planetf1.com

I think we saw enough today to say that Dan beat Max. Yes, Max is the better starter at this point - by quite some margin - but since he keeps crashing into people in the early laps, I would venture to argue that this might be on purpose by Ricciardo. He doesn't take risks on the opening laps, and it's paying dividends for him.

At one point in this race Max was told over the radio why Ricciardo was quicker than him (driver coaching, although I guess it's legal again) so what does that do for the argument that he would have finished ahead if he hadn't tangled with Massa?

The fact is that Max is super aggressive early on, and usually retires before he has a chance for Ricciardo to get back at him. If you recall, Ricciardo used to get Vettel late in the races as well; it's something he does deliberately, and I think Max's early retirements are being taken too much as a sign that he'd necessarily have kept that position.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

bradtheboywonder wrote:I love how this thread spikes every time Dan beats Max

B-b-but, that doesn't count. Yes Dan finished 6 spots ahead of Max, but... umm... he showed panache when he had that accident with Massa, so Max is the better driver

As time goes by, my opinion of Max continues to drift lower. A lot of his misfortunes on the track are of his own making.

There's no doubt that Max is something special, but he's impetuous, and often charges straight in.
His start yesterday was epic, I think he'd passed ~6 cars after only a few corners and then pushed a move that was obviously marginal and he paid the penalty with a flat tyre.

Dan on the other took his time and let everything settle down and then patiently made his way through the field while managing his softs as best he could. Once the Super soft cars pitted Dan's tyres were in good shape and so he was able to put in some hot laps and pop out into an eventual 4th.

Had Max been as patient as Dan then he probably would've jumped Vettel, assuming Max didn't chew up his tyres along the way.

As someone said earlier, once Max calibrates his risk management model he'll reap the points reward.

It's like that old joke about the young bull and the old bull looking down into a field fill full of cows.

Y-B: "Hey why don't we run down there shag one of those cows?"
O-B: "No son, let's walk down there, and shag 'em all".

Cheers,
Noel

I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

lamo wrote:I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

That may be so, but, the "slight speed disadvantage" assumes that Dan and Max set their car up the same way.

Given that the RB13 has a power disadvantage to the Merc and Ferrari powered cars it's entirely possible that Dan is setting his car up for a slower ultimate one lap time, but with a higher straight line speed to help overtaking during the race. I.e. Splitting the setup optimisation between the two cars.

During the race they showed highest speeds through the speed trap and I was surprised to see Dan at the top of the list.

I guess for us sitting behind the keyboard it's impossible to know, but it's fun to muse over.

Cheers,
Noel

lamo wrote:I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

I said earlier in the season that Verstappen was immature and got ribbed for it, it's nice to see that a few more people are beginning to see this.

DuckMcF wrote:

lamo wrote:I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

That may be so, but, the "slight speed disadvantage" assumes that Dan and Max set their car up the same way.

Given that the RB13 has a power disadvantage to the Merc and Ferrari powered cars it's entirely possible that Dan is setting his car up for a slower ultimate one lap time, but with a higher straight line speed to help overtaking during the race. I.e. Splitting the setup optimisation between the two cars.

During the race they showed highest speeds through the speed trap and I was surprised to see Dan at the top of the list.

I guess for us sitting behind the keyboard it's impossible to know, but it's fun to muse over.

Cheers,
Noel

Monza is a different scenario, they had lots of grid penalties. Red Bull's generally don't need to be overtaking other cars. They normally start 4th-6th and race from there, picking off Kimi or the pieces if the lead 3 have issues. When they have both ran in races together, Max has had a slight edge as he has also had in qualifying. Its not much and its not all the time though.

Driver's go through form patches with qualy pace.

Just because Max has been the better performer on saturdays for half a season doesn't mean it will always be that way.

lbennie wrote:Driver's go through form patches with qualy pace.

Just because Max has been the better performer on saturdays for half a season doesn't mean it will always be that way.

It could be the case but the trend is a gradual Max improvement in qualifying. Once he was placed in the Red Bull last season, Dan thrashed him in qualifying initially. Something like 6-1 in the first 7 races. But the last 8 races of 2016 I believe were 4-4 or maybe it was last 6 was 3-3, it became almost even by seasons end.

