planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:50 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:36 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.


Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.


I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 722
Location: UK
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6892
Option or Prime wrote:
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?

That's Gasly not Max.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11031
Option or Prime wrote:
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?


That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.

;)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21686
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.


Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.


I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:20 pm 
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.


If Hamilton had been wiped out by an optimistic Verstappen pass in Malaysia, that may well have been bad luck but it also would have been a silly move for Hamilton to defend him and give any opportunity for him to have his own race ruined. He is involved in a title fight and his main rival was well down the order. Hamilton literally jumped out of the way of Max once he saw him coming up the inside.

Hamilton suppressed his natural instinct to race hard at all times, he lost a title already doing that in China 2007 when Mclaren and Hamilton deemed the race win important when P2 (behind Kimi) won him the title that day. An incredibly stupid move from team and driver. Then ironically they nearly lost another one playing it too conservative a year later.


Last edited by lamo on Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 722
Location: UK
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?

That's Gasly not Max.


OK then Gasly isn't missing, I'm rubbish at faces...there is a name for it I think!

Remind me, why are we doing this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6892
Option or Prime wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?

That's Gasly not Max.


OK then Gasly isn't missing, I'm rubbish at faces...there is a name for it I think!

Remind me, why are we doing this?

Not a clue to be honest :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11031
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.


If Hamilton had been wiped out by an optimistic Verstappen pass in Malaysia, that may well have been bad luck but it also would have been a silly move for Hamilton to defend him and give any opportunity for him to have his own race ruined. He is involved in a title fight and his main rival was well down the order..


But the two situations were not the same.

Last weekend, we saw Hamilton in the third fastest car. He knew that if he'd fend off a first attack, there would come a second, and a third and so forth. And then RBR would probably attempt the undercut. And if that wasn't successful, probably more attacks. He knew it was unlikely he would have won. He also knew he has a car that'll probably win at least one more race, and that even finishing second would leave him with a sizeable advantage in the standings.

Vettel in Singapore? With it not looking likely that Ferrari would best Mercedes over the last few races, he needed to capitalize big in Singapore. Get as big a gap over Hamilton as possible. So he wasn't going to make it easy for Verstappen. But it's not like he took unusual or big risks in doing so.

Both drivers acted in a logical way given the facts at hand.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:53 pm 
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.


If Hamilton had been wiped out by an optimistic Verstappen pass in Malaysia, that may well have been bad luck but it also would have been a silly move for Hamilton to defend him and give any opportunity for him to have his own race ruined. He is involved in a title fight and his main rival was well down the order..


But the two situations were not the same.

Last weekend, we saw Hamilton in the third fastest car. He knew that if he'd fend off a first attack, there would come a second, and a third and so forth. And then RBR would probably attempt the undercut. And if that wasn't successful, probably more attacks. He knew it was unlikely he would have won. He also knew he has a car that'll probably win at least one more race, and that even finishing second would leave him with a sizeable advantage in the standings.

Vettel in Singapore? With it not looking likely that Ferrari would best Mercedes over the last few races, he needed to capitalize big in Singapore. Get as big a gap over Hamilton as possible. So he wasn't going to make it easy for Verstappen. But it's not like he took unusual or big risks in doing so.

Both drivers acted in a logical way given the facts at hand.


I don't disagree, when you have a points advantage / good car you can be more conservative. Its the reason why I think Hamilton lost the 2010 title. By the end of the year he was in the third best car and needing to take some risks to stay in the title fight. This resulted in two DNFs due to collisions in Monza and Singapore both of which were neither big mistakes or even huge risks, it was just the way they worked out. Kind of the same for Vettel in Singapore, if he was 20+ points ahead of Lewis at that point, I don't see him pulling that move.

Incidents in question -

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxynNbw9WO4


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9793
Location: Travelling around the world
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.


If Hamilton had been wiped out by an optimistic Verstappen pass in Malaysia, that may well have been bad luck but it also would have been a silly move for Hamilton to defend him and give any opportunity for him to have his own race ruined. He is involved in a title fight and his main rival was well down the order. Hamilton literally jumped out of the way of Max once he saw him coming up the inside.

