planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:33 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Lotus49 wrote:
What outlook? As far as I remember it was still very much debatable who would be stronger in the run in.


Well, let's say my memory of discussions around various fora, including here, is different than yours...
I'm pretty sure that Singapore was pegged as the last track where Ferrari would have a real edge and the rest of the tracks would mostly favor Mercedes, with Vettel already behind in the WDC, hence the need to get away from Singapore with as much daylight between him and Hamilton as possible. 7 points, at that point, looked vital to keep chances alive for the following races.

Quote:
They messed Monza up by set up. They went on to be competitive everywhere but AD.


They weren't competitive in Brazil, and Monza was, ahead of the weekend, always going to be a Mercedes weekend - regardless of the way Ferrari screwed the weekend up when looking at it in hindsight.

Quote:
Lewis was driving a worse car that weekend and was stuck in 5th on a track you can't really pass on, there was simply no need to be that aggressive to hold onto 1st never mind a need to be that aggressive because of the context of the championship battle with Lewis.


The goal is not "holding on to first for the weekend", the goal was winning the WDC. Where Hamilton is on track is largely irrelevant when having to maximize your own result when you know your competitor is expected to be mostly ahead of you for the remainder of the season.

Quote:
Yes but Max is right beside him wherever Seb goes so still only needs to outbrake him unless Seb was planning on taking T1 with no regard if a driver had his nose alongside.


Still, Vettel makes it at least a bit harder for Verstappen while making it a bit easier for himself. Improving the odds no matter how you look at it.


Quote:
No it just means we can't speak of Seb's move as if we saw it play out


We can definitely say Vettel didn't do anything actually wrong, while Alonso did.

But even if you don't agree, davidheath's position of blaming Vettel and not Alonso is still exemplary of the bias he's carrying. Probably also the reason why he hasn't responded since I mentioned it.

Quote:
Imagine if there was a car on the inside of Kimi in Suzuka that Alonso was oblivious too and still tried to run Kimi to tracks edge and the contact happened earlier. Alonso would still get the lions share of the blame from most because of the initial aggressive squeeze I think and that seemed to reflect the feeling after Singapore.


Not from me he wouldn't - as long as he didn't leave less than a car's width of space.

I guess there will be different views on Sebs manoeuvre for years to come. At least we agree that it wasn't borne from cracking under pressure.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4828
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Baku he threw away the points. In Canada Max clipped him, so he didn't throw anything away. And in Singapore, as it's becoming a little tedious to have to keep pointing out, Vettel was hit from behind after carrying out a move which was the mirror image of one Hamilton did in the previous race and one which is pretty standard in racing. Only hindsight might make it a mistake. Not sure how you work out that lost him 38 points but I'm sure you'll come up with some creative accounting

So 13 points for Baku only from Vettel's own mistakes

Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.

And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


It was doing it in the wet that surprised me. Also having a meh start made it worse as he wasn't clear of Max so he was never going to cover him off but rather it looked like a desperate attempt to spook him with a chop to scare him off.

And that was the big mistake for me. If it was dry,fine. If he was still clear of Max,fine. But it was neither of them so not the best move in my book to be honest and I think Ferrari's own issues in Mal and Jpn got him off the hook to some degree.


On Suzuka 2012 as it was brought up, I always thought Alonso got spooked by Button a bit and it was more of a racing incident but much like this one he was initially aggressive in going over to squeeze Kimi and he hadn't cleared him either so it didn't look great from his perspective but he had left Kimi room until Button came left before T1 at around 18-19s mark here and Alonso moves fractionally left as a result and hits Kimi pushing him off. Only centimetres in it and the punishment didn't fit the crime for me but this is the problem with aggressive defensive moves as they always look bad when it goes wrong and his initial aggressive move across is what's remembered.


I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?


I think it's a risky move in the dry too, Singapore and Germany 2010 stand out to me as two that had me thinking it was too aggressive. The wet just amplifies it for me.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


It was doing it in the wet that surprised me. Also having a meh start made it worse as he wasn't clear of Max so he was never going to cover him off but rather it looked like a desperate attempt to spook him with a chop to scare him off.

And that was the big mistake for me. If it was dry,fine. If he was still clear of Max,fine. But it was neither of them so not the best move in my book to be honest and I think Ferrari's own issues in Mal and Jpn got him off the hook to some degree.


