Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules

Who was at fault

Lewis
27
16%
Nico
142
84%
 
Total votes: 169

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by flyboy10 »

Need to find the video

Yellowbin74
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Yellowbin74 »

Whilst I'm all for free speech, this poll only needed one option.

Silly move by Nico, especially with a brake by wire issue.
Should I grow a beard?

User avatar
Randine
Posts: 903
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Randine »

Nico given 10 second penalty for causing an accident, and 2 penalty points for finishing the race with an unsafe car.
It doesn't change the result as he was over 10 seconds in front of Ricciardo
Dan the man!


Yellowbin74
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Yellowbin74 »

Then that's a farce. No penalty at all really. Nice to see the stewards bottled it again.
Should I grow a beard?

User avatar
slide
Posts: 1426
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by slide »

what a joke , and no doubt puts a smile on nico's face - I hope Hamilton destroys you at Silverstone

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8060
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

My initial view was that he left his braking too late, after reviewing it a few times I think he left it as late as possible to turn in in order to force Lewis wide and not give him a chance to go around the outside. I don't see it as a lot different to when drivers force eachother off on the exit of corners and think it deserves to be punished.

I think that losing 2 positions and, including the 10 second penalty, around 30 seconds in total is fitting punishment.

User avatar
hittheapex
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by hittheapex »

lamo wrote:
trento wrote:The entry point was Rosberg's fault. But Hamilton's re-entry to the track and hitting Rosberg looks wrong too.
They didn't touch when Hamilton re-joined. Taking a line to prevent someone re-joining the track is the worst part of this for me. Very unsportsmanlikes from Rosberg. Basically, Rosberg thinks its ok to push you off track and then prevent you from rejoining it. Crazy
:thumbup: I tuned in for the last few laps and caught the incident. Rosberg preventing Hamilton rejoining is where the line was crossed for me. I'm not a fan of drivers pushing each other off on the outside of a corner but it's become accepted by default really at some corners.

I'm surprised at the leniency of the stewards on this one. As ever, dangerous driving gets punished much more severely when it results in a serious accident. For example Grosjean at Spa vs Maldonado at Monaco. When the other driver in the incident takes action to avoid a dangerous accident, or gets through relatively unscathed, the perpetrator comparatively gets a slap on the wrist.
"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by dizlexik »

Yellowbin74 wrote:Then that's a farce. No penalty at all really. Nice to see the stewards bottled it again.
Often drivers that receive penalty during race still don't lose any position. There question is whether 10 seconds penalties were given for similar incidents in the past. If so you can't really complain.
eeee

ToniWolf
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:50 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by ToniWolf »

dizlexik wrote:
Unparalleled wrote:
dizlexik wrote:They are people who have different opinions, no need to call them animals. Lets respect each other.
Sorry but anyone that thinks Lewis was at fault has no business on a racing forum. It was clear cut.
Did they hurt you?
Maybe he wants to feel he has natural peers and is in the right place. ;)

Yellowbin74
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Yellowbin74 »

dizlexik wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:Then that's a farce. No penalty at all really. Nice to see the stewards bottled it again.
Often drivers that receive penalty during race still don't lose any position. There question is whether 10 seconds penalties were given for similar incidents in the past. If so you can't really complain.
So what's the point of a penalty that isn't actually a penalty?
Should I grow a beard?

Teddy007
Posts: 1079
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Teddy007 »

Flash2k11 wrote:
trento wrote:Same incident. 0:30 onwards. Just that Montoya braked much later.

...and this proves what?
Proves nothing, If Nico had gone straight forward like what happened to Montoya, both drivers would have been out.

The team would have gone mad at Montoya you also have to remember Ferrari wasnt the same team...

If that was both Williams or Ferrari there would have been blame on Montoya.

BUT Nico was aware of his break issues... So he should have given up? Sorry Lewis is not at fault and I am never afraid to shoot him for his antics or mistakes. If Lewis was classed as over aggresive because of Nicos problems, every driver would have taken Nico.

Nico wasnt willing to give up and paid the piper. The stewards agree and so does the team.