Now this year Max has progressed to beating Dan more often that not. The trend is moving toward Max over 1 lap after his initial acclimatisation to a new team/car mid season.

It's frustrating to read versions of "Max keeps crashing" this season untìl Hungary the only incident he had been involved in was the start in Spain where he was caught up in someone else's accident.

I don't think this keeps crashing narrative stands up.

He made a bad mistake in Hungary and showed his inexperience in Monza but hardly keeps crashing.

pokerman wrote:

lamo wrote:I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

I said earlier in the season that Verstappen was immature and got ribbed for it, it's nice to see that a few more people are beginning to see this.

yes but u gotta look past it and see his potential. After all, he has plenty of time.

lbennie wrote:Driver's go through form patches with qualy pace.

Just because Max has been the better performer on saturdays for half a season doesn't mean it will always be that way.

Max is still a teenager. I doubt very much that he has topped out yet.

Sorry guys but can anyone who's piling on Verstappen here explain me why he was "over agressive"? Or why the move on Massa was "marginal"? He was fully alongside Massa, he left him enough space on the inside, but Massa just drifted wide and plainly pushed Verstappen out. Nothing Verstappen could do about it.

This past weekend alone I've seen various "lesser gods" do what Massa couldn't. GP3 cars, F2 cars and even Porsche trucks (well, compared to F1 cars ) got side by side through Rettifilo just fine. But when Verstappen goes for the overtak, AND leaves enough space, AND his competitor makes a meal of it and hits him... then it's Verstappen being over agressive?

What nonsense guys.

Exediron wrote:I think we saw enough today to say that Dan beat Max. Yes, Max is the better starter at this point - by quite some margin - but since he keeps crashing into people in the early laps

Well, he doesn't "keep crashing into people". Hungary wasn't good but that's basically it. Massa was not his fault at all (see previous reply).

At one point in this race Max was told over the radio why Ricciardo was quicker than him (driver coaching, although I guess it's legal again) so what does that do for the argument that he would have finished ahead if he hadn't tangled with Massa?

If memory serves that was the last part of the race when Max was on considerably older tyres. Both Max and Dan had alternating parts of the race where they were quicker than the other.

I think Max's early retirements are being taken too much as a sign that he'd necessarily have kept that position.

Well another argument can be made as well: Riccciardo being almost invariably behind is explained as it being deliberate and that he would come back later in the race because it's the only theory that would fit to counter the idea that Verstappen has been faster this year.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I think we saw enough today to say that Dan beat Max. Yes, Max is the better starter at this point - by quite some margin - but since he keeps crashing into people in the early laps

Well, he doesn't "keep crashing into people". Hungary wasn't good but that's basically it. Massa was not his fault at all (see previous reply).

Massa wasn't his fault, but he's still responsible for crashing into him. In a perfect world, Verstappen should have been free to turn - Massa crowded him off track. But since Massa did crowd him, turning in anyway was just stupid. He should have gone over the speed bumps like everyone else, complained on the radio, and then passed him anyway. It was a bad decision that cost him a possible podium.

But if the wording offends you, then you can replace it with 'but since he keeps crashing with people' in the early laps. It doesn't matter, because the point is the same; he's putting himself in more dangerous situations, and sometimes it doesn't pay off.

mds wrote:

At one point in this race Max was told over the radio why Ricciardo was quicker than him (driver coaching, although I guess it's legal again) so what does that do for the argument that he would have finished ahead if he hadn't tangled with Massa?

If memory serves that was the last part of the race when Max was on considerably older tyres. Both Max and Dan had alternating parts of the race where they were quicker than the other

I can't find a complete radio transcript to verify the lap, so that one will have to remain in the air for now.