On Suzuka 2012 as it was brought up, I always thought Alonso got spooked by Button a bit and it was more of a racing incident but much like this one he was initially aggressive in going over to squeeze Kimi and he hadn't cleared him either so it didn't look great from his perspective but he had left Kimi room until Button came left before T1 at around 18-19s mark here and Alonso moves fractionally left as a result and hits Kimi pushing him off. Only centimetres in it and the punishment didn't fit the crime for me but this is the problem with aggressive defensive moves as they always look bad when it goes wrong and his initial aggressive move across is what's remembered.


I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?


I think it's a risky move in the dry too, Singapore and Germany 2010 stand out to me as two that had me thinking it was too aggressive. The wet just amplifies it for me.


Ok, in your other post you said that in the dry it is fine, hence my surprise.

The two 2010 moves - especially in Germany - were more like chop moves; Vettel's move this year wasn't in my view. Anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4828
mds wrote:

Well, let's say my memory of discussions around various fora, including here, is different than yours...
I'm pretty sure that Singapore was pegged as the last track where Ferrari would have a real edge and the rest of the tracks would mostly favor Mercedes, with Vettel already behind in the WDC, hence the need to get away from Singapore with as much daylight between him and Hamilton as possible. 7 points, at that point, looked vital to keep chances alive for the following races.


I think it's true it was the last track that was nailed on favourite for Ferrari but Monza was the last nailed on Mercedes one as well. Track conditions,tyre selection and pressures had decided competitiveness pretty consistently until Spa which turned a few predictions on its head with Ferrari's pace on harder tyres and pressures and on a layout that suited Merc.

We were expecting another GB and we got Ferrari arguably quicker on Sunday which is what left the remaining tracks up in the air a bit.



Quote:
They weren't competitive in Brazil, and Monza was, ahead of the weekend, always going to be a Mercedes weekend - regardless of the way Ferrari screwed the weekend up when looking at it in hindsight.



They won and missed pole by 0.038 in Brazil. Obviously with Lewis crashing it's hard too say how quicker he could of gone but he was outqualified in AD by Bottas and his race pace in Brazil while strong is irrelevant as he was thrashing a new PU.

It is hindsight for Monza but they messed up so bad they were slower than Red Bull so we can't take anything from it.


Quote:
The goal is not "holding on to first for the weekend", the goal was winning the WDC. Where Hamilton is on track is largely irrelevant when having to maximize your own result when you know your competitor is expected to be mostly ahead of you for the remainder of the season.


But that's the point, it wasn't nailed on Mercedes tracks in the run in. They've struggled in Malaysia most years, S1 in Suzuka is all Ferrari,AD was favoured for Ferrari because of S1/3 and COTA is similar to Malaysia/Spa in layout and being aero efficient tracks and Ferrari had been quicker on race day in similar conditions in Spa. Mexico is tricky because it's high d/f but highly PU dependant.

There was still so much up in the air at that point and it was a track Mercedes weren't a threat. I don't think the situation warranted that level of aggression at the start. Here's Pat's prediction mentioned earlier...

Image
http://e2.365dm.com/17/08/16-9/20/skysp ... 0831124935




Quote:
Still, Vettel makes it at least a bit harder for Verstappen while making it a bit easier for himself. Improving the odds no matter how you look at it.


Agree, I just don't think he needed to.



Quote:
We can definitely say Vettel didn't do anything actually wrong, while Alonso did.

But even if you don't agree, davidheath's position of blaming Vettel and not Alonso is still exemplary of the bias he's carrying. Probably also the reason why he hasn't responded since I mentioned it.


I think you can say he was too aggressive with the move but yeah I don't agree with davidheath although I do think that Alonso's move was actually in 2 parts and the aggressive squeeze was the first part and the part I don't like, but the contact comes after Alonso moves to the right but opens his steering in what I assumed was a response to Button and that led to the contact but its neither here nor there, I can understand Alonso getting the blame because of the initial squeeze.



Quote:
Not from me he wouldn't - as long as he didn't leave less than a car's width of space.

I guess there will be different views on Sebs manoeuvre for years to come. At least we agree that it wasn't borne from cracking under pressure.


