Hamilton vs rosberg. Part 265

[Asphalt_World]

The reason I think Lewis gets away with it is because up until now, the driver on the outside, normally Nico, has chosen the none contact, head off the track technique rather than be in an accident where one or both drivers could get a dnf. Perhaps this won't happen next time and they will both retire from the race.

Just because Rosberg got penalized in this instance does not mean that the driver on the inside will always get the penalty if the driver on the outside stays on track and makes contact. This is exactly why the rules leave room for interpretation and common sense. It is only because Rosberg is so far of the racing line and so blatant in his actions to block Hamilton that he received a penalty. I would say more often than not if the defending driver makes a fair attempt at the corner it will go down as a racing incident. Look at the Ricciardo - Rosberg collision in Hungary 2015, which was deemed a racing incident from the stewards. Rosberg was not penalized as his line seemed reasonable through the corner – it is whether or not you can prove intent really. Rosberg does himself no favours by saying it is his line to dictate. Every incident is unique though, and should be judged independently.

Rosberg, and hundreds of motor racing driver in F1 over decades have claimed that if they are defending, they can choose the line.

Nico made the corner, but just like when a driver takes the left hand side of the track exiting the tunnel at Monaco to defend at the chicane, they are basically totally off line, but are allowed to block the track.

Again, repeating myself, Nico's move looked pathetic, but I don't see what actual rule it broke. Had he turned left slightly, then yes, but he went straight and then turned right. Stupid rule, but drivers have been running others off track for years now and it's just not racing for me.

You think that Rosberg made the actual corner?

Show me where he went off. I feel I'm repeating myself quite a bit here because some people don't bother to read posts correctly. NICO HASHED UP THE BLOCKING MOVE AND IT LOOKED PATHETIC.

BUT HE TURNED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CORNER WITHIN THE RULES. HE DIDN'T GO OFF.
Hopefully that will be read now!

[ALESI]

I think it's fair to say that the one thing that has changed this year is Rosberg's attitude. In previous years he's always yielded when Hamilton has put him in a position. But that in itself has given the team a headache. I've often thought that Rosberg's main problem (or rather the team's problem) is that Rosberg is too quick to be a number two, but not quite quick enough to be a number one. Nico's qualifying means he's in front of Lewis more often than a number two should be, but with Rosberg always being the one to yield the problem often resolved itself.
But now that's changed, how do Merc deal with it. I can't see them letting Hamilton go seeing as how on balance he's the better driver, plus he has a contract which would complicate matters. And if the Red Bull does prove a major threat next year, I'm guessing they would rather have Hamilton there to make the difference.
The only problem I feel is that maybe Mercedes may feel that booting Rosberg to accommodate Hamilton starts to reek of the tail wagging the dog. At the end of the day both of them are employees, yes Hamilton is a 3x WDC but without Mercedes he wouldn't have any of them (Merc engine in the Macca) so he should be a bit more loyal for the opportunities that he's been given.
For all that Rosberg is the lesser driver you always get the feeling that he's more 'part of' the team, whereas Lewis always comes across as the loner/outsider who relies on his talent and doesn't want to play by the rules.
I'm pretty sure if you looked at every 'moment' between these two in their time together, most of the crowding out has been done by Lewis, and I'm betting he is less than happy at being threatened with fines. The only trouble I can see is that Hamilton will continue doing what he does and Rosberg will play for the team and take the exit to avoid a collision. I hope that Merc will treat that the same as them crashing otherwise we're back to square one.

Rosberg changed cos he has won zero titles in playing nice. His dad was a WDC and I'm sure he would want at least one.

It can be a miserable feeling when u are driving the best car and have never won anything. So at some point, Rosberg, being German and all too familiar with Schumacher and Vettel, probably knows he will win nothing if he keeps playing by the rules.

Unfortunately, while Schumacher and Vettel better at keeping their positions, Rosberg isn't. Would Vettel simply let Hamilton go in Austria? I believe he rather crash both cars out and get penalised.

This is exactly why Ferrari still retained Kimi. Cos he's quick yet amicable. You don't necessarily need a slower number 2. U need a driver who can maintain the harmony.

