and
then have to race to get it back.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-09 21:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new
obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise
your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
VET cocked up, left the track, and gained an advantage (whether
purposefully or not) on rejoining in both retaining the lead, and
preventing HAM from overtaking.
A better penalty would have been to concede the position on-track, and
then have to race to get it back.
That I could at least agree with.

But it isn't an unsafe rejoin. That implies that one has a CHOICE.
~misfit~
2019-06-10 04:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new obligation to rejoin
safely, and if that means you have to compromise your speed or position that is what your
obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more palatable for him when he has to
suffer the consequences of his own cock up.
VET cocked up, left the track, and gained an advantage (whether purposefully or not) on rejoining
in both retaining the lead, and preventing HAM from overtaking.
A better penalty would have been to concede the position on-track, and then have to race to get it
back.
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety' aspect of it.
--
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
2019-06-10 04:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
VET cocked up, left the track, and gained an advantage (whether
purposefully or not) on rejoining in both retaining the lead, and
preventing HAM from overtaking.
A better penalty would have been to concede the position on-track, and
then have to race to get it back.
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety' aspect of it.
Again.

What could Vettel have done differently?

The only time drivers are normally penalized for doing something unsafe
is when the CHOOSE to do it.

Dive into a corner too late when you have no chance of having the space:
penalty.

Go off track and under control of the car re-enter unsafely: penalty.

Because you have a CHOICE.
Bigbird
2019-06-10 09:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step out
and him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I recall.
--
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
2019-06-10 15:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step out
and him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I recall.
Lifting as you re-join an asphalt surface is an instant spin.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 06:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step
out and him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I
recall.
Lifting as you re-join an asphalt surface is an instant spin.
No it's not. I note you ignore the "getting back on the power" bit.

The fact is that those who had access to the telemetry, which excludes
you and most who commented afterwards on the TV, decided that what
Vettel did when rejoining was not inevitable but down to the driver.
--
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
2019-06-11 07:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step
out and him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I
recall.
Lifting as you re-join an asphalt surface is an instant spin.
No it's not.
Which only shows you lack anything resembling a clue about driving at
the limit.
Post by Bigbird
I note you ignore the "getting back on the power" bit.
Except we don't know whether or not that happened or rather WHEN it
happened.

But as it happens, getting on the power is one of the ways to correct
oversteer in certain circumstances.

Lifting off the throttle when the fronts are already on the grippier
surface (asphalt) will shift load to the front tires, giving them even
more grip and the rears even less, and some of the rear grip (you've
heard of the "friction circle" haven't you?) will be used up in
deceleration.

Ergo: instant spin.
Post by Bigbird
The fact is that those who had access to the telemetry, which excludes
you and most who commented afterwards on the TV, decided that what
Vettel did when rejoining was not inevitable but down to the driver.
And if I see that telemetry, I'll buy it, but until then, I have to go
with the evidence of my eyes and combine it with the known inconsistency
of stewards' rulings in F1.
~misfit~
2019-06-11 03:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step out
and him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I recall.
Exactly. When I watched the race I thought the same thing but didn't want to say it here until some
more knowledgeable people had their say. After all there are hobbiest-racing old men here who think
that their hobby (and their own reflexes and skill levels) qualify them to make categoric
judgements on F1 incidents.

Peter Windsor's been to several hundred F1 races now (at least) and generally doesn't talk shit and
he's sure that Seb could have lifted and regained the track safely BUT he would have lost the
place. That's exactly what I thought watching the race (and replays).
Sometimes commentators annoy me. They have a lot of power over public opinion and IMO shouldn't use
that to push their own agendas. Their job is to call the race as it is and under the rules that
exist - not to waffle on and on about what they *wish* would happen, hoping they can foment enough
of a public backlash to achieve their desires.
--
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
2019-06-11 07:43:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Unfortunately that wouldn't have addressed the 'lack of safety'
aspect  of it.
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Lifted/not got back on the power... which caused the back to step out
and  him to go further to the right blocking Hamilton... as I recall.
Exactly. When I watched the race I thought the same thing but didn't
want to say it here until some more knowledgeable people had their say.
After all there are hobbiest-racing old men here who think that their
hobby (and their own reflexes and skill levels) qualify them to make
categoric judgements on F1 incidents.
http://youtu.be/0j3yxNJDV3o
Peter Windsor's been to several hundred F1 races now (at least) and
generally doesn't talk shit and he's sure that Seb could have lifted and
regained the track safely BUT he would have lost the place. That's
exactly what I thought watching the race (and replays).
Sometimes commentators annoy me. They have a lot of power over public
opinion and IMO shouldn't use that to push their own agendas. Their job
is to call the race as it is and under the rules that exist - not to
waffle on and on about what they *wish* would happen, hoping they can
foment enough of a public backlash to achieve their desires.
That now makes only three knowledgeable observers who think the penalty
was justified...

