planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Was the penalty deserved?
Yes 39%  39%  [ 67 ]
No 61%  61%  [ 105 ]
Total votes : 172
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 2572
No.

But drivers like Maldonado, Massa and Vettel got some questionable penalties during the season, so all in all let's get used to it.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
So if you lose control and spin into another car whilst trying to overtake it and thus ending his race you do not deserve a penalty?

Crazy.

No because the rear stepping out in that situation was unexpected. Is losing the rear driver induced? Maybe while accelerating, but on that point it was totally unexpected.


Unexpected or not, penalties are given for the outcome of the action. The outcome was a driver error causing another driver to retire.

So what was the driver error exactly?

Not having control of his car?

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 512
I'm not fond of punishing drivers loosing it (as long as they do not make a habit of it). All these penalties are annoying me. If this goes on the drivers will not go for any gap anymore ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: California, USA
Interestingly, Kamui tapped Mark Webber and Mark spun, but nothing happened. I think that was a racing deal.

_________________
F1 and NASCAR are both great racing series

Kamui Kobayashi Fan
"You know when you've been KK'd"-Martin Brundle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
So if you lose control and spin into another car whilst trying to overtake it and thus ending his race you do not deserve a penalty?

Crazy.

No because the rear stepping out in that situation was unexpected. Is losing the rear driver induced? Maybe while accelerating, but on that point it was totally unexpected.


Unexpected or not, penalties are given for the outcome of the action. The outcome was a driver error causing another driver to retire.

So what was the driver error exactly?

Not having control of his car?

So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4774
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
froze wrote:
lamo wrote:
So if you lose control and spin into another car whilst trying to overtake it and thus ending his race you do not deserve a penalty?

Crazy.

No because the rear stepping out in that situation was unexpected. Is losing the rear driver induced? Maybe while accelerating, but on that point it was totally unexpected.


Unexpected or not, penalties are given for the outcome of the action. The outcome was a driver error causing another driver to retire.

So what was the driver error exactly?


Braking to late for the conditions of the racing line causing him to spin. Or maybe you think it was a coincidence that he spun while overtaking but not on any other laps?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:52 am
Posts: 1654
zaar wrote:
I'm not fond of punishing drivers loosing it (as long as they do not make a habit of it). All these penalties are annoying me. If this goes on the drivers will not go for any gap anymore ...

That train has long left the station. F1 is clearly headed towards being a no contact sport and I dont think there is any turning back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

What you just described was that it was your response that didn't make any sense. I was simply just using that in a sentence. The error of not having any control.

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:52 am
Posts: 1654
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

You will find he usually doesnt. Move on, you are banging your head against a "I dont like LH" wall...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

What you just described was that it was your response that didn't make any sense. I was simply just using that in a sentence. The error of not having any control.

Eh, no. We are discussing whether nor not the penalty was deserved. You ask what mistake Hulkenburg made. I said he lost control of the car. You then asked what he should have said to Hamilton. What has that got to do with whether the penalty was deserved or not?

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4763
Location: Ireland
Yes. He messed up and took the leader out.

Maldonado has been lambasted over similar actions.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 709
Racing incident at best. It was a very clear attempt to help Alonso, just like when they deployed the SC right after he complained about the track..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4763
Location: Ireland
F1nsider wrote:
Racing incident at best. It was a very clear attempt to help Alonso, just like when they deployed the SC right after he complained about the track..

Sarcasm surely? Rosberg had just picked up his puncture due to the debris on track.

There's no doubt though, that was a call from Alonso for a Safety Car. But it was justified.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

What you just described was that it was your response that didn't make any sense. I was simply just using that in a sentence. The error of not having any control.

Eh, no. We are discussing whether nor not the penalty was deserved. You ask what mistake Hulkenburg made. I said he lost control of the car. You then asked what he should have said to Hamilton. What has that got to do with whether the penalty was deserved or not?

We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
So he should've said to Lewis: "Sorry for making the error of not having any control on my car and hence having nothing I could've done about it".

That doesn't make any sense. What has what he should have said to Hamilton got to do with it?

What you just described was that it was your response that didn't make any sense. I was simply just using that in a sentence. The error of not having any control.

Eh, no. We are discussing whether nor not the penalty was deserved. You ask what mistake Hulkenburg made. I said he lost control of the car. You then asked what he should have said to Hamilton. What has that got to do with whether the penalty was deserved or not?

We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

lol, he shouldn't have put himself in that situation silly...

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

lol, he shouldn't have put himself in that situation silly...

Yet how was he supposed to know that he would lose the rear?

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

lol, he shouldn't have put himself in that situation silly...

Yet how was he supposed to know that he would lose the rear?

