planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:47 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 326
hey don't worry, i do hope people in here understood it was joke, related to hungary episode.

I do hope people in here understand irony in some phrases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 185
Lojik wrote:
Even when judged aginst the staggeringly low standards of this forum, this thread has now degenerated into pure trash.


:thumbup:

I couldn't agree more. Just an excuse for certain posters to vent. Poor moderating standards IMO (though i'll probably get my wrists slapped for saying that).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
paul_gmb wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Poker wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:

There are obviously a small number of undesirables who are simply uncomfortable with a black man being successful in traditionally white sport, but I think that's far from the whole story.



Man please don't go into that, look at Bolt, Mo Farrah or even Serena. They are black individuals and very nice. Most of all, they are no "rodents".

Hamilton has a "rodent" character. He is just like a mouse, and the drivers briefing from mexico shows you just that.

He understood from the start what Vettel did, but he kept making wierd faces and ask dum questions.

I for one, do not accept "rodents" around me. I really sometimes get to the point of punching them in the face. If more would punch them in the face, they would start behaving like humans.


Am I the only one who can't quite come to terms with the whole disliking someone for being a "rodent" because of wierd faces and dumb questions, and then continueing on to then advocate assault ??


I think most of us just prefer to ignore idiots.


I will tell you what a rodent is, the type of guy who will report your post to the mods for being abusive, and then act all tough over here. You are either one way, or another. Hamilton acts tough when it's useful for him, sorting it like men on the track. And then like a little girl reports Vettel to the Charlie, when he thinks it will suit him. I loved that Charlie didn't fall in his trap and just dismissed it immediately.

And for you my fellow colleague, "suck my b***s". I think we're even now on the insults :lol: .


I didn't report you to the mods?

Too me a rodent is a small fury animal found in the garden or in fields. As I've never found Lewis Hamilton going through my rubbish or dashing around wheat fields I still consider him a human.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 326
mikeyg123 wrote:

I didn't report you to the mods?

Too me a rodent is a small fury animal found in the garden or in fields. As I've never found Lewis Hamilton going through my rubbish or dashing around wheat fields I still consider him a human.


It was a parallel with the mods. People chosing to act differently depending on a situation and what suits them.

A rodent doesn't do much harm, but it still annoys you. That is why we have rodent control. Hamilton did just that in the briefing. He knew exactly what the situation was with Vettel and the last corner. Why did he ask again ? Did he need further explanations ? I think he knew everything. But he still tried to cause a stir. It did not hurt anyone, but it is annoying.

And I hope you didn't take it personally with the KMAG quote, it was just for fun, didn't mean to insult you or anything.


PS: If someone comes up with the rights of rodents, i have nothing in my defense. I can't keep up with the political correctness these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
paul_gmb wrote:
I do hope people in here understand irony in some phrases.


As a working class Scotsman, it has taken me years to attempt to adjust to how sensitive people on an F1 Forum can be to written words.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
Interesting how Vettel gets so much hate for supposedly unjustly taking the 2012 WDC from Alonso because he had a superior car.

Hamilton was clearly not the best driver in 2008 (Kubica), and arguably not the best driver in 2014 (Ricciardo) and 2015 (Vettel). On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car than the drivers in brackets, but no one uses this as an excuse to why Hamilton's WDCs are undeserved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 687
KingVoid wrote:
Interesting how Vettel gets so much hate for supposedly unjustly taking the 2012 WDC from Alonso because he had a superior car.

Hamilton was clearly not the best driver in 2008 (Kubica), and arguably not the best driver in 2014 (Ricciardo) and 2015 (Vettel). On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car than the drivers in brackets, but no one uses this as an excuse to why Hamilton's WDCs are undeserved.


That's just your opinion.
I disagree with it entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
What part specifically do you disagree with?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 247
KingVoid wrote:
What part specifically do you disagree with?


