planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:33 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Whose fault is it anyway?
Vettel 60%  60%  [ 90 ]
Verstappen 11%  11%  [ 16 ]
Raikkonen 4%  4%  [ 6 ]
Racing Incident 25%  25%  [ 37 ]
Total votes : 149
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Nobody is "taking it out on Vettel". We are just having a chat about various possibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2501
pokerman wrote:
His trajectory was going to take him into Kimi's car, whether he could have avoided the collision at the last second is debatable given the speed he moved across the track.
It's equally valid to say that his trajectory would have taken him into the wall, had no one else been on that side of the track. I think that it is equally valid to assume that Vettel was going to straighten up with what would have most likely been a good car's width for Verstappen (not accounting for Kimi).
It was a simple move to cover off a potential challenge from second place; it just did not factor in an additional car - having made a rocket start - being in the mix.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Speculate away. Equally, I don't see why I can't contest it. I don't believe that because one accident happened, which was largely a consequence of circumstance, it makes it more likely than another accident would have been inevitable. I think that's rubbish, personally.


I agree you can rebuke all you like. I'm sorry but I don't understand your second sentence. I think maybe you are looking into it too deeply? All I am saying is that if Max had it the brakes and gotten right out of the way then Vettel's line would have taken him into Kimi very soon. Vettel never looked like he was about to straighten up so I think that probably would have happened.

I guess it depends on whether you feel that Vettel just made a kamikaze run without even looking to see whether he would hit anyone, or whether he was spatially aware enough to stop before actual contact was made. I don't think we have any evidence to say that would have been the case. If Max hadn't been there, Seb would likely have seen Kimi. And without Max, Kimi wouldn't have banged wheels. After that I think both drivers are good enough to avoid each other without any wild cards in the equation.


I'm not talking about Max not being there to hide Kimi, I'm talking about Max backing out just in time.

Vettel would have had to straighten up pretty sharply to avoid Kimi. I'm trying to put any real blame on Vettel here. I just think that's what probably would have happened.

I don't have a problem with you putting blame on him: I just see it very differently to you. I don't see that he would have hit Kimi, because I don't think he was out of control. And Kimi would have seen him, too. These cars are built to make severe changes of direction, so I don't see it as an issue.

Bottom line is I think Vettel's move across Max was pretty normal. I see no difference between that and Hamilton's move the week before (which I also think was perfectly fine) and no-one so much as raised as eyebrow at that. Vettel was never - and I cannot stress this strongly enough - in danger of hitting Max, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that he and Kimi were an accident waiting to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Speculate away. Equally, I don't see why I can't contest it. I don't believe that because one accident happened, which was largely a consequence of circumstance, it makes it more likely than another accident would have been inevitable. I think that's rubbish, personally.


I agree you can rebuke all you like. I'm sorry but I don't understand your second sentence. I think maybe you are looking into it too deeply? All I am saying is that if Max had it the brakes and gotten right out of the way then Vettel's line would have taken him into Kimi very soon. Vettel never looked like he was about to straighten up so I think that probably would have happened.

I guess it depends on whether you feel that Vettel just made a kamikaze run without even looking to see whether he would hit anyone, or whether he was spatially aware enough to stop before actual contact was made. I don't think we have any evidence to say that would have been the case. If Max hadn't been there, Seb would likely have seen Kimi. And without Max, Kimi wouldn't have banged wheels. After that I think both drivers are good enough to avoid each other without any wild cards in the equation.


I'm not talking about Max not being there to hide Kimi, I'm talking about Max backing out just in time.

Vettel would have had to straighten up pretty sharply to avoid Kimi. I'm trying to put any real blame on Vettel here. I just think that's what probably would have happened.

I don't have a problem with you putting blame on him: I just see it very differently to you. I don't see that he would have hit Kimi, because I don't think he was out of control. And Kimi would have seen him, too. These cars are built to make severe changes of direction, so I don't see it as an issue.