So what your saying is that any driver who thinks he can make a move stick shouldn't be penalised if they crash into another driver because it doesn't work out how they thought it would? So a driver who tries to overtake on the inside but locks up and understeers into the other car is not at fault because he didn't think it was going to happen? Are you for real? A driver is responsible for controlling his car at all times. If he loses control unless something breaks or because he is hit by somebody else it is his fault.

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:55 pm
Posts: 326
It's a drivers responsibility to ensure that significant contact is avoided whenever possible, including during an overtaking move. so if a driver loses control of his car by himself whilst overtaking and slides into innocent party, he deserves any penalty he gets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

lol, he shouldn't have put himself in that situation silly...

Yet how was he supposed to know that he would lose the rear?

So what your saying is that any driver who thinks he can make a move stick shouldn't be penalised if they crash into another driver because it doesn't work out how they thought it would? So a driver who tries to overtake on the inside but locks up and understeers into the other car is not at fault because he didn't think it was going to happen? Are you for real? A driver is responsible for controlling his car at all times. If he loses control unless something breaks or because he is hit by somebody else it is his fault.

Well besides the fact that you didn't even answer to my question, I think a situation where a driver tries to overtake and understeers on another car is different than a situation where driver has already overtaken and is continuing into the corner ahead. The difference here is trying to overtake and having already overtaken.

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
froze wrote:
We were discussing what the error that he made actually was. You say having no control aka having nothing he could've done about it is an error. I was just simply using it in a sentence to show you how it doesn't make any sense how being in a situation where you can't possibly do anything means you are in the wrong and deserve a penalty.

lol, he shouldn't have put himself in that situation silly...

Yet how was he supposed to know that he would lose the rear?

So what your saying is that any driver who thinks he can make a move stick shouldn't be penalised if they crash into another driver because it doesn't work out how they thought it would? So a driver who tries to overtake on the inside but locks up and understeers into the other car is not at fault because he didn't think it was going to happen? Are you for real? A driver is responsible for controlling his car at all times. If he loses control unless something breaks or because he is hit by somebody else it is his fault.

Well besides the fact that you didn't even answer to my question, I think a situation where a driver tries to overtake and understeers on another car is different than a situation where driver has already overtaken and is continuing into the corner ahead. The difference here is trying to overtake and having already overtaken.

He's supposed to know there is a chance he will lose the rear because he's a professional racing driver who has been racing most of his life and if he has no concept of the limits of the car and conditions he has no place on a race track. Both situations are exactly the same, a driver loses control of his car crashing into another car. Where is the difference?

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3808
Location: Belgium
Deserved? Yes.

Necessary? Not really.

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

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 510
Now they've done everything they can to make overtaking possible with DRS and KERS they're sending out the message that there will be little or no leniency for not doing it safely. The top drivers have proven over and over they can manage wheel to wheel without contact so...

At least that is how I'm reading it of late.

Still gotta give him credit for a brilliant race up til then.

_________________
Trying to use 'tongue in cheek' humour in a forum is like wearing a Borat t-shirt in Kazakhstan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 746
Similar incident to Maldonado on Perez in Silverstone... Hulkenberg lost control of his car and ruined Lewis' race. it wasn't deliberately reckless or anything but what happened happened and he deserved to face the consequences.

The conditions were tricky but you have to legislate for that when thinking about your overtake

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place
Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 1859
Location: Belgium
I voted no
yes it was Hulk's fault
but considering the circumstances (wet tricky track and the presence of the Caterham) and it wasn't deliberate from Hulk I think it was too harsh
Of course gutted for Lewis that he couldn't celebrate his last race for Macca with a win but let's not forget that Hulk and Button were screwed by the safety car. Button eventually won and sad that Hulk missed out on his first ever podium (would have been great that he provided Force India with their first win in his last race for them).
I don't believe in a conspiracy theory that they wanted to help Alonso but I think the stewards are not only inconsisntent in punishments but they tend to penalize much more when it's about the top positions. I really don't like the whole penalizing culture that is now in F1. But I guess it's a necessary evil...

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:59 pm
Posts: 198
Never a penalty in a million years, he just ran out of talent i think.

Just unlucky for Lewis and Hulkenberg deserved a podium today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
MclarenBullet wrote:
Never a penalty in a million years, he just ran out of talent i think.

Just unlucky for Lewis and Hulkenberg deserved a podium today.


His talent is unelievable. He was the odd one out in a good way. Like Schumacher in his debut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:25 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Florida
Definitely not deserved. He basically had the move done when the rear stepped out. He didn't punt Hamilton at all, but caught him with the right rear as the car rotated.

Hamilton could have given a hair more room, but it wasn;t Hamiltons fault at all.

Also they were both catching the Caterham far faster than they expected I think, and both were trying to last minute brake that extra bit to avoid rear-ending Kovalainen.

Pure racing incident, I felt bad for both.

And Vettel proved once again he's no better than the new kids at driving in traffic...