...and a couple of dozen...

...including 4 former F1 champions (Mario Andretti among them)...

...who think that penalty was bullshit.
F
2019-06-10 20:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest speed he
could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a little.
--
F
News
2019-06-10 20:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by F
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest speed he
could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a little.
And spun in front of HAM. Yeah, why not. He'd be blamed for that too.
~misfit~
2019-06-11 03:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest speed he could? He just needed to
have lifted his right foot a little.
And spun in front of HAM. Yeah, why not. He'd be blamed for that too.
Contact Peter Windsor (and many others including Emanuele Pirro)
http://youtu.be/0j3yxNJDV3o
(I see that Emanuele Pirro's Wiki entry is currently locked from being edited by anyone except
veteran Wiki editors. Fucking millennials.)
--
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
2019-06-11 07:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by F
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest speed
he could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a little.
And spun in front of HAM. Yeah, why not. He'd be blamed for that too.
Contact Peter Windsor (and many others including Emanuele Pirro)
http://youtu.be/0j3yxNJDV3o
(I see that Emanuele Pirro's Wiki entry is currently locked from being
edited by anyone except veteran Wiki editors. Fucking millennials.)
You contact Mario Andretti...

...and Nigel Mansell...

...and Jenson Button...

...and Damon Hill...

...and Allan McNish...

...and...

...and...

...and...
Bigbird
2019-06-11 06:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by F
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest
speed he could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a
little.
And spun in front of HAM. Yeah, why not. He'd be blamed for that too.
What caused the back to step out?
--
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
2019-06-11 07:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
Post by F
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest
speed he could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a
little.
And spun in front of HAM. Yeah, why not. He'd be blamed for that too.
What caused the back to step out?
He was trying to turn the car left even while on the grass, and it was
very gradually doing so in balance...

...until the front tires got back onto the asphalt first...

...that gave them more grip and thus more lateral thrust to the left.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 07:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by F
Post by Alan Baker
Again.
What could Vettel have done differently?
Not have been so keen to get back onto the track at the highest speed he
could? He just needed to have lifted his right foot a little.
I guarantee you he DID lift his right foot a little.

Keeping his foot in it on grass would have resulted in massive amounts
of wheelspin.
Edmund
2019-06-10 07:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new
obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise
your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
VET cocked up, left the track, and gained an advantage
No he did not!
I the stewards -fuzzy language- is staying in front after leaving
track, cutting chicanes and so on, called NOT GAINING an advantage.

(whether
Post by geoff
purposefully or not) on rejoining in both retaining the lead, and
preventing HAM from overtaking.
A better penalty would have been to concede the position on-track, and
then have to race to get it back.
Maybe and a much better solution would be IF!! the rule makers should
penalize each and every driver that goes off track with four wheels,
regardless of which driver or from which team and regardless if the
stewards do not understand that drivers always gaining some kind
of advantage when cutting chicanes.

Edmund
Post by geoff
geoff
John
2019-06-09 21:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own cock up.
He didn't have full control of the car until he got back on the track. Doubt Merc even had to open their photo album the get the Chosen One another win.
News
2019-06-10 14:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own cock up.
He didn't have full control of the car until he got back on the track. Doubt Merc even had to open their photo album the get the Chosen One another win.
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by John
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
He didn't have full control of the car until he got back on the
track.  Doubt Merc even had to open their photo album the get the
Chosen One another win.
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
Easy to say, and in theory that might have been possible, but he had
precious little time to decide it was the right move.
News
2019-06-10 16:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by John
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
He didn't have full control of the car until he got back on the
track.  Doubt Merc even had to open their photo album the get the
Chosen One another win.
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
Easy to say, and in theory that might have been possible, but he had
precious little time to decide it was the right move.
VET was out of control, heading across the track toward HAM's right.