Will also add the fact that the rules are much more enforced these days compared to them. Plus much better footage and data available.
Last edited by Teddy007 on Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by dizlexik »

Yellowbin74 wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:Then that's a farce. No penalty at all really. Nice to see the stewards bottled it again.
Often drivers that receive penalty during race still don't lose any position. There question is whether 10 seconds penalties were given for similar incidents in the past. If so you can't really complain.
So what's the point of a penalty that isn't actually a penalty?
Did you read my post? It's like free kick in football. It might not change result, but nevertheless it's making it a bit more difficult for the side that committed foul. In fact in most of cases it changes nothing.
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by mcdo »

Yellowbin74 wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:Then that's a farce. No penalty at all really. Nice to see the stewards bottled it again.
Often drivers that receive penalty during race still don't lose any position. There question is whether 10 seconds penalties were given for similar incidents in the past. If so you can't really complain.
So what's the point of a penalty that isn't actually a penalty?
I don't think they're supposed to look at the proximity of the cars behind. They just pick the punishment they feel is fitting of the crime
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
Badgeronimous
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Location: North East

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Badgeronimous »

Rosbergs fault. Far too aggressive and avoidable. Totally relied on Hamilton yielding, and he did not. Dirty move.

However Rosberg absolutely should not yield next time Hamilton pushes him wide.
Last edited by Badgeronimous on Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blinky McSquinty
Posts: 1464
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

As soon as the TV displayed Hamilton getting a better drive out of turn one, my mind immediately sprang to Suzuka 1990 where two title contenders in the form of Senna and Prost went into a corner, none came out, and one held onto the title. Then while braking and as the situation developed, it was obvious that Rosberg had adopted a brass knuckles approach of, "if you don't back out, we will collide or I will push you far off the track".

So yes, Rosberg was playing very rough, and I have labelled such driving as dirty. It was dirty. I can understand where this has come from, Hamilton has done that very same thing to him, my mind recalls last year at Suzuka and just back in Canada. But two rights don't make a wrong, it was dirty driving on Rosberg's part.

Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Option or Prime »

Blinky McSquinty wrote: Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
Not that dumb, he won, if he hadn't the WC Standings would be a difference of 31 points instead of 11 with NR maintaining momentum, now Nico is in a hole mentally and LH has reasserted his authority.

Rosberg must be thinking "what do I have to do to beat him, even when I try to run him off the road he wins!" Could well be critical in this years WC especiallly if Toto throws his toys!

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10192
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Covalent »

Option or Prime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote: Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
Not that dumb, he won, if he hadn't the WC Standings would be a difference of 31 points instead of 11 with NR maintaining momentum, now Nico is in a hole mentally and LH has reasserted his authority.

Rosberg must be thinking "what do I have to do to beat him, even when I try to run him off the road he wins!" Could well be critical in this years WC especiallly if Toto throws his toys!
Without the grid penalty Nico would probably have won easily as he almost did it anyways so I don´t see him thinking that at all.

mikeyg123
Posts: 18365
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by mikeyg123 »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:As soon as the TV displayed Hamilton getting a better drive out of turn one, my mind immediately sprang to Suzuka 1990 where two title contenders in the form of Senna and Prost went into a corner, none came out, and one held onto the title. Then while braking and as the situation developed, it was obvious that Rosberg had adopted a brass knuckles approach of, "if you don't back out, we will collide or I will push you far off the track".

So yes, Rosberg was playing very rough, and I have labelled such driving as dirty. It was dirty. I can understand where this has come from, Hamilton has done that very same thing to him, my mind recalls last year at Suzuka and just back in Canada. But two rights don't make a wrong, it was dirty driving on Rosberg's part.

Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
So what you are saying is that its dumb for one driver to try and pass the other at this point?'

mikeyg123
Posts: 18365
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by mikeyg123 »

It's interesting that Nico is the only driver to ever get penalized for collisions between himself and Hamilton.

I think we can now right off the "he's only retaliating against Hamilton" excuses. Rosberg has been just as bad for 2 years now.

souvikbh1980
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by souvikbh1980 »

Covalent wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote: Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
Not that dumb, he won, if he hadn't the WC Standings would be a difference of 31 points instead of 11 with NR maintaining momentum, now Nico is in a hole mentally and LH has reasserted his authority.