Plus Verstappen has been openly telling Vettel and Hamilton that he's going to race them harder because they have so much to lose. Hamilton has gained by listening to him

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:22 pm 
Yes Max is in a unique position where his WDC rank is kind of meaningless now due to all his retirements, his position isn't going to change. Red Bulls position in the WCC is locked in at 3rd too. So for him and Red Bull its just about risking everything to win a race if its possible. They sacrificed the Monza weekend for both cars for a shot at the Singapore win for example.

Verstappen is risky to race around at the best of times but given the above he is even more so.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4095
pokerman wrote:
lamo wrote:
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.


It sits fine with me. I assume you'll blame Lewis for the cars troubles in the first place then and if Suzuka shows no improvement?.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2283
Location: England
It looks like expanded quotes on the stuff that was coming out on Sunday night. Websites/news outlets stretching the quote content out over a few days to make a few separate articles to rack up those delicious clicks.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: =7th | 2 Podiums | 0 Wins


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.


I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact

Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.


If Hamilton had been wiped out by an optimistic Verstappen pass in Malaysia, that may well have been bad luck but it also would have been a silly move for Hamilton to defend him and give any opportunity for him to have his own race ruined. He is involved in a title fight and his main rival was well down the order. Hamilton literally jumped out of the way of Max once he saw him coming up the inside.

Hamilton suppressed his natural instinct to race hard at all times, he lost a title already doing that in China 2007 when Mclaren and Hamilton deemed the race win important when P2 (behind Kimi) won him the title that day. An incredibly stupid move from team and driver. Then ironically they nearly lost another one playing it too conservative a year later.

That was purely down to Mclaren with rubber still left on his rear tyres I don't see him ending up in the pitlane gravel trap, Hamilton recently has said they totally messed up.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Option or Prime wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Llotyhy wrote:
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Max is standing next to Lewis?

That's Gasly not Max.


OK then Gasly isn't missing, I'm rubbish at faces...there is a name for it I think!

Remind me, why are we doing this?

Yeah I can have a similar problem of not recognising faces unless I see them often, I don't know what they call it though.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:36 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
lamo wrote:
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.


It sits fine with me. I assume you'll blame Lewis for the cars troubles in the first place then and if Suzuka shows no improvement?.

I know how this works, I look a fool if it's bad, but if he wins there will be silence.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4095
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
lamo wrote:
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.


It sits fine with me. I assume you'll blame Lewis for the cars troubles in the first place then and if Suzuka shows no improvement?.

I know how this works, I look a fool if it's bad, but if he wins there will be silence.


As much silence as there was original blame on him is what you'll find I imagine.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:58 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
lamo wrote:
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.


It sits fine with me. I assume you'll blame Lewis for the cars troubles in the first place then and if Suzuka shows no improvement?.

I know how this works, I look a fool if it's bad, but if he wins there will be silence.


As much silence as there was original blame on him is what you'll find I imagine.

Yeah I didn't really read your first post properly, I do believe a driver can help with feed back when there is a problem with a car, although obviously he can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4095
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.


It sits fine with me. I assume you'll blame Lewis for the cars troubles in the first place then and if Suzuka shows no improvement?.

I know how this works, I look a fool if it's bad, but if he wins there will be silence.


As much silence as there was original blame on him is what you'll find I imagine.

Yeah I didn't really read your first post properly, I do believe a driver can help with feed back when there is a problem with a car, although obviously he can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.


I can definitely agree with that and by all accounts Lewis gives good feedback.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:42 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21686
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.


I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact

Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

and there are pundits who say it was circumstance. So what? Pundits get it wrong, too. As mds stated, it was a standard manoeuvre, but in this case Kimi added himself to the mix and it turned sour. I would also say that it's wrong to state Kimi was largely blameless: He crowded Max while he had space on the inside and it was actually he and Max who came together


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:30 pm
Posts: 311
pokerman wrote:
he can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.


As this thread is off the rails anyway, as it appears we have gone backward a race, I have a question......

Is this statement above a foreigner thing, British thing or some other country thing?

IIRC since this was literally a proverb even before the 1500s and here in the states it was always: "ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" - I'm wondering why this colloquialism has changed from a pig to a cow, animalwise?

I'm updating my vocabulary, it's a Americans call'em chicks, Brits call'em birds, Texans call'em heifers, sort of thing...... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1909
F1nut wrote:
pokerman wrote:
he can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.


As this thread is off the rails anyway, as it appears we have gone backward a race, I have a question......