HAM had clear track to driver's left. Instead, he took his chances.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 17:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by John
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
He didn't have full control of the car until he got back on the
track.  Doubt Merc even had to open their photo album the get the
Chosen One another win.
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
Easy to say, and in theory that might have been possible, but he had
precious little time to decide it was the right move.
VET was out of control, heading across the track toward HAM's right.
HAM had clear track to driver's left. Instead, he took his chances.
Yes: Hamilton had clear track to driver's left; no doubt about it.

If he'd been given advanced warning that Vettel was going to lose it and
re-enter the track in exactly that manner, he could certainly have made
use of it.

The question is:

At what point does he know enough about where Vettel is going in order
to make his decision, and that's just not clear.

I have been in the situation of being close behind a car that lost
control. It was a Ford Mustang when I was renting a Honda CRX that had
had an engine swap, and although he was faster than me on the straights,
I was faster through the corners.

I'd been trying to find a way past for 7 or 8 laps when he finally lost
the rear end coming out of turn 6 (at Mission Raceway Park). Before he
got the car collected, he was in a tank-slapper, and if someone could
have given me foreknowledge of exactly what part of the narrow track he
wouldn't occupy, I would have been gone in a heartbeat.

But with his car going back and forth on the road in front of me, I
wasn't about to commit to a side when I was renting someone else's race car.

Could Hamilton have picked better? Maybe. But it's not a simple "he
should have gone left".
Bigbird
2019-06-11 06:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
His balls aren't crystal.

That is an extremely desperate attempt to shift blame; biased much?
--
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
2019-06-11 07:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by News
HAM could have gone to the left to avoid the re-entering VET going
right, but didn't.
His balls aren't crystal.
That is an extremely desperate attempt to shift blame; biased much?
I've looked at the video from Hamilton's PoV, and I don't know whether
he had time to figure out which way around Vettel would have been better.



And it shows that Hamilton still had room...

...which while technically beyond the white line, was being used as
within the limits by everyone without penalty.

Karun Chandok agrees it was a bullshit penalty.
geoff
2019-06-11 08:02:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/06/2019 7:50 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
.
Post by Alan Baker
Karun Chandok agrees it was a bullshit penalty.
Well that clearly settles it then.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
.
Post by Alan Baker
Karun Chandok agrees it was a bullshit penalty.
Well that clearly settles it then.
geoff
He's just another in a very long list.

Alan Baker
2019-06-09 21:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.

One question:

How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
geoff
2019-06-10 02:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to take
a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when re-entering.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 02:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to take
a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when re-entering.
You're understanding of the rules is flawed if that's what you think.
geoff
2019-06-10 03:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to
take a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when
re-entering.
You're understanding of the rules is flawed if that's what you think.
So .... a driver can cut across the grass knowing that he can get away
with not being disadvantaged, because of a lack of control after the
litle side-trip ?

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 03:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to
take a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when
re-entering.
You're understanding of the rules is flawed if that's what you think.
So .... a driver can cut across the grass knowing that he can get away
with not being disadvantaged, because of a lack of control after the
litle side-trip ?
Before I address that, let's deal with the strawman in that question:

Do you think that Vettel went across the grass deliberately?
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-10 03:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Before I address that,
Thank you for the update on your schedule.
geoff
2019-06-10 03:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to
take a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when
re-entering.
You're understanding of the rules is flawed if that's what you think.
So .... a driver can cut across the grass knowing that he can get away
with not being disadvantaged, because of a lack of control after the
litle side-trip ?
Do you think that Vettel went across the grass deliberately?
No, but he made an error which caused an excursion off-track that he
should not be given immunity from the rules because of.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 03:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
I get why he did it.
But in the cold light of day, once you're off the track you have a
new obligation to rejoin safely, and if that means you have to
compromise your speed or position that is what your obligation is.
I'm sure vettel knows that, but it doesn't matter it any more
palatable for him when he has to suffer the consequences of his own
cock up.
I'm sorry, but you have no clue at all.
How much traction do you think an F1 car has ON GRASS?
Not much traction on grass at all ! So a driver shouldn't expect to
take a short-cut across grass and be impervious to the rules when
re-entering.
You're understanding of the rules is flawed if that's what you think.
So .... a driver can cut across the grass knowing that he can get
away with not being disadvantaged, because of a lack of control after
the litle side-trip ?
Do you think that Vettel went across the grass deliberately?
No, but he made an error which caused an excursion off-track that he
should not be given immunity from the rules because of.
There is no rule from which he NEEDS immunity.

Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.

If he had deliberately aimed across the grass to extend his lead, that
would be different.

But he didn't.
Bigbird
2019-06-10 09:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.
"You're understanding of [racing] is flawed if that's what
you think."

:)
--
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.
geoff
2019-06-10 10:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.
"You're understanding of [racing] is flawed if that's what
you think."
:)
By cocking up and not losing the place because of it he clearly gained
an advantage !

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:10:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.
"You're understanding of [racing] is flawed if that's what
you think."
:)
And what Mario Andretti thinks,

...and Nigel Mansell...

...Jenson Button...

...Damon Hill...

...and every other F1 driver who has commented.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 06:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.
"You're understanding of [racing] is flawed if that's what
you think."
:)
And what Mario Andretti thinks,
...and Nigel Mansell...
...Jenson Button...
...Damon Hill...
...and every other F1 driver who has commented.
Did they look at the telemetry and see what caused the stewards to
reach their decision before commenting.

Jumping on the bandwagon doesn't make you knowledgeable; it's ignorant.
--
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
2019-06-11 07:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Because his action wasn't deliberate and because you cannot say he
gained and advantage by ending up exactly where he was before the
excursion, there was no advantage gained.
"You're understanding of [racing] is flawed if that's what
you think."
:)
And what Mario Andretti thinks,
...and Nigel Mansell...
...Jenson Button...
...Damon Hill...
...and every other F1 driver who has commented.
Did they look at the telemetry and see what caused the stewards to
reach their decision before commenting.
Jumping on the bandwagon doesn't make you knowledgeable; it's ignorant.
I didn't jump on the bandwagon. I made my decision about the penalty
before I knew what anyone had said about it.
larkim
2019-06-10 08:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.

It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower pace than he did.

I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible - that's what I expect racers to do.

As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the lightest penalty possible.

The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
Brian Lawrence
2019-06-10 09:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.
It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower pace than he did.
I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible - that's what I expect racers to do.
As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the lightest penalty possible.
During radio commentary shortly after the incident Palmer pointed out
that at Suzuka last year Verstappen went off the track and rejoined in a
similar manner, pushing Raikkonen off track as he rejoined. VER got a 5s
penalty, which he served during his pitstop - similar offence, same penalty.
Post by larkim
The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.
It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that
counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower
pace than he did.
I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep
his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible -
that's what I expect racers to do.
As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the
lightest penalty possible.
During radio commentary shortly after the incident Palmer pointed out
that at Suzuka last year Verstappen went off the track and rejoined in a
similar manner, pushing Raikkonen off track as he rejoined. VER got a 5s
penalty, which he served during his pitstop - similar offence, same penalty.
And he couldn't control his re-entry either.
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 06:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Brian Lawrence
During radio commentary shortly after the incident Palmer pointed
out that at Suzuka last year Verstappen went off the track and
rejoined in a similar manner, pushing Raikkonen off track as he
rejoined. VER got a 5s penalty, which he served during his pitstop
- similar offence, same penalty.
And he couldn't control his re-entry either.
Rubbish. MV was able to steer the car before coming back on. Had he
then not come back on in an unsafe manner he would have lost the place.
Unlike on Sunday you can call that one just from the video.
--
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
2019-06-11 08:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Brian Lawrence
During radio commentary shortly after the incident Palmer pointed
out that at Suzuka last year Verstappen went off the track and
rejoined in a similar manner, pushing Raikkonen off track as he
rejoined. VER got a 5s penalty, which he served during his pitstop
- similar offence, same penalty.
And he couldn't control his re-entry either.
Rubbish. MV was able to steer the car before coming back on. Had he
then not come back on in an unsafe manner he would have lost the place.
Unlike on Sunday you can call that one just from the video.
If you think you can, you understand even less about actually driving a
car at the limit than I thought you did.

The coefficient of friction on grass means he's not going to be able to
change his momentum much at all until he is back on the asphalt.

Turn 3 entrance was taken at about 145kph in 2017, so that's probably
pushing close to 160kph this year: 100 mph.

Even getting of the throttle completely isn't going to take much speed
of the car while it's on the grass, and because the car did start to
steer somewhat to the right before he lost it, the momentum he had to
change was even more towards the right wall.

Was he able to slow the car while on the grass? Yes. A little.