Rosberg must be thinking "what do I have to do to beat him, even when I try to run him off the road he wins!" Could well be critical in this years WC especiallly if Toto throws his toys!
Without the grid penalty Nico would probably have won easily as he almost did it anyways so I don´t see him thinking that at all.
Without the grid penalty Nico would not have undercut Hamilton at the first pitstop, the sole reason he had track position.

Teddy007
Posts: 1079
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Teddy007 »

Will also add my other half thought it was Lewis's fault because she thought he was the inside driver. She was like why do i think Lewis was innocent? He crashed in to Nico? I said because Lewis was on the outside and Nico was the inside. Her response was Ohhhhh I thought Lewis was the inside one. She doesnt watch F1 and isnt fussed at all about the outcome.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Option or Prime »

Teddy007 wrote:Will also add my other half thought it was Lewis's fault because she thought he was the inside driver. She was like why do i think Lewis was innocent? He crashed in to Nico? I said because Lewis was on the outside and Nico was the inside. Her response was Ohhhhh I thought Lewis was the inside one. She doesnt watch F1 and isnt fussed at all about the outcome.
Potential steward then !

HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by HS Thompson »

Option or Prime wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:Will also add my other half thought it was Lewis's fault because she thought he was the inside driver. She was like why do i think Lewis was innocent? He crashed in to Nico? I said because Lewis was on the outside and Nico was the inside. Her response was Ohhhhh I thought Lewis was the inside one. She doesnt watch F1 and isnt fussed at all about the outcome.
Potential steward then !
:lol: :lol: :lol:

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

Lojik wrote:Can the people who vote Hamilton please let me let me know who they are so I can safely disregard anything they say in future. That's nuts.
Count me in.

Hamilton has established in the team that if you are on the inside, you can go off the racing line to force your team mate off the track. He did that in Hungary and the USA and Mercedes did nothing about it, so by doing that they said it was OK to do it.

Now, because Rosberg does it, does that mean the team have one rule for Hamilton and one rule for Rosberg?

Option or Prime
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Option or Prime »

babararacucudada wrote:
Lojik wrote:Can the people who vote Hamilton please let me let me know who they are so I can safely disregard anything they say in future. That's nuts.
Count me in.

Hamilton has established in the team that if you are on the inside, you can go off the racing line to force your team mate off the track. He did that in Hungary and the USA and Mercedes did nothing about it, so by doing that they said it was OK to do it.

Now, because Rosberg does it, does that mean the team have one rule for Hamilton and one rule for Rosberg?
It's not the team saying that it is the stewards! Not only that its not as though the its a 50:50 situation, the votes are either 80:20 or 90:10 that Rosberg was to blame.
I admire your support of Rosberg, nothing wrong with that, but don't let that support blind you to the facts.

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

hittheapex wrote:
lamo wrote:
trento wrote:The entry point was Rosberg's fault. But Hamilton's re-entry to the track and hitting Rosberg looks wrong too.
They didn't touch when Hamilton re-joined. Taking a line to prevent someone re-joining the track is the worst part of this for me. Very unsportsmanlikes from Rosberg. Basically, Rosberg thinks its ok to push you off track and then prevent you from rejoining it. Crazy
:thumbup: I tuned in for the last few laps and caught the incident. Rosberg preventing Hamilton rejoining is where the line was crossed for me. I'm not a fan of drivers pushing each other off on the outside of a corner but it's become accepted by default really at some corners.

I'm surprised at the leniency of the stewards on this one. As ever, dangerous driving gets punished much more severely when it results in a serious accident. For example Grosjean at Spa vs Maldonado at Monaco. When the other driver in the incident takes action to avoid a dangerous accident, or gets through relatively unscathed, the perpetrator comparatively gets a slap on the wrist.
BIB
Its the responsibility of the driver re-joining the track to re-join safely. The driver on the track is not required to make room for him.

PzR Slim
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by PzR Slim »

babararacucudada wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
lamo wrote:
trento wrote:The entry point was Rosberg's fault. But Hamilton's re-entry to the track and hitting Rosberg looks wrong too.
They didn't touch when Hamilton re-joined. Taking a line to prevent someone re-joining the track is the worst part of this for me. Very unsportsmanlikes from Rosberg. Basically, Rosberg thinks its ok to push you off track and then prevent you from rejoining it. Crazy
:thumbup: I tuned in for the last few laps and caught the incident. Rosberg preventing Hamilton rejoining is where the line was crossed for me. I'm not a fan of drivers pushing each other off on the outside of a corner but it's become accepted by default really at some corners.