According to the lap charts (for example), Ricciardo was faster than Max slightly more laps than not, 27-25. I don't think that paints a very accurate picture, however; the two drivers were only on the same compound at the same time for the last 14 laps of the race, and before that Ricciardo was managing his tyres to make his strategy work while Max tried to overtake cars. However, they did each set their fastest lap of the race only a single lap apart, and Ricciardo's was a second faster than Max's. I have little doubt you'd call the race pace in favor of Max if the data was reversed, and indeed I can see very little reason not to.

mds wrote:

I think Max's early retirements are being taken too much as a sign that he'd necessarily have kept that position.

Well another argument can be made as well: Riccciardo being almost invariably behind is explained as it being deliberate and that he would come back later in the race because it's the only theory that would fit to counter the idea that Verstappen has been faster this year.

And your explanation for the second part, where I mention that I think the pattern clearly existed well before this year?

How about the fact that Ricciardo obviously was faster in China at the end? He was faster in the end at Silverstone as well, until Max made his precautionary stop.

mds wrote:Sorry guys but can anyone who's piling on Verstappen here explain me why he was "over agressive"? Or why the move on Massa was "marginal"? He was fully alongside Massa, he left him enough space on the inside, but Massa just drifted wide and plainly pushed Verstappen out. Nothing Verstappen could do about it.

This past weekend alone I've seen various "lesser gods" do what Massa couldn't. GP3 cars, F2 cars and even Porsche trucks (well, compared to F1 cars ) got side by side through Rettifilo just fine. But when Verstappen goes for the overtak, AND leaves enough space, AND his competitor makes a meal of it and hits him... then it's Verstappen being over agressive?

What nonsense guys.

Verstappen drove into Massa's sidepod. That isn't possible if Verstappen is ahead. He went for a gap that didn't exist and paid the price.

Additionally he moved under braking against both Has cars; he had contact with Grosjean (and frankly was lucky to escape without a puncture) and forced Magnussen off the track by swerving into his path under braking.

If Max's car had failed on the 2nd lap then no doubt Monza would have been another race to add to the list where Verstappen has 'dominated' Ricciardo this season.

Exediron wrote: Well, he doesn't "keep crashing into people". Hungary wasn't good but that's basically it. Massa was not his fault at all (see previous reply).

Massa wasn't his fault, but he's still responsible for crashing into him. In a perfect world, Verstappen should have been free to turn - Massa crowded him off track. But since Massa did crowd him, turning in anyway was just stupid. He should have gone over the speed bumps like everyone else, complained on the radio, and then passed him anyway. It was a bad decision that cost him a possible podium.

But if the wording offends you, then you can replace it with 'but since he keeps crashing with people' in the early laps. It doesn't matter, because the point is the same; he's putting himself in more dangerous situations, and sometimes it doesn't pay off. [/quote]

If wasn't solely that word, it was also the "keeping" part. I mean, if memory serves this is the second time this year a collision has cost him. I don't feel that is enough to establish a pattern, especially when Austria he couldn't even be held remotely responsible for anything.

And sure he could turn in fine as Massa could make the turn too. It was not like Massa braked too late and couldn't make the corner - he could, but decided to go into Verstappen.

I compare it a bit with Ocon & Perez in Spa: if drivers now have to assume that the others are going to f*ck it up, then you can't properly race or try to overtake anywhere anymore.
I'd add that going over the speed bumps poses a risk as well.

mds wrote:the two drivers were only on the same compound at the same time for the last 14 laps of the race, and before that Ricciardo was managing his tyres to make his strategy work while Max tried to overtake cars. However, they did each set their fastest lap of the race only a single lap apart, and Ricciardo's was a second faster than Max's. I have little doubt you'd call the race pace in favor of Max if the data was reversed, and indeed I can see very little reason not to.

Referring again to Max at that point being on much older tyres.
Also, if Ricciardo was managing his tyres, then what for Max? Ricciardo had to do 55 laps on a set of softs and a set of super softs, Max had to do 52 laps on two sets of super softs.

mds wrote: And your explanation for the second part, where I mention that I think the pattern clearly existed well before this year?

Remember Max being faster towards the later stages of some races last year as well. Either way, I will maintain last year wasn't the fairest comparison between both since Max had no build-up to the season in that car and had to learn everything on the go.