Agree yeah.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4828
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


It was doing it in the wet that surprised me. Also having a meh start made it worse as he wasn't clear of Max so he was never going to cover him off but rather it looked like a desperate attempt to spook him with a chop to scare him off.

And that was the big mistake for me. If it was dry,fine. If he was still clear of Max,fine. But it was neither of them so not the best move in my book to be honest and I think Ferrari's own issues in Mal and Jpn got him off the hook to some degree.


On Suzuka 2012 as it was brought up, I always thought Alonso got spooked by Button a bit and it was more of a racing incident but much like this one he was initially aggressive in going over to squeeze Kimi and he hadn't cleared him either so it didn't look great from his perspective but he had left Kimi room until Button came left before T1 at around 18-19s mark here and Alonso moves fractionally left as a result and hits Kimi pushing him off. Only centimetres in it and the punishment didn't fit the crime for me but this is the problem with aggressive defensive moves as they always look bad when it goes wrong and his initial aggressive move across is what's remembered.


I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?


I think it's a risky move in the dry too, Singapore and Germany 2010 stand out to me as two that had me thinking it was too aggressive. The wet just amplifies it for me.


Ok, in your other post you said that in the dry it is fine, hence my surprise.

The two 2010 moves - especially in Germany - were more like chop moves; Vettel's move this year wasn't in my view. Anyway


Sorry, I just think it's risky but common enough in the dry so fair enough(wrong word to choose but that's what I meant by fine).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

It was doing it in the wet that surprised me. Also having a meh start made it worse as he wasn't clear of Max so he was never going to cover him off but rather it looked like a desperate attempt to spook him with a chop to scare him off.

And that was the big mistake for me. If it was dry,fine. If he was still clear of Max,fine. But it was neither of them so not the best move in my book to be honest and I think Ferrari's own issues in Mal and Jpn got him off the hook to some degree.


On Suzuka 2012 as it was brought up, I always thought Alonso got spooked by Button a bit and it was more of a racing incident but much like this one he was initially aggressive in going over to squeeze Kimi and he hadn't cleared him either so it didn't look great from his perspective but he had left Kimi room until Button came left before T1 at around 18-19s mark here and Alonso moves fractionally left as a result and hits Kimi pushing him off. Only centimetres in it and the punishment didn't fit the crime for me but this is the problem with aggressive defensive moves as they always look bad when it goes wrong and his initial aggressive move across is what's remembered.


I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?


I think it's a risky move in the dry too, Singapore and Germany 2010 stand out to me as two that had me thinking it was too aggressive. The wet just amplifies it for me.


Ok, in your other post you said that in the dry it is fine, hence my surprise.

The two 2010 moves - especially in Germany - were more like chop moves; Vettel's move this year wasn't in my view. Anyway


Sorry, I just think it's risky but common enough in the dry so fair enough(wrong word to choose but that's what I meant by fine).


Ok, this makes more sense to me!

I understand what you are saying, but I do feel that you are putting little faith in them. Every move in F1 is inherently risky.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4828
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?


I think it's a risky move in the dry too, Singapore and Germany 2010 stand out to me as two that had me thinking it was too aggressive. The wet just amplifies it for me.


Ok, in your other post you said that in the dry it is fine, hence my surprise.

The two 2010 moves - especially in Germany - were more like chop moves; Vettel's move this year wasn't in my view. Anyway


Sorry, I just think it's risky but common enough in the dry so fair enough(wrong word to choose but that's what I meant by fine).


Ok, this makes more sense to me!

I understand what you are saying, but I do feel that you are putting little faith in them. Every move in F1 is inherently risky.


True enough but I think there are levels of risk when doing those moves the driver can influence. Lewis in the race before in Monza for example went across but waited until he knew he'd cleared Stroll before committing to it fully and of course it was dry, both of which lessen any risks with the move (For me anyway).


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
I think this is a different move though. If he had cleared him, then he was already in front and pulling away, there's no need to cover that car then. It is a bit different to when the getaway is not as good. Anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
mds wrote:
Well, let's say my memory of discussions around various fora, including here, is different than yours...
I'm pretty sure that Singapore was pegged as the last track where Ferrari would have a real edge and the rest of the tracks would mostly favor Mercedes, with Vettel already behind in the WDC, hence the need to get away from Singapore with as much daylight between him and Hamilton as possible. 7 points, at that point, looked vital to keep chances alive for the following races.


