planetf1.com

Ricciardo's ridiculously good luck podium run continues too. Both Ferrari's taken out of it this weekend.

lamo wrote:Ricciardo's ridiculously good luck podium run continues too. Both Ferrari's taken out of it this weekend.

I can agree Ricciardo is a little lucky quite often. But I think it is more that his team mate is unlucky that makes it look that way. If Verstappen had had no retirements, then we'll probably have to consider him fairly lucky too.

What I can say about Verstappen is that he has been lucky with both of his wins as the 2 top cars in the race wither retired like in Spain last year or didn't start like Kimi or had to start at the back like Vettel in Malaysia. All of these cars that were affected happened to be the best car on that particular track. So that certainly helped out. But I cna't deny that Verstappen did a great job in both. Although now I think about it, both of Ricciardo's latest wins has been when there have been better cars either retiring or having problems.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

lamo wrote:Ricciardo's ridiculously good luck podium run continues too. Both Ferrari's taken out of it this weekend.

I can agree Ricciardo is a little lucky quite often. But I think it is more that his team mate is unlucky that makes it look that way. If Verstappen had had no retirements, then we'll probably have to consider him fairly lucky too.

What I can say about Verstappen is that he has been lucky with both of his wins as the 2 top cars in the race wither retired like in Spain last year or didn't start like Kimi or had to start at the back like Vettel in Malaysia. All of these cars that were affected happened to be the best car on that particular track. So that certainly helped out. But I cna't deny that Verstappen did a great job in both. Although now I think about it, both of Ricciardo's latest wins has been when there have been better cars either retiring or having problems.

If you've got the third best car it's pretty unlikely you will win without the faster cars suffering misfortune! And even if you do nobody will ever believe you had the third fastest car

If the Ferrari's had started at the front and been out raced by Max nobody would be saying - Well done Max, you beat faster cars. They would be saying - Max had the fastest car on the day.

That's just the way it is.

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:If Massa did what he did and got away with it, then within the rules, there is nothing wrong with what he did. So I don't think it is worth taking it any further. Others can have their own opinion, but according to the result of this clash and the decision they made, it is clear that they think Massa did nothing wrong since Verstappen was the one who came off worse and they still took it no further. The decision is up to them.

The decision is up to them, but that doesn't mean they are always right. We are having a facts-based discussion, if you are going to refute what I'm saying then I expect that to be based on something and not just "well the stewards thought it was OK".

Again, picture above is clear. Verstappen is FULLY level and on the inside to the next turn. And Massa moves over and barges into Verstappen and takes his line. Tell me clearly how you think that should be allowed.

I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

lamo wrote:Ricciardo's ridiculously good luck podium run continues too. Both Ferrari's taken out of it this weekend.

I can agree Ricciardo is a little lucky quite often. But I think it is more that his team mate is unlucky that makes it look that way. If Verstappen had had no retirements, then we'll probably have to consider him fairly lucky too.

What I can say about Verstappen is that he has been lucky with both of his wins as the 2 top cars in the race wither retired like in Spain last year or didn't start like Kimi or had to start at the back like Vettel in Malaysia. All of these cars that were affected happened to be the best car on that particular track. So that certainly helped out. But I cna't deny that Verstappen did a great job in both. Although now I think about it, both of Ricciardo's latest wins has been when there have been better cars either retiring or having problems.

If you've got the third best car it's pretty unlikely you will win without the faster cars suffering misfortune! And even if you do nobody will ever believe you had the third fastest car

If the Ferrari's had started at the front and been out raced by Max nobody would be saying - Well done Max, you beat faster cars. They would be saying - Max had the fastest car on the day.

That's just the way it is.

I thought the Red bull was the 2nd best this weekend. So Hamilton did well to beat Ricciardo. I do think that Vettel will have beaten Verstappen and Kimi may have managed to jump Hamilton too. Possibly Verstappen too but I'm not certain. I do think Mercedes won't have been on the podium though if both Ferrari's were in the race and started near the top. That is if qualifying went fine for Vettel and the race went well for Kimi which neither did.

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

I am not disrespecting that and I'm not refuting they have a hard job and it isn't always easy. You are obfuscating things with a wall of text.