If Ricciardo joins Mercedes and assuming Hamilton loses, he will be very unsettled but Ric will not create the mess Rosberg creates as he's simply a better wheel to wheel racer. I actually thought when Ricciardo beat Vettel in Red Bull things would get really ugly but as we saw, they managed to keep it clean most of the time.

Point is get a good, fast, amicable driver pairing. Ricciardo, Button, Kimi are good choices.

That's a good point about Kimi, and could explain why he is retained even when he was underperforming. Ferrari seem to value loyalty and team players (Barrichello / Massa). And I agree that this only works when you have two team mates who both play by the same rules.
Which is why I'm not 100% sure Merc would choose Hamilton over Rosberg, even though on the face of it it would seem to be an obvious choice. People may point to Hamilton's time with Button as an example of Hamilton's ability to work in harmony with a team mate (leaving Canada aside), but I think now that Lewis is a 3x WDC he thinks he should be 'favoured' (and maybe there is something in that, but PR being what it is nowadays...).
The thing is, modern F1 is a team sport, by that I mean the team wins and then the two drivers sort out which of them will win. So given that any two decent drivers in that Merc would have won the last two years and this one, does the team really want a 'difficult' guy or the guy who seems to be the 'team player'.
I predict more (non contact) crowding with Rosberg on the radio afterwards making his point, but we'll see.

[Fiki]

Will the rules ever change or be rewritten in a way to make it unambiguous what drivers are allowed and not allowed to do?

Possibly not. But then, as both AW and I have pointed out, you can even be found to be at fault despite not having broken any rule in the official rule book. So why would clearly defined dos and don'ts be necessary? Sarcasm apart, I think Nico Rosberg should appeal the verdict on the incident of last Sunday, as the stewards failed to point to any rule in the official regulations regarding driver conduct. And if Paris were to identify any applicable rules after all, then so much the better for the racing.

In the meantime, I can't help but wonder what the object of sport is, if 8-year old children are taught to send competitors off into the wild green yonder. Senna's and Schumacher's cynicism has still not faded. That is not something to be proud of.

Good point but then why have any sporting regulations? Why not just say "Race nicely or we'll decide who's being naughty and give you a punishment"?
Is a driver allowed to appeal a decision or does the team have to do it? I can imagine Ron Dennis doing this for his driver (he did it for Senna at Suzuka after the stupid chicane incident) but can you imagine anybody at Mercedes being bothered to get involved?

I think you misunderstood or missed my sarcasm. Of course I feel that clearly written rules are necessary. I just pointed out that the stewards didn't refer to the ones in force at present, finding Rosberg guilty of things not to be found in the rules. I expect the stewards to tell a driver (and the race fans) against which rule he has sinned.

Rosberg wasn't allowed to use all of the road available, since there was a car alongside. He didn't, which is proven by the footage and stills, and therefore acted within that rule.
The stewards refer to "racing room", which isn't in the rules. Rosberg can't be accused of breaking a non-existing rule.

[Asphalt_World]

I think there is a difference if the defending driver drifts wide on the exit of the corner or goes straight on at the entry with little apparent intent to make the corner. However you want to dress it up and try and put some of the blame on Hamilton it was obviously clear to the stewards, Pundits, Drivers and the vast majority on this forum that Nico's attempt was to run Hamilton off the track and was at fault.

Hamilton has done some dodgy things but Rosberg took it to a new level in Austria.

The thing is, I agree and have pointed this out many times in this thread alone, yet I'm apparently dressing this up to put some of the blame of Hamilton!

Nope your making assumptions.

In a post directly after one I made, you wrote , 'However you want to dress it up and try and put some of the blame on Hamlton'. That looks like a response to me. I asked you to confirm if that was aimed at me and haven't done so. Therefore, it's not hard to assume it was indeed aimed at me.

In order to stop me making assumptions, let me know why you wrote the above and who it was aimed at. Cheers.

[Fiki]

You think that Rosberg made the actual corner?

of course he didn't. But he did try, with obvious intention to defend against Hamilton.

From what I've seen before, most drivers tend to take the apex and then take a wider exit. Rosberg took a wide entry but Hamilton was having none of it. If Rosberg had taken the apex and exited wide, it's very likely Hamilton, if he doesn't back off, would incur a penalty.

On what grounds would Hamilton have incurred a penalty, if he hadn't backed off? He is entitled to his part of the track, even on corner exit.