Rubbish. No one knew how the next races would turn out. Just at the next race Ferrari were faster than Mercedes too.

Quote:
The goal is not "holding on to first for the weekend", the goal was winning the WDC. Where Hamilton is on track is largely irrelevant when having to maximize your own result when you know your competitor is expected to be mostly ahead of you for the remainder of the season.


If the goal was winning the WDC then it would have been better to score 18 points rather than 0 points.

Quote:
We can definitely say Vettel didn't do anything actually wrong, while Alonso did.

But even if you don't agree, davidheath's position of blaming Vettel and not Alonso is still exemplary of the bias he's carrying. Probably also the reason why he hasn't responded since I mentioned it.


Not sure what Suzuka 2012 has to do with this. Suzuka 2012 vs Singapore 2017 are completely different situations.


Quote:
Not from me he wouldn't - as long as he didn't leave less than a car's width of space.


:lol:

You are too straight down the line MDS.

We saw that this leave one car's width rule was not even used in Barcelona 2016 where Rosberg was not pubished.

Mod Edit: Offensive part of post removed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
davidheath461 wrote:
Rubbish. No one knew how the next races would turn out. Just at the next race Ferrari were faster than Mercedes too.


You never "know" what is going to happen. But general consensus was Singapore would be the last race where Ferrari would have a clear edge.

Quote:
Quote:
The goal is not "holding on to first for the weekend", the goal was winning the WDC. Where Hamilton is on track is largely irrelevant when having to maximize your own result when you know your competitor is expected to be mostly ahead of you for the remainder of the season.


If the goal was winning the WDC then it would have been better to score 18 points rather than 0 points.


Read my post again because you haven't understood it.

Quote:
Not sure what Suzuka 2012 has to do with this. Suzuka 2012 vs Singapore 2017 are completely different situations.


Well you're right, since Vettel didn't actually push someone off track while Alonso did.
Not even sure if you're serious here - both had a driver going over to the other side, both collided with someone who was there, but crucially from the driver's POV Vettel left more than a car's width, Alonso didn't. I have no idea how you rule Alonso an innocent party, a victim, but then go claiming Vettel is fully to blame for what happened.

Quote:
Quote:
Not from me he wouldn't - as long as he didn't leave less than a car's width of space.


:lol:

You are too straight down the line MDS.

We saw that this leave one car's width rule was not even used in Barcelona 2016 where Rosberg was not pubished.


Alonso wasn't punished either. The rule is still there and Alonso still broke it.

Anyway, I notice you don't provide an explanation for you thinking Vettel was at fault for Singapore and Alonso wasn't for Suzuka '12, while Vettel didn't do anything against any rule and Alonso did. Don't bother replying if you're not going to give more insight in this one, because the only thing I will reply to that is quoting this previous sentence.

Mod Edit: Offensive quote removed

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
davidheath461 wrote:
You are too straight down the line MDS.

We saw that this leave one car's width rule was not even used in Barcelona 2016 where Rosberg was not pubished.
You should read that rule again, because you haven't understood that either. If it's any consolation, you're not alone.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 855
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
I'm sure if Vettel had an engine mode to go to that can save him in the race like the Merc drivers he would just have been fine.

Vettel delivered three of the best qualifying laps witnessed this this season.

As for Ricciardo when he gets to Vettels level he can talk, for now he should concentrate on being team leader at Redbull.


Well, Ricciardo beat Vettel very clearly when they were teammates; it was not even close. Ricciardo seems to be on ahigher level than Vettl. ;)


When he has 4 titles, we can have this discussion again or he beats Max without reliability issues.


Let's see - both had 7 races seriously affected by engine issues - the only point of difference is that Dan managed to bring the car home in Singapore - but then if we talk about grid spot penalties - many of which were when the RBR was more competitive - gosh - Dan had 75 and max had 35


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Rockie wrote:
Warheart01 wrote:
I'm actually glad this is brought up. Vettel has had this reputation of ''never crumbling under pressure'', while Hamilton has had the opposite reputation for some strange reason. Always have I felt that it should be the other way around and the 2017 F1 season proved I was right.


Yup just like '14 proved you right smh.

It's as if Vettel naysayers wait till he does wrong and then go you see I told you so.

