planetf1.com

Pretty sure he just adjusted to Lewis's pace, there's no need for him to go 1.8s a lap quicker like he did the lap before he backed off, he can just settle and maintain whatever gap he wants and push again when Lewis does.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Why would they have more concern the second time he tried to unlap himself, there isn't a set amount of times you can try and unlap yourself so it shouldn't concern the stewards.

I've no idea how much time or tyre life it would cost pushing harder to try and keep Ocon behind but it would certainly cost something in both and more than he wanted while trying to manage the gap to Lewis. Even sitting behind Ocon and getting DRS benefit hurts his tyres and overheats the car and with Red Bull's record that's a big concern too.

I need to go through this again but this time with a bit more thought given on my part.

So the Verstappen who decides not to race against Ocon and let's him through then races like mad to get the place back as soon as possible?

Ocon was lapping faster than Hamilton so why the haste, Verstappen lets Ocon pass then just follows Ocon, while they are lapping faster than Hamilton, Verstappen just sits back, afterall he was looking to save his tyres at the point that Ocon passed him anyway.

If there came a time that Ocon slowed to a point Hamilton was catching or that Verstappen simply wanted to go faster, he simply then just closes up on Ocon gets the blue flags and goes by, at that stage there's no looking to come back past by Ocon with him being slower.

He's only 0.4 faster than Max with DRS and a big slipstream so he's not going to go very far in front of Max if he's let through and gets no DRS, and sitting behind him puts extra stress on Max's tyres and engine so you can see why Max wouldn't want to sit behind him. And obviously Max is trying to manage a gap to Lewis so he doesn't want to push if he doesn't have to and stress his tyres/engine more than he wants to.

I dunno if the FI got damaged in the contact but even his pace after yet another stop and more fresh boots wasn't as quick as both Max and Lewis's who's tyres were even older at that point. His best lap was 5ths slower than Lewis's and 8ths slower than Max's despite the even bigger tyre advantage he had than the one that caused the problem.

I just find it strange people honestly think a Force India is going to gap a Red Bull fighting for the win. He was only ever going to force Max to put more punishment on his tyres by either sitting in dirty air before Ocon's tyres duly fell away a few laps later or pulling away from Ocon by pushing his tyres and engine harder than he wanted to and I don't think that's fair on the leader who's controlling the race to have to forget about judging his pace to the guy in second and worry about and respond to a lapped car instead.

The point being as long as Ocon is faster than Hamilton then what's the problem?

We know that Verstappen was a lot faster than Hamilton so at a point that Hamilton starts to be faster than Ocon then Verstappen is going to be even more faster than Ocon and gets blue flagged out of the way.

Your alternative is that Verstappen fights for several laps defending against Ocon basically risking his car in side by side battles and that's the sensible thing to do?

In terms of punishment to Verstappen's tyres, the Red Bull had no such problem with the tyres as witnessed by Ricciardo who sat behind cars for the entire race.

The problem is a lapped car dictating the pace of the leaders. Max as leader should be the one in control of how quick he wants to go.

My alternative is what Ocon and Force India would've done if it was Lewis and Mercedes leading and not interfere with the leader and try to unlap yourself.

It's still extra stress on them he wouldn't otherwise have. What the actual cost is I've no idea.

I've read some of the other posts so Verstappen slowed down and he just expected that Ocon would dutifully follow him around the track, it makes you wonder if he actually knew that cars are allowed to unlap themselves because why would you invite an attempted pass that you needed to defend?

I believe Hamilton already answered your question on what Mercedes or Force India would have done when he inferred that he would have let Ocon pass?

So Max basically got miffed that Ocon, with whom he had had history of contact wasn't going to be dictated to and close the door when he made his move.

In these days of maximum safety measures the coming together was an inconvenience but hardly life threatening, however, should the sport permit this kind of driving.
I completely get the unlapping argument, but it looks to me like MV is getting his retaliation in first. Does that mean we are going to have a season of bumper cars if RB performance matches the other main contenders?

What I'm really saying is would Senna's style of driving be condoned in the modern era?

AnRs wrote:

TedStriker wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

CC78AMG wrote:Whatever your opinion is. The only one that really matters is Charlie Whiting's opinion. Here is his:

https://www.racefans.net/2018/11/12/oco ... n-whiting/

I don't have a problem with the apportion of blame given the circumstances, however a point is being made about how sensible was it for Verstappen to be fighting with a backmarker?