Was he able to steer the car while on the grass? Yes. A little.

Was he able to slow it or steer it enough not to need to use most of the
track? Nope. No way.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.
It is completely relevant.
Post by larkim
It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that
counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower
pace than he did.
Nope.
Post by larkim
I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep
his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible
- that's what I expect racers to do.
Telemetry showed he didn't "keep his foot in".
Post by larkim
As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the lightest penalty possible.
The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
I'll actually get to talk to one of the stewards this weekend.
~misfit~
2019-06-11 03:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.
It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower pace than he did.
I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible - that's what I expect racers to do.
As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the lightest penalty possible.
The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
+1
--
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.
CS
2019-06-11 06:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Let's face it. Vettel cracked under pressure with LH behind him and this is at least the 3rd time with LH and previously with JB here. Another red mist moment and his only thought is to remain in front. He doesn't particularly care if he takes out LH, then the points difference can't get worse. I'd wager that his pre race mindset is that both of them crashing out in a tussle is a points neutral outcome and his next option if he can't win.
He had enough space back on the tarmac to lift off and regain control safely.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:08:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I don't care what traction he had on grass - that's not particularly relevant.
It is completely relevant.
Post by larkim
It was the traction he had when he was back on the circuit that
counts, and he had the chance to control his re-joining at a slower
pace than he did.
How? You just basically admitted that he couldn't start changing his
pace until he was ON THE ASPHALT.
Post by larkim
I actually don't really criticise him for his racing instinct to keep
his foot in and try to regain the racing line as quickly as possible
- that's what I expect racers to do.
He didn't keep his foot in.

On grass, that just creates wheelspin. When you exceed the maximum
traction you get LESS traction. So keeping his foot in it would have
been stupid.
Post by larkim
As Palmer pointed out on the BBC podcast, a 5sec penalty is the lightest penalty possible.
The stewards reckon it was unsafe, I'm not going to disagree.
Brian Lawrence
2019-06-09 21:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left
the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner
and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid
a collision."
~misfit~
2019-06-10 04:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined
the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive
action to avoid a collision."
The relevant words that Baker et al seem to be ignoring:

"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
--
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
2019-06-10 04:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left
the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner
and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to
avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.

To have been said to have "rejoined the track in an unsafe manner"
implies that one had some other choice as to how you could rejoin it.

Tell me, all you armchair experts:

What could Vettel have done differently?
Bigbird
2019-06-10 09:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You say that as if you were anything but...
--
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
2019-06-10 15:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
You say that as if you were anything but...
Well, I haven't been on the grass at 100mph...

...but I've been there at 65.

What's your greatest racing experience, "Bigbird": indoor go-karts?

:-)
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
You say that as if you were anything but...
Well, I haven't been on the grass at 100mph...
...but I've been there at 65.
...and what did you do? Floor it? I think not. I expect top most on
your mind was preserving yourself and your vehicle. Your full
concentration was on getting some control. Vettel's was on winning the
race.

It may surprise you but club driving and F1 are quite different.
Post by Alan Baker
What's your greatest racing experience, "Bigbird": indoor go-karts?
That you think such things give you indisputable relevant experience
says a lot.

You quite simply cannot put yourself in Vettel's position. In fact
simulator competitors have more relevant experience than you as their
mindset is more similar.
--
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
2019-06-11 08:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
You say that as if you were anything but...
Well, I haven't been on the grass at 100mph...
...but I've been there at 65.
...and what did you do? Floor it? I think not. I expect top most on
Nope. What does that have to do with anything. Vettel didn't floor it
while he was on the grass either.
Post by Bigbird
your mind was preserving yourself and your vehicle. Your full
concentration was on getting some control. Vettel's was on winning the
race.
Vettel's full concentration was on getting control as well.

It certainly wasn't on flooring it on a surface where that would only
result in LESS drive forward.
Post by Bigbird
It may surprise you but club driving and F1 are quite different.
It may surprise you that it's far better than no experience at all.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
What's your greatest racing experience, "Bigbird": indoor go-karts?
That you think such things give you indisputable relevant experience
says a lot.
Answer the question?

Have you even done so much as a lapping day?
Post by Bigbird
You quite simply cannot put yourself in Vettel's position. In fact
simulator competitors have more relevant experience than you as their
mindset is more similar.
I have BEEN IN VETTEL'S POSITION: on the grass and struggling to
maintain control.

