planetf1.com

wolfticket wrote:

sidders wrote:Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: You dont need to completely ignore it, its rubbish. He clearly gets a snap of oversteer, you can see it onboard and from Hamiltons view. Doing something else, i.e. letting the car snap, would have resulted in a crash and he would have likely taken Hamilton out too.

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

sandman1347 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

sidders wrote:Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

sidders wrote:Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's the regular fans who will be most frustrated with the result, but they are already watching, and very, very few will actually stop watching because of this.[/color]

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

sidders wrote:Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: You dont need to completely ignore it, its rubbish. He clearly gets a snap of oversteer, you can see it onboard and from Hamiltons view. Doing something else, i.e. letting the car snap, would have resulted in a crash and he would have likely taken Hamilton out too.

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

wolfticket wrote:

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

I think Palmer has expressed a lengthy, reasoned and informed argument that makes sense (to me at least). That outweighs the opinions any number of of ex-drivers, however accomplished, if they fail to provide better arguments for their position.

Blake wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

I think Palmer has expressed a lengthy, reasoned and informed argument that makes sense (to me at least). That outweighs the opinions any number of of ex-drivers, however accomplished, if they fail to provide better arguments for their position.

Of course it does, Palmer's opinion always matters more than that of "any number of ex-drivers"....

Option or Prime wrote:

Covalent wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Has anyone found someone who has driven an F1 car competitively who agrees with the penalty yet?

Nope. If even the Sky team disagree with the penalty it must really take a special kind of Lewis love to agree with it.

I really don't understand why, irrespective of team loyalty, posters fail so dramatically to be impartial. Like many I have doubts about the penalty but it has nothing to do with my support or otherwise for Vettel.

Your statement is factually incorrect as it happens. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48577539. But thats not the point I wanted to make.

I still maintain that the stewarding decisions now and in the future will be influenced be the desire to avoid a collision on track at all costs.

There was a formal interview after the race with both LH and SV which was interesting, I can firm up the details but it was basically that SV is fed up with decisions that make them, (the drivers,) talk like lawyers. Clearly something had been said behind the scenes because part of LH's response was to the effect, "stick around don't go!".

Looking at the bigger picture this isn't about letting people race, its about preventing harm coming to the drivers, probably because no one wants to be sued!

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Personally, my opinion is that both Vettel and Hamilton are dicks...

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lojik wrote:Some further information on how the stewards made their decision is detailed in this article:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14399 ... y-decision

Basically says that the decision was mostly based on his steering inputs after gaining back control of the car. Still don't like the penalty but it's interesting further insight.

Too bad most of the people frothing at the mouth will completely ignore this and continue with the "there was nothing else he could do" argument...

Comments like this don't help with any conversation, was this necessary?

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's the regular fans who will be most frustrated with the result, but they are already watching, and very, very few will actually stop watching because of this.[/color]

I am one of those very, very few. I have been following Formula One closely since the late 60's, and the crap I saw yesterday made me realize that the actual racing is crap and the politics is disgusting. I have zero reason for watching any Formula One race. I have many other options and many other exciting racing series to watch.

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

Laz_T800 wrote:http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

Covalent wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

I'm sorry but you got 0/3 correct.

1. There's just no way you can nail the throttle on a grass run off in an F1 car without spinning immediately.
2. Hamilton was closer to Vettel after the incident than before so obviously he lost less time.
3. Is he clairvoyant? He just reacted to the possibility of a penalty.

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

sandman1347 wrote:

Altair wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Personally, my opinion is that both Vettel and Hamilton are dicks (but great wheelmen). I am not a fan of either. I have seen worse infractions blatantly ignored by the stewards. The sport either enforces every rule to the letter (no matter whom) or just let the racers race.

Too many rules, too much politics, too much disparity. No wonder Formula One is losing it's luster and prestige every day.

The fact that this is being talked about and not the race is indicative of how bad yesterday was for formula one.

Was it though? Honestly, I'm asking. They say there's no such thing as bad press and everyone is talking about it. Most buzz of any race so far this year.

Badgeronimous wrote:In terms of entertainment, I really do fear this season is going to end up being a re-run of 2013, with Bottas playing the role of Webber - started off well.... then ended by being absolutely bossed.

This was the Multi-21 moment for the season.....

shoot999 wrote:

Altair wrote:

shoot999 wrote:

Altair wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:For someone that isn't going to watch F1 again he sure comments a lot

I'm still pretty annoyed that I almost spent money to be there yesterday.

But once I'm done on this topic, I can guarantee you that you will not see a post from me until Australia next year.

Well at least some good has come out of it.

yes, I get my free time back.

You enjoy the Mercedes/Hamilton coronation.

Thank you, I will. Ive enjoyed F1 since the late 50s; and will carry on enjoying it. And I'll enjoy Hamiltons coronation as much as I enjoyed Sebs, and Schumachers, and Sennas and Clarks. And all for the same reason; they were crowned because they were the best drivers of their time; and I appreciate the skills they consistently displayed throughout their careers.

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

Greenman wrote:.

Are the people saying that Vettel's idiocies are "good for the sport" the same people who criticised Bernie for all his changes that he thought were also "good for the sport" ?

Schumaker got away with ridiculous actions because he was regarded as "good for the sport" - that was disastrous.

.

TedStriker wrote:Had Lewis been a second further back, there would have been no penalty, it would have gone down as just another clumsy piece of driving.

Seb just needs to drive a bit faster in the rest of the lap if he's going to outbrake himself. An out of control rejoin causing another driver to brake will (should?) always result in some form of pain for the offender.

As I said at the time - he should have momentarily backed off once out of the corner, let Lewis past then stuck on his gearbox and raced to the end. Win-win for fairness and fans alike.

Ferrari should have approached race control immediately and asked if this would avoid an investigation. They would no doubt have been told yes.

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

Siao7 wrote:

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

mcdo wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

That was for speeding behind the safety car, not for the collisions he had with other cars

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

Siao7 wrote:

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

In flooring the throttle he failed to rejoin safely as he was out of control (back end stepping out). Alternatively, lets just say he was in control and rejoined safely, he promptly crowded Hamilton off the track as Hamilton was significantly alongside.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

angrypirate wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

FormulaFun wrote:

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Blake wrote:What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

That was for speeding behind the safety car, not for the collisions he had with other cars

Ah - thanks. My recollection is a touch vague then! I believe that button collided with Hamilton and Alonso. The Hamilton incident I put down as a racing one but would have not complained too loudly had he been penalised for the Alonso incident (though he penalised himself with a puncture and a half-lap limp back to the pits).
If Vettel had not received a penalty at the weekend I wouldn't have complained too much either. He did. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy about it. But I do understand why. I've seen a number of incidents that could have gone either way, in terms of being punished or not, and can be ambivalent over the outcome.