It is entirely subjective. Your use of "clearly" was not appropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 1:00 pm
Posts: 72
Laz_T800 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Interesting how Vettel gets so much hate for supposedly unjustly taking the 2012 WDC from Alonso because he had a superior car.

Hamilton was clearly not the best driver in 2008 (Kubica), and arguably not the best driver in 2014 (Ricciardo) and 2015 (Vettel). On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car than the drivers in brackets, but no one uses this as an excuse to why Hamilton's WDCs are undeserved.


That's just your opinion.
I disagree with it entirely.


How can you disagree with "On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car" ? Note the use of "Mainly", which infers that it is not the only reason, but the main one.

_________________
« Violent delights have violent ends »


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5464
KingVoid wrote:
Interesting how Vettel gets so much hate for supposedly unjustly taking the 2012 WDC from Alonso because he had a superior car.

Hamilton was clearly not the best driver in 2008 (Kubica), and arguably not the best driver in 2014 (Ricciardo) and 2015 (Vettel). On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car than the drivers in brackets, but no one uses this as an excuse to why Hamilton's WDCs are undeserved.

Everything you've asserted here is nothing more than your own personal view. Kubica driver of the year in 2008? Many would disagree with you. 2014 and 2015, again, many would say Hamilton was driver of the year. Likewise 2012 there were many who said Vettel was driver of the year despite your assertion. Hamilton also clearly did not win the WDC because of having a superior car in 2008. You are being a bit ridiculous here.


Last edited by sandman1347 on Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
KingVoid wrote:
Interesting how Vettel gets so much hate for supposedly unjustly taking the 2012 WDC from Alonso because he had a superior car.

Hamilton was clearly not the best driver in 2008 (Kubica), and arguably not the best driver in 2014 (Ricciardo) and 2015 (Vettel). On all three occasions he won the WDC mainly because he drove a better car than the drivers in brackets, but no one uses this as an excuse to why Hamilton's WDCs are undeserved.


Nobody worth debating with "hates" Vettel for winning the 2012 championship. It's hardly the common consensus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
mikeyg123 wrote:
Nobody worth debating with "hates" Vettel for winning the 2012 championship. It's hardly the common consensus.

You'd actually be surprised at how popular this view is. Vettel's 2012 is probably the least popular title in living memory, Schumacher in 2003 comes close though.

sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton also clearly did not win the WDC because of having a superior car in 2008. You are being a bit ridiculous here.

I'd like to clarify myself: a superior car relative to the BMW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5464
KingVoid wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Nobody worth debating with "hates" Vettel for winning the 2012 championship. It's hardly the common consensus.

You'd actually be surprised at how popular this view is. Vettel's 2012 is probably the least popular title in living memory, Schumacher in 2003 comes close though.

sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton also clearly did not win the WDC because of having a superior car in 2008. You are being a bit ridiculous here.

I'd like to clarify myself: a superior car relative to the BMW.

The BMW was actually at least as good as the McLaren for the first few races of the season that year. Kubica and BMW fell out of the race when the team decided to focus on 2009 instead. He wasn't even in the picture by the end of the season. I think it's kind of a silly point to say that Hamilton had a better car than someone who wasn't really in the title fight coming down the stretch. Kubica had a great start to 2008 but that's really it. He disappeared in the second half (as did BMW).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:13 pm
Posts: 294
Just a pointer for all concerned, issuing offensive commands to other users, even in jest, is still against the forum rules and will be dealt with accordingly. PF1-Mod has already asked everybody to tone it down a bit, and I am now going to reiterate that request, and I think it would be foolish to ignore it for a second time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9272
Warheart01 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Don't think there's much of a difference speed wise between Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. The reason I support Vettel is that unlike the other two he isn't a complete %&#¤%.


That's a good one, good I didn't drink something or I'd spat all over the screen!


Oh... Wait... You, you are serious?!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think you missed a lol there.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2633
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Oops. It's kinda my fault the thread got derailed. But I certainly feel that the aforementioned Hamilton vitriol in youtube comments etc is above and beyond that an arrogant driver should get.