Isn't it more interesting why Ocon moved over for Merc earlier this season when told so, but this time nearly took Verstappen out while batteling the Mercs?

Not unless your obsessive hatred of a team/driver blinds you to the fact that these incidents were completely incomparable. Ocon was not racing Lewis in Monaco and would have harmed his own pace by battling with him. In Brazil Ocon was being held up by Max. Completely different scenarios.

So you mean he was racing Max in Brazil? You mean Ocon didn't harm his race this time? Talk about obession to twist it..

You put words into my mouth then attack me with them? Isn't that the definition of strawman? 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.'

AnRs wrote:It's easy when you have everything designed around you, the best team, best car and a solid wingman, nothing from that is the luxoury for Max but I believe it will be some day.

Too much salt is bad for your blood pressure.

To those defending Max, the way I see it; Ocon asked if he could overtake, he got the green light and Max defended by covering the inside line. To me there was nothing wrong with both drivers up to that point. But then Max takes turn 2 with Ocon alongside him and ignores that he is there. And that is the problem. Contact happened because Max chose to defend while not being fair in his defense. Yea I get it that you're not supposed to fight the leader that way if you are a lap down, but it is just a gentleman's rule, not a written rule, and Max defended and was not fair in his defense. That is what caused the incident. If it was an actual fight for position it would be 100% Max's fault. Let's not get it twisted. As it stands I see it at 50/50, but since Max had the most to lose, he is the one who shall be receiving most of the criticism.

kleefton wrote:To those defending Max, the way I see it; Ocon asked if he could overtake, he got the green light and Max defended by covering the inside line. To me there was nothing wrong with both drivers up to that point. But then Max takes turn 2 with Ocon alongside him and ignores that he is there. And that is the problem. Contact happened because Max chose to defend while not being fair in his defense. Yea I get it that you're not supposed to fight the leader that way if you are a lap down, but it is just a gentleman's rule, not a written rule, and Max defended and was not fair in his defense. That is what caused the incident. If it was an actual fight for position it would be 100% Max's fault. Let's not get it twisted. As it stands I see it at 50/50, but since Max had the most to lose, he is the one who shall be receiving most of the criticism.

Ocon asked his team if he could overtake. I don't know why this is brought up to somehow absolve him of blame.

Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

While I fully put the blame at Ocon's door for the incident as a whole, once Ocon decided to get racey, it's then entirely on Max to use his head and realise that he probably should have just waved him through and carried on cruising to the win. Instead he decided he was going to fight back and it ended in completely avoidable tears and the loss of the win. It's a lesson that Max will do well to learn before he is involved at the sharp end of a title fight.... imagine this happening if he and A N Other were neck and neck with just the 1 race to go? It would look seriously stupid then.

I think that was the point Hamilton was making in the cool down room, it wasn't Max's fight.

Lotus49 wrote: The problem is a lapped car dictating the pace of the leaders. Max as leader should be the one in control of how quick he wants to go

Had Ocon got past and Force Indias numbers been correct he'd have pulled away and not affected a leaders pace, had he not been fast enough to do that he'd have been blue flagged and had to give up the position with the team then not agreeing he should try and get past again unless Verstappen slowed significantly.

The problem that isn't addressed by your posts is why the leaders should be allowed to dictate Ocons pace when at that stage of the race he is faster (we have to take FIs word on this as they have more knowledge than us). All cars on the track are as important as each other and being held up could have affected Ocons ability to be ahead of a direct competitor by the finish.

TedStriker wrote:
You put words into my mouth then attack me with them? Isn't that the definition of strawman? 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.'

Then please enlighten me on who was racing who at Monaco and Brazil.

TedStriker wrote:

AnRs wrote:It's easy when you have everything designed around you, the best team, best car and a solid wingman, nothing from that is the luxoury for Max but I believe it will be some day.

Too much salt is bad for your blood pressure.

I actually have a low blood pressure so some salt is no problem, but IMO Max and Ricciardo is the best driver couple this year and only hampered by PU to Merc in this case.