The facts are simple. Verstappen is right there, dead level, on the inside of the next corner, not divebombing, and Massa barges over to take the apex. Knowing this, how can you still conclude that "Massa did nothing wrong"? How should this ever be OK?

A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

The Ferrari was the fastest car. It wasn't the best though. There's a difference

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

I am not disrespecting that and I'm not refuting they have a hard job and it isn't always easy. You are obfuscating things with a wall of text.

The facts are simple. Verstappen is right there, dead level, on the inside of the next corner, not divebombing, and Massa barges over to take the apex. Knowing this, how can you still conclude that "Massa did nothing wrong"? How should this ever be OK?

I thought Lotus49 did pretty god job at describing why Massa tecnically wasn't in the wrong as thy have often been letting drivers do this similr tings this year. he said that we may not like it, but made it reasnably clear why Massa wasn't punnished.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

I am not disrespecting that and I'm not refuting they have a hard job and it isn't always easy. You are obfuscating things with a wall of text.

The facts are simple. Verstappen is right there, dead level, on the inside of the next corner, not divebombing, and Massa barges over to take the apex. Knowing this, how can you still conclude that "Massa did nothing wrong"? How should this ever be OK?

I thought Lotus49 did pretty god job at describing why Massa tecnically wasn't in the wrong as thy have often been letting drivers do this similr tings this year. he said that we may not like it, but made it reasnably clear why Massa wasn't punnished.

Massa WAS technically in the wrong. This is what I responded to Lotus49. Mind the bit in bold:
Well, drivers are allowed to run out an opponent on the outside but not if they just claim the apex, it is if they are ahead (even if just by a wheel) on corner exit. If they take the apex but the opponent manages to stay level or ahead then it is not normally allowed to take it. And it shouldn't be, in any case.

Aside from that, there are conflicting situations. There is the running out on corner exit, but this is a chicane meaning there's a corner following. And Verstappen is perfectly placed to claim the apex of that corner, is level, and should be given space.


Now please, forget about the stewards and what they might have used as explanation. Going by all of the above, why do you think Massa did nothing wrong when bumping in someone that was level with him on the inside of the run-up to a corner?

mcdo wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

The Ferrari was the fastest car. It wasn't the best though. There's a difference

If you measure fastest as one lap speed, probably true, but if you judge probability for a race result due to the car it's a different picture

Ricciardo has always been overrated.
Put Sainz Jr. in the 2nd RedBull and I suspect many will be surprised, especially in qualifying.

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

I have to scratch my head at the thinking of some people in here. So you think that Lewis is so slow as to not only be overtaken by a car that is no faster than his but to also be gapped by nearly 10 seconds all within the first stint? You don't realize how absurd that is? Based on his and toto's post race comments, the Red Bulls had more than half a second on them in pace and the Ferrari's had nearly a full second. This is born out by the lap charts and Bottas was significantly slower than Lewis during the race.

The idea that Lewis had no problem keeping Ricciardo behind is based solely on teh fact that Daniel took several laps to pass Bottas. By that point, Lewis already had a 10+ second advantage and the tires Daniel was on were badly worn. He closed the gap but was never able to catch Lewis outright due to having to switch focus to Vettel.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

I have to scratch my head at the thinking of some people in here. So you think that Lewis is so slow as to not only be overtaken by a car that is no faster than his but to also be gapped by nearly 10 seconds all within the first stint? You don't realize how absurd that is? Based on his and toto's post race comments, the Red Bulls had more than half a second on them in pace and the Ferrari's had nearly a full second. This is born out by the lap charts and Bottas was significantly slower than Lewis during the race.

The idea that Lewis had no problem keeping Ricciardo behind is based solely on teh fact that Daniel took several laps to pass Bottas. By that point, Lewis already had a 10+ second advantage and the tires Daniel was on were badly worn. He closed the gap but was never able to catch Lewis outright due to having to switch focus to Vettel.