I know the tax situation and him wanting to raise his kids in America has alienated him to those of a centre right/right persuasion too I guess.

He has kids?

BMWSauber84 wrote:
.Brits tend to see extreme confidence as 'tacky'. And his other interests make people uncomfortable it seems. Nigel Mansell wasn't going to fashion shows and freezing his designer dogs sperm.

He did what???



Have I been in a coma?


He hasn't got kids. But he said that when he does have them, he wishes to raise them in Colorado???. It was spun as a "Hamilton snubs Britain again" story in the tabloids.

The dog sperm story is genuine by all accounts. He had Roscoe the dog's sperm frozen so that he could have puppies one day. I assume the dog was neutered shortly afterwards.



Why the ??? re Colorado. Something wrong with Colorado?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1885
DanF wrote:
Regarding Hamilton/Vettel, I personally don't think Hamilton likes or trusts Vettel, even a little bit. I also doubt Vettel likes Hamilton either. They are both too media savvy to say what they really feel publicly.

This season has shown us more about the two as men than we knew from the past. In my opinion, Hamilton's question to his team asking whether Vettel struck Hamilton's real wheel "on purpose" in Mexico said it all. It was certainly a fair question after the intentional ramming incident earlier this year. If Vettel was someone that Hamilton trusted and respected, he never would have asked that question. I think this is particularly an issue for Hamilton who seems, at least to me, to value his integrity. Giving a place back to Botas earlier in the season when Hamilton was not under orders to do so, the championship was wide open, and Vettel was still ahead in the points made a big impression on me, and I would have respected Hamilton for doing that even if it had cost him the championship at the end of the season. As "Multi21" showed us years ago, Vettel would not have done that. People now discuss the "bromance" between Hamilton and Alonso. Had Alonso nicked Hamilton's rear tire while fighting for position in an important race for the championship, I doubt Hamilton would have even thought to question whether it was intentional. Hamilton has himself nicked a few tires along the way, and no one ever questioned whether it was intentional. Also of note, Hamilton, like others, is quick to apologize when he makes an error that adversely impacts a competitor. To the best of my knowledge, Vettel did not apologize for hitting Hamilton in Mexico and compromising Hamilton's race.

Before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I am just trying to find insight into how Hamilton feels about Vettel by examining character traits each has demonstrated this year. I have not included my own thoughts about whether Vettel's action in Mexico was intentional. To me, Vettel is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, like Schumacher. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be an asset. Hamilton seems to value more than just results; he's concerned about how he earns them. They are both fast and great drivers. They are both deserving multiple world champions. If I ran an F1 team, either would be a first choice for driver. But a guy who values integrity over wins is not going to respect or even like someone who doesn't.

Similarly, a guy who values wins at all costs, is not going to be chummy with someone who beats him.


At the least you've encapsulated the differences between the two regarding how they want to achieve their results and their values. However, I'm of the opinion that in the bigger picture Hamilton does respect and value the rivalry with Vettel even if he cannot trust him (which is understandable). Lewis does have an air of justice about him and is very focused on winning in what he deems to be the right way - a fair battle. In that sense he's far less of a shark on the track than any of Vettel, Alonso or Verstappen but he is a panther out there. I don't think that Vettel is quite at Senna or Schumacher levels though when it comes to callous and brutish tactics, but he very smart and knows the permutations out there.

However, the boundaries of "fair driving" have been pushed (off the track) in recent years so the idea of fairness is pretty warped at the moment probably in the minds of all the drivers on the grid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
Invade wrote:
DanF wrote:
Regarding Hamilton/Vettel, I personally don't think Hamilton likes or trusts Vettel, even a little bit. I also doubt Vettel likes Hamilton either. They are both too media savvy to say what they really feel publicly.