It's hard to judge Ricciardo after his early season where he was impressive. Generally he's been bested by Max in qualifying and the race post-Monaco. Max was a muppet in the first 6 races but since has been the standout performer alongside Hamilton. Both have been clear of the rest of the field, I reckon (since after Monaco I mean).

Overall, Hamilton has been streets ahead of the others driving the top 3 cars throughout the course of the season. A long way behind is Max, and then Dan and Seb are close, followed by Kimi and Bottas who are close.

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:To those defending Max, the way I see it; Ocon asked if he could overtake, he got the green light and Max defended by covering the inside line. To me there was nothing wrong with both drivers up to that point. But then Max takes turn 2 with Ocon alongside him and ignores that he is there. And that is the problem. Contact happened because Max chose to defend while not being fair in his defense. Yea I get it that you're not supposed to fight the leader that way if you are a lap down, but it is just a gentleman's rule, not a written rule, and Max defended and was not fair in his defense. That is what caused the incident. If it was an actual fight for position it would be 100% Max's fault. Let's not get it twisted. As it stands I see it at 50/50, but since Max had the most to lose, he is the one who shall be receiving most of the criticism.

Ocon asked his team if he could overtake. I don't know why this is brought up to somehow absolve him of blame.

It does not absolve him of blame, I see it as a confirmation from his team that the blue flags are off and you can actually overtake to unlap if you have the speed. It came right after Ocon mentioned the blue flags stopping, didn't it?

dompclarke wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: The problem is a lapped car dictating the pace of the leaders. Max as leader should be the one in control of how quick he wants to go

Had Ocon got past and Force Indias numbers been correct he'd have pulled away and not affected a leaders pace, had he not been fast enough to do that he'd have been blue flagged and had to give up the position with the team then not agreeing he should try and get past again unless Verstappen slowed significantly.

The problem that isn't addressed by your posts is why the leaders should be allowed to dictate Ocons pace when at that stage of the race he is faster (we have to take FIs word on this as they have more knowledge than us). All cars on the track are as important as each other and being held up could have affected Ocons ability to be ahead of a direct competitor by the finish.

The pace of the leaders isn't real problem for me. We've seen it in this modern era, the leaders going slow to manage tires and the backmarkers matching their pace, if not going faster, at various stages of a GP. To me, if a car is faster than another for whatever reason, it does not matter if he is the leader or a backmarker. Just let him unlap, off he goes with his own race, off you go and win yours. It is not a difficult concept for Max to understand.

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

Have you never disagreed with the stewards?

Still nobody has shown a written rule that Ocon broke. Which is why I don't understand the stewards decision. I think they let the fact that Max was leading cloud their judgement.

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:To those defending Max, the way I see it; Ocon asked if he could overtake, he got the green light and Max defended by covering the inside line. To me there was nothing wrong with both drivers up to that point. But then Max takes turn 2 with Ocon alongside him and ignores that he is there. And that is the problem. Contact happened because Max chose to defend while not being fair in his defense. Yea I get it that you're not supposed to fight the leader that way if you are a lap down, but it is just a gentleman's rule, not a written rule, and Max defended and was not fair in his defense. That is what caused the incident. If it was an actual fight for position it would be 100% Max's fault. Let's not get it twisted. As it stands I see it at 50/50, but since Max had the most to lose, he is the one who shall be receiving most of the criticism.

Ocon asked his team if he could overtake. I don't know why this is brought up to somehow absolve him of blame.

I think you are into the realms of should back markers be able to unlap themselves if you are crticising Ocon for even trying?

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

I believe we are questioning how wise was it of Verstappen to defend being unlapped by Ocon?

AnRs wrote:

TedStriker wrote:

AnRs wrote:It's easy when you have everything designed around you, the best team, best car and a solid wingman, nothing from that is the luxoury for Max but I believe it will be some day.

Too much salt is bad for your blood pressure.

I actually have a low blood pressure so some salt is no problem, but IMO Max and Ricciardo is the best driver couple this year and only hampered by PU to Merc in this case.

But not hampered in respect to Ferrari?

More precisely the Red Bull is the best car hampered by it's PU.

Herb wrote:

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

Have you never disagreed with the stewards?

Still nobody has shown a written rule that Ocon broke. Which is why I don't understand the stewards decision. I think they let the fact that Max was leading cloud their judgement.