I was going two-thirds the speed and had more grass to work with, but I
have been there.
RzR
2019-06-10 10:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left
the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner
and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to
avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
To have been said to have "rejoined the track in an unsafe manner"
implies that one had some other choice as to how you could rejoin it.
What could Vettel have done differently?
could have not turned into hamiltons path...he knew exactly what he was
doing, and the penalty was well deserved...
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:12:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5,
left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe
manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive
action to avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
To have been said to have "rejoined the track in an unsafe manner"
implies that one had some other choice as to how you could rejoin it.
What could Vettel have done differently?
could have not turned into hamiltons path...he knew exactly what he was
doing, and the penalty was well deserved...
He didn't turn into Hamilton's path. The only move of the steering wheel
to the right was to correct left oversteer and he immediately went back
to steering left after he'd corrected it.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
He didn't turn into Hamilton's path. The only move of the steering
wheel to the right was to correct left oversteer and he immediately
went back to steering left after he'd corrected it.
I've looked at it from every angle and I still can't see his feet so
the reason for the oversteer is not clear. He wasn't controlling his
car with just his steering wheel.

YMMV after all you have much more racing experience.

:)))
--
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
2019-06-11 08:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
He didn't turn into Hamilton's path. The only move of the steering
wheel to the right was to correct left oversteer and he immediately
went back to steering left after he'd corrected it.
I've looked at it from every angle and I still can't see his feet so
the reason for the oversteer is not clear. He wasn't controlling his
car with just his steering wheel.
The reason for the oversteer was absolutely crystal clear to anyone with
racing experience.
Post by Bigbird
YMMV after all you have much more racing experience.
:)))
geoff
2019-06-10 10:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left
the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner
and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to
avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5,
left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe
manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive
action to avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No.
Yes. Sorry.
geoff
2019-06-11 00:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5,
left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe
manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive
action to avoid a collision."
"unsafe" "Forced car 44 off track" "had to take evasive action to avoid a collision".
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No.
Yes. Sorry.
No, and not sorry.

You could easily make a mistake that forces somebody else off the road.
You don't choose to make the mistake.

geoff
Bigbird
2019-06-10 11:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says *nothing* about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the environment
can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have free will?
--
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.
larkim
2019-06-10 11:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says *nothing* about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the environment
can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have free will?
--
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.
Agree.

I crash my car, end up out of control, and that FORCES another driver to
take avoiding action.

The key is the intent behind "rejoined the track in an unsafe manner" if
you accept that drivers will not be punished for something they had no
ability to change.

So if Vettel's wing had fallen off, and he was out of control and that
forced Hamilton off the track, I don't think there would be scope for a
driver penalty, for example. Of course, the difference in that situation
is that Vettel's car would, thereafter, not have been driveable.

The moment Vettel's back end slid out he *could* have applied the brakes
and / or lifted off and when he regained (some) traction on the circuit he
could have braked / lifted more than it seems he did (that perspective is
open to being disproved of course if he was on zero throttle and full
brakes at the time etc).

Matt
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says *nothing* about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the environment
can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have free will?
--
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.
Agree.
I crash my car, end up out of control, and that FORCES another driver to
take avoiding action.
The key is the intent behind "rejoined the track in an unsafe manner" if
you accept that drivers will not be punished for something they had no
ability to change.
So if Vettel's wing had fallen off, and he was out of control and that
forced Hamilton off the track, I don't think there would be scope for a
driver penalty, for example. Of course, the difference in that situation
is that Vettel's car would, thereafter, not have been driveable.
The moment Vettel's back end slid out he *could* have applied the brakes
and / or lifted off and when he regained (some) traction on the circuit he
could have braked / lifted more than it seems he did (that perspective is
open to being disproved of course if he was on zero throttle and full
brakes at the time etc).
Matt
Matt, I hate to say it so harshly, but you have clearly never been
driving a car at or even near the limit if you think that braking or
lifting off is automatically the right response to oversteer.
larkim
2019-06-10 17:30:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You're right, it's not a situation I've ever been in other than via simulation.

But regaining car control through decreasing speed is not beyond an F1 driver's capabilities?
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 17:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
You're right, it's not a situation I've ever been in other than via simulation.
But regaining car control through decreasing speed is not beyond an F1 driver's capabilities?
1. He can't reduce speed much at all while on the grass.