This season has shown us more about the two as men than we knew from the past. In my opinion, Hamilton's question to his team asking whether Vettel struck Hamilton's real wheel "on purpose" in Mexico said it all. It was certainly a fair question after the intentional ramming incident earlier this year. If Vettel was someone that Hamilton trusted and respected, he never would have asked that question. I think this is particularly an issue for Hamilton who seems, at least to me, to value his integrity. Giving a place back to Botas earlier in the season when Hamilton was not under orders to do so, the championship was wide open, and Vettel was still ahead in the points made a big impression on me, and I would have respected Hamilton for doing that even if it had cost him the championship at the end of the season. As "Multi21" showed us years ago, Vettel would not have done that. People now discuss the "bromance" between Hamilton and Alonso. Had Alonso nicked Hamilton's rear tire while fighting for position in an important race for the championship, I doubt Hamilton would have even thought to question whether it was intentional. Hamilton has himself nicked a few tires along the way, and no one ever questioned whether it was intentional. Also of note, Hamilton, like others, is quick to apologize when he makes an error that adversely impacts a competitor. To the best of my knowledge, Vettel did not apologize for hitting Hamilton in Mexico and compromising Hamilton's race.

Before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I am just trying to find insight into how Hamilton feels about Vettel by examining character traits each has demonstrated this year. I have not included my own thoughts about whether Vettel's action in Mexico was intentional. To me, Vettel is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, like Schumacher. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be an asset. Hamilton seems to value more than just results; he's concerned about how he earns them. They are both fast and great drivers. They are both deserving multiple world champions. If I ran an F1 team, either would be a first choice for driver. But a guy who values integrity over wins is not going to respect or even like someone who doesn't.

Similarly, a guy who values wins at all costs, is not going to be chummy with someone who beats him.


At the least you've encapsulated the differences between the two regarding how they want to achieve their results and their values. However, I'm of the opinion that in the bigger picture Hamilton does respect and value the rivalry with Vettel even if he cannot trust him (which is understandable). Lewis does have an air of justice about him and is very focused on winning in what he deems to be the right way - a fair battle. In that sense he's far less of a shark on the track than any of Vettel, Alonso or Verstappen but he is a panther out there. I don't think that Vettel is quite at Senna or Schumacher levels though when it comes to callous and brutish tactics, but he very smart and knows the permutations out there.

However, the boundaries of "fair driving" have been pushed (off the track) in recent years so the idea of fairness is pretty warped at the moment probably in the minds of all the drivers on the grid.


I think both of these posts are very fair and encapsulate my opinion 100%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:50 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Invade wrote:
DanF wrote:
Regarding Hamilton/Vettel, I personally don't think Hamilton likes or trusts Vettel, even a little bit. I also doubt Vettel likes Hamilton either. They are both too media savvy to say what they really feel publicly.

This season has shown us more about the two as men than we knew from the past. In my opinion, Hamilton's question to his team asking whether Vettel struck Hamilton's real wheel "on purpose" in Mexico said it all. It was certainly a fair question after the intentional ramming incident earlier this year. If Vettel was someone that Hamilton trusted and respected, he never would have asked that question. I think this is particularly an issue for Hamilton who seems, at least to me, to value his integrity. Giving a place back to Botas earlier in the season when Hamilton was not under orders to do so, the championship was wide open, and Vettel was still ahead in the points made a big impression on me, and I would have respected Hamilton for doing that even if it had cost him the championship at the end of the season. As "Multi21" showed us years ago, Vettel would not have done that. People now discuss the "bromance" between Hamilton and Alonso. Had Alonso nicked Hamilton's rear tire while fighting for position in an important race for the championship, I doubt Hamilton would have even thought to question whether it was intentional. Hamilton has himself nicked a few tires along the way, and no one ever questioned whether it was intentional. Also of note, Hamilton, like others, is quick to apologize when he makes an error that adversely impacts a competitor. To the best of my knowledge, Vettel did not apologize for hitting Hamilton in Mexico and compromising Hamilton's race.

