planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:56 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6810
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.

That's demonstrably false. The track is defined quite clearly by the white lines. This is my frustration with the forum. Even empirically observable facts that are not subjective can be points of contention in here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15777
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.


Oh come on. I don't think either deserved a penalty but that just demonstrably untrue. I think you're being disingenuous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9735
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.

That's demonstrably false. The track is defined quite clearly by the white lines. This is my frustration with the forum. Even empirically observable facts that are not subjective can be points of contention in here.

And this is where I repeat my original post and on and on it goes.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6697
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'

So one of the chief opponents of the penalty said that the stewards had to give the penalty because thems the rules.

Everybody complains about inconsistent stewarding so they now have a set of black and white rules which have to be strictly adhered to, and now they want to see some wiggly room which is bound to lead back to some inconsistent stewarding, only in F1 do we have this, always someone is not happy.

The thing is, poker, NOW it is convenient to be "consistent".

I think the other term that is being forgotten/ignored is "racing Incident". It would appear that is what the majority seem to have seen. Oh,please, and don't throw some damned silly PF1 forum poll results at me as was seen by a different poster (not you) earlier...polls in here are all but meaningless. Ignoring this forum, I think you would have to admit that most sources appear to not be in favor of the penalty.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9735
mikeyg123 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.


Oh come on. I don't think either deserved a penalty but that just demonstrably untrue. I think you're being disingenuous.

We were discussing the room to the wall, I´m aware that the white line defines the track. In practice it was the wall that defined the track boundary in that corner though.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15777
Covalent wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.


Oh come on. I don't think either deserved a penalty but that just demonstrably untrue. I think you're being disingenuous.

We were discussing the room to the wall, I´m aware that the white line defines the track. In practice it was the wall that defined the track boundary in that corner though.


The gap left to the wall isn't really relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32597
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'

So one of the chief opponents of the penalty said that the stewards had to give the penalty because thems the rules.

Everybody complains about inconsistent stewarding so they now have a set of black and white rules which have to be strictly adhered to, and now they want to see some wiggly room which is bound to lead back to some inconsistent stewarding, only in F1 do we have this, always someone is not happy.

The thing is, poker, NOW it is convenient to be "consistent".

I think the other term that is being forgotten/ignored is "racing Incident". It would appear that is what the majority seem to have seen. Oh,please, and don't throw some damned silly PF1 forum poll results at me as was seen by a different poster (not you) earlier...polls in here are all but meaningless. Ignoring this forum, I think you would have to admit that most sources appear to not be in favor of the penalty.

You're defining it as just another racing incident but it wasn't, there are clear rules laid down for a driver leaving the track rules that meant the stewards had to penalise Vettel.

Referring to polls is no different as referring to ex drivers who I am guessing might not be privvy to the actual rules and certainly didn't have the kind of access to the incident that the stewards had.

Not liking the penalty doesn't mean you ignore the rules, you don't change the rules on the fly just to suit the outcome that you want, going forward let's see if this rule which apparently everyone wanted gets changed?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6697
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'

So one of the chief opponents of the penalty said that the stewards had to give the penalty because thems the rules.

Everybody complains about inconsistent stewarding so they now have a set of black and white rules which have to be strictly adhered to, and now they want to see some wiggly room which is bound to lead back to some inconsistent stewarding, only in F1 do we have this, always someone is not happy.

The thing is, poker, NOW it is convenient to be "consistent".

I think the other term that is being forgotten/ignored is "racing Incident". It would appear that is what the majority seem to have seen. Oh,please, and don't throw some damned silly PF1 forum poll results at me as was seen by a different poster (not you) earlier...polls in here are all but meaningless. Ignoring this forum, I think you would have to admit that most sources appear to not be in favor of the penalty.

You're defining it as just another racing incident but it wasn't, there are clear rules laid down for a driver leaving the track rules that meant the stewards had to penalise Vettel.
No
Referring to polls is no different as referring to ex drivers who I am guessing might not be privvy to the actual rules and certainly didn't have the kind of access to the incident that the stewards had.

Not liking the penalty doesn't mean you ignore the rules, you don't change the rules on the fly just to suit the outcome that you want, going forward let's see if this rule which apparently everyone wanted gets changed?

The thing is, poker, It is easy for you and your fellow Hamitonians to suddenly be "pillars" for the rules...to dismiss the opinions of actual drivers as being "unaware", and accuse those questioning the ruling as wanting pick the rules that suit them. How very convenient given that Lewis is the main beneficiary of the ruling.