2. Therefore he re-enters the track with momentum that is carrying him
across the track.

3. That momentum just can't be made to suddenly disappear. Vettel's
initial attempt to do so that led to oversteer shows that.
CS
2019-06-10 17:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Remember the LH KR incident at Spa a few years back?
LH got an advantage, gave the place back to KR, overtook again and still got penalised costing him the win.
In this case the penalty should have been to cede the place, a lot less than 5 seconds.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 17:58:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Remember the LH KR incident at Spa a few years back?
LH got an advantage, gave the place back to KR, overtook again and still got penalised costing him the win.
In this case the penalty should have been to cede the place, a lot less than 5 seconds.
I'd need to see more of the sequence than I can find online at the
moment to have any opinion on that penalty.

If Hamilton was clear ahead leading into the braking zone for the
chicane, then it's a bad penalty.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by CS
Remember the LH KR incident at Spa a few years back?
LH got an advantage, gave the place back to KR, overtook again and
still got penalised costing him the win. In this case the penalty
should have been to cede the place, a lot less than 5 seconds.
I'd need to see more of the sequence than I can find online at the
moment to have any opinion on that penalty.
If Hamilton was clear ahead leading into the braking zone for the
chicane, then it's a bad penalty.
It was an excessive penalty but the only one available to the stewards
who went against the race directors advice.

The two incidents are not very relateable.

Hamilton gained a place by going off track. He then gave the place back
but retained an advantage enabling a subsequent pass which is what cost
him the penalty. The most contentious aspect was that Charlie Whiting
gave McLaren the all clear.
--
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.
Sir Tim
2019-06-11 07:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Remember the LH KR incident at Spa a few years back?
LH got an advantage, gave the place back to KR, overtook again and still
got penalised costing him the win.
In this case the penalty should have been to cede the place, a lot less than 5 seconds.
Yes, an egregious decision that caused me to give up watching F1 for almost
a year.

In this case I think Vettel has reason to feel hard-done-by but, with the
precedent of the Verstappen/Raikkonen
Incident at Suzuka last year it is difficult to see what else they could
have done.
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
You're right, it's not a situation I've ever been in other than via simulation.
But regaining car control through decreasing speed is not beyond an
F1 driver's capabilities?
1. He can't reduce speed much at all while on the grass.
2. Therefore he re-enters the track with momentum that is carrying
him across the track.
3. That momentum just can't be made to suddenly disappear. Vettel's
initial attempt to do so that led to oversteer shows that.
So now you are claiming that Vettel was trying to lose momentum when he
regained the track? You can see his feet can you?

I think most would agree that he wanted to do exactly the opposite
which is likely what led to the oversteer.

As neither of us have the necessary data to be certain I think I would
defer to those that do... the stewards.
--
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
2019-06-11 08:10:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
You're right, it's not a situation I've ever been in other than via simulation.
But regaining car control through decreasing speed is not beyond an
F1 driver's capabilities?
1. He can't reduce speed much at all while on the grass.
2. Therefore he re-enters the track with momentum that is carrying
him across the track.
3. That momentum just can't be made to suddenly disappear. Vettel's
initial attempt to do so that led to oversteer shows that.
So now you are claiming that Vettel was trying to lose momentum when he
regained the track? You can see his feet can you?
You think momentum is only about forward and backward.

He was changing his momentum...

...by STEERING.
Post by Bigbird
I think most would agree that he wanted to do exactly the opposite
which is likely what led to the oversteer.
Wrong. Difference in traction between front and rear tires as the fronts
went on asphalt while the rears were still on grass led to the oversteer.
Post by Bigbird
As neither of us have the necessary data to be certain I think I would
defer to those that do... the stewards.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says *nothing* about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the environment
can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have free will?
And in this case it was the environment that forced Vettel.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says nothing about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the
environment can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have
free will?
And in this case it was the environment that forced Vettel.
(Avoidance noted.)