Before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I am just trying to find insight into how Hamilton feels about Vettel by examining character traits each has demonstrated this year. I have not included my own thoughts about whether Vettel's action in Mexico was intentional. To me, Vettel is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, like Schumacher. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be an asset. Hamilton seems to value more than just results; he's concerned about how he earns them. They are both fast and great drivers. They are both deserving multiple world champions. If I ran an F1 team, either would be a first choice for driver. But a guy who values integrity over wins is not going to respect or even like someone who doesn't.

Similarly, a guy who values wins at all costs, is not going to be chummy with someone who beats him.


At the least you've encapsulated the differences between the two regarding how they want to achieve their results and their values. However, I'm of the opinion that in the bigger picture Hamilton does respect and value the rivalry with Vettel even if he cannot trust him (which is understandable). Lewis does have an air of justice about him and is very focused on winning in what he deems to be the right way - a fair battle. In that sense he's far less of a shark on the track than any of Vettel, Alonso or Verstappen but he is a panther out there. I don't think that Vettel is quite at Senna or Schumacher levels though when it comes to callous and brutish tactics, but he very smart and knows the permutations out there.

However, the boundaries of "fair driving" have been pushed (off the track) in recent years so the idea of fairness is pretty warped at the moment probably in the minds of all the drivers on the grid.

Agree up to a point. I think Vettel is a hothead who is quick to anger but just as quick to cool down. I've not seen anything in his driving to suggest that he would intentionally take another car out or try to damage their tyre. He can be a d*ck in the heat of the moment and his whining over the radio can be pretty embarrassing, but after he forgets it even happened and doesn't dwell on it.

While I think Hamilton certainly believes that he acts with integrity and that others should also act to his standards, this also translates into a major persecution complex at times and he is quick to perceive injustice where there isn't any. In that respect, he's just as hot-headed but the difference is that he isn't quick to forget and can hold a grudge like almost no other (aside from maybe Alonso). This often manifests itself off-track, hence things like Twittergate and the regular digs at Vettel and Rosberg in press conferences. He's definitely a "revenge is a dish best served cold" kind of guy.

I don't agree with the example above in Hungary. Hamilton gave the place back because that was the agreement before he was given it in the first place. If he hadn't he would have looked both dishonest and a major tool and I can't really fathom why anyone would think it worthy of praise that someone should just honour an agreement made only a few laps earlier. I also disagree with the view that Vettel would not have done so and I don't think there are any grounds to think that.

I think both drivers are pretty hard but fair racers overall and on track I don't think either resort to serious dirty tricks, beyond maybe blocking or running another out of track. I wouldn't list either as a dangerous driver or one who can't be trusted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
Zoue wrote:
Invade wrote:
DanF wrote:
Regarding Hamilton/Vettel, I personally don't think Hamilton likes or trusts Vettel, even a little bit. I also doubt Vettel likes Hamilton either. They are both too media savvy to say what they really feel publicly.

This season has shown us more about the two as men than we knew from the past. In my opinion, Hamilton's question to his team asking whether Vettel struck Hamilton's real wheel "on purpose" in Mexico said it all. It was certainly a fair question after the intentional ramming incident earlier this year. If Vettel was someone that Hamilton trusted and respected, he never would have asked that question. I think this is particularly an issue for Hamilton who seems, at least to me, to value his integrity. Giving a place back to Botas earlier in the season when Hamilton was not under orders to do so, the championship was wide open, and Vettel was still ahead in the points made a big impression on me, and I would have respected Hamilton for doing that even if it had cost him the championship at the end of the season. As "Multi21" showed us years ago, Vettel would not have done that. People now discuss the "bromance" between Hamilton and Alonso. Had Alonso nicked Hamilton's rear tire while fighting for position in an important race for the championship, I doubt Hamilton would have even thought to question whether it was intentional. Hamilton has himself nicked a few tires along the way, and no one ever questioned whether it was intentional. Also of note, Hamilton, like others, is quick to apologize when he makes an error that adversely impacts a competitor. To the best of my knowledge, Vettel did not apologize for hitting Hamilton in Mexico and compromising Hamilton's race.