Bottom line is I think Vettel's move across Max was pretty normal. I see no difference between that and Hamilton's move the week before (which I also think was perfectly fine) and no-one so much as raised as eyebrow at that. Vettel was never - and I cannot stress this strongly enough - in danger of hitting Max, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that he and Kimi were an accident waiting to happen.


Who said anything about Vettel being out of control? He was in control. I'm not blaming him. In this scenario Kimi wouldn't have been any more likely to see Vettel. I'm talking talking of Max never exiting here. Unless Vettel turned away in the next 1.5 seconds he was going to hit Kimi. He may have done but I don't think he was showing any sign of doing so. I think he would have seen Kimi too late.

And how on this planet was Vettel never in danger of hitting Verstappen. Had Verstappen not reacted to Vettel, pulled left and hit Kimi first he would have done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

I agree you can rebuke all you like. I'm sorry but I don't understand your second sentence. I think maybe you are looking into it too deeply? All I am saying is that if Max had it the brakes and gotten right out of the way then Vettel's line would have taken him into Kimi very soon. Vettel never looked like he was about to straighten up so I think that probably would have happened.

I guess it depends on whether you feel that Vettel just made a kamikaze run without even looking to see whether he would hit anyone, or whether he was spatially aware enough to stop before actual contact was made. I don't think we have any evidence to say that would have been the case. If Max hadn't been there, Seb would likely have seen Kimi. And without Max, Kimi wouldn't have banged wheels. After that I think both drivers are good enough to avoid each other without any wild cards in the equation.


I'm not talking about Max not being there to hide Kimi, I'm talking about Max backing out just in time.

Vettel would have had to straighten up pretty sharply to avoid Kimi. I'm trying to put any real blame on Vettel here. I just think that's what probably would have happened.

I don't have a problem with you putting blame on him: I just see it very differently to you. I don't see that he would have hit Kimi, because I don't think he was out of control. And Kimi would have seen him, too. These cars are built to make severe changes of direction, so I don't see it as an issue.

Bottom line is I think Vettel's move across Max was pretty normal. I see no difference between that and Hamilton's move the week before (which I also think was perfectly fine) and no-one so much as raised as eyebrow at that. Vettel was never - and I cannot stress this strongly enough - in danger of hitting Max, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that he and Kimi were an accident waiting to happen.


Who said anything about Vettel being out of control? He was in control. I'm not blaming him. In this scenario Kimi wouldn't have been any more likely to see Vettel. I'm talking talking of Max never exiting here. Unless Vettel turned away in the next 1.5 seconds he was going to hit Kimi. He may have done but I don't think he was showing any sign of doing so. I think he would have seen Kimi too late.

And how on this planet was Vettel never in danger of hitting Verstappen. Had Verstappen not reacted to Vettel, pulled left and hit Kimi first he would have done.

No, he wouldn't. Because he didn't. He didn't hit Max, so why would we now assume he may have done? Of course Max had to react to him, but that's the same for many an overtaking or blocking move: drivers always adapt to the situation that presents itself. After all, it wouldn't be a block if it has no effect on the other driver's behaviour, would it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
No, he wouldn't. Because he didn't. He didn't hit Max, so why would we now assume he may have done? Of course Max had to react to him, but that's the same for many an overtaking or blocking move: drivers always adapt to the situation that presents itself. After all, it wouldn't be a block if it has no effect on the other driver's behaviour, would it?


How on earth can you be "Never in danger of hitting Max" if you require Max to move in order not to hit him. Of course it was a danger. It's ridiculous to say there is no chance you will hit another driver if you move across the track. Of course there is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, he wouldn't. Because he didn't. He didn't hit Max, so why would we now assume he may have done? Of course Max had to react to him, but that's the same for many an overtaking or blocking move: drivers always adapt to the situation that presents itself. After all, it wouldn't be a block if it has no effect on the other driver's behaviour, would it?