Polls in this forum are worthless when it comes to determining what the masses of F1/racing fans think. This forum is but a microcosm of the F1 can base, a avid/rabid one at that.

You are right in one respect, I did not like the ruling and I had a LOT of company in that..company who know a bell of a lot more about racing than I do, or you, or sandman. You can claim that it wasn't a racing incident if you wish, but many, perhaps most, believe it was just that...or are racing incidents to be a thing of the past? What I do know is that in general the fans lost out with the decision, Vettel and Ferrari lost out with the decision, f1 lost out, while Lewis & Mercedes are downplaying it (maybe they think it was a bad call too???) and their fans for the most part seem pleased that the "rules" are now being applied. Yes, how convenient.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2861
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.
No, not the stewards. And it is open to discussion whether 'giving up the position' is indeed what is meant by 'giving back the advantage'.
Sporting Regulations wrote:
At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage gained by leaving the track.

I wouldn't say that Vettel gained an advantage at all: if anything, it impeded him and put Hamilton in a position to overtake there before the door was closed.
I'd have placed a similar argument for Monaco 2016: Hamilton was not advantaged by cutting that chicane; it out him off line and compromised his exit allowing Riccardo to have a go.
To me, gaining an advantage is not the factor here.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9735
mikeyg123 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.


Oh come on. I don't think either deserved a penalty but that just demonstrably untrue. I think you're being disingenuous.

We were discussing the room to the wall, I´m aware that the white line defines the track. In practice it was the wall that defined the track boundary in that corner though.


The gap left to the wall isn't really relevant.

It was relevant to the overdramatization which made it sound like Vettel almost killed Hamilton.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.
No, not the stewards. And it is open to discussion whether 'giving up the position' is indeed what is meant by 'giving back the advantage'.
Sporting Regulations wrote:
At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage gained by leaving the track.

I wouldn't say that Vettel gained an advantage at all: if anything, it impeded him and put Hamilton in a position to overtake there before the door was closed.
I'd have placed a similar argument for Monaco 2016: Hamilton was not advantaged by cutting that chicane; it out him off line and compromised his exit allowing Riccardo to have a go.
To me, gaining an advantage is not the factor here.

I agree with this. It seems a shorter way, but in reality the loss of traction and corner exit speed is not an advantage really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7632
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'

So one of the chief opponents of the penalty said that the stewards had to give the penalty because thems the rules.

Everybody complains about inconsistent stewarding so they now have a set of black and white rules which have to be strictly adhered to, and now they want to see some wiggly room which is bound to lead back to some inconsistent stewarding, only in F1 do we have this, always someone is not happy.

The thing is, poker, NOW it is convenient to be "consistent".

I think the other term that is being forgotten/ignored is "racing Incident". It would appear that is what the majority seem to have seen. Oh,please, and don't throw some damned silly PF1 forum poll results at me as was seen by a different poster (not you) earlier...polls in here are all but meaningless. Ignoring this forum, I think you would have to admit that most sources appear to not be in favor of the penalty.

You're defining it as just another racing incident but it wasn't, there are clear rules laid down for a driver leaving the track rules that meant the stewards had to penalise Vettel.

Referring to polls is no different as referring to ex drivers who I am guessing might not be privvy to the actual rules and certainly didn't have the kind of access to the incident that the stewards had.

Not liking the penalty doesn't mean you ignore the rules, you don't change the rules on the fly just to suit the outcome that you want, going forward let's see if this rule which apparently everyone wanted gets changed?

As Fiki mentioned before, the rule is not really that clear. It says join the track when safe and Vettel did that, he joined (when it was no choice for him) and he got the car under control eventually.

But it's the crowding that should be the real infraction, in both Hamilton's 2016 Monaco and Vettel's 2019 Canada races. Both times Ricciardo and Hamilton were squeezed while being "alongside" (though I accept that the Monaco one is debatable, Hamilton squeezed Ricciardo but then left space; however being squeezed towards the wall was enough for Daniel to back off). For me that is the real infraction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 143
Siao7 wrote:

Hamilton squeezed Ricciardo but then left space; however being squeezed towards the wall was enough for Daniel to back off). For me that is the real infraction.


Watch it again. Ricciardo didn't back off because he was squeezed. He backed off because the line he had been left was wet and he had slick tyres on. Hamilton shut the door completely after Danny lit up his rear tyres and lost grip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:04 am
Posts: 409
thread has ran its course and has become redundant

_________________
- Mod Team


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group