_________________
As soon as you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 249
Silly penalty, was a legitimate look at the inside of the corner. If every move has to be predictable and perfect, then where does the definition of a racing incident lie? It looks like they had their fingers on the trigger - never seen anyone get a penalty so fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 883
Of course it was deserved, he lost control and took another driver out the race which was 100% his fault, Hamilton did nothing wrong and left him plenty of room.

It's not even something to disagree with it's that clear cut and correctly got a penalty, 90% of all the F1 experts on the broadcasts and in the paddock know and say it's the Hulk's fault because it is, and that's why he got a penalty.

However the Hulk has allot of fans on here though so they use bias and vote no of course, to much bias, even with such a clear cut incident with a driver taking out the other car clearly, people are still blinded because they like the driver and can't see he did anything wrong. Then again people even defend Romain on here for his crazy driving so nothing surprises me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:18 pm
Posts: 325
Location: Evansville, IN
Jomox wrote:
Of course it was deserved, he lost control and took another driver out the race which was 100% his fault, Hamilton did nothing wrong and left him plenty of room.



So what about Vettel where he had clear control of his car and knocked out two other cars? Sure, it was another racing incident and maybe Senna shouldnt have ventured to the inside but he did just like Nico shouldnt of gone there but he did. The only thing that is different is that Senna was damaged out of the race and Nico wasnt. Had Senna continued on and Vettel been knocked out Senna would of got a lot more than a drive through.


These guys are at the top of their form. To make them double take about a GREAT overtaking opportunity because they might wreck is insane.

_________________
2013 PF1 Pick 10: 2nd Canadian GP


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 883
This incident has nothing to do with Vettel, so it's a mute point.

The new generation is looking very weak in terms of reckless driving either way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:53 pm
Posts: 37
I'm sorry but this isn't the playground. This is the peak of motorsport.

Incidents like this cost championships; ultimately careers and millions of pounds. Ending somebody's race cannot, at all, be taken lightly.

Not in this situation, but if a driver is taken out through no fault of his own after 2/3 of race distance, I think he should be given half the points which the guilty party earns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:18 pm
Posts: 325
Location: Evansville, IN
Jomox wrote:
This incident has nothing to do with Vettel, so it's a mute point.

The new generation is looking very weak in terms of reckless driving either way.


It really does. It highlights the stewards inconsistent ruling throughout the year. Brazil just highlighted it.

If Whiting says that they overlook on the first few corners because cars are three wide and its hard to place blame then what do you do when the leader and second place runner come up on a lap car and they suddenly run three wide?


Hamilton wrecked a lot last year and he wasnt a new generation driver then.


Accidents happen in racing. Trying to police the drivers to NOT wreck is only going to lead to them trying to NOT pass when there is an optimum chance of them completing the pass.

_________________
2013 PF1 Pick 10: 2nd Canadian GP


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 883
This incident has nothing to do with Vettel's in terms of who's fault it was and if the penalty was deserved, which in this case it was all the Hulk's fault and he deserved a penalty.

The stewards inconsistency has gone on for years and years and is a whole other story, I doubt it will ever change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:26 pm
Posts: 804
Location: Ontario, Canada
I like the Hulk but he deserved that penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:25 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Florida
Jomox wrote:
Of course it was deserved, he lost control and took another driver out the race which was 100% his fault, Hamilton did nothing wrong and left him plenty of room.

It's not even something to disagree with it's that clear cut and correctly got a penalty, 90% of all the F1 experts on the broadcasts and in the paddock know and say it's the Hulk's fault because it is, and that's why he got a penalty.

However the Hulk has allot of fans on here though so they use bias and vote no of course, to much bias, even with such a clear cut incident with a driver taking out the other car clearly, people are still blinded because they like the driver and can't see he did anything wrong. Then again people even defend Romain on here for his crazy driving so nothing surprises me.


You're crazy.

Completely a racing incident. Both drivers got caught out by Kovalainen a bit, I thought Hamilton was gonna rear-end him for a second. Hulkenberg basically made the move work, and then the rear completely stepped out. it's not like he pulled a Maldonado or Massa move barging through; he just lost the tail of the car, and it was actually his right rear tire that struck Hamilton.

Regardless, I was gutted for Hamilton

_________________
As soon as you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 883
seandean41 wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Of course it was deserved, he lost control and took another driver out the race which was 100% his fault, Hamilton did nothing wrong and left him plenty of room.

It's not even something to disagree with it's that clear cut and correctly got a penalty, 90% of all the F1 experts on the broadcasts and in the paddock know and say it's the Hulk's fault because it is, and that's why he got a penalty.

However the Hulk has allot of fans on here though so they use bias and vote no of course, to much bias, even with such a clear cut incident with a driver taking out the other car clearly, people are still blinded because they like the driver and can't see he did anything wrong. Then again people even defend Romain on here for his crazy driving so nothing surprises me.