The Mercedes Problem were the SuperSoft(HAM was plain slow and BOT even worse).
Had they started the race with the Soft tyres, HAM would have probably won.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

I have to scratch my head at the thinking of some people in here. So you think that Lewis is so slow as to not only be overtaken by a car that is no faster than his but to also be gapped by nearly 10 seconds all within the first stint? You don't realize how absurd that is? Based on his and toto's post race comments, the Red Bulls had more than half a second on them in pace and the Ferrari's had nearly a full second. This is born out by the lap charts and Bottas was significantly slower than Lewis during the race.

The idea that Lewis had no problem keeping Ricciardo behind is based solely on teh fact that Daniel took several laps to pass Bottas. By that point, Lewis already had a 10+ second advantage and the tires Daniel was on were badly worn. He closed the gap but was never able to catch Lewis outright due to having to switch focus to Vettel.

Both Toto and Lewis have proved over and over that what they say about the Merc speed is anything but true.
I have no problem believing that Lewis was content with #2 yesterday, and kept it that way.

KingVoid wrote:The scary thing about Verstappen is that he just turned 20. Hamilton was in Formula 3 at that age. Verstappen has already established himself as a top 3 driver on the grid. In fact, there's a good chance he's already as good as Lewis.

And F1 drivers usually peak around the age of 30. Max is only going to get better and better.

At this point Verstappen isn't a "promising youngster" anymore. He's a monster in the making.

Yeah it's hard to determine exactly how good he is because of the Red Bull bubble were they basically only compete against one another, Vettel being the first to venture into the outside world as such, but without doubt he's tier 1.

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

I am not disrespecting that and I'm not refuting they have a hard job and it isn't always easy. You are obfuscating things with a wall of text.

The facts are simple. Verstappen is right there, dead level, on the inside of the next corner, not divebombing, and Massa barges over to take the apex. Knowing this, how can you still conclude that "Massa did nothing wrong"? How should this ever be OK?

I thought Lotus49 did pretty god job at describing why Massa tecnically wasn't in the wrong as thy have often been letting drivers do this similr tings this year. he said that we may not like it, but made it reasnably clear why Massa wasn't punnished.

This doesn't even compare to what Sainz did to Ocon and he wasn't punished so Massa was nowhere near to be getting penalised for what at worse might be a slight infringement.

Verstappen clearly had the option to back out of it but he didn't, he takes risks and this is one reason why Hamilton didn't want to go wheel to wheel with Verstappen in Malaysia.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

I think it is true. I've never seen Hamilton put up such a flimsy defence. I think he was satisfied to settle for second.

AnRs wrote:

mcdo wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

The Ferrari was the fastest car. It wasn't the best though. There's a difference

If you measure fastest as one lap speed, probably true, but if you judge probability for a race result due to the car it's a different picture

So nothing to debate then who ever wins the race has the fastest car.

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

I have to scratch my head at the thinking of some people in here. So you think that Lewis is so slow as to not only be overtaken by a car that is no faster than his but to also be gapped by nearly 10 seconds all within the first stint? You don't realize how absurd that is? Based on his and toto's post race comments, the Red Bulls had more than half a second on them in pace and the Ferrari's had nearly a full second. This is born out by the lap charts and Bottas was significantly slower than Lewis during the race.

The idea that Lewis had no problem keeping Ricciardo behind is based solely on teh fact that Daniel took several laps to pass Bottas. By that point, Lewis already had a 10+ second advantage and the tires Daniel was on were badly worn. He closed the gap but was never able to catch Lewis outright due to having to switch focus to Vettel.

Both Toto and Lewis have proved over and over that what they say about the Merc speed is anything but true.
I have no problem believing that Lewis was content with #2 yesterday, and kept it that way.

There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Pullrod wrote:Ricciardo has always been overrated.
Put Sainz Jr. in the 2nd RedBull and I suspect many will be surprised, especially in qualifying.

His reputation is built on large from the 2014 season and I guess it's for debate exactly how representative that season actually was, but there's not really sufficient data to say if he's actually overrated or not.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

I have to scratch my head at the thinking of some people in here. So you think that Lewis is so slow as to not only be overtaken by a car that is no faster than his but to also be gapped by nearly 10 seconds all within the first stint? You don't realize how absurd that is? Based on his and toto's post race comments, the Red Bulls had more than half a second on them in pace and the Ferrari's had nearly a full second. This is born out by the lap charts and Bottas was significantly slower than Lewis during the race.