I'm surprised at the leniency of the stewards on this one. As ever, dangerous driving gets punished much more severely when it results in a serious accident. For example Grosjean at Spa vs Maldonado at Monaco. When the other driver in the incident takes action to avoid a dangerous accident, or gets through relatively unscathed, the perpetrator comparatively gets a slap on the wrist.
BIB
Its the responsibility of the driver re-joining the track to re-join safely. The driver on the track is not required to make room for him.
Even Button commented after the race words to the effect of, 'he didn't even give him room to come back on the track!' DC on the C4 highlights coverage also made a point of mentioning it. Very petulant behavior from Rosberg.
If...

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

Option or Prime wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
Lojik wrote:Can the people who vote Hamilton please let me let me know who they are so I can safely disregard anything they say in future. That's nuts.
Count me in.

Hamilton has established in the team that if you are on the inside, you can go off the racing line to force your team mate off the track. He did that in Hungary and the USA and Mercedes did nothing about it, so by doing that they said it was OK to do it.

Now, because Rosberg does it, does that mean the team have one rule for Hamilton and one rule for Rosberg?
It's not the team saying that it is the stewards! Not only that its not as though the its a 50:50 situation, the votes are either 80:20 or 90:10 that Rosberg was to blame.
I admire your support of Rosberg, nothing wrong with that, but don't let that support blind you to the facts.
So your argument is that if more people say one thing it is automatically right?

I just stated the facts.

User avatar
Lt. Drebin
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Lt. Drebin »

It is quite hard to establish right rules, because every case is different. But, if this what Nico "did" today was a subject to punishment, than why didn't we see consistency with Hamilton's moves? For example, in Barccelone, by his own mistake, he took out Rosberg, and innocent party entitled to his racing line. You could also consider his borderline moves that he introduced to F1, in which he drives away from racetrack other drivers.
The end is near

Option or Prime
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Option or Prime »

OK so you are already blinded then, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Incidentally there are no facts in your statement, it's your opinion.

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

PzR Slim wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
lamo wrote:
trento wrote:The entry point was Rosberg's fault. But Hamilton's re-entry to the track and hitting Rosberg looks wrong too.
They didn't touch when Hamilton re-joined. Taking a line to prevent someone re-joining the track is the worst part of this for me. Very unsportsmanlikes from Rosberg. Basically, Rosberg thinks its ok to push you off track and then prevent you from rejoining it. Crazy
:thumbup: I tuned in for the last few laps and caught the incident. Rosberg preventing Hamilton rejoining is where the line was crossed for me. I'm not a fan of drivers pushing each other off on the outside of a corner but it's become accepted by default really at some corners.

I'm surprised at the leniency of the stewards on this one. As ever, dangerous driving gets punished much more severely when it results in a serious accident. For example Grosjean at Spa vs Maldonado at Monaco. When the other driver in the incident takes action to avoid a dangerous accident, or gets through relatively unscathed, the perpetrator comparatively gets a slap on the wrist.
BIB
Its the responsibility of the driver re-joining the track to re-join safely. The driver on the track is not required to make room for him.
Even Button commented after the race words to the effect of, 'he didn't even give him room to come back on the track!' DC on the C4 highlights coverage also made a point of mentioning it. Very petulant behavior from Rosberg.
Rosberg has learned well from Hamilton and Mercedes. This was bound to happen because Rosberg was forced to act the same way as Hamilton.

User avatar
Blinky McSquinty
Posts: 1464
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:As soon as the TV displayed Hamilton getting a better drive out of turn one, my mind immediately sprang to Suzuka 1990 where two title contenders in the form of Senna and Prost went into a corner, none came out, and one held onto the title. Then while braking and as the situation developed, it was obvious that Rosberg had adopted a brass knuckles approach of, "if you don't back out, we will collide or I will push you far off the track".