How on earth can you be "Never in danger of hitting Max" if you require Max to move in order not to hit him. Of course it was a danger. It's ridiculous to say there is no chance you will hit another driver if you move across the track. Of course there is.

Not really. In the context of racing just because they are close doesn't mean contact is inevitable. So no, I don't think there was any real danger of it happening, which isn't the same as saying there's no chance at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, he wouldn't. Because he didn't. He didn't hit Max, so why would we now assume he may have done? Of course Max had to react to him, but that's the same for many an overtaking or blocking move: drivers always adapt to the situation that presents itself. After all, it wouldn't be a block if it has no effect on the other driver's behaviour, would it?


How on earth can you be "Never in danger of hitting Max" if you require Max to move in order not to hit him. Of course it was a danger. It's ridiculous to say there is no chance you will hit another driver if you move across the track. Of course there is.

Not really. In the context of racing just because they are close doesn't mean contact is inevitable. So no, I don't think there was any real danger of it happening, which isn't the same as saying there's no chance at all.


Surely if there is a chance there is a danger it could happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, he wouldn't. Because he didn't. He didn't hit Max, so why would we now assume he may have done? Of course Max had to react to him, but that's the same for many an overtaking or blocking move: drivers always adapt to the situation that presents itself. After all, it wouldn't be a block if it has no effect on the other driver's behaviour, would it?


How on earth can you be "Never in danger of hitting Max" if you require Max to move in order not to hit him. Of course it was a danger. It's ridiculous to say there is no chance you will hit another driver if you move across the track. Of course there is.

Not really. In the context of racing just because they are close doesn't mean contact is inevitable. So no, I don't think there was any real danger of it happening, which isn't the same as saying there's no chance at all.


Surely if there is a chance there is a danger it could happen?

Are you really splitting hairs in this way? There was no real danger that Hamilton was ever going to hit Ricciardo, but there was always a chance that Ricciardo didn't see him and swerved into his path to take a wider angle for the corner.

I'd already said several posts ago that in term of simple physics it was possible that the two may have collided, but that's not the same as saying that there was any real danger it was going to happen.

edited for iPhone autocorrect


Last edited by Zoue on Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: Miami, Florida
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
His trajectory was going to take him into Kimi's car, whether he could have avoided the collision at the last second is debatable given the speed he moved across the track.
It's equally valid to say that his trajectory would have taken him into the wall, had no one else been on that side of the track. I think that it is equally valid to assume that Vettel was going to straighten up with what would have most likely been a good car's width for Verstappen (not accounting for Kimi).
It was a simple move to cover off a potential challenge from second place; it just did not factor in an additional car - having made a rocket start - being in the mix.

For me the BIB is the common sense conclusion on Vettel's move. However, the second part of your statement is the most damning piece of the equation which places the blame on Vettel. Drivers are supposed to factor in and be aware of all possibilities and be ready to react accordingly, but WHEN you make the decision to commit to making such a forceful move, not factoring that there happened to be a third car abreast, said driver assumes ALL responsibility for any consequences derived from his own actions. In this case it was a chain reaction and if you look at the video from all angles, had Verstappen not collided into Kimi there's a more than probable chance Vettel would have clipped Verstappen himself, thereby still leaving Vettel at fault.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: Miami, Florida
Zoue wrote:
Well the simple fact of the matter is that there was enough space, so technically he did leave it at the time the accident happened. Anything else is just supposition

Yeah, and a skydiver who’s parachute didn’t open, technically still has time to try and save themselves while 10 feet from the moment of impact too.

See how absurd that statement is? :idea:

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
????

that analogy makes no sense. What Zoue is saying is correct, at the time of the incident there was sufficient space (from Vettel's point of vision). To say or guess that Seb would have hit Kimi even if Max had backed out is merely supposition, nothing more.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Blake wrote:
????

that analogy makes no sense. What Zoue is saying is correct, at the time of the incident there was sufficient space (from Vettel's point of vision). To say or guess that Seb would have hit Kimi even if Max had backed out is merely supposition, nothing more.


