planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Whose fault is it anyway?
Vettel 61%  61%  [ 89 ]
Verstappen 10%  10%  [ 15 ]
Raikkonen 4%  4%  [ 6 ]
Racing Incident 25%  25%  [ 37 ]
Total votes : 147
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Migen wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
genuine question. is there anyone who believes vettel wasnt at fault that isnt a fan in some shape or another. or is it purely his fans with no neutral backing at all?

I`m pretty sure Alonso himself SHOULD be one of them (whilst Hamilton appears to have already justified Vettel's move)
This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that Alonso did exactly the same move against Vettel in the same track in 2010... squeezing Vettel towards the wall even though he had not cleared Vettel entirely, which forced Vettel to lift in order to avoid contact with Alonso and/or the wall.
Singapore 2010 start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVyfTUCbNU


:?:

But no one was on Vettel's left, therefore there was no crash in 2010.

which just confirms that the accident only happened because of the unexpected presence of Kimi, who Vettel couldn't possibly see in his mirrors. So, racing incident, then


Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)
No, caused by Verstappen setting up a trap and failing to realise he was the one caught in it. Vettel was one arm of the pincer, Räikkönen the other. But it was Verstappen who created the pincer.

Vettel needing to win the race was the general idea before the race. Which is what Verstappen wanted to exploit. But he wasn't the innocent victim.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2931
Wait, haven't we sorted this one out yet? Let me dig up the Rosberg and Hamilton Spa 2014 accident, I still have some thoughts I need to add to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12005
Fiki wrote:
Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)
No, caused by Verstappen setting up a trap and failing to realise he was the one caught in it. Vettel was one arm of the pincer, Räikkönen the other. But it was Verstappen who created the pincer.

Vettel needing to win the race was the general idea before the race. Which is what Verstappen wanted to exploit. But he wasn't the innocent victim.[/quote]

Well I wish you the best of luck trying to convince anyone of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1637
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:

Alonso was racing a title competitor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5196
GingerFurball wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:

Alonso was racing a title competitor.


So potentially crashing into your direct competitor is ok, but not with the guy who sits 6th in the points table?

We are talking about the move itself, not who is it against.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12005
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6728
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)
No, caused by Verstappen setting up a trap and failing to realise he was the one caught in it. Vettel was one arm of the pincer, Räikkönen the other. But it was Verstappen who created the pincer.

Vettel needing to win the race was the general idea before the race. Which is what Verstappen wanted to exploit. But he wasn't the innocent victim.


Well I wish you the best of luck trying to convince anyone of that.
Thank you very much Mikey! But that is quite unnecessary. Such things happen once in a while. I believe Max is already improving, and things move so quickly there is little chance of reacting in time, if your situational awareness is less than optimum anyway.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12005
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it


Had Hamilton's resulted in a crash I am sure he would have got criticised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9544
Location: Ireland
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it

Normal racing move in abnormal conditions. And against someone well known for his aggressive racing, who was very loudly declaring that he was going all out for the win. That's what I found so risky about it. Vettel had caused so much chaos at the start of the race that my immediate thought was that Charlie had made a mistake - turns out they couldn't race in those conditions. I was expecting a red flag. Thankfully they waited to understand the situation better and let the race continue

I've stated somewhere else that I found Hamilton's move off the line in Monza just plain bizarre. Why did he feel the need to chop a guy that wasn't in the same race? Was it a warning to an unknown rookie factor to not try anything silly into Turn 1? If it went wrong he would have looked like the biggest tw4t

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Migen wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
genuine question. is there anyone who believes vettel wasnt at fault that isnt a fan in some shape or another. or is it purely his fans with no neutral backing at all?

I`m pretty sure Alonso himself SHOULD be one of them (whilst Hamilton appears to have already justified Vettel's move)
This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that Alonso did exactly the same move against Vettel in the same track in 2010... squeezing Vettel towards the wall even though he had not cleared Vettel entirely, which forced Vettel to lift in order to avoid contact with Alonso and/or the wall.
Singapore 2010 start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVyfTUCbNU


:?:

But no one was on Vettel's left, therefore there was no crash in 2010.

which just confirms that the accident only happened because of the unexpected presence of Kimi, who Vettel couldn't possibly see in his mirrors. So, racing incident, then


Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)


Agreed. Why Vettel wanted to drive towards a driver who is known to be volatile and un-yielding is very strange.