So yes, Rosberg was playing very rough, and I have labelled such driving as dirty. It was dirty. I can understand where this has come from, Hamilton has done that very same thing to him, my mind recalls last year at Suzuka and just back in Canada. But two rights don't make a wrong, it was dirty driving on Rosberg's part.

Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
So what you are saying is that its dumb for one driver to try and pass the other at this point?'
Let me check ... umm, yes, that's what I wrote.
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

Option or Prime wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
Lojik wrote:Can the people who vote Hamilton please let me let me know who they are so I can safely disregard anything they say in future. That's nuts.
Count me in.

Hamilton has established in the team that if you are on the inside, you can go off the racing line to force your team mate off the track. He did that in Hungary and the USA and Mercedes did nothing about it, so by doing that they said it was OK to do it.

Now, because Rosberg does it, does that mean the team have one rule for Hamilton and one rule for Rosberg?
It's not the team saying that it is the stewards! Not only that its not as though the its a 50:50 situation, the votes are either 80:20 or 90:10 that Rosberg was to blame.
I admire your support of Rosberg, nothing wrong with that, but don't let that support blind you to the facts.
The Mercedes team have said that in the past by not reacting when Hamilton went way off the racing line to force Rosberg off the track in the past.

PzR Slim
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by PzR Slim »

babararacucudada wrote:Rosberg has learned well from Hamilton and Mercedes. This was bound to happen because Rosberg was forced to act the same way as Hamilton.
When did Hamilton not allow another driver back onto the track like Rosberg today?
If...

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

Option or Prime wrote:OK so you are already blinded then, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Incidentally there are no facts in your statement, it's your opinion.
What I stated are facts and you can check it if you want by looking up the videos.

babararacucudada
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by babararacucudada »

PzR Slim wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:Rosberg has learned well from Hamilton and Mercedes. This was bound to happen because Rosberg was forced to act the same way as Hamilton.
When did Hamilton not allow another driver back onto the track like Rosberg today?
I never said he did.

There is no requirement to let another driver back onto the track.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Option or Prime »

babararacucudada wrote: Rosberg has learned well from Hamilton and Mercedes. This was bound to happen because Rosberg was forced to act the same way as Hamilton.
Forced because he was going to be overtaken, he lost his cool and made a clumsy move that led to him ruining his own race and gifting a positions to Verstaphen and Raikkonen as well as points to Hamilton.

He hasn't learned that well has he!

User avatar
Clarky
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: LONDON...!

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by Clarky »

100% Rosberg

PzR Slim
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by PzR Slim »

babararacucudada wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:Rosberg has learned well from Hamilton and Mercedes. This was bound to happen because Rosberg was forced to act the same way as Hamilton.
When did Hamilton not allow another driver back onto the track like Rosberg today?
I never said he did.

There is no requirement to let another driver back onto the track.
I'll just repeat what I said then.
Even Button commented after the race words to the effect of, 'he didn't even give him room to come back on the track!' DC on the C4 highlights coverage also made a point of mentioning it. Very petulant behavior from Rosberg.
Last time I said that you started banging on about Rosberg just doing what Hamilton had done, hence why I asked the question ;)
If...

lamo

Re: Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

Post by lamo »

Covalent wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote: Morally Rosberg was in the wrong and Hamilton was in the right. But intellectually, come on guys, even my stupid goldfish knew that if both drivers continued to contest that corner it would end in tears. That was dumb on Hamilton's part to make that collision inevitable, it was going to happen.
Not that dumb, he won, if he hadn't the WC Standings would be a difference of 31 points instead of 11 with NR maintaining momentum, now Nico is in a hole mentally and LH has reasserted his authority.

Rosberg must be thinking "what do I have to do to beat him, even when I try to run him off the road he wins!" Could well be critical in this years WC especiallly if Toto throws his toys!
Without the grid penalty Nico would probably have won easily as he almost did it anyways so I don´t see him thinking that at all.
:lol: really? He didn't even get pole and he wouldn't have got a better strategy if they were 1-2. Same as ever, the driver who lead after lap 1 would have won. But that did go out of the window today because Mercedes broke there rule of both cars running the same strategy and they were both in the same a race at that point running P1 and P3 just 6 seconds behind.

But to say Nico would have won easily, is at best laughable. Hamilton had Baku won easily too :lol:

Post Reply