[Fiki]

Seriously? Rosberg had NO obligation to let Lewis back on track, it is the responsibility of the driver off the track to rejoin in a safe manner. Care to show us where the rules say otherwise?

I don't think that normally drivers take avoiding action to let a car rejoin the track... unless it is to avoid an accident from the rejoining car. I can't recall seeing many drivers do as you say,,, why should they? If you try to use the "to avoid an accident" bit, then be sure to apply that reasoning to Lewis in the turn when he was pushed off.

I cannot believe some of the things I've read from some well seasoned fans and students of this sport.

I'd agree with your view on it if and when the driver going off does so of their own volition due to an error. In this case it was due to literal contact initiated by the car who did not give any room for the other driver to rejoin at all.

F1 Mercenary, there was no lateral contact on Hamilton rejoining. He rejoined behind Rosberg.

Whether Hamilton left the track of his own volition or due to turning into a car alongside and causing an accident is debatable.

[mikeyg123]

Seriously? Rosberg had NO obligation to let Lewis back on track, it is the responsibility of the driver off the track to rejoin in a safe manner. Care to show us where the rules say otherwise?

I don't think that normally drivers take avoiding action to let a car rejoin the track... unless it is to avoid an accident from the rejoining car. I can't recall seeing many drivers do as you say,,, why should they? If you try to use the "to avoid an accident" bit, then be sure to apply that reasoning to Lewis in the turn when he was pushed off.

I cannot believe some of the things I've read from some well seasoned fans and students of this sport.

I'd agree with your view on it if and when the driver going off does so of their own volition due to an error. In this case it was due to literal contact initiated by the car who did not give any room for the other driver to rejoin at all.

F1 Mercenary, there was no lateral contact on Hamilton rejoining. He rejoined behind Rosberg.

Whether Hamilton left the track of his own volition or due to turning into a car alongside and causing an accident is debatable.

You've gone beyond parody. Can't wait for you to worm out of using this defense when the drivers are reversed.

[stevey]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

[Asphalt_World]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

[Fiki]

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... rs-thought

Thanks! In view of what I just wrote about similarities with previous incidents, I think Vettel's view is interesting... And I am inclined to say racing incident as well. How a driver turning into a car alongside gets 0% of the blame is beyond my comprehension.

[shoot999]

How to keep an overtaking Mercedes at bay Turn 2 Austria; whilst leaving the Mercedes enough room to stay on track. (Basically hit the apex)

19.10

https://vimeo.com/173717899

[flyboy10]

Interestingly, Hamilton was very quick on the radio to say he wasn't the one who crashed - yet, in spite of the contact, it was he who ran over ROsberg's wing and Rosberg's car that got damaged. This is very similar to the 1997 Schumacher/Villeneuve incident at Jerez where the car that was just overtaken (i.e. behind) loses out in contact with the other car, gets the blame for causing the accident, is adjudged to have done it with the intention of deliberately not giving the other car room but one of them loses all of his race results and points for the season while the other gets away with a penalty that doesn't change anything and a reprimand that probably won't add up to a race ban by the end of the season. I don't accept that there should be any different view taken in Race 1 or the season finale or anywhere in between. But was Rosberg deemed to have done anything different from what Schumacher did?

There are some similarities, but the main difference I believe is the fact that the inside driver wasn't defending. Another was that Schumacher didn't claim to have driven into Villeneuve because he couldn't see him, and had to make the corner. I don't think it is the best comparison.

I do agree with your initial observation, which I felt at the time it happened, to be incriminating himself.

The incident that came to my mind at the moment Hamilton drove over Rosberg's wing was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx9zIQvrdZU
Vettel turns in on a car alongside, causing the accident.

I'd agree with you if I was trying to say that Hamilton had "done a Schumacher". I did say that the roles were reversed in the Austria incident meaning the guy on the inside being Schumacher in this instance. So Rosberg is the one who's been accused of causing the accident and he didn't say he couldn't see Hamilton. Had Rosberg got himself even slightly ahead (which he could have done by turning in earlier, if that was available to him the speed he was going and with his brakes as they were) then Hamilton would have been the one doing a Schumacher - but only if Rosberg had got ahead, which he didn't.