The stewards, who unlike you have access to the evidence, say otherwise.
--
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
2019-06-11 08:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
To have "forced" someone to do something implies CHOICE.
No it doesn't. Take an English lesson. It implies the "someone" had
no/little "CHOICE" [sic]" but it says nothing about the options, if
any, available to the other party. Inanimate objects or the
environment can "force" an action; are you suggesting they have
free will?
And in this case it was the environment that forced Vettel.
(Avoidance noted.)
The stewards, who unlike you have access to the evidence, say otherwise.
The stewards cock it up on a regular basis.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-10 04:54:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You log on and start humping baker's leg.
Haha. Get a life, fool.
Calum
2019-06-09 22:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Can't even be arsed. After 40-odd years of watching it, I think I'm just
about done with F1 now.
Heron
2019-06-10 13:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/

Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Which is nonsense because anyone who knows driving knows he was
correcting for over steer.
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa353841bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
That is so long after all the decisions have been made as to be laughable.
geoff
2019-06-10 22:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Which is nonsense because anyone who knows driving knows he was
correcting for over steer.
Anybody who knows anything about driving or spelling would know that
that would be "over-steer" .

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-11 00:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Anybody who knows anything about driving or spelling would know that
that would be "over-steer" .
thanks Useless
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Which is nonsense because anyone who knows driving knows he was
correcting for over steer.
Anybody who knows anything about driving or spelling would know that
that would be "over-steer" .
geoff
Actually, the problem there was an auto-correct I didn't correct.

I prefer "oversteer", myself.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 07:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Post by Alan Baker
Which is nonsense because anyone who knows driving knows he was
correcting for over steer.
What caused the oversteer?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa35384
1bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
That is so long after all the decisions have been made as to be laughable.
Yet you are still blathering on without an iota of the stewards
evidence other than their conclusion.
--
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
2019-06-11 08:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Post by Alan Baker
Which is nonsense because anyone who knows driving knows he was
correcting for over steer.
What caused the oversteer?
Greater grip from front tires on asphalt and rear tires still on grass.
Post by Heron
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa35384
1bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
That is so long after all the decisions have been made as to be laughable.
Yet you are still blathering on without an iota of the stewards
evidence other than their conclusion.
You're blathering on without either evidence, or experience to see what
the car was actually doing.
Heron
2019-06-10 17:12:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa353841bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
The stewards had no choice.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stewards-hands-were-tied-vettel-penalty/4461812/
Heron
2019-06-10 17:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa353841bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
The stewards had no choice.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stewards-hands-were-tied-vettel-penalty/4461812/
"So that is it", penalty deserved, says both Rosbergs.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/vettel-penalty-canada-deserved-rosberg/4461727/

The stewards have more information available to them then
everyone who has complained about the penalty combined.
geoff
2019-06-11 00:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa353841bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
The stewards had no choice.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stewards-hands-were-tied-vettel-penalty/4461812/
"So that is it", penalty deserved, says both Rosbergs.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/vettel-penalty-canada-deserved-rosberg/4461727/
The stewards have more information available to them then
everyone who has complained about the penalty combined.
What would they know ? AB knows better.

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-11 00:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
AB knows better.
Is that your leg humping, gay ass, pet name for him?
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Something to talk about!
Second steering wheel movement key to Vettel penalty
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461464/
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/2.183/dir/aa3/image/aa353841bd5361dbb368b6080d457c0c.jpg
The stewards had no choice.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stewards-hands-were-tied-vettel-penalty/4461812/
"So that is it", penalty deserved, says both Rosbergs.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/vettel-penalty-canada-deserved-rosberg/4461727/
The stewards have more information available to them then
everyone who has complained about the penalty combined.
What would they know ? AB knows better.
geoff
Me...

...and Mario Andretti...

...and Jenson Button...

...and Nigel Mansell...

...and Damon Hill...

(Do you know what all four of those guys have in common?)

...and Mark Webber...

...and Allan McNish...

...and Karun Chandok...

...and at least a dozen others I could look up.
Calum
2019-06-10 20:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
Because the mirrors on F1 cars are famous for the excellent views they
afford.
Heron
2019-06-10 20:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Calum
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
Because the mirrors on F1 cars are famous for the excellent views they
afford.
The stewards remarked on the very same thing,
but, of course, knuckle-draggers know better.
News
2019-06-10 20:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Calum
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
Because the mirrors on F1 cars are famous for the excellent views they
afford.
The stewards remarked on the very same thing,
but, of course, knuckle-draggers know better.
Says a mouth-breather.
News
2019-06-10 20:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Calum
Post by Heron
Vettel said he didn't know Hamilton was there,
this picture showing him looking in the mirror,
gives lie to that laughable claim.
Speaking of laughable claims. What did he see?
Post by Calum
Because the mirrors on F1 cars are famous for the excellent views they
afford.
And/or his head was moving as he recovered.
Loading...