How about the fact that Ricciardo obviously was faster in China at the end? He was faster in the end at Silverstone as well, until Max made his precautionary stop.

Well, did he pass in China?
As for Silverstone, of course Dan was faster from the moment he got bolted on tyres that were 13 laps newer than Verstappen's.

GingerFurball wrote:[
Verstappen drove into Massa's sidepod. That isn't possible if Verstappen is ahead. He went for a gap that didn't exist and paid the price.

Look at it again mate. He was fully alongside before turning into T1, and he gave Massa all the space he needed to make the corner. He couldn't just vanish into thin air when Massa came crashing into him.

Additionally he moved under braking against both Has cars; he had contact with Grosjean (and frankly was lucky to escape without a puncture) and forced Magnussen off the track by swerving into his path under braking.

Grosjean overshot his braking mark, locked up his tyres and used Verstappen as an extra brake.
With Magnussen, Verstappen moved back to the racing line when he was fully ahead in order to take the corner and Magnussen had a brainfade - what was he trying to accomplish there?

If Max's car had failed on the 2nd lap then no doubt Monza would have been another race to add to the list where Verstappen has 'dominated' Ricciardo this season.

Nobody used "dominate" as far as I know. Still, again Verstappen outperformed Ricciardo comfortably in qualifying and other people stuffed up and ruined it for him.

mds wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:[
Verstappen drove into Massa's sidepod. That isn't possible if Verstappen is ahead. He went for a gap that didn't exist and paid the price.

Look at it again mate. He was fully alongside before turning into T1, and he gave Massa all the space he needed to make the corner. He couldn't just vanish into thin air when Massa came crashing into him.

Just to illustrate my point here. Consider this:


Verstappen is fully alongside, probably just a hair ahead. Why on earth shouldn't he turn in here? After this still, Verstappen even opens the line a bit so Massa has the space he needs.
Deep into the corner, Verstappen is still fully alongside:



After this Massa basically just steers left towards the apex of the lefthander as if nobody's there.

So yes. The gap was there, he was fully alongside going into T2, and Massa took the line from the outside with a driver fully alongside on the inside.

Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

GingerFurball wrote:Having watched the highlights Verstappen has a lot to learn race craft wise. Puncture was entirely his fault, he was lucky not to take damage after chopping Grosjean and his move on Magnussen was just dumb.

Ricciardo's overtake on Kimi carried way more risk than any of those

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:But if the wording offends you, then you can replace it with 'but since he keeps crashing with people' in the early laps. It doesn't matter, because the point is the same; he's putting himself in more dangerous situations, and sometimes it doesn't pay off.

If wasn't solely that word, it was also the "keeping" part. I mean, if memory serves this is the second time this year a collision has cost him. I don't feel that is enough to establish a pattern, especially when Austria he couldn't even be held remotely responsible for anything.

You missed Spain, where contact with Bottas clearly cost him. I agree that you can't hold him responsible for Austria, but three 50/50 (or more, in the case of Hungary) incidents is still the most of any of the top drivers, by a clear margin. Maybe it's bad luck, but maybe it's also that he goes for moves that are more on the edge than the rest do.

mds wrote:And sure he could turn in fine as Massa could make the turn too. It was not like Massa braked too late and couldn't make the corner - he could, but decided to go into Verstappen.

I compare it a bit with Ocon & Perez in Spa: if drivers now have to assume that the others are going to f*ck it up, then you can't properly race or try to overtake anywhere anymore.
I'd add that going over the speed bumps poses a risk as well.

I agree that it's the same, but then I also thought Ocon had to take some of the blame in Spa for not backing out. It was clear that he was driving into a gap Perez meant to close, and it was clear that Massa was closing the door on Max.

If you watch the video of the incident (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KZprYBQI2Y) at the 3-4 second mark, it's obvious Massa is going to run him off track, but Max is still on almost full lock. That's the time to straighten his steering and go over the bumps, and I think he has to accept a share of responsibility for the contact by not doing so. Much like any driver who hits Max after he makes a move under brakes; I think it's unfair defending, but anyone who hits him when he does it also has to take a share of the blame.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:the two drivers were only on the same compound at the same time for the last 14 laps of the race, and before that Ricciardo was managing his tyres to make his strategy work while Max tried to overtake cars. However, they did each set their fastest lap of the race only a single lap apart, and Ricciardo's was a second faster than Max's. I have little doubt you'd call the race pace in favor of Max if the data was reversed, and indeed I can see very little reason not to.