Before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I am just trying to find insight into how Hamilton feels about Vettel by examining character traits each has demonstrated this year. I have not included my own thoughts about whether Vettel's action in Mexico was intentional. To me, Vettel is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, like Schumacher. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be an asset. Hamilton seems to value more than just results; he's concerned about how he earns them. They are both fast and great drivers. They are both deserving multiple world champions. If I ran an F1 team, either would be a first choice for driver. But a guy who values integrity over wins is not going to respect or even like someone who doesn't.

Similarly, a guy who values wins at all costs, is not going to be chummy with someone who beats him.


At the least you've encapsulated the differences between the two regarding how they want to achieve their results and their values. However, I'm of the opinion that in the bigger picture Hamilton does respect and value the rivalry with Vettel even if he cannot trust him (which is understandable). Lewis does have an air of justice about him and is very focused on winning in what he deems to be the right way - a fair battle. In that sense he's far less of a shark on the track than any of Vettel, Alonso or Verstappen but he is a panther out there. I don't think that Vettel is quite at Senna or Schumacher levels though when it comes to callous and brutish tactics, but he very smart and knows the permutations out there.

However, the boundaries of "fair driving" have been pushed (off the track) in recent years so the idea of fairness is pretty warped at the moment probably in the minds of all the drivers on the grid.

Agree up to a point. I think Vettel is a hothead who is quick to anger but just as quick to cool down. I've not seen anything in his driving to suggest that he would intentionally take another car out or try to damage their tyre. He can be a d*ck in the heat of the moment and his whining over the radio can be pretty embarrassing, but after he forgets it even happened and doesn't dwell on it.

While I think Hamilton certainly believes that he acts with integrity and that others should also act to his standards, this also translates into a major persecution complex at times and he is quick to perceive injustice where there isn't any. In that respect, he's just as hot-headed but the difference is that he isn't quick to forget and can hold a grudge like almost no other (aside from maybe Alonso). This often manifests itself off-track, hence things like Twittergate and the regular digs at Vettel and Rosberg in press conferences. He's definitely a "revenge is a dish best served cold" kind of guy.

I don't agree with the example above in Hungary. Hamilton gave the place back because that was the agreement before he was given it in the first place. If he hadn't he would have looked both dishonest and a major tool and I can't really fathom why anyone would think it worthy of praise that someone should just honour an agreement made only a few laps earlier. I also disagree with the view that Vettel would not have done so and I don't think there are any grounds to think that.

I think both drivers are pretty hard but fair racers overall and on track I don't think either resort to serious dirty tricks, beyond maybe blocking or running another out of track. I wouldn't list either as a dangerous driver or one who can't be trusted


Rightly or wrongly, Multi 21 will lock in people's views that Vettel wouldn't have given that place back. I really don't think he would in the heat of a WDC battle, especially if he has a good excuse not to. He wants to win at all costs.

Hamilton had a great excuse to ignore that giving the place back. Bottas was simply not able to keep up with him, Verstappen was far too close to make handing the place back a comfortable experience, and he should have crossed that line and immediately went over to Bottas and promised him one in return at some point whilst highlighting how the goalposts had moved. As it turned out he got the moral victory, Verstappen was kept behind, and it made no impact to the WDC so it was a win-win-win.. but at the time that was a big risk to take.

In cultural awareness training, I've come to learn that the really passionate belief of 'fairness' is something that is really ingrained in the British mentality - more so than most other countries who are passionate about other values (broad generalization of course). Perhaps explains why there's so much anger every time the slightest, tiniest injustice results in their sporting failure. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:53 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Invade wrote:
DanF wrote:
Regarding Hamilton/Vettel, I personally don't think Hamilton likes or trusts Vettel, even a little bit. I also doubt Vettel likes Hamilton either. They are both too media savvy to say what they really feel publicly.