The idea that Lewis had no problem keeping Ricciardo behind is based solely on teh fact that Daniel took several laps to pass Bottas. By that point, Lewis already had a 10+ second advantage and the tires Daniel was on were badly worn. He closed the gap but was never able to catch Lewis outright due to having to switch focus to Vettel.

You just wasted 5 minutes of your life with that reasoned explanation.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

I think it is true. I've never seen Hamilton put up such a flimsy defence. I think he was satisfied to settle for second.

There is a big difference between "not wanting to tussle too aggressively with a guy with nothing to lose" and "just sitting in 2nd, 10 seconds behind the guy with nothing to lose despite having more pace".

The reason Max was on Hamilton so quickly was because the RBR was quicker. The reason he pulled out a gap so quickly was because the RBR was quicker. The Merc seemed to have more relative pace on the harder compound (as they often do), but the RBR was clearly the quicker car.

So I'd say there's a big difference between settling for 2nd, in not fighting with a guy who will either take you out or over/undercut you at the pits anyway, and settling for 2nd as in sitting in position when you have the pace for 1st.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

I think it is true. I've never seen Hamilton put up such a flimsy defence. I think he was satisfied to settle for second.

I was mainly replying to the Ferrari bit, regarding Hamilton he clearly couldn't keep pace with Verstappen so were into the land of saying that Verstappen himself was faster than Hamilton.

It's hard to imagine that Hamilton was basically not trying in the first stint when he was lapping anything up to a second a lap faster than his teammate, after the stops then I agree he settled for second place.

pokerman wrote: This doesn't even compare to what Sainz did to Ocon and he wasn't punished so Massa was nowhere near to be getting penalised for what at worse might be a slight infringement.

I'm not saying he should have been punished. I'm refuting the idea that Massa did nothing wrong.

Verstappen clearly had the option to back out of it but he didn't

Sure. But that doesn't mean the blame was on him. As if going around the outside is such a weird thing. Truth is it isn't, he did, he held on to be level for the entry to the next corner, so should be given space at that point. If you're going to argue this, then same question for you: why is it OK for a driver to barge into someone that is perfectly level and on the inside for the next corner?

he takes risks and this is one reason why Hamilton didn't want to go wheel to wheel with Verstappen in Malaysia.

Well, if it got him a win then he knows what he is doing it for?

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: This doesn't even compare to what Sainz did to Ocon and he wasn't punished so Massa was nowhere near to be getting penalised for what at worse might be a slight infringement.

I'm not saying he should have been punished. I'm refuting the idea that Massa did nothing wrong.

Verstappen clearly had the option to back out of it but he didn't

Sure. But that doesn't mean the blame was on him. As if going around the outside is such a weird thing. Truth is it isn't, he did, he held on to be level for the entry to the next corner, so should be given space at that point. If you're going to argue this, then same question for you: why is it OK for a driver to barge into someone that is perfectly level and on the inside for the next corner?

he takes risks and this is one reason why Hamilton didn't want to go wheel to wheel with Verstappen in Malaysia.

Well, if it got him a win then he knows what he is doing it for?

The overlying thing though is like I said he takes risks which gave him a free pass against Hamilton because he knew what Verstappen was about, when you drive like that then you can be on the borderline between being a hero or being a zero, against Mass he was a zero.

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

mds wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Unfortunately the stewards have made a rod for their own back recently by allowing cars to run out an opponent on the outside on exit if they claim the apex to the corner and technically that's what Massa did in T1 so he was allowed to run out Max on exit in the pic above.

It sucks but it's why it was deemed a racing incident and most other attacks take place on curva grande now. It's too easy to "win" the apex on the inside of T1 defending the inside line and you're screwed if you're still on the outside as the exit is effectively the apex to T2 . It's better to wait until curva grande and that's why a lot of journos/pundits felt it was a bit impatient.

Until running a car out on exit is punished then at a few specific corners on the calendar like this it gets messy.

Well, drivers are allowed to run out an opponent on the outside but not if they just claim the apex, it is if they are ahead (even if just by a wheel) on corner exit. If they take the apex but the opponent manages to stay level or ahead then it is not normally allowed to take it. And it shouldn't be, in any case.