Referring again to Max at that point being on much older tyres.
Also, if Ricciardo was managing his tyres, then what for Max? Ricciardo had to do 55 laps on a set of softs and a set of super softs, Max had to do 52 laps on two sets of super softs.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'much' - Max's tyres were 8 laps older, and Ricciardo was dramatically quicker from his first lap on the SS set. At that point, I don't think the age made a huge difference, considering that Max did over 20 laps on his first set with heavier fuel.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:And your explanation for the second part, where I mention that I think the pattern clearly existed well before this year?

Remember Max being faster towards the later stages of some races last year as well. Either way, I will maintain last year wasn't the fairest comparison between both since Max had no build-up to the season in that car and had to learn everything on the go.

I was talking about Vettel in 2014, not anything to do with Max.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:How about the fact that Ricciardo obviously was faster in China at the end? He was faster in the end at Silverstone as well, until Max made his precautionary stop.

Well, did he pass in China?

That's a disappointingly disingenuous answer, considering you know as well as me that you need to be quite a lot faster to pass, especially a driver who defends as aggressively as Max. There've been plenty of times this year when a much faster car can't pass a slower one, including Vettel and Kimi in the very same race.

mds wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:If Max's car had failed on the 2nd lap then no doubt Monza would have been another race to add to the list where Verstappen has 'dominated' Ricciardo this season.

Nobody used "dominate" as far as I know. Still, again Verstappen outperformed Ricciardo comfortably in qualifying and other people stuffed up and ruined it for him.

He was less than a tenth and a half ahead, so I think outperforming him comfortably is a bit much. He did outperform him, admittedly, but if you're going to pick misleading words with me I think you should refrain from it yourself.

ALESI wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

Max having made mistakes doesn't mean he is in the wrong here though.

mcdo wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:Having watched the highlights Verstappen has a lot to learn race craft wise. Puncture was entirely his fault, he was lucky not to take damage after chopping Grosjean and his move on Magnussen was just dumb.

Ricciardo's overtake on Kimi carried way more risk than any of those

I wonder whether this was a calculated risk though? Kimi has the experience to be sensible enough not to ruin his own race by making a point to someone who dives up his inside; my guess is that Dan trusted him enough to have faith in that move.

mds wrote:

ALESI wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

Max having made mistakes doesn't mean he is in the wrong here though.

I don't know why you keep sticking to the right or wrong thing. It's irrelevant; morally - whatever that means in racing terms - he was obviously in the right. But he should have been able to read that there wasn't going to be space there, and he should never have tried to drive into it. I could tell Massa was going to close the door on him, and I have a hard time believing he couldn't. It doesn't matter if he feels he was wronged or not; he placed the car where there was going to be a collision, and there was.

Exediron wrote: You missed Spain, where contact with Bottas clearly cost him. I agree that you can't hold him responsible for Austria, but three 50/50 (or more, in the case of Hungary) incidents is still the most of any of the top drivers, by a clear margin. Maybe it's bad luck, but maybe it's also that he goes for moves that are more on the edge than the rest do.

You're right, I missed Spain. But in Spain too that wasn't even remotely his fault, he went into that corner leaving ample space on the inside, then got tagged.
It really can be a string of bad luck, you know.

I agree that it's the same, but then I also thought Ocon had to take some of the blame in Spa for not backing out. It was clear that he was driving into a gap Perez meant to close, and it was clear that Massa was closing the door on Max.

It was never clear Perez was going to blatantly transgress the sporting regulations by putting his own team mate into the wall Exediron. I'm sorry, I cannot agree with that. Ocon knew he was entitled space and he should not expect not to get it. Racing drivers rely on this obligation of the defending driver all the time.
If Ocon had to assume the gap would close, every driver must assume defending drivers will not leave a car's width of space and never try for an overtake anymore.