This season has shown us more about the two as men than we knew from the past. In my opinion, Hamilton's question to his team asking whether Vettel struck Hamilton's real wheel "on purpose" in Mexico said it all. It was certainly a fair question after the intentional ramming incident earlier this year. If Vettel was someone that Hamilton trusted and respected, he never would have asked that question. I think this is particularly an issue for Hamilton who seems, at least to me, to value his integrity. Giving a place back to Botas earlier in the season when Hamilton was not under orders to do so, the championship was wide open, and Vettel was still ahead in the points made a big impression on me, and I would have respected Hamilton for doing that even if it had cost him the championship at the end of the season. As "Multi21" showed us years ago, Vettel would not have done that. People now discuss the "bromance" between Hamilton and Alonso. Had Alonso nicked Hamilton's rear tire while fighting for position in an important race for the championship, I doubt Hamilton would have even thought to question whether it was intentional. Hamilton has himself nicked a few tires along the way, and no one ever questioned whether it was intentional. Also of note, Hamilton, like others, is quick to apologize when he makes an error that adversely impacts a competitor. To the best of my knowledge, Vettel did not apologize for hitting Hamilton in Mexico and compromising Hamilton's race.

Before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I am just trying to find insight into how Hamilton feels about Vettel by examining character traits each has demonstrated this year. I have not included my own thoughts about whether Vettel's action in Mexico was intentional. To me, Vettel is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, like Schumacher. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be an asset. Hamilton seems to value more than just results; he's concerned about how he earns them. They are both fast and great drivers. They are both deserving multiple world champions. If I ran an F1 team, either would be a first choice for driver. But a guy who values integrity over wins is not going to respect or even like someone who doesn't.

Similarly, a guy who values wins at all costs, is not going to be chummy with someone who beats him.


At the least you've encapsulated the differences between the two regarding how they want to achieve their results and their values. However, I'm of the opinion that in the bigger picture Hamilton does respect and value the rivalry with Vettel even if he cannot trust him (which is understandable). Lewis does have an air of justice about him and is very focused on winning in what he deems to be the right way - a fair battle. In that sense he's far less of a shark on the track than any of Vettel, Alonso or Verstappen but he is a panther out there. I don't think that Vettel is quite at Senna or Schumacher levels though when it comes to callous and brutish tactics, but he very smart and knows the permutations out there.

However, the boundaries of "fair driving" have been pushed (off the track) in recent years so the idea of fairness is pretty warped at the moment probably in the minds of all the drivers on the grid.

Agree up to a point. I think Vettel is a hothead who is quick to anger but just as quick to cool down. I've not seen anything in his driving to suggest that he would intentionally take another car out or try to damage their tyre. He can be a d*ck in the heat of the moment and his whining over the radio can be pretty embarrassing, but after he forgets it even happened and doesn't dwell on it.

While I think Hamilton certainly believes that he acts with integrity and that others should also act to his standards, this also translates into a major persecution complex at times and he is quick to perceive injustice where there isn't any. In that respect, he's just as hot-headed but the difference is that he isn't quick to forget and can hold a grudge like almost no other (aside from maybe Alonso). This often manifests itself off-track, hence things like Twittergate and the regular digs at Vettel and Rosberg in press conferences. He's definitely a "revenge is a dish best served cold" kind of guy.

I don't agree with the example above in Hungary. Hamilton gave the place back because that was the agreement before he was given it in the first place. If he hadn't he would have looked both dishonest and a major tool and I can't really fathom why anyone would think it worthy of praise that someone should just honour an agreement made only a few laps earlier. I also disagree with the view that Vettel would not have done so and I don't think there are any grounds to think that.