[mds]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

[Asphalt_World]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

[Covalent]

Anyone seen this, I like Daniels assessment, it pretty much comes down to the fact the move wasn't executed as needed, but in the grand scheme it wasn't an outrageous move. Changed my opinion a little bit

Yes, I saw it. Confirms what I thought that Nico was simply clumsy in execution, not malicious in intent

Yes but we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a public flogging.

[Clarky]

Was what Rosberg did malicious I dont know, only he will know that but I just maintain he was 100% at fault.

[Covalent]

How to keep an overtaking Mercedes at bay Turn 2 Austria; whilst leaving the Mercedes enough room to stay on track. (Basically hit the apex)

19.10

https://vimeo.com/173717899

Loved the onboards from the start. Boy that Manor is a handful!

[mcdo]

So in reality they thought there was no chance of Hamilton winning the race given the strategy they picked because they thought things would not get messy, Hamilton however didn't read the script.

That's not what it says at all! Where do you even get that from the article?

It says clearly they didn't want things to get messy near the end of the race so they picked a strategy to prevent this.

"First Hamilton’s pit stop was two seconds slower than normal and he came out of the pits behind Rosberg. This wasn’t in the plan."

"To try to keep things fair between them, Mercedes decided to switch Hamilton onto a similar plan to Rosberg, but to give him the chance of an undercut."

"Hamilton questioned why Rosberg had been put on the ‘faster’ tyre, but was told that the Soft was the better tyre for the last 17 laps. And that proved correct, as Rosberg’s SuperSofts were fading badly at the end."

"In hindsight the one stop Hamilton was on would have turned out more favourably than they imagined, as the low degradation on the soft meant that Raikkonen easily made it to the finish on similar age tyres.
It was an uncomfortable case of risk and guesswork for Mercedes, highly unusual for them to have so little knowledge of the soft tyre"

Some of the key things I took away from the article

That refutes what James Allen said then, basically Mercedes messed up Hamilton's race and also broke their own rules by giving the lead car an inferior strategy by allowing Rosberg to pass him using a 11 lap undercut.

At that point in time they didn't know they were giving the lead car the inferior strategy. Jesus Christ it's like trying to discuss F1 with the Sky Sports morons on Facebook. You know this stuff inside out, why are you throwing common sense out the window?

An 11-lap undercut is not a thing. It doesn't exist. And it's not an "undercut" when one driver was on a 1-stopper and the other was in a 2-stopper - it's called "being on different strategies". Later in the race the 1-stopper changed

[shoot999]

How to keep an overtaking Mercedes at bay Turn 2 Austria; whilst leaving the Mercedes enough room to stay on track. (Basically hit the apex)

19.10

https://vimeo.com/173717899

Loved the onboards from the start. Boy that Manor is a handful!

It used to be a must see when the radio wasnt so restricted as they broadcast it in real time, so the messages made a lot more sense. But still one of the better broadcasts.

[Ennis]

At that point in time they didn't know they were giving the lead car the inferior strategy. Jesus Christ it's like trying to discuss F1 with the Sky Sports morons on Facebook. You know this stuff inside out, why are you throwing common sense out the window?

An 11-lap undercut is not a thing. It doesn't exist. And it's not an "undercut" when one driver was on a 1-stopper and the other was in a 2-stopper - it's called "being on different strategies". Later in the race the 1-stopper changed

Agreed - and to add, this was all happening around the time of drivers radioing in about rain. Wouldn't be surprised if this played on their mind and they didn't want to pit Lewis on to slicks and then need to pit him again on to Inters.

[ALESI]

An 11-lap undercut is not a thing. It doesn't exist. And it's not an "undercut" when one driver was on a 1-stopper and the other was in a 2-stopper - it's called "being on different strategies". Later in the race the 1-stopper changed

Not just me then...

[trento]

That's a good point about Kimi, and could explain why he is retained even when he was underperforming. Ferrari seem to value loyalty and team players (Barrichello / Massa). And I agree that this only works when you have two team mates who both play by the same rules.
Which is why I'm not 100% sure Merc would choose Hamilton over Rosberg, even though on the face of it it would seem to be an obvious choice. People may point to Hamilton's time with Button as an example of Hamilton's ability to work in harmony with a team mate (leaving Canada aside), but I think now that Lewis is a 3x WDC he thinks he should be 'favoured' (and maybe there is something in that, but PR being what it is nowadays...).
The thing is, modern F1 is a team sport, by that I mean the team wins and then the two drivers sort out which of them will win. So given that any two decent drivers in that Merc would have won the last two years and this one, does the team really want a 'difficult' guy or the guy who seems to be the 'team player'.
I predict more (non contact) crowding with Rosberg on the radio afterwards making his point, but we'll see.