If you watch the video of the incident (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KZprYBQI2Y) at the 3-4 second mark, it's obvious Massa is going to run him off track, but Max is still on almost full lock. That's the time to straighten his steering and go over the bumps, and I think he has to accept a share of responsibility for the contact by not doing so. Much like any driver who hits Max after he makes a move under brakes; I think it's unfair defending, but anyone who hits him when he does it also has to take a share of the blame.

But again, going over the bumps can also wreck your car. And Massa could have pulled out even after the 3 second mark.
Sure, Verstappen could have prevented it by possibly destroying his car over the speed bumps, but then every victim driver can always prevent a crash by doing something other than what he did.
Still Massa fully at fault.

mds wrote: Referring again to Max at that point being on much older tyres.
Also, if Ricciardo was managing his tyres, then what for Max? Ricciardo had to do 55 laps on a set of softs and a set of super softs, Max had to do 52 laps on two sets of super softs.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'much' - Max's tyres were 8 laps older, and Ricciardo was dramatically quicker from his first lap on the SS set. At that point, I don't think the age made a huge difference, considering that Max did over 20 laps on his first set with heavier fuel.

Well, let's disagree here then. Also factoring in Max had 6 cars to overtake in his final stint along as running a fairly long one on those super softs.
Don't think this is apples to apples.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:How about the fact that Ricciardo obviously was faster in China at the end? He was faster in the end at Silverstone as well, until Max made his precautionary stop.

Well, did he pass in China?

That's a disappointingly disingenuous answer, considering you know as well as me that you need to be quite a lot faster to pass, especially a driver who defends as aggressively as Max. There've been plenty of times this year when a much faster car can't pass a slower one, including Vettel and Kimi in the very same race.

It's not disingenuous. It serves to argument the idea that qualifying and starting better probably is the better approach. Provided one doesn't get bumped out, of course.

mds wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:If Max's car had failed on the 2nd lap then no doubt Monza would have been another race to add to the list where Verstappen has 'dominated' Ricciardo this season.

Nobody used "dominate" as far as I know. Still, again Verstappen outperformed Ricciardo comfortably in qualifying and other people stuffed up and ruined it for him.

He was less than a tenth and a half ahead, so I think outperforming him comfortably is a bit much. He did outperform him, admittedly, but if you're going to pick misleading words with me I think you should refrain from it yourself.

That's my mistake, I didn't have the correct gap in mind.

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:

ALESI wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

Max having made mistakes doesn't mean he is in the wrong here though.

I don't know why you keep sticking to the right or wrong thing. It's irrelevant; morally - whatever that means in racing terms - he was obviously in the right. But he should have been able to read that there wasn't going to be space there, and he should never have tried to drive into it. I could tell Massa was going to close the door on him, and I have a hard time believing he couldn't. It doesn't matter if he feels he was wronged or not; he placed the car where there was going to be a collision, and there was.

... but where exactly did he drive into? He was fully alongside deep into the corner (look at my second screenshot) until Massa just steered into him as if there was no other car. He didn't drive into anything, he went alongside all the way. Which a lot of lesser drivers could manage the entire weekend, so you would reasonably expect an F1 veteran like Massa to do the same.

If a GP3, an F2 driver or a Porsche driver can do the exact same without coming together, it is not a foregone conclusion that there was going to be a collision.

mds wrote:

ALESI wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

Max having made mistakes doesn't mean he is in the wrong here though.

I don't think Max thinks he made any mistakes (as you put it) though. It's that usual F1 driver mentality that if I drive someone else off the track I stuck to the letter of the law but if someone does it to me they're a ****** idiot.

ALESI wrote:

mds wrote:

ALESI wrote:Yeah I mean it's not like Max has ever driven anyone off the track (and even said he would have done the same to Ric if he wasn't his team mate)!

Max having made mistakes doesn't mean he is in the wrong here though.

I don't think Max thinks he made any mistakes (as you put it) though. It's that usual F1 driver mentality that if I drive someone else off the track I stuck to the letter of the law but if someone does it to me they're a ****** idiot.