I think both drivers are pretty hard but fair racers overall and on track I don't think either resort to serious dirty tricks, beyond maybe blocking or running another out of track. I wouldn't list either as a dangerous driver or one who can't be trusted


Rightly or wrongly, Multi 21 will lock in people's views that Vettel wouldn't have given that place back. I really don't think he would in the heat of a WDC battle, especially if he has a good excuse not to. He wants to win at all costs.

Hamilton had a great excuse to ignore that giving the place back. Bottas was simply not able to keep up with him, Verstappen was far too close to make handing the place back a comfortable experience, and he should have crossed that line and immediately went over to Bottas and promised him one in return at some point whilst highlighting how the goalposts had moved. As it turned out he got the moral victory, Verstappen was kept behind, and it made no impact to the WDC so it was a win-win-win.. but at the time that was a big risk to take.

In cultural awareness training, I've come to learn that the really passionate belief of 'fairness' is something that is really ingrained in the British mentality - more so than most other countries who are passionate about other values (broad generalization of course). Perhaps explains why there's so much anger every time the slightest, tiniest injustice results in their sporting failure. :)

i think Multi 21 was a completely different scenario. We're talking about Driver A being allowed past Driver B specifically on the understanding that he would relinquish the place back again if unsuccessful. I don't see many drivers reneging on that within a few laps, tbh, and I don't see that Hamilton had any excuse to give the place back. He did the right thing, but I don't get why it's seen as something special


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:22 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.


I think they are both examples where trust was an issue. Obviously the situation is not identical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.

I actually remember Webber being happy and saying out loud how he ignored the team orders. Horner of course at the time played the "we're a happy team here, no problems" tune. It was such a two-faced reaction from Webber to then blast Vettel for not following orders. Not saying that what Vettel did was right of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14186
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.

I actually remember Webber being happy and saying out loud how he ignored the team orders. Horner of course at the time played the "we're a happy team here, no problems" tune. It was such a two-faced reaction from Webber to then blast Vettel for not following orders. Not saying that what Vettel did was right of course.


I've never understood why Seb went all apologetic and contrite and didn't call Webber out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:08 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel reneged on the pre-race agreement at Malaysia 2013 (then again, so did Webber at Silverstone 2011).

Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.


I think they are both examples where trust was an issue. Obviously the situation is not identical.

The initial reference which I contested was that Multi-21 showed that Vettel would not have given the place back in Hungary. It's important to note the distinction between the two scenarios as there is no connection between the two of them that would lead you to draw such a conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Which is, as I said before, a completely different scenario to being allowed past on condition that you return the place if unable to progress further. There's no "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" element in the example you've given


I would argue that both scenario's require both parties to uphold their side of an agreement so are comparable.

That being said I don't blame Vettel for one second. Webber did exactly the same thing at Silverstone in 2011 and nobody cared when he did it. The whole furore around Vettel when he did it in Malaysia was total double standards and I will never understand why nobody piped up and told Webber to get off his high horse.

Well personally I think that both Webber and Vettel were in the wrong if there was such an agreement and they ignored it, although I'd agree that criticising one and not the other is hypocritical. But I still see it as a completely different scenario. There's no quid pro quo in the Vettel/Webber example, whereas the only reason a driver would be in a position to give the place back would be if the other driver let him past in the first place. It's a specific transaction between two parties, whereas the other is more a code of conduct. I don't see how it could be classed as similar.

I actually remember Webber being happy and saying out loud how he ignored the team orders. Horner of course at the time played the "we're a happy team here, no problems" tune. It was such a two-faced reaction from Webber to then blast Vettel for not following orders. Not saying that what Vettel did was right of course.


I've never understood why Seb went all apologetic and contrite and didn't call Webber out.

I can't remember Vettel's reaction to be honest. But he did renege on the deal, so technically he was in the wrong. Should have called him out, true, but Webber was fuming, I could see this going down to fisticuffs sooo soo easy


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: Option or Prime, Paolo_Lasardi, 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