I also think the assumption of Vettel not seeing Kimi in his mirrors is a questionable one. Did he think that Kimi vanished into thin air?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23034
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it

I don't recall Stroll having to turn his car away from Hamilton's car, so not the same.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12005
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it

I don't recall Stroll having to turn his car away from Hamilton's car, so not the same.


Pretty sure he did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
davidheath461 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Migen wrote:
I`m pretty sure Alonso himself SHOULD be one of them (whilst Hamilton appears to have already justified Vettel's move)
This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that Alonso did exactly the same move against Vettel in the same track in 2010... squeezing Vettel towards the wall even though he had not cleared Vettel entirely, which forced Vettel to lift in order to avoid contact with Alonso and/or the wall.
Singapore 2010 start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVyfTUCbNU


:?:

But no one was on Vettel's left, therefore there was no crash in 2010.

which just confirms that the accident only happened because of the unexpected presence of Kimi, who Vettel couldn't possibly see in his mirrors. So, racing incident, then


Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)


Agreed. Why Vettel wanted to drive towards a driver who is known to be volatile and un-yielding is very strange.

I also think the assumption of Vettel not seeing Kimi in his mirrors is a questionable one. Did he think that Kimi vanished into thin air?

Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23034
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


He took the risk and it paid off. The outcome is the only difference but that's not unusual. :o

That's the point, though. Competitors do this kind of thing all the time. It's no more risky than any other manoeuvre they carry out on a regular basis. Every time they block another's overtaking move, or indeed attempt an overtake, they are taking a risk, but it's usually not seen as foolhardy and arguably they wouldn't even be winners if they didn't at least attempt moves that others wouldn't. In this case, it was generally viewed that the coming two races were Ferrari's best chance for a win and this one in particular was a great opportunity to put space between him and Lewis, so from Vettel's point of view aggressively defending his line at the start was normal practice. And Lewis did it at the very race before, so I can't help but detect a whiff of hypocrisy from those condemning Vettel's move but staying strangely silent on Hamilton's virtually identical one only one week previously.

Normal racing move; abnormal outcome. That's pretty much it

I don't recall Stroll having to turn his car away from Hamilton's car, so not the same.


Pretty sure he did.

You're right

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
Zoue wrote:
Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


He didn't say that.

Nice try though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 246
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Wait, haven't we sorted this one out yet? Let me dig up the Rosberg and Hamilton Spa 2014 accident, I still have some thoughts I need to add to it.

:lol: :lol: :blush: :lol: :lol:

You gotta know when to fold 'em (Kenny Rogers reference). Based on the most recent Ferrari performances this thread will survive the winter without skipping a beat.

In the immortal words of Luba.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK3L6cc ... be&t=3m40s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 246
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Caused by Vettel taking a risk he didn't need to take. 8)
No, caused by Verstappen setting up a trap and failing to realise he was the one caught in it. Vettel was one arm of the pincer, Räikkönen the other. But it was Verstappen who created the pincer.

Vettel needing to win the race was the general idea before the race. Which is what Verstappen wanted to exploit. But he wasn't the innocent victim.


Well I wish you the best of luck trying to convince anyone of that.
Thank you very much Mikey! But that is quite unnecessary. Such things happen once in a while. I believe Max is already improving, and things move so quickly there is little chance of reacting in time, if your situational awareness is less than optimum anyway.


Sorry man, I'm with Mikey and have to call Hog Wash on your Max the Skeemer theory! Vettel has piddled away his chances for the WDC starting with the red mist malady he contracted in Baku. Seems he's not gotten over it and continues to do things he doesn't need to do. It's cost him the WDC, it's cost the team a good chance at the WCC and Seb knows it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2438
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


He didn't say that.

Nice try though.
He is quoted as saying that; there is a link to it earlier in the thread.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 934
LBET wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Wait, haven't we sorted this one out yet? Let me dig up the Rosberg and Hamilton Spa 2014 accident, I still have some thoughts I need to add to it.

:lol: :lol: :blush: :lol: :lol:

You gotta know when to fold 'em (Kenny Rogers reference). Based on the most recent Ferrari performances this thread will survive the winter without skipping a beat.

In the immortal words of Luba.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK3L6cc ... be&t=3m40s


I was thinking let's go back to the times Senna/Prost collided.

I don't get it. We know who started the chain of events, we know that none of them did anything against the rules, we know what the result was and we know that nothing will change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8816
Teddy007 wrote:
You know a discussion is dead when people start comparing to previous accidents going back 20 years. You know when people can't accept facts when people resort to accidents that are similar but still very different. I can't believe I'm seeing names like Webber.. Rubens?? And Senna?!!!