Merc has the fastest car. Rosberg has shown he's more than capable of winning more often than not. When the car is that fast, there's no need for 2 top drivers breathing down each other's necks. It would not be an issue but the two drivers have to drive responsibly.

That's why Ferrari never saw the need to replace Barrichello/Massa years ago. They were couple of tenths off Schumi and it was good enough to get the 1-2 almost every race. Such a 1-2 driver pairing is all the more critical when the car is the fastest on the grid.

The team bosses would remember Mclaren lost a WDC cos Ron Dennis didn't manage the situation well. Mathematically, other drivers still have a shot at the WDC. It's still possible if the squabble doesn't end, Merc may have to take control of the situation.

I would think Hamilton is a very bad team player. In all fairness, great drivers tend to do that. I recall some negative comments from Button about Hamilton. Not giving away too much but definitely along the lines of Hamilton constantly playing mind games. But Button is generally less easily manipulated. Alonso can also easily relate to that.

[mds]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

That would mean for every overtake attempt ever the driver on the inside could push the other driver wide even if he only gets his front wing level with the other driver's rear wheels.

I mean, is this what it now has to come to, that all common sense is null and void because something isn't explicitly in the rules? You simply can't capture every possible racing situation in a set of regulations. It's impossible.

[Herb]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

Do they even define fully ahead? I know they define what alongside means in one circumstance.

Common sense would mean as long as your front wing is ahead of your opponents front wing, then yes, you are ahead. That's what matters at the chequered line after all.

[Herb]

An 11-lap undercut is not a thing. It doesn't exist. And it's not an "undercut" when one driver was on a 1-stopper and the other was in a 2-stopper - it's called "being on different strategies". Later in the race the 1-stopper changed

Not just me then...

I'd been thinking the same.

[Zoue]

The reason I think Lewis gets away with it is because up until now, the driver on the outside, normally Nico, has chosen the none contact, head off the track technique rather than be in an accident where one or both drivers could get a dnf. Perhaps this won't happen next time and they will both retire from the race.

Just because Rosberg got penalized in this instance does not mean that the driver on the inside will always get the penalty if the driver on the outside stays on track and makes contact. This is exactly why the rules leave room for interpretation and common sense. It is only because Rosberg is so far of the racing line and so blatant in his actions to block Hamilton that he received a penalty. I would say more often than not if the defending driver makes a fair attempt at the corner it will go down as a racing incident. Look at the Ricciardo - Rosberg collision in Hungary 2015, which was deemed a racing incident from the stewards. Rosberg was not penalized as his line seemed reasonable through the corner – it is whether or not you can prove intent really. Rosberg does himself no favours by saying it is his line to dictate. Every incident is unique though, and should be judged independently.

Rosberg, and hundreds of motor racing driver in F1 over decades have claimed that if they are defending, they can choose the line.

Nico made the corner, but just like when a driver takes the left hand side of the track exiting the tunnel at Monaco to defend at the chicane, they are basically totally off line, but are allowed to block the track.

Again, repeating myself, Nico's move looked pathetic, but I don't see what actual rule it broke. Had he turned left slightly, then yes, but he went straight and then turned right. Stupid rule, but drivers have been running others off track for years now and it's just not racing for me.

You think that Rosberg made the actual corner?

Show me where he went off. I feel I'm repeating myself quite a bit here because some people don't bother to read posts correctly. NICO HASHED UP THE BLOCKING MOVE AND IT LOOKED PATHETIC.

BUT HE TURNED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CORNER WITHIN THE RULES. HE DIDN'T GO OFF.
Hopefully that will be read now!

I admire your optimism...

[ALESI]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

That would mean for every overtake attempt ever the driver on the inside could push the other driver wide even if he only gets his front wing level with the other driver's rear wheels.

I mean, is this what it now has to come to, that all common sense is and void because something isn't explicitly in the rules? You simply can't capture every possible racing situation in a set of regulations. It's impossible.