I think you have misunderstood. The hitting Kimi and leaving space are two separate issues. Above F1Merceaery is talking about the leaving space issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well the simple fact of the matter is that there was enough space, so technically he did leave it at the time the accident happened. Anything else is just supposition

Yeah, and a skydiver who’s parachute didn’t open, technically still has time to try and save themselves while 10 feet from the moment of impact too.

See how absurd that statement is? :idea:

I see how absurd your statement is, yes. But I'm a bit flummoxed as to its relevance to what we are discussing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
His trajectory was going to take him into Kimi's car, whether he could have avoided the collision at the last second is debatable given the speed he moved across the track.
It's equally valid to say that his trajectory would have taken him into the wall, had no one else been on that side of the track. I think that it is equally valid to assume that Vettel was going to straighten up with what would have most likely been a good car's width for Verstappen (not accounting for Kimi).
It was a simple move to cover off a potential challenge from second place; it just did not factor in an additional car - having made a rocket start - being in the mix.

For me the BIB is the common sense conclusion on Vettel's move. However, the second part of your statement is the most damning piece of the equation which places the blame on Vettel. Drivers are supposed to factor in and be aware of all possibilities and be ready to react accordingly, but WHEN you make the decision to commit to making such a forceful move, not factoring that there happened to be a third car abreast, said driver assumes ALL responsibility for any consequences derived from his own actions. In this case it was a chain reaction and if you look at the video from all angles, had Verstappen not collided into Kimi there's a more than probable chance Vettel would have clipped Verstappen himself, thereby still leaving Vettel at fault.

No, I don't agree with that. It's all very well to sit here and analyse from the comfort of your chair and with the luxury of factoring in multiple parameters, but out there they deal in fractions of a second and have to make instant decisions based on the info available. He wasn't to know that Kimi made such a lightning start AND that Kimi was crowding Max from his side, too. The equation everybody seems to be missing is that Kimi hit Max. . Vettel didn't make contact with anyone until he got caught up in the aftermath and it's not his responsibility what the drivers behind him do.

There is zero evidence that Vettel would have clipped Max. Zero. The evidence that we actually have is that they didn't touch at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
His trajectory was going to take him into Kimi's car, whether he could have avoided the collision at the last second is debatable given the speed he moved across the track.
It's equally valid to say that his trajectory would have taken him into the wall, had no one else been on that side of the track. I think that it is equally valid to assume that Vettel was going to straighten up with what would have most likely been a good car's width for Verstappen (not accounting for Kimi).
It was a simple move to cover off a potential challenge from second place; it just did not factor in an additional car - having made a rocket start - being in the mix.

For me the BIB is the common sense conclusion on Vettel's move. However, the second part of your statement is the most damning piece of the equation which places the blame on Vettel. Drivers are supposed to factor in and be aware of all possibilities and be ready to react accordingly, but WHEN you make the decision to commit to making such a forceful move, not factoring that there happened to be a third car abreast, said driver assumes ALL responsibility for any consequences derived from his own actions. In this case it was a chain reaction and if you look at the video from all angles, had Verstappen not collided into Kimi there's a more than probable chance Vettel would have clipped Verstappen himself, thereby still leaving Vettel at fault.

No, I don't agree with that. It's all very well to sit here and analyse from the comfort of your chair and with the luxury of factoring in multiple parameters, but out there they deal in fractions of a second and have to make instant decisions based on the info available. He wasn't to know that Kimi made such a lightning start AND that Kimi was crowding Max from his side, too. The equation everybody seems to be missing is that Kimi hit Max. . Vettel didn't make contact with anyone until he got caught up in the aftermath and it's not his responsibility what the drivers behind him do.