Aside from that, there are conflicting situations. There is the running out on corner exit, but this is a chicane meaning there's a corner following. And Verstappen is perfectly placed to claim the apex of that corner, is level, and should be given space.

I think it's as long as you aren't behind at the apex you can do it to be honest and Massa wasn't and where you've got the pic frozen is still the exit of T1, the apex of the next corner is where the 2nd Ferrari is. Even where Massa is in that frame he has to go right a bit before coming back for the apex.

I don't like it being allowed for precisely corners like this but technically it's T1 and T2 so it was treated as such was the explanation I was given on another forum with the pics of them side by side at the apex.

Because Massa was taking the inside line his exit was never going to take him anywhere but wider then the normal line so running Max out was always going to happen even if Felipe wanted it or not which is why I think the pundits thought it was impatient from Max. If you're going around the outside there you really need to be a good bit ahead or you should wait for Grande.

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

Yeah no I've looked at the lap charts for the race (and for the three practice sessions for that matter) and Red Bull were definitely quicker all weekend.

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

That's the second stint so has nothing to do with what you were saying.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

I think it is true. I've never seen Hamilton put up such a flimsy defence. I think he was satisfied to settle for second.

I was mainly replying to the Ferrari bit, regarding Hamilton he clearly couldn't keep pace with Verstappen so were into the land of saying that Verstappen himself was faster than Hamilton.

It's hard to imagine that Hamilton was basically not trying in the first stint when he was lapping anything up to a second a lap faster than his teammate, after the stops then I agree he settled for second place.

I don't think he ever tried to keep up with Verstappen. Look at how much extra pace he had when he needed it later. I'm not saying the Merc was miles quicker but I could believe it was as good.

Lotus49 wrote:Because Massa was taking the inside line his exit was never going to take him anywhere but wider then the normal line so running Max out was always going to happen even if Felipe wanted it or not

Well, this is another part that I've been refuting. I've watched F3, F2, GP3 races at Monza, even Porsche Supercup races, and in all of those series you see drivers managing to get through there side by side. Massa is an F1 driver, surely he should be able to manage it just like all of those supposedly lesser or younger drivers.

I mean I can understand people saying Verstappen could also have waited, but I don't understand when it turns into Massa having no fault in what happened - Verstappen had the right to be there and had merited a piece of track space due to hanging in there and being level where he was.

mds wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Because Massa was taking the inside line his exit was never going to take him anywhere but wider then the normal line so running Max out was always going to happen even if Felipe wanted it or not

Well, this is another part that I've been refuting. I've watched F3, F2, GP3 races at Monza, even Porsche Supercup races, and in all of those series you see drivers managing to get through there side by side. Massa is an F1 driver, surely he should be able to manage it just like all of those supposedly lesser or younger drivers.

I mean I can understand people saying Verstappen could also have waited, but I don't understand when it turns into Massa having no fault in what happened - Verstappen had the right to be there and had merited a piece of track space due to hanging in there and being level where he was.

I don't know if Massa could have taken more kerb initially or been more kind, he probably could to be fair but that stupid allowance almost encourages this type of thing.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

Yeah no I've looked at the lap charts for the race (and for the three practice sessions for that matter) and Red Bull were definitely quicker all weekend.

No they weren't, have a look again, qualifying Red Bull was slower, second stint Lewis had pace to do more than he did

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

That's the second stint so has nothing to do with what you were saying.

Are you serious? Why hasn't that got anything with the race?

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There's really no point to having a conversation with someone who's so out of touch with reality.

Feel free to have your beliefs, but expect people to call you out when you present them as facts.
Have a look at the Merc on soft and see for yourself.

That's the second stint so has nothing to do with what you were saying.

Are you serious? Why hasn't that got anything with the race?

Because the 1st stint is where the race was won and Hamilton was plain slower than Verstappen.
After that he was 6 second behind and there were nothing he could do to catch and pass Verstappen.

Honest question: did you use live timing whilst watching?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:A bit overrating putting Ferrari as the fastest when one car couldn't qualify and one couldn't start due to engine failures.