Think you have misunderstood the relationship between the stewards and Covalent. Its not a matter of whether Covalent agrees with them; but whether they agree with Covalent.

The first thing the stewards do after a meeting is check Covalents posts on here to see whether they have made the correct decisions.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

While I fully put the blame at Ocon's door for the incident as a whole, once Ocon decided to get racey, it's then entirely on Max to use his head and realise that he probably should have just waved him through and carried on cruising to the win. Instead he decided he was going to fight back and it ended in completely avoidable tears and the loss of the win. It's a lesson that Max will do well to learn before he is involved at the sharp end of a title fight.... imagine this happening if he and A N Other were neck and neck with just the 1 race to go? It would look seriously stupid then.

I think that was the point Hamilton was making in the cool down room, it wasn't Max's fight.

We'll neither he nor his team is in the title fight yet many seem to be projecting his race craft to some imaginary situation where he needs to behave like a champion.

Herb wrote:

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

Have you never disagreed with the stewards?

Still nobody has shown a written rule that Ocon broke. Which is why I don't understand the stewards decision. I think they let the fact that Max was leading cloud their judgement.

On occasion regarding the severity of the penalty (or lack thereof) but I don't remember disputing on whom they put the blame. 10s stop/go is a harsh enough penalty that I trust them and their telemetry enough not to have made a mistake in this matter.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

I believe we are questioning how wise was it of Verstappen to defend being unlapped by Ocon?

Some are doing more than that.

shoot999 wrote:

Herb wrote:

Covalent wrote:Ocon got the penalty and yet this forum seems to generally think it was Verstappen's fault... Seems to me some are letting their dislike of his character cloud their judgement.

Have you never disagreed with the stewards?

Still nobody has shown a written rule that Ocon broke. Which is why I don't understand the stewards decision. I think they let the fact that Max was leading cloud their judgement.

Think you have misunderstood the relationship between the stewards and Covalent. Its not a matter of whether Covalent agrees with them; but whether they agree with Covalent.

The first thing the stewards do after a meeting is check Covalents posts on here to see whether they have made the correct decisions.

Please, clarify?

seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

UnlikeUday wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.

Since he was though, do you agree with the other driver just turning into him? Knowing he is there and trying to overtake?

And to answer your original point, take everything out of the equation and look at the move in isolation, you'll see that a car was pushed out of the track. Since lapped (faster) cars are allowed to overtake, it really begs the question how can you NOT see some portion of blame in Max's driving (not all of it, I agree that a lapped car should not interfere with the leader; the point made is that the leader decided to interfere with the lapped car when he should have let him go).

We've seen Vettel being blamed for Singapore last year when he wasn't even involved in the actual accident, rather collected in the aftermath. And the driver who turns into another driver shall be deemed completely blameless?

Covalent wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

I think there is two aspects to this what some people seem to not realise, the fault for the collision and should Verstappen have been racing a backmarker.

I for one have no problem with Ocon being penalised but I question what was Verstappen doing to choose to fight tooth and nail with a backmarker?

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

I think there is two aspects to this what some people seem to not realise, the fault for the collision and should Verstappen have been racing a backmarker.

I for one have no problem with Ocon being penalised but I question what was Verstappen doing to choose to fight tooth and nail with a backmarker?

I see either inexperience or superiority complex / ego OR both!

I blame Ocon mostly, but feel Verstappen could have been more aware. It's obvious that Ocon was racing him, and that Max depended too much on convention in the face of contrary action on Ocon's part, and should therefore have shown more sense.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.

Agree.

All Verstappen needed to do was to maintain the proper racing line on the straight instead of moving to the inside, allow Ocon to pass entering the esses, which Ocon was perfectly entitled to do, slot in behind him & get back to doing the job he should have been doing which was maintaining the gap to Hamilton. All things being equal, if he'd done that, he'd have won the race easily.

Verstappen shouldn't have been in the position he was in entering the esses and thus also exiting the esses. There was absolutely no need for it. It was just plain dumb driving.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Let's see, taking all those things out of it, isn't it so that if the leader had remained on the racing line going towards turn 1, the unlapper would simply have gone to the inside and unlapped himself? The unlapped car would not have been forced to try again in turn 2, and there would not have been an accident.