Please some one mention Jackie Stewart.... please just to top it off.

We all wanted more racing and less stewards getting involved.. what happened between the trio was an accident. No one purposely tried to take out or collide with another driver. No one was almost killed and the one who started the domino impact lost out a massive amount of points to the championship. They all wanted the win, they all wanted to push for it and they all suffered because none were willing to completely back out of it. 3 cars wanted to be at that corner first or wanted the job done on lap 1.

This. Some people are content only when the entire forum (if not the entire world) agrees that certain drivers should be publicly flogged or worse.

And vice versa (whatever that means in practice).

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 368
Teddy007 wrote:
You know a discussion is dead when people start comparing to previous accidents going back 20 years. You know when people can't accept facts when people resort to accidents that are similar but still very different. I can't believe I'm seeing names like Webber.. Rubens?? And Senna?!!!

Please some one mention Jackie Stewart.... please just to top it off.

We all wanted more racing and less stewards getting involved.. what happened between the trio was an accident. No one purposely tried to take out or collide with another driver. No one was almost killed and the one who started the domino impact lost out a massive amount of points to the championship. They all wanted the win, they all wanted to push for it and they all suffered because none were willing to completely back out of it. 3 cars wanted to be at that corner first or wanted the job done on lap 1.



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
"Almost brings a tear to me one good eye"

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
tootsie323 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


He didn't say that.

Nice try though.
He is quoted as saying that; there is a link to it earlier in the thread.


No - he didn't say that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
davidheath461 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


He didn't say that.

Nice try though.
He is quoted as saying that; there is a link to it earlier in the thread.


No - he didn't say that.

yes, he did


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Even Hamilton came out post race and said that it's unlikely Vettel would have seen Kimi. I think you're reaching here just in order to have a bad guy in this


He didn't say that.

Nice try though.
He is quoted as saying that; there is a link to it earlier in the thread.


No - he didn't say that.

yes, he did


Please provide the source & the quote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:

He didn't say that.

Nice try though.
He is quoted as saying that; there is a link to it earlier in the thread.


No - he didn't say that.

yes, he did


Please provide the source & the quote.

I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).

I think you're having a laugh. You can't see the person in 2nd place but the guy in 4th place is perfectly visible? No bias there, I see. Good grief :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).

I think you're having a laugh. You can't see the person in 2nd place but the guy in 4th place is perfectly visible? No bias there, I see. Good grief :uhoh:


Do you understand how a mirror works? or what blind spot means? :lol:

The guy in 2nd place is in the blind spot. The guy in 4th place is further back and therefore not in the blind spot and therefore would be visible in the mirror.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20589
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).

I think you're having a laugh. You can't see the person in 2nd place but the guy in 4th place is perfectly visible? No bias there, I see. Good grief :uhoh:


Do you understand how a mirror works? or what blind spot means? :lol:

The guy in 2nd place is in the blind spot. The guy in 4th place is further back and therefore not in the blind spot and therefore would be visible in the mirror.

I understand how a blind spot works, thanks. I also understand that the field of view in the mirrors these cars have is extremely limited, which you apparently don't. It's also pretty clear from Hamilton's description that he's referencing poor rear visibility overall, or it's likely he would have added something to the effect that other cars are visible in reference to that accident. You're just desperate to paint Vettel as the bad guy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2438
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I provided it earlier in this thread, as tootsie323 already pointed out. It's not that hard to use the search function. But just to please you:

Quote:
"Often – when you look at my last start at Monza – when you pull away, you can't actually see the guy who's in second place," said Hamilton, who described the crash as "an unfortunate racing incident".

"They're generally in your blind spot if they get as good a start as you, and it's difficult to know where they are.

"So your immediate thought is to cover your ground, get to the inside and cover and turn them down, so I assume that's what he [Vettel] did.

"When you do that, all of a sudden they appear in your mirror so you can understand where they are, or [if they are] in your peripheral view, but sometimes you do it and you realise you're ahead so you actually didn't need to.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... sh-954889/


Hamilton is talking about the 2nd place driver (in Singapore this was MV).

No reference to Kimi (or the guy who's in fourth place).