I also think that Red Bull was no faster than Merc but Max made the difference yesterday, and Lewis unwilling to defend.
Lewis had no problems keeping Ricciardo behind.

Yeah in la la land that is probably true.

I think it is true. I've never seen Hamilton put up such a flimsy defence. I think he was satisfied to settle for second.

I was mainly replying to the Ferrari bit, regarding Hamilton he clearly couldn't keep pace with Verstappen so were into the land of saying that Verstappen himself was faster than Hamilton.

It's hard to imagine that Hamilton was basically not trying in the first stint when he was lapping anything up to a second a lap faster than his teammate, after the stops then I agree he settled for second place.

I don't think he ever tried to keep up with Verstappen. Look at how much extra pace he had when he needed it later. I'm not saying the Merc was miles quicker but I could believe it was as good.

Yeah, when it looked like Vettel might get by Ricciardo Lewis picked up the pace by up to a second a lap, going faster than Verstappen in the process. He settled down again once it was clear Vettel wasn't getting past. Lewis was clearly coasting for the most part

Redbull was faster than Mercedes. One stop races are pretty simple and once the stops are done it's cruising mode. Top two was both cruising.

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mds wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I still think you are missing something. Even though we do see loads of replays, The stewarrds will almost certianly have more access to analyse what happened than we will ever get to see, so I think they are more likely to be right with their decision rather that us just watching it on TV or even being there. I sometimes disagree but still accept that they will always have their reasons.

I think it was Zoue that said this one time. No incident is ever exactly the same. So the stewards can never be totally consistent. They would have to spend ages deciding whether it was worth just giving a 1 second penalty for such a tiny incident or a 25 second penalty if it wasn't quite as bad as something that gets a 30. They have to be inconsistent a lot of the time as they only have certain penalties they can give. And although lots of incidents look similar and get very different penalties, they will have their reasons and they probably don't let us see the reasons why they do this. In recent years, there were 2 incidents that I personally thought should have got different penalties. In Abu Dhabi 2015, Alonso got a drive through for taking Maldonado out of the race. I can't even remember if he got any penalty points on top of that or not. Then the 2nd race of 2016 in Bahrain. Bottas hit Hamilton, and gave him a little damage. Hamilton did not retire, he fell down to 6th then finished 3rd. Bottas got a drive through penalty and 2 penalty points. What is worse, making a car suffer a little but still manage to recover to a podium or making one retire at the first corner. Well Bottas and Alonso were either given exactly the same penalty or Alonso possibly avoided getting any penalty points. I can't remember if he did or not. But this was one I disagreed with. But I still have to accept that the stewards could well have access to much more evidence than we see and I still think they will have to make some decision. They do have a hard job and I don't think enough people respect that.

I am not disrespecting that and I'm not refuting they have a hard job and it isn't always easy. You are obfuscating things with a wall of text.

The facts are simple. Verstappen is right there, dead level, on the inside of the next corner, not divebombing, and Massa barges over to take the apex. Knowing this, how can you still conclude that "Massa did nothing wrong"? How should this ever be OK?

I thought Lotus49 did pretty god job at describing why Massa tecnically wasn't in the wrong as thy have often been letting drivers do this similr tings this year. he said that we may not like it, but made it reasnably clear why Massa wasn't punnished.

Massa WAS technically in the wrong. This is what I responded to Lotus49. Mind the bit in bold:
Well, drivers are allowed to run out an opponent on the outside but not if they just claim the apex, it is if they are ahead (even if just by a wheel) on corner exit. If they take the apex but the opponent manages to stay level or ahead then it is not normally allowed to take it. And it shouldn't be, in any case.

Aside from that, there are conflicting situations. There is the running out on corner exit, but this is a chicane meaning there's a corner following. And Verstappen is perfectly placed to claim the apex of that corner, is level, and should be given space.


Now please, forget about the stewards and what they might have used as explanation. Going by all of the above, why do you think Massa did nothing wrong when bumping in someone that was level with him on the inside of the run-up to a corner?

I think both the more recent comments regarding this by Pokerman and Lotus49 pretty much reflect a similar view to me. If I include my own reasons, I just don't think you will agree so it isn't really worth it. I hope you will agree it isn't worth arguing for days about