So I still don't understand how the unlapping driver can be held responsible. With or without names.

I have re-read the stewards' report, and all they really write is that Ocon caused an accident. They don't mention the rule on which they base their analysis. From their verdict, I understand that they seem to expect Ocon to complete the pass in a single corner. I have never come across a rule that stated any pass has to be completed in a single corner, nor one that speaks specifically of drivers unlapping themselves.

If I look at he accident in isolation, the only explanation I can think of that explains the stewards' verdict is the one I posted earlier in this thread.

Fiki wrote:The obscure "rule" that the driver who is ahead at the apex can run the attacker off the track at the exit - if that rule exists at all, it isn't documented as far as I'm aware - then comes into play.

So, if nobody can find that rule in the official documents, how can Ocon have caused the accident?

Mr Whiting's explanation only leaves more question marks.

Whiting wrote:More to the point, it should be done cleanly and absolutely without fighting. You shouldn't be fighting to get past.

Am I to understand that by simply racing Ocon, Max was able to shove the blame for the accident on the unlapper? And where can I find the rule that says unlapping should be done without fighting to get past?

I must indeed be rather stupid if I don't understand where to find all these unwritten rules. Let alone understand them...

Siao7 wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.

Since he was though, do you agree with the other driver just turning into him? Knowing he is there and trying to overtake?

And to answer your original point, take everything out of the equation and look at the move in isolation, you'll see that a car was pushed out of the track. Since lapped (faster) cars are allowed to overtake, it really begs the question how can you NOT see some portion of blame in Max's driving (not all of it, I agree that a lapped car should not interfere with the leader; the point made is that the leader decided to interfere with the lapped car when he should have let him go).

We've seen Vettel being blamed for Singapore last year when he wasn't even involved in the actual accident, rather collected in the aftermath. And the driver who turns into another driver shall be deemed completely blameless?

whether max should have turned in is irrelevant for me. a more experienced driver may have given room but doesnt change the fact that ocon was trying an aggressive move, in effect racing with leader, and shouldnt have put his car in that position. as soon as max let the brakes off to get a decent amount ahead that was the signal to ocon that no you are not making the move here, try somewhere else and ocon should respect that ( and would have done if it was say hamilton).

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I need to go through this again but this time with a bit more thought given on my part.

So the Verstappen who decides not to race against Ocon and let's him through then races like mad to get the place back as soon as possible?

Ocon was lapping faster than Hamilton so why the haste, Verstappen lets Ocon pass then just follows Ocon, while they are lapping faster than Hamilton, Verstappen just sits back, afterall he was looking to save his tyres at the point that Ocon passed him anyway.

If there came a time that Ocon slowed to a point Hamilton was catching or that Verstappen simply wanted to go faster, he simply then just closes up on Ocon gets the blue flags and goes by, at that stage there's no looking to come back past by Ocon with him being slower.

He's only 0.4 faster than Max with DRS and a big slipstream so he's not going to go very far in front of Max if he's let through and gets no DRS, and sitting behind him puts extra stress on Max's tyres and engine so you can see why Max wouldn't want to sit behind him. And obviously Max is trying to manage a gap to Lewis so he doesn't want to push if he doesn't have to and stress his tyres/engine more than he wants to.

I dunno if the FI got damaged in the contact but even his pace after yet another stop and more fresh boots wasn't as quick as both Max and Lewis's who's tyres were even older at that point. His best lap was 5ths slower than Lewis's and 8ths slower than Max's despite the even bigger tyre advantage he had than the one that caused the problem.

I just find it strange people honestly think a Force India is going to gap a Red Bull fighting for the win. He was only ever going to force Max to put more punishment on his tyres by either sitting in dirty air before Ocon's tyres duly fell away a few laps later or pulling away from Ocon by pushing his tyres and engine harder than he wanted to and I don't think that's fair on the leader who's controlling the race to have to forget about judging his pace to the guy in second and worry about and respond to a lapped car instead.

The point being as long as Ocon is faster than Hamilton then what's the problem?

We know that Verstappen was a lot faster than Hamilton so at a point that Hamilton starts to be faster than Ocon then Verstappen is going to be even more faster than Ocon and gets blue flagged out of the way.

Your alternative is that Verstappen fights for several laps defending against Ocon basically risking his car in side by side battles and that's the sensible thing to do?