What some people fail to grasp is that the outside of the corner is longer than the inside, being slightly ahead on the outside does not necessarily mean you are ahead. Most successful overtakes around the outside involve the driver being 'actually' in front before the apex - yes there are overtakes which work which do not fit that pattern but usually on long corners, turn 2 at Austria is very sharp in comparison.

[ALESI]

Merc has the fastest car. Rosberg has shown he's more than capable of winning more often than not. When the car is that fast, there's no need for 2 top drivers breathing down each other's necks. It would not be an issue but the two drivers have to drive responsibly.

Which backs up my view that Rosberg is too fast for a number 2, too slow for a number 1.

[mds]

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

That would mean for every overtake attempt ever the driver on the inside could push the other driver wide even if he only gets his front wing level with the other driver's rear wheels.

I mean, is this what it now has to come to, that all common sense is and void because something isn't explicitly in the rules? You simply can't capture every possible racing situation in a set of regulations. It's impossible.

What some people fail to grasp is that the outside of the corner is longer than the inside, being slightly ahead on the outside does not necessarily mean you are ahead. Most successful overtakes around the outside involve the driver being 'actually' in front before the apex - yes there are overtakes which work which do not fit that pattern but usually on long corners, turn 2 at Austria is very sharp in comparison.

He was ahead at the regular turn-in point, which is enough to say he can stay in there and turn in on the condition that he leaves enough space. The way I see it he had a pretty good chance to exit ahead too, but that's not really all that important.

[_Rogue_]

I think there is a difference if the defending driver drifts wide on the exit of the corner or goes straight on at the entry with little apparent intent to make the corner. However you want to dress it up and try and put some of the blame on Hamilton it was obviously clear to the stewards, Pundits, Drivers and the vast majority on this forum that Nico's attempt was to run Hamilton off the track and was at fault.

Hamilton has done some dodgy things but Rosberg took it to a new level in Austria.

The thing is, I agree and have pointed this out many times in this thread alone, yet I'm apparently dressing this up to put some of the blame of Hamilton!

Nope your making assumptions.

In a post directly after one I made, you wrote , 'However you want to dress it up and try and put some of the blame on Hamlton'. That looks like a response to me. I asked you to confirm if that was aimed at me and haven't done so. Therefore, it's not hard to assume it was indeed aimed at me.

In order to stop me making assumptions, let me know why you wrote the above and who it was aimed at. Cheers.

It was aimed at the usual suspects trying to turn what Rosberg did into Hamilton's fault when it clearly wasn't. It was certainly not aimed at you specifically, if it were then i would have quoted you!

[_Rogue_]

Show me where he went off. I feel I'm repeating myself quite a bit here because some people don't bother to read posts correctly. NICO HASHED UP THE BLOCKING MOVE AND IT LOOKED PATHETIC.

BUT HE TURNED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CORNER WITHIN THE RULES. HE DIDN'T GO OFF.
Hopefully that will be read now!

And it was just everyones imagination that he bounced off another car helping put him in some semblance of the correct direction before he didnt go off ? Had Hamilton's car not been there it is certainly questionable that he would have made the turn on his own as he was at the track limit even with the bounce.

[Asphalt_World]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

That would mean for every overtake attempt ever the driver on the inside could push the other driver wide even if he only gets his front wing level with the other driver's rear wheels.

I mean, is this what it now has to come to, that all common sense is null and void because something isn't explicitly in the rules? You simply can't capture every possible racing situation in a set of regulations. It's impossible.

You've not been following my posts in this thread.

[Asphalt_World]

Can we all agree that Hamilton was ahead on corner entry with rosbergs half a car back but on the inside.

This is the difference between when Hamilton has closed the door on Nico and Nicos bad attempt on Sunday. Nicos only choice to successfully pull off closing the door in that scenario is to take the corner at the apex and then drift wide on exit to close the door. He tried to close the door on entry and as Lewis was ahead and could not see him and took his corner on the outside the collision occurred.

The fundamental rule is the door cant be closed when your behind the other driver.

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

Do they even define fully ahead? I know they define what alongside means in one circumstance.

Common sense would mean as long as your front wing is ahead of your opponents front wing, then yes, you are ahead. That's what matters at the chequered line after all.