There is zero evidence that Vettel would have clipped Max. Zero. The evidence that we actually have is that they didn't touch at all


Apart from the fact he was heading straight for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
His trajectory was going to take him into Kimi's car, whether he could have avoided the collision at the last second is debatable given the speed he moved across the track.
It's equally valid to say that his trajectory would have taken him into the wall, had no one else been on that side of the track. I think that it is equally valid to assume that Vettel was going to straighten up with what would have most likely been a good car's width for Verstappen (not accounting for Kimi).
It was a simple move to cover off a potential challenge from second place; it just did not factor in an additional car - having made a rocket start - being in the mix.

For me the BIB is the common sense conclusion on Vettel's move. However, the second part of your statement is the most damning piece of the equation which places the blame on Vettel. Drivers are supposed to factor in and be aware of all possibilities and be ready to react accordingly, but WHEN you make the decision to commit to making such a forceful move, not factoring that there happened to be a third car abreast, said driver assumes ALL responsibility for any consequences derived from his own actions. In this case it was a chain reaction and if you look at the video from all angles, had Verstappen not collided into Kimi there's a more than probable chance Vettel would have clipped Verstappen himself, thereby still leaving Vettel at fault.

No, I don't agree with that. It's all very well to sit here and analyse from the comfort of your chair and with the luxury of factoring in multiple parameters, but out there they deal in fractions of a second and have to make instant decisions based on the info available. He wasn't to know that Kimi made such a lightning start AND that Kimi was crowding Max from his side, too. The equation everybody seems to be missing is that Kimi hit Max. . Vettel didn't make contact with anyone until he got caught up in the aftermath and it's not his responsibility what the drivers behind him do.

There is zero evidence that Vettel would have clipped Max. Zero. The evidence that we actually have is that they didn't touch at all


Apart from the fact he was heading straight for him.

You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3846
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well the simple fact of the matter is that there was enough space, so technically he did leave it at the time the accident happened. Anything else is just supposition

Yeah, and a skydiver who’s parachute didn’t open, technically still has time to try and save themselves while 10 feet from the moment of impact too.

See how absurd that statement is? :idea:


In the absence of any technical data from either Max or Kimi (did one or the other slightly swerve/brake) - it was a racing incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
????

that analogy makes no sense. What Zoue is saying is correct, at the time of the incident there was sufficient space (from Vettel's point of vision). To say or guess that Seb would have hit Kimi even if Max had backed out is merely supposition, nothing more.


I think you have misunderstood. The hitting Kimi and leaving space are two separate issues. Above F1Merceaery is talking about the leaving space issue.
But there was no issue concerning leaving space. There is no rule in the regulations forcing Vettel to leave space before he got back to the racing line.

_________________
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: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?

Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?

Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


What? We're not discussing Kimi not being there... Where has Kimi gone? Kimi is still there but Max doesn't move in response to Vettel then Vettel hits Max.

If Kimi just disappears then Max probably moves over and there is no accident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2501
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?
It's also a fact that Vettel's trajectory would have taken him into the wall.
Assuming, of course, that he stayed on that trajectory.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?
It's also a fact that Vettel's trajectory would have taken him into the wall.
Assuming, of course, that he stayed on that trajectory.


Obviously. But the wall was what, 20 meters away? Verstappen less than 2. So he had a lot more time to change course before hitting the wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?

Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


What? We're not discussing Kimi not being there... Where has Kimi gone? Kimi is still there but Max doesn't move in response to Vettel then Vettel hits Max.

If Kimi just disappears then Max probably moves over and there is no accident.

Why would Max not move? He's behind Vettel, with good visibility. Why would he suddenly pretend Seb isn't there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:


You have a strange definition of evidence. You think that with Kimi there, Max and Vettel wouldn't clash (because, clearly, they didn't), but with Kimi out of the equation Max would keep his foot down and plough straight into Vettel? What, he only has spatial awareness on one side?