In terms of punishment to Verstappen's tyres, the Red Bull had no such problem with the tyres as witnessed by Ricciardo who sat behind cars for the entire race.

The problem is a lapped car dictating the pace of the leaders. Max as leader should be the one in control of how quick he wants to go.

My alternative is what Ocon and Force India would've done if it was Lewis and Mercedes leading and not interfere with the leader and try to unlap yourself.

It's still extra stress on them he wouldn't otherwise have. What the actual cost is I've no idea.

I've read some of the other posts so Verstappen slowed down and he just expected that Ocon would dutifully follow him around the track, it makes you wonder if he actually knew that cars are allowed to unlap themselves because why would you invite an attempted pass that you needed to defend?

I believe Hamilton already answered your question on what Mercedes or Force India would have done when he inferred that he would have let Ocon pass?

I don't think Max actually believed Ocon would try to unlap himself until he saw how close he was at the end of S2 and made that pushing FI radio comment and by that time he was toast because of S3 and the long tow and DRS. I'd imagine if he'd realised quicker that Ocon had decided to race him he'd have pulled away but there's not much he could do to up his pace on a straight.

My question wasn't what Lewis would do, it was what Ocon and/or Force India would do and I don't believe for a second they'd have attacked him and try to unlap themselves in the first place. I base this on every single interaction Ocon and a Mercedes have had over the past season, even when "fighting" for position.

Jezza13 wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:seriously cant believe people are blaming max. its possibly one of the stupidest arguments theres been on this forum and thats saying something. take the names out of it, take the history out of it, take the drivers manufacturer ties out of it etc and just look at the move in isolation. imo (and that of the stewards and every former drivers comments i have read so far) there is no way on this earth a driver should be putting his car in a position to possibly tangle with the driver infront if unlapping themselves (whether against the leader or anyone else). and if they do it is their fault and should be punished.

Ocon didn't tangle...Max did!

it takes two to tangle. but one of them shouldnt have been there.

Agree.

All Verstappen needed to do was to maintain the proper racing line on the straight instead of moving to the inside, allow Ocon to pass entering the esses, which Ocon was perfectly entitled to do, slot in behind him & get back to doing the job he should have been doing which was maintaining the gap to Hamilton. All things being equal, if he'd done that, he'd have won the race easily.

Verstappen shouldn't have been in the position he was in entering the esses and thus also exiting the esses. There was absolutely no need for it. It was just plain dumb driving.

max has the right imo as leader to chose to defend if he wants, and as whiting stated ocon shouldnt have been fighting and it was his responsibility to pull out of that move.

dompclarke wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: The problem is a lapped car dictating the pace of the leaders. Max as leader should be the one in control of how quick he wants to go

Had Ocon got past and Force Indias numbers been correct he'd have pulled away and not affected a leaders pace, had he not been fast enough to do that he'd have been blue flagged and had to give up the position with the team then not agreeing he should try and get past again unless Verstappen slowed significantly.

The problem that isn't addressed by your posts is why the leaders should be allowed to dictate Ocons pace when at that stage of the race he is faster (we have to take FIs word on this as they have more knowledge than us). All cars on the track are as important as each other and being held up could have affected Ocons ability to be ahead of a direct competitor by the finish.

He was only faster by 4ths on one lap and he had DRS, we have the same data. We also have the data from after when with a damaged car and even older tyres Max went 8ths faster than Ocon could despite an even newer set of tyres for Ocon.

They aren't all as important though, we know that from examples like were Alonso was punished for ignoring blue flags because he was in his own fight with Massa for 10th in Japan and he held Lewis up. Alonso's fight for the points just isn't as important as interfering with the leaders pace and so he was punished.

Mark Hughes view on his race report:

"Verstappen could have simply let him go, But the guy unlapping himself has no right to challenge the leader to a piece of race track. If the leader has made it plan he is not permitting that (as Max did, by defending into T1 and still being on Ocon's outside down the hill) at this particular moment, then the guy trying to unlap himself has to accept that and wait for a more opportune time. He is not racing and so cannot challenge to a piece of territory. Ie, Ocon should have backed off and tucked in behind as soon as Verstappen defended T1. But he was hardwired into the racing thing of challenging the territory."