I think you're having a laugh. You can't see the person in 2nd place but the guy in 4th place is perfectly visible? No bias there, I see. Good grief :uhoh:


Do you understand how a mirror works? or what blind spot means? :lol:

The guy in 2nd place is in the blind spot. The guy in 4th place is further back and therefore not in the blind spot and therefore would be visible in the mirror.
Firstly, the mirrors on an F1 car are said to have a very limited field of vision - plus, the driver cannot turn his head around, as one may do in a road car, so it's a reasonable assumption that the blind spot is a relatively large area. Secondly, Kimi was pretty much right alongside Max as Seb made his defensive move, so that blind spot was more likely to have covered both drivers.
Lewis may not have specifically said that Seb couldn't see Kimi but, by using his statement as a generalisation - and not splitting hairs over it - it's fair to suggest that he implied that Seb would not have seen the other two drivers until the last spilt second.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12005
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 660
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D

I'm still of the opinion that even if Max had hit the brakes early, and had no contact, Seb and Kimi would still have hit each other.

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5753
Location: Nebraska, USA
davidheath461 wrote:

Do you understand how a mirror works? or what blind spot means? :lol:

The guy in 2nd place is in the blind spot. The guy in 4th place is further back and therefore not in the blind spot and therefore would be visible in the mirror.


You should be embarrassed to "LOL" at someone while displaying a total lack of understanding about the mirrors on an F1 car, their size, what is visible, not to mention the situation being discussed.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9544
Location: Ireland
Bloody hell - I take a week off, arrange a life-changing trip around the world, survive a hurricane in Ireland and this thread is still at the top

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5753
Location: Nebraska, USA
Yellowbin74 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D


Good question.... I suspect that it is still going because the "lets hang Vettel" faction has not yet convinced the rest of the forum that it was not a "racing incident", but instead an example of Vettel's incompetence.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23034
Blake wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D


Good question.... I suspect that it is still going because the "lets hang Vettel" faction has not yet convinced the rest of the forum that it was not a "racing incident", but instead an example of Vettel's incompetence.
;)

To be fair I believe it got rehashed because of what Vettel has recently said about the incident.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 254
Blake wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D


Good question.... I suspect that it is still going because the "lets hang Vettel" faction has not yet convinced the rest of the forum that it was not a "racing incident", but instead an example of Vettel's incompetence.
;)


no its more that the "vettel can do no wrong" faction wont admit that he is an erratic clown that severly dented his chance of a title with an unnecessary, overly aggressive manouver that took out 2 other cars including his own team mate. and that you can get away with it, but if you cause a crash ITS YOUR FAULT. god help us if it was kimi or max that had made that move. they are also clinging on to the last worn thread that he is anywhere near being the best driver in f1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5196
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Blake wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel had no chance of seeing Kimi. He'd have been hard to spot in those tiny mirrors in the dry let alone through spray in mirrors that are also covered in rain.


How is this thread still going?? :D


Good question.... I suspect that it is still going because the "lets hang Vettel" faction has not yet convinced the rest of the forum that it was not a "racing incident", but instead an example of Vettel's incompetence.
;)


no its more that the "vettel can do no wrong" faction wont admit that he is an erratic clown that severly dented his chance of a title with an unnecessary, overly aggressive manouver that took out 2 other cars including his own team mate. and that you can get away with it, but if you cause a crash ITS YOUR FAULT. god help us if it was kimi or max that had made that move. they are also clinging on to the last worn thread that he is anywhere near being the best driver in f1.


You see, with arguments like these, it's hard to take your post seriously. You are already biased against the driver.

And no, no more erratic and aggressive manoeuvre than anyone else on the grid from pole. A move that's been done from many drivers from pole to cover the second placed car. So stop talking nonsense and please start being objective. It's for your own good, and probably for every one who's reading this thread.

By the way, when there is an accident, it's not necessary one driver's fault. It depends on circumstances, hence the term "racing incident".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1681
Zoue wrote:
I understand how a blind spot works, thanks. I also understand that the field of view in the mirrors these cars have is extremely limited, which you apparently don't. It's also pretty clear from Hamilton's description that he's referencing poor rear visibility overall, or it's likely he would have added something to the effect that other cars are visible in reference to that accident. You're just desperate to paint Vettel as the bad guy


All cars now have double faceted mirrors which further widen the rear view coming from the mirrors. We're not in the 1990s anymore.

Let's also be clear - you claimed that Hamilton said that Vettel couldn't see Kimi. You've been proven wrong on that.

Hamilton is not referencing poor rear visibility at all - he's only referencing the blind spot which makes it difficult to see P2.

The mirrors are used extensively when drivers are defending from other cars - they are certainly not useless as you seem to be implying.

Let me ask you this - if you think that Vettel couldn't see the P4 driver (Kimi) in his rear view mirrors, then what exactly do you think Vettel did see in his mirrors?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, minchy, Steve_muzzy and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group