What is most funny is Hamilton could not hold a candle to Vettel in the 1st half of the season, and I reckon had Malaysia and Japan turbo and spark plug failure not happened this cracking under pressure nonsense won't come up.

Going on from that with those things not happening I'm wondering if the stewards would have acted differently in Mexico when Vettel crashed into Hamilton, that wouldn't have been a case of the title is over so it doesn't matter?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Blake wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Baku he threw away the points. In Canada Max clipped him, so he didn't throw anything away. And in Singapore, as it's becoming a little tedious to have to keep pointing out, Vettel was hit from behind after carrying out a move which was the mirror image of one Hamilton did in the previous race and one which is pretty standard in racing. Only hindsight might make it a mistake. Not sure how you work out that lost him 38 points but I'm sure you'll come up with some creative accounting

So 13 points for Baku only from Vettel's own mistakes

Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.

And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


Exactly this. Preference or perhaps "agenda" might be more accurate might be more accurate.

Agenda as absolving Vettel from as much blame as possible as we also witnessed in Baku?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.


Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6346
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Baku he threw away the points. In Canada Max clipped him, so he didn't throw anything away. And in Singapore, as it's becoming a little tedious to have to keep pointing out, Vettel was hit from behind after carrying out a move which was the mirror image of one Hamilton did in the previous race and one which is pretty standard in racing. Only hindsight might make it a mistake. Not sure how you work out that lost him 38 points but I'm sure you'll come up with some creative accounting

So 13 points for Baku only from Vettel's own mistakes

Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.

And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


Exactly this. Preference or perhaps "agenda" might be more accurate might be more accurate.

Agenda as absolving Vettel from as much blame as possible as we also witnessed in Baku?

You should know all about absolving of blame, poker. You should have a masters degree in it by now.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
Does that make you a PHD?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6346
Location: Nebraska, USA
Nah... I am too far behind to catch up.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
Blake wrote:
Nah... I am too far behind to catch up.
;)


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.


Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

The room was there. Your assertion of the accident meaning that there was no room left is just wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.


Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.

And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.


Exactly this. Preference or perhaps "agenda" might be more accurate might be more accurate.

Agenda as absolving Vettel from as much blame as possible as we also witnessed in Baku?

You should know all about absolving of blame, poker. You should have a masters degree in it by now.

Well so long as were not looking to put one above the other when it comes to personal bias?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Last edited by pokerman on Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

The room was there. Your assertion of the accident meaning that there was no room left is just wrong

The accident happened because there was not enough room, I'm happy to see that as a fact.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all

Verstappen was given the choice of being hit by either Vettel or Kimi's car, he chose to avoid Vettel's car which was very much spearing across the track.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all

Verstappen was given the choice of being hit by either Vettel or Kimi's car, he chose to avoid Vettel's car which was very much spearing across the track.

But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

The room was there. Your assertion of the accident meaning that there was no room left is just wrong

The accident happened because there was not enough room, I'm happy to see that as a fact.

But you would be wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all

Verstappen was given the choice of being hit by either Vettel or Kimi's car, he chose to avoid Vettel's car which was very much spearing across the track.

But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward

He moved before Vettel hit him, Vettel was moving across quite quickly, you look at a screenshot and think that Verstappen has all the time in the world, another split second and Vettel hits him if he doesn't move.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

The room was there. Your assertion of the accident meaning that there was no room left is just wrong

The accident happened because there was not enough room, I'm happy to see that as a fact.

But you would be wrong

Me and the majority then methinks, I only really see Vettel supporters taking his side like they did in Baku.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
mds wrote:

You never "know" what is going to happen. But general consensus was Singapore would be the last race where Ferrari would have a clear edge.


Someone else already posted a pundit's predictions for the final races and they had Mexico and Abu Dhabi down as Ferrari tracks. Not sure what general consensus you are thinking about mds.

Quote:
Read my post again because you haven't understood it.


I understood it.

You havn't explained how risking a DNF is maximising points?

Quote:
Well you're right, since Vettel didn't actually push someone off track while Alonso did.
Not even sure if you're serious here - both had a driver going over to the other side, both collided with someone who was there, but crucially from the driver's POV Vettel left more than a car's width, Alonso didn't. I have no idea how you rule Alonso an innocent party, a victim, but then go claiming Vettel is fully to blame for what happened.