Is this statement above a foreigner thing, British thing or some other country thing?

IIRC since this was literally a proverb even before the 1500s and here in the states it was always: "ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" - I'm wondering why this colloquialism has changed from a pig to a cow, animalwise?

I'm updating my vocabulary, it's a Americans call'em chicks, Brits call'em birds, Texans call'em heifers, sort of thing...... :)


I've always known it as "sow's". Perhaps its become "cow's" due to being misheard?

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2546
How have we gone from last weekend's race, through arguing an event from 10 years ago, to a 500-odd-year-old proverb involving a farmyard animal?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact

Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

and there are pundits who say it was circumstance. So what? Pundits get it wrong, too. As mds stated, it was a standard manoeuvre, but in this case Kimi added himself to the mix and it turned sour. I would also say that it's wrong to state Kimi was largely blameless: He crowded Max while he had space on the inside and it was actually he and Max who came together

That's a strange view to take that Kimi crowded Vertsappen when Verstappen turned left to try and avoid Vettel who was steering his car towards him, now you're looking to put some blame on Kimi while absolving Vettel of any blame.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:06 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
F1nut wrote:
pokerman wrote:
he can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.


As this thread is off the rails anyway, as it appears we have gone backward a race, I have a question......

Is this statement above a foreigner thing, British thing or some other country thing?

IIRC since this was literally a proverb even before the 1500s and here in the states it was always: "ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" - I'm wondering why this colloquialism has changed from a pig to a cow, animalwise?

I'm updating my vocabulary, it's a Americans call'em chicks, Brits call'em birds, Texans call'em heifers, sort of thing...... :)

No I just said it wrong, I got most of the letters right though. :)

It's like Eric Morecambe once said when playing the piano, "I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order". :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21686
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
[
It still was done by his own actions and the other 2 drivers were largely blameless.

that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact

Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

and there are pundits who say it was circumstance. So what? Pundits get it wrong, too. As mds stated, it was a standard manoeuvre, but in this case Kimi added himself to the mix and it turned sour. I would also say that it's wrong to state Kimi was largely blameless: He crowded Max while he had space on the inside and it was actually he and Max who came together

That's a strange view to take that Kimi crowded Vertsappen when Verstappen turned left to try and avoid Vettel who was steering his car towards him, now you're looking to put some blame on Kimi while absolving Vettel of any blame.

I'm not looking to do anything "now." I mentioned this in this thread at the time of the accident. I still think overall that it was a simple racing incident, but it needed everyone there for it to happen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
that's just not true. You can't keep just stating your opinions as fact

Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

and there are pundits who say it was circumstance. So what? Pundits get it wrong, too. As mds stated, it was a standard manoeuvre, but in this case Kimi added himself to the mix and it turned sour. I would also say that it's wrong to state Kimi was largely blameless: He crowded Max while he had space on the inside and it was actually he and Max who came together

That's a strange view to take that Kimi crowded Vertsappen when Verstappen turned left to try and avoid Vettel who was steering his car towards him, now you're looking to put some blame on Kimi while absolving Vettel of any blame.

I'm not looking to do anything "now." I mentioned this in this thread at the time of the accident. I still think overall that it was a simple racing incident, but it needed everyone there for it to happen

It was a racing incident but I would say that 1 second before the collision there was nothing that either Verstappen or Kimi could do to prevent the collision because of the action of Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:30 pm
Posts: 311
IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET BACK TO THE MALAYSIAN GP - I'm SORRY to ALL BELOW!

F1nut wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Vettel blaming Stroll for an incident which the replay looks to be 99% Vettel's fault...


WRONG... :thumbdown:

SDLRob wrote:
That was a VERY strange incident for Seb.... looked like he just assumed Stoll was further behind and just cut him off....


WRONG... :thumbdown:

IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
I have no words. Is Vettel a 4x champion? He has serious, serious, insanely serious issues around another car. Some serious spatial issues, or delusion.


WRONG... :thumbdown:

Herb Tarlik wrote:
100% Vettel fault. He ran right into Stroll. Absolutely bizarre.


WRONG... :thumbdown:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Huge gaff from Vettel and it's pretty seedy to try Nd pub you error on someone with less status and influence.


WRONG.... :thumbdown:


Guess ya should have waited to see what really happened........