You can't have it like that though. If having your front wing ahead of your opponents front wing means you're ahead, then doesn't that mean the car behind is far far further forward that the FIA ruling about what is classed as alongside?

[mds]

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

That would mean for every overtake attempt ever the driver on the inside could push the other driver wide even if he only gets his front wing level with the other driver's rear wheels.

I mean, is this what it now has to come to, that all common sense is null and void because something isn't explicitly in the rules? You simply can't capture every possible racing situation in a set of regulations. It's impossible.

You've not been following my posts in this thread.

My apologies for that - this has been a very long thread and it's hard, for me at least, to keep track of who said what throughout the thread. So I responded to this post as if it were in isolation, and I took it as if you were implying that a driver has to be fully ahead in order to start turning in.

If that was not what you meant then clearly I misunderstood, and I invite you to explain what your line of thought was so I can retry

[Asphalt_World]

Thanks mds. Understood.

Part of this thread is trying to point out technicalities that have to remain constant, i.e. FIA rules.

I'm not saying I agree with them all, just using them as some kind of context when working out the intricacies of a move in one race or another.

[Asphalt_World]

This is really good viewing to see how Nico had to make a number of adjustments to avoid hitting Lewis.
Could Lewis have turned left earlier if he wanted to, thus leaving room for Nico to stay on track?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYussOGRSpE

[F1_Ernie]

An 11-lap undercut is not a thing. It doesn't exist. And it's not an "undercut" when one driver was on a 1-stopper and the other was in a 2-stopper - it's called "being on different strategies". Later in the race the 1-stopper changed

Not just me then...

I'd been thinking the same.

It just turned into a 11 lap undercut lol

[Asphalt_World]

Show me where he went off. I feel I'm repeating myself quite a bit here because some people don't bother to read posts correctly. NICO HASHED UP THE BLOCKING MOVE AND IT LOOKED PATHETIC.

BUT HE TURNED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CORNER WITHIN THE RULES. HE DIDN'T GO OFF.
Hopefully that will be read now!

And it was just everyones imagination that he bounced off another car helping put him in some semblance of the correct direction before he didnt go off ? Had Hamilton's car not been there it is certainly questionable that he would have made the turn on his own as he was at the track limit even with the bounce.

I may be misreading this, but are you saying that you believe Nico only managed to stay on the track because the collision bumped his car to the right just enough to enable him to make it?

[Herb]

We can agree that Hamilton was ahead at corner entry, but we can't agree that the fundamental rule is that the door can't be closed when you're behind the other driver.

The rules don't state that. You may want that as a rule, but it doesn't exist. If we're going to discuss this and other incidents, we have to use the FIA rule book, not our preferred rules.

When you're behind and not following the line of the driver ahead who is turning in, is fully entitled to do so and leaves more than enough space, then you're simply causing an accident.

Did Hamilton get fully ahead, in terms of FIA rules of what being ahead means?

Do they even define fully ahead? I know they define what alongside means in one circumstance.

Common sense would mean as long as your front wing is ahead of your opponents front wing, then yes, you are ahead. That's what matters at the chequered line after all.

You can't have it like that though. If having your front wing ahead of your opponents front wing means you're ahead, then doesn't that mean the car behind is far far further forward that the FIA ruling about what is classed as alongside?

So no - I'm assuming as you didn't answer my question, they don't define it then, so it is impossible to answer your question.

It's just plain obvious that Hamilton was ahead when he turned in. I can't see how anyone can dispute that, unless they are just trying to provoke a response.

[_Rogue_]

Show me where he went off. I feel I'm repeating myself quite a bit here because some people don't bother to read posts correctly. NICO HASHED UP THE BLOCKING MOVE AND IT LOOKED PATHETIC.

BUT HE TURNED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CORNER WITHIN THE RULES. HE DIDN'T GO OFF.
Hopefully that will be read now!

And it was just everyones imagination that he bounced off another car helping put him in some semblance of the correct direction before he didnt go off ? Had Hamilton's car not been there it is certainly questionable that he would have made the turn on his own as he was at the track limit even with the bounce.

I may be misreading this, but are you saying that you believe Nico only managed to stay on the track because the collision bumped his car to the right just enough to enable him to make it?

It certainly helped and i said it was questionable