You're crazy.

Completely a racing incident. Both drivers got caught out by Kovalainen a bit, I thought Hamilton was gonna rear-end him for a second. Hulkenberg basically made the move work, and then the rear completely stepped out. it's not like he pulled a Maldonado or Massa move barging through; he just lost the tail of the car, and it was actually his right rear tire that struck Hamilton.

Regardless, I was gutted for Hamilton


So a driver taking out another driver out of the race by smashing into him loosing control, is classed as a racing incident. This is F1, and not karts or GP2, it's worrying if this is what is expected of F1 driver's now, especially the newer generation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Posts: 781
seandean41 wrote:
Definitely not deserved. He basically had the move done when the rear stepped out. He didn't punt Hamilton at all, but caught him with the right rear as the car rotated.

Hamilton could have given a hair more room, but it wasn;t Hamiltons fault at all.

Also they were both catching the Caterham far faster than they expected I think, and both were trying to last minute brake that extra bit to avoid rear-ending Kovalainen.

Pure racing incident, I felt bad for both.

And Vettel proved once again he's no better than the new kids at driving in traffic...

Look - I agree the penalty is harsh - but it has to be applied. It is, as always, a judgemental issue - IMHO he was rash to try and make the corner in the slippery conditions. If it had been Hamilton that did the same thing (like in the dry last year vs Massa, etc!) folk would be baying for his blood!
I personally think that the 'racing incident' is too easy to use as a 'get out of jail free' clause! The FIA use the 'avoidable collision' for a reason - meaning that, if, in the stewards view - a collision was to all intent and purpose 'certain' due to the drivers premeditated actions - this is what we have to consider. A dive up the inside in the dry is often tricky, in the wet, doubly so - and although harsh, I think Hulk deserved a penalty.
What pisses me off - to a level of exasperation - is the fact that penalties are not consistent. I'd rather that there were no penalties at all - than have the inconsistency that we have seen over the last few seasons! (but of course, without any penalties, that would mean that drives could get away with murder!)
The whole penalty issue needs sorting - and one of the main reasons is bad stewarding IMHO, partly because the majority of stewards are not ex-drivers, but also because they don't have a fixed 'benchline' for assessment.
FWIW - I suggest a simple system for review - along the lines of:
after an incident, all the teams can press a button (or contact race control somehow) - informing race control that they think it needs looking into, say within 3 laps of the incident, allowing some time for video review?
this means that (out of a dozen teams) if six teams press the 'red' button - the stewards have to look at it - and make a ruling.
if 6 or more teams don't press their button - it is overlooked, or else an official ruling is made.
Similarly, if race control have missed an incident, but the teams want it 'reviewed' they can do the same thing - perhaps say within 5 laps - they can tell race control to look into the problem. Again, majority vote rules....
this would (perhaps?) prevent some of the inconsistency seen currently?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:18 pm
Posts: 325
Location: Evansville, IN
Jomox wrote:
seandean41 wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Of course it was deserved, he lost control and took another driver out the race which was 100% his fault, Hamilton did nothing wrong and left him plenty of room.

It's not even something to disagree with it's that clear cut and correctly got a penalty, 90% of all the F1 experts on the broadcasts and in the paddock know and say it's the Hulk's fault because it is, and that's why he got a penalty.

However the Hulk has allot of fans on here though so they use bias and vote no of course, to much bias, even with such a clear cut incident with a driver taking out the other car clearly, people are still blinded because they like the driver and can't see he did anything wrong. Then again people even defend Romain on here for his crazy driving so nothing surprises me.


You're crazy.

Completely a racing incident. Both drivers got caught out by Kovalainen a bit, I thought Hamilton was gonna rear-end him for a second. Hulkenberg basically made the move work, and then the rear completely stepped out. it's not like he pulled a Maldonado or Massa move barging through; he just lost the tail of the car, and it was actually his right rear tire that struck Hamilton.

Regardless, I was gutted for Hamilton


So a driver taking out another driver out of the race by smashing into him loosing control, is classed as a racing incident. This is F1, and not karts or GP2, it's worrying if this is what is expected of F1 driver's now, especially the newer generation.


He did not AIM to take him out. In fact, had Hamilton backed off a tiny bit they both would of been in the race. Hamilton saw him coming and tried to close the door by simply keeping his line. Its his job to also maintain that his car be clean throughout the race as well.

Your statements make it seem like Nico was told to take out Hamilton. How many wrecks have happened at turn 1 in Brazil over the years?

Heck, how many races has Hamilton taken out other drivers where no penalty was issued?

_________________
2013 PF1 Pick 10: 2nd Canadian GP


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: amirb, angrypirate, Cozzie, DarkoA, jakedroid, Pedrosa_4_Ever, pokerman, rich06, t2jd1967, VDV23, 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