Repeat, there is zero evidence they would have come together, since they didn't anyway


My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?

Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


What? We're not discussing Kimi not being there... Where has Kimi gone? Kimi is still there but Max doesn't move in response to Vettel then Vettel hits Max.

If Kimi just disappears then Max probably moves over and there is no accident.

Why would Max not move? He's behind Vettel, with good visibility. Why would he suddenly pretend Seb isn't there?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYusQfrn3jg

Why didn't Barrichello move?

No Kimi and Logically Verstaphen moves of course. Especially considering him starting to move over caused him to tag Kimi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

My definition of evidence

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is a fact that Vettel's trajectory would take him into Verstappen very, very shortly. That indicates to me that they would be likely to crash if Verstappen had not hit Kimi first.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face but you'll still be wrong.

Is there any evidence that if Verstappen hadn't hit Kimi first Vettel wouldn't have ended up hitting him?

Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


What? We're not discussing Kimi not being there... Where has Kimi gone? Kimi is still there but Max doesn't move in response to Vettel then Vettel hits Max.

If Kimi just disappears then Max probably moves over and there is no accident.

Why would Max not move? He's behind Vettel, with good visibility. Why would he suddenly pretend Seb isn't there?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYusQfrn3jg

Why didn't Barrichello move?

No Kimi and Logically Verstaphen moves of course. Especially considering him starting to move over caused him to tag Kimi.

Max already said he had been taking evasive action and was only prevented from backing out further by the fact that Kimi's wheel was in the way. So why would he suddenly have a brain fade and not do it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
[quote="Zoue"]
If Kimi didn't exist then he probably would move wouldn't he? But Kimi was in the way so he couldn't. So if Verstappen hadn't touched Kimi first Vettel would have run into him. I don't quite understand where you are going with this... If Kimi didn't exist there probably wouldn't have been an accident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:30 pm
Posts: 297
IMHO, this whole thread is nothing more than beating a dead horse - but then it appears plenty of folks cannot comprehend or even recognize a "racing incident" when they see one.......

Ya want to place blame folks – why is it not one of ya has placed the blame on the FIA and grid starting positions???

i can hear the comments now......... “What the heck is this guy talkin about”?

Go back, take a look and think a minute about the "distance" between P1 and P2, then take a close look at “where” on the tracks P1 is in relationship to turn one of that track.

Per FIA rules IIRC, the distance between P1 and P2 is 8 meters or 26.25 feet (as we say in Texas) and there are 16 meters between rows (52.49 feet for those not counting their “euros”). I don't know for certain who picked 26.25 feet but I'm guessing it's because that is how far it takes to get P2 in P1's tiny rear view mirror.

BUT and it’s the big “but” here, as I mentioned above – in only 3 of the current 13 races run thus far has the P1 position been on a “direct” line with the apex of turn 1 and Singapore is, (remember we ain’t run this one yet as it’s just starting) the 11th of 10 other tracks where P1 is on the wrong side and P2 actually has the most directly straight line (ie.. shortest distance) to the turn 1 apex.

Why is that? Why does the pole sitter with his 26.25 foot advantage not have the most direct line to turn 1 - could it be that the FIA wants action at the first turn?

Seems to me they do, why else in 11 of the 14 current race starts, has it been this way?

Monaco, Canadian and Belgium are the only tracks thus far into the 2017 season in where, if ya look, you’ll find that the P1 grid position gives them the advantage to the turn 1 without the normal cutting off of whomever is in P2. Kimi did not chop off Vettel at Monaco, he didn’t have to – Hamilton did not chop off Vettel at Canada, he didn’t have to and he also didn’t have to make a glaring chop off of Vettel, (but did make an adjustment for the apex) at Belgium as Vettel had already conceded turn 1 to him.