Are you referring to the "hanging out to dry" manoeuvre? Because that, as much as some may hate it, is an accepted one in racing. That's not what Massa did here though.

Here's a couple of axioms from other sports that might clear this up a bit.

In cricket there are two types of "leaves", a "good leave" and a "bad leave".
In F1 there are two types of passes, a "good pass" and a "bad pass".

In football, if you slide tackle your opponent in the box, don't be surprised if the ref. awards a penalty.
In F1, if you overtake around the outside, don't be surprised if your opponent either understeers or deliberately pushes you wide.

Ultimately it's not relevant if the incident was MAS's or VES's fault.
VES made many awesome passes during the race, especially in the first few corners, but it only took one bad pass to ruin it all.

Bottom line, if you put your head in the lions mouth, don't be surprised if it gets bitten off.

Alternatively, if there is a gap and you don't take it, you are no longer racing.

It's a tricky cut throat business which is why they get paid the big bucks.

Cheers,
Noel

mds wrote:... but where exactly did he drive into? He was fully alongside deep into the corner (look at my second screenshot) until Massa just steered into him as if there was no other car. He didn't drive into anything, he went alongside all the way. Which a lot of lesser drivers could manage the entire weekend, so you would reasonably expect an F1 veteran like Massa to do the same.

If a GP3, an F2 driver or a Porsche driver can do the exact same without coming together, it is not a foregone conclusion that there was going to be a collision.

No, he didn't. If he'd continued to drive alongside Massa, he would have left the track after the 4 second mark and driven over the kerb. He stopped driving alongside when he decided he wanted to be on the same part of the track Massa was on, at which point they collided.

Massa ran him off track deliberately, I just think there was time to get out of it. And I don't think running over the bumps at low speed is anywhere near as dangerous to a car as a collision, so I do think it was a better decision.

Exediron wrote:He stopped driving alongside when he decided he wanted to be on the same part of the track Massa was on, at which point they collided.

Think we're going to keep disagreeing - I think you have the responsibilities reversed. Max didn't decide he wanted to be on the same part of the track, Massa did. Verstappen didn't move right to take Massa's position or the ideal line, Massa moved to where Max was as if he wasn't there.

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:Having watched the highlights Verstappen has a lot to learn race craft wise. Puncture was entirely his fault, he was lucky not to take damage after chopping Grosjean and his move on Magnussen was just dumb.

Ricciardo's overtake on Kimi carried way more risk than any of those

I wonder whether this was a calculated risk though? Kimi has the experience to be sensible enough not to ruin his own race by making a point to someone who dives up his inside; my guess is that Dan trusted him enough to have faith in that move.

Valterri Bottas wouldn't have that same level of faith in dicing with Kimi

One would have thought that with all his experience Massa would be somewhat sensible. But Max wasn't even the first driver Massa made contact with at that chicane

mcdo wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:Having watched the highlights Verstappen has a lot to learn race craft wise. Puncture was entirely his fault, he was lucky not to take damage after chopping Grosjean and his move on Magnussen was just dumb.

Ricciardo's overtake on Kimi carried way more risk than any of those

I wonder whether this was a calculated risk though? Kimi has the experience to be sensible enough not to ruin his own race by making a point to someone who dives up his inside; my guess is that Dan trusted him enough to have faith in that move.

Valterri Bottas wouldn't have that same level of faith in dicing with Kimi

One would have thought that with all his experience Massa would be somewhat sensible. But Max wasn't even the first driver Massa made contact with at that chicane

I've observed Felipe getting involved in incidents in several occasions in the past and they seem to follow the trend that is being argued about Max, above. Incidents that are not necessarily his fault but ones that he may well have chosen to avoid by being a little more circumspect.

I think we can all safely disagree with the thread title now.

Max may have qualified higher than Daniel at more races this year, but there is more to a driver's performance than qualifying.

Daniel has performed very well in races all year and his drives from the back of the field have been virtually perfect.