As you say, different incidents. So not sure why you persist in comparing my reaction to each. A car getting hit from behind and receiving a puncture is very different to a car driving diagonally across the track in the wet and causing a collision which eliminated 3 other cars.


Quote:
Alonso wasn't punished either. The rule is still there and Alonso still broke it.


Right the rule is there, yet i've shown you 2 instances where the rule was broken (albeit by extremely tiny margins) and the stewards in both cases left the infringement unpunished because they were able to use their common sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all

Verstappen was given the choice of being hit by either Vettel or Kimi's car, he chose to avoid Vettel's car which was very much spearing across the track.

But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward

He moved before Vettel hit him, Vettel was moving across quite quickly, you look at a screenshot and think that Verstappen has all the time in the world, another split second and Vettel hits him if he doesn't move.

I never said Verstappen had all the time in the world. I've been arguing from the outset that it was just a series of circumstances which led to the accident, but it's you that's desperate to pin blame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
If he had given enough room the incident would not have happened.

The room was there. Your assertion of the accident meaning that there was no room left is just wrong

The accident happened because there was not enough room, I'm happy to see that as a fact.

But you would be wrong

Me and the majority then methinks, I only really see Vettel supporters taking his side like they did in Baku.

I don't recall the majority consensus specifically stating that there was no room at all between Verstappen and Vettel. But even if they did, are you suggesting that blame is somehow determined by majority vote now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Image

A very small amount of space, but given Vettel's trajectory, that space was going to disappear very quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Image

A very small amount of space, but given Vettel's trajectory, that space was going to disappear very quickly.

So, space, then. Prior to that, the gap was bigger, so there was opportunity before the accident to avoid it. Which brings me back to the choices you outlined...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:34 am
Posts: 379
Hamilton had the better car so of course Seb was under more pressure.
Let's see how Hamilton copes if his car is a handicap next year. I guarantee he won't be as competitive as Seb was if their roles were reversed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Image

A very small amount of space, but given Vettel's trajectory, that space was going to disappear very quickly.

So, space, then. Prior to that, the gap was bigger, so there was opportunity before the accident to avoid it. Which brings me back to the choices you outlined...


A small space, as opposed to "quite a gap" as you earlier claimed, though this is actually due to Versappen's front left being locked in between Kimi's right rear and sidepod at the time of impact.

The space between Vettel and Kimi looks to be smaller than a car's width.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:

Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Image

A very small amount of space, but given Vettel's trajectory, that space was going to disappear very quickly.

So, space, then. Prior to that, the gap was bigger, so there was opportunity before the accident to avoid it. Which brings me back to the choices you outlined...


A small space, as opposed to "quite a gap" as you earlier claimed, though this is actually due to Versappen's front left being locked in between Kimi's right rear and sidepod at the time of impact.

The space between Vettel and Kimi looks to be smaller than a car's width.

It was quite a gap, which narrowed. You can't have it both ways: either the gap was narrow for a while, in which case Vettel couldn't have been closing at a sharp angle; or the gap was quite wide and closed right before impact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Actually, there was still usable room between Vettel and Verstappen when Kimi hit Verstappen, so your claim is not quite accurate. Driving close to another is not the same as leaving no room at all

Verstappen was given the choice of being hit by either Vettel or Kimi's car, he chose to avoid Vettel's car which was very much spearing across the track.

But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward

He moved before Vettel hit him, Vettel was moving across quite quickly, you look at a screenshot and think that Verstappen has all the time in the world, another split second and Vettel hits him if he doesn't move.

I never said Verstappen had all the time in the world. I've been arguing from the outset that it was just a series of circumstances which led to the accident, but it's you that's desperate to pin blame.

No the object here is to lay Vettel as being blameless.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27515
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But he left quite a gap between his and Vettel's car. So I don't think the choices you outlined are quite that straightforward


Yes, such a huge gap....

Image

picture just prior to impact shows different. He had some space


Image

A very small amount of space, but given Vettel's trajectory, that space was going to disappear very quickly.

So, space, then. Prior to that, the gap was bigger, so there was opportunity before the accident to avoid it. Which brings me back to the choices you outlined...

The cars must be traveling at close to 100mph and the still makes it look like the drivers have all the time in the world like I said before, were do you see the space when Verstappen and Kimi's rear wheels are overlapping?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 1st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


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: 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group