Let’s look at the other 10 races….
Race 1 – Australia, Bottas blows away from Vettel with no drama.
Race 2 – Shanghai, Hamilton again blows away from Vettel’s Ferrari with no drama
Race 3 – Sakir, ditto race 1, Bottas blows away, no drama
Race 4 – Sochi, Vettel and Hamy from P4 blow away the rest of the field
Race 5 – Barcelona, Vettel from P2 blows away Hamy, preventing the chop off (direct line, killer start)
Race 8 – Baku, Hamilton out drags Bottas, mild chop thanks to Bottas conceding turn 1
Race 9 – Spielberg, Bottas again great start no drama
Race 10 – Silverstone, Hamilton great start moves on Kimi who concedes turn 1
Race 11 – Budapest, Vettel puts the chop on teammate Kimi
Race 13 – Monza, Hamilton dramatically chops off Stroll

Appears to me when starts are relatively equal which totals 2, possibly 3 times, in 10 races (again excluding the 3 mentioned above already) chop offs of teammates or competitors is reasonably expected in F1, so perhaps that is what the FIA wants and “they” are the only ones to blame for this "racing incident".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23906
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Right back at you. You keep repeating the same mantra while ignoring the fact that Vettel and Max never actually collided, at least in part because Max was already taking evasive action, by his own admission. And Max said he was trying to back out but couldn't because Kimi was in the way. So in what world would Max suddenly not know Vettel was there and have them both collide?

You have no evidence. The available body of facts or information does not lend itself to the conclusion you are making, which seems more like wishful thinking than anything. There is no0 reason to suppose that either driver would suddenly forget the other was there.


What? We're not discussing Kimi not being there... Where has Kimi gone? Kimi is still there but Max doesn't move in response to Vettel then Vettel hits Max.

If Kimi just disappears then Max probably moves over and there is no accident.

Why would Max not move? He's behind Vettel, with good visibility. Why would he suddenly pretend Seb isn't there?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYusQfrn3jg

Why didn't Barrichello move?

No Kimi and Logically Verstaphen moves of course. Especially considering him starting to move over caused him to tag Kimi.

This reminds me of the times when Webber could drive like a total buffoon, first he hits Barrichello deliberately, then he hits Hamilton puncturing his rear tyre, yet Webber would be one of the first to complain about any poor driving that affected him, young driver complaints and the like.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
If Kimi didn't exist then he probably would move wouldn't he? But Kimi was in the way so he couldn't. So if Verstappen hadn't touched Kimi first Vettel would have run into him. I don't quite understand where you are going with this... If Kimi didn't exist there probably wouldn't have been an accident.

If Kimi didn't exist it's almost guaranteed there wouldn't have been an accident. Just like it's almost guaranteed that Vettel wasn't going to hit Max.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
F1nut wrote:
IMHO, this whole thread is nothing more than beating a dead horse - but then it appears plenty of folks cannot comprehend or even recognize a "racing incident" when they see one.......

Ya want to place blame folks – why is it not one of ya has placed the blame on the FIA and grid starting positions???
I think you should take that up with the FIA on the one hand, and Ayrton Senna on the other. Suzuka 1990 might ring a bell.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
This reminds me of the times when Webber could drive like a total buffoon, first he hits Barrichello deliberately, then he hits Hamilton puncturing his rear tyre, yet Webber would be one of the first to complain about any poor driving that affected him, young driver complaints and the like.
I remember the discussion we had after that race start. I agree that Webber hit Barrichello, that is clear enough. But Hamilton turned in before he fully cleared Webber. Hamilton's puncture wasn't Webber's fault.
But I agree Webber was rather quick to criticise others.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 953
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
Teddy007 wrote:
We all wanted more racing and less stewards getting involved.
Surely not all of us? I rather like the racing being kept fair and according the rules.

Oh, and Stewart once asked Senna a question about all the accidents he had been in. ;)

_________________
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: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Posts: 686
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12391
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
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)

similar to Alonso, but don't seem to recall him being castigated for taking unnecessary risks at the time :smug:


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: jrwb6e 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