Definitively, Max is not out-performing Daniel.

rivf1 wrote: ......
Well we might if he doesn't keep blowing up his car and crashing into other drivers, meanwhile dan keeps producing when it matters.

Max tends to be a little 'hot-headed', especially for the first few laps.....or perhaps being 'hot-headed' is more likely to cause problems at race start.

However, isn't to be expected that a little more maturity will bring a reduction in these problems? Given the refinement of skills that comes with practice, Max is likely to keep his overall speed while building that reliability.

The biggest challenge is that while refining those skills he gets unfairly compared to Ricciardo: I suggest as difficult a comparison as possible. These two are two the best, that is for sure, and I suggest it is Max who has the even greater potential if he manages to deliver on that potential.

But having both on the same team hides just how good they both are.

oz_karter wrote:I think we can all safely disagree with the thread title now.

...

Definitively, Max is not out-performing Daniel.

For the limited time we can compare them apples to apples (qualifying and racetime up until the moment something messes it up for Verstappen) Max is outperforming Dan.

After those moments in the race, Dan shines but Max doesn't get to prove what he could/would have done.

Fair enough?

mds wrote:

oz_karter wrote:I think we can all safely disagree with the thread title now.

...

Definitively, Max is not out-performing Daniel.

For the limited time we can compare them apples to apples (qualifying and racetime up until the moment something messes it up for Verstappen) Max is outperforming Dan.

After those moments in the race, Dan shines but Max doesn't get to prove what he could/would have done.

Fair enough?

Not so sure about those, as you say, "moments in the race". It certainly doesn't explain the driver coaching that Max received mid-race yesterday. Nor Hungary

Max will become a better driver when he learns a little patience and timing. Although at the moment, since he is becoming most impatient with his very own team, it doesn't seem he's going to change in the short term.

purchville wrote:

mds wrote:

oz_karter wrote:I think we can all safely disagree with the thread title now.

...

Definitively, Max is not out-performing Daniel.

For the limited time we can compare them apples to apples (qualifying and racetime up until the moment something messes it up for Verstappen) Max is outperforming Dan.

After those moments in the race, Dan shines but Max doesn't get to prove what he could/would have done.

Fair enough?

Not so sure about those, as you say, "moments in the race". It certainly doesn't explain the driver coaching that Max received mid-race yesterday. Nor Hungary

Hungary was a definite error, but Ricciardo had a few this year as well - Baku and Australia spring to mind.

As for driver coaching: teams talk to drivers the entire time. That Verstappen was instructed about Ricciardo doesn't tell a lot. Going by Verstappen's answer he didn't even want the coaching, and other than that it was pretty normal Dan was faster at that point in the race.

Max will become a better driver when he learns a little patience and timing.

Honestly I think this is being way overblown. He made an error in Hungary, and that's about it. Even if you argue he didn't time it well yesterday (which I still don't agree with, but that should be clear by now ), that's not even a pattern because the rest of the year there has been nothing wrong with timing of anything he's done.

purchville wrote:Max will become a better driver when he learns a little patience and timing. Although at the moment, since he is becoming most impatient with his very own team, it doesn't seem he's going to change in the short term.

I agree, but in my view, he already has changed. Some of the mistakes he is still making, Hamilton made as late as 2014. It would be interesting to know what sports psychologists think about this, but I believe the transition from boisterous youngster always in a fight, to accomplished racer in F1 is tremendously difficult to manage. Some become overly cautious and their speed suffers.

trento wrote:

pokerman wrote:

lamo wrote:I agree with that sentiment, a driver that has collisions can learn to stop having them / take less risk. A slower driver can not become faster.
Whilst I prefer Dan, Max can easily become a better driver by just playing the long game a bit more. Dan's slight speed disadvantage, well there isn't anything he can do about that. Dan is probably the more complete driver at this time, but Max is 19 and has maybe more than 15 years in this sport to go.

I said earlier in the season that Verstappen was immature and got ribbed for it, it's nice to see that a few more people are beginning to see this.

yes but u gotta look past it and see his potential. After all, he has plenty of time.

Indeed I'm sure he will learn from his mistakes, it's important to finish races as well.