Mea culpa - turns out that ALL of my comments above were completely "WRONG" - as I have just viewed the newest video from Sky Sports which shows Stroll's cockpit view of this incident - and even though I was patient enough to wait for the NBCSN's aerial view on the day of the race, which appeared to show Stroll driving to the right, it seems from the cockpit view of the Williams he simply did not turn for the apex, as his steering wheel never shifted, before being clouted by Vettel.

I did comment in the other "What the "H" happened thread" that I thought Vettel should have not been so close, but based on the aerial view at the time of that post things appeared differently and in the latest vid things are quite clear as to both the speed Vettle was carrying and to the down right error committed by the 4 time champ.

My apologies for those I denigrated above as I felt the first short clip lacked the necessary evidence to make a call one way or the other driver-wise, to point the "foul" finger at either- and even the second aerial view was IMHO misleading with it's appearance of laying the blame for contact in the hands of Lance Stroll, when it weren't his fault at all.

Rather than go back and try to edit all the times this was re-posted I have chosen to place my regrets HERE.

(I feel badly that is has taken so long for something we should have seen on the day of race - but I have not dallied here in my admission of guilt for not taking my own advise above)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21686
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Whilst what you say is a true fact?

There are F1 pundits that have the same opinion as me so I'm not alone.

and there are pundits who say it was circumstance. So what? Pundits get it wrong, too. As mds stated, it was a standard manoeuvre, but in this case Kimi added himself to the mix and it turned sour. I would also say that it's wrong to state Kimi was largely blameless: He crowded Max while he had space on the inside and it was actually he and Max who came together

That's a strange view to take that Kimi crowded Vertsappen when Verstappen turned left to try and avoid Vettel who was steering his car towards him, now you're looking to put some blame on Kimi while absolving Vettel of any blame.

I'm not looking to do anything "now." I mentioned this in this thread at the time of the accident. I still think overall that it was a simple racing incident, but it needed everyone there for it to happen

It was a racing incident but I would say that 1 second before the collision there was nothing that either Verstappen or Kimi could do to prevent the collision because of the action of Vettel.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. If Kimi hadn't crowded Max then there wouldn't have been an accident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24868
F1nut wrote:
IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET BACK TO THE MALAYSIAN GP - I'm SORRY to ALL BELOW!

F1nut wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Vettel blaming Stroll for an incident which the replay looks to be 99% Vettel's fault...


WRONG... :thumbdown:

SDLRob wrote:
That was a VERY strange incident for Seb.... looked like he just assumed Stoll was further behind and just cut him off....


WRONG... :thumbdown:

IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
I have no words. Is Vettel a 4x champion? He has serious, serious, insanely serious issues around another car. Some serious spatial issues, or delusion.


WRONG... :thumbdown:

Herb Tarlik wrote:
100% Vettel fault. He ran right into Stroll. Absolutely bizarre.


WRONG... :thumbdown:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Huge gaff from Vettel and it's pretty seedy to try Nd pub you error on someone with less status and influence.


WRONG.... :thumbdown:


Guess ya should have waited to see what really happened........


Mea culpa - turns out that ALL of my comments above were completely "WRONG" - as I have just viewed the newest video from Sky Sports which shows Stroll's cockpit view of this incident - and even though I was patient enough to wait for the NBCSN's aerial view on the day of the race, which appeared to show Stroll driving to the right, it seems from the cockpit view of the Williams he simply did not turn for the apex, as his steering wheel never shifted, before being clouted by Vettel.

I did comment in the other "What the "H" happened thread" that I thought Vettel should have not been so close, but based on the aerial view at the time of that post things appeared differently and in the latest vid things are quite clear as to both the speed Vettle was carrying and to the down right error committed by the 4 time champ.

My apologies for those I denigrated above as I felt the first short clip lacked the necessary evidence to make a call one way or the other driver-wise, to point the "foul" finger at either- and even the second aerial view was IMHO misleading with it's appearance of laying the blame for contact in the hands of Lance Stroll, when it weren't his fault at all.

Rather than go back and try to edit all the times this was re-posted I have chosen to place my regrets HERE.

(I feel badly that is has taken so long for something we should have seen on the day of race - but I have not dallied here in my admission of guilt for not taking my own advise above)

:thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

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


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: angrypirate, pokerman, UnlikeUday, Zoue 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