planetf1.com

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/ ... 11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.

I don't follow that reasoning, a screenshot being clearly insufficient to judge this, at least in this case.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/ ... llide.html
Have a look at Leclerc's steering wheel movements, and I think you will agree that Leclerc seems to be fully innocent of the accident that took him out of the race. I don't know whether this is by choice on the part of F1, but for some reason Vettel's steering wheel inputs aren't shown.

For what it's worth, Leclerc's inputs remind me of a remark by Vettel about last year's car, when alongside another. Evidence he wasn't trying to get off the hook?

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?

Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.

I agree, even though it is more than just 'somewhat moot'. That silly moment between the Ferraris had a massive impact on the result of all those eventually in the points, and those who dropped out of them, like Albon. That is sheer nonsense and should be handled according the rules, team-mates or not.

So to get your argument here is he was not in control of the car interesting!

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

Well its even worse as he was not in control.

Rockie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

Well its even worse as he was not in control.

And why is that?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

Well its even worse as he was not in control.

And why is that?

Why it was worse if he was not in control of his car when Vettel was going past him?

Is that really your question?

I don't know maybe just maybe would have avoided a collision.

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

Well its even worse as he was not in control.

And why is that?

Why it was worse if he was not in control of his car when Vettel was going past him?

Is that really your question?

I don't know maybe just maybe would have avoided a collision.

No. Why was it that he was out of control. In the middle of the straight. What should he have done differently to prevent that from happening?

mikeyg123 wrote:
No. Why was it that he was out of control. In the middle of the straight. What should he have done differently to prevent that from happening?

Maybe you can send him a DM to ask why he was out of control on a straight?

Rockie, you have now gone into at least 2 threads using this screenshot as evidence, and have totally ignored that Interlagos is very bumpy. Drivers are making minute corrections all the time to counter the effects of the bumps on a very stiff suspension. The turbulence of having Vettel alongside also adds to this problem. You're claiming that Leclerc turned towards Seb, when it's far more likely the car got a little light on a bump and this was one of a dozen, at least, tiny counter-steering moments. Find proof that Seb didn't steer towards Leclerc and you might have a case. Right now you're basing everything on a misleading, single screenshot.

Invade wrote:

kleefton wrote:What a race that was!

As a Ham fan I blame Lewis for going for that move. So not typical of him, but it is not a corner where overtakes usually happen so even if the gap is there it isn't sensible to just throw it on the inside like that and expect the other guy to see it coming. He was just desperate to catch up to Max and beat him. That is what I got from that.

The Vettel Leclerc incident is very much on Vettel imo. It was a classic Vettel move, as he chops in front of the car he overtakes as soon as he thinks he is clear of it. Problem is that he is not always clear of the car before he chops. Almost a carbon copy of him and Bottas at Hungary last year, where he came out unscathed, but ruined Bottas's race.

The Merc's power seemed to suffer at the altitude, more so than the other engines, for whatever reason. But Honda is pretty much on par with them now. They have caught on. It's up to Redbull to design a car that can run hard with Merc and Ferrari for the whole year imo.

Are you not of the belief that Red Bull deliberately scupper their second driver? What if Max is just that good? Just asking.

I'm convinced that if Red Bull can provide a competitive car, then Max can bring them the WDC even against Mercedes and Lewis. I'd expect a titanic battle between them.

Sorry I hadn’t seen this.

It is my belief that both sides of the Redbull garage are not operating on equal footing yes. And it’s not just Max’s immense gap to Albon at Interlagos that leads me to believe that. I just think that we have had two drivers in the second Redbull now and their pace has been appalling when compared to max, when both of those drivers have done a great job in the Toro Rosso car.

I also would like to point out that if max is truly basically half a second faster than solid midfield drivers then why did bottas pull away from him at COTA with relative ease? And how come Lewis was able to keep up with him at Interlagos in an underpowered Mercedes car?

To me it just doesn’t add up that he’s that much faster than everybody else. I know even Lewis is not 4-5 tenths faster than a good midfield driver. I don’t believe anyone on the field is. So yeah I do think there is something uneven going on at Redbull.

Rockie wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/ ... 11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.

I don't follow that reasoning, a screenshot being clearly insufficient to judge this, at least in this case.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/ ... llide.html
Have a look at Leclerc's steering wheel movements, and I think you will agree that Leclerc seems to be fully innocent of the accident that took him out of the race. I don't know whether this is by choice on the part of F1, but for some reason Vettel's steering wheel inputs aren't shown.

For what it's worth, Leclerc's inputs remind me of a remark by Vettel about last year's car, when alongside another. Evidence he wasn't trying to get off the hook?

So to get your argument here is he was not in control of the car interesting!

I don't understand what makes you think Leclerc wasn't in control of the car (if that is what you are trying to say). Regardless of what his movements in the cockpit show, the trajectory of the car remains steady on the straight. So, while control may have been difficult to achieve, he did achieve it. Wouldn't you agree?

https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

Ok,

I think we can definitely rule out that image as any kind of evidence now.

What I get from every picture and video is that Charles took a line of choice out of T3 and maintained that line until his tyre and suspension went pop! i.e. he did nothing wrong.

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

Certainly looks like steering wheel shake to me...

The screenshot, shown a page or so ago, with Charles looking like he moved his car to the right, is straight out of tabloid newspaper journalism. Honestly!!!!!

Asphalt_World wrote:The screenshot, shown a page or so ago, with Charles looking like he moved his car to the right, is straight out of tabloid newspaper journalism. Honestly!!!!!

Yes, it is a deliberate attempt to fake reality and rewrite what happened.

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

Rockie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: So to get your argument here you dismiss the on-board shot for the the external shot which does not show the steering input interesting!

The bias is astounding, looking at that screenshot he is steering towards the right on a straight and looking at Vettel but no it does not fit your narrative.

It clearly shows Leclerc's steering wheel and he doesn't turn right, the steering wheel is twitching left and right from the buffering of Vettel's car.

Well its even worse as he was not in control.

Someone else suggested his car might have gone over a bump but it wasn't Leclerc turning right.

Looking at the Vettel/Leclerc accident again yesterday, I was a bit surprised at how light the contact seems to have been. But I suppose the suspension is not aimed at resisting hits from behind as much as from the side.

Option or Prime wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

Charles actually moves to the right.

Fiki wrote:Looking at the Vettel/Leclerc accident again yesterday, I was a bit surprised at how light the contact seems to have been. But I suppose the suspension is not aimed at resisting hits from behind as much as from the side.

This is one reason why i am wondering that they ddn't investigate it further. A gret deal of the time, this won't have resulted in any damage. If the stewards have been inconsistent as they often are, maybe they have actully just looked at the incident itself and not the outcome. And from different clips i see, i still think they both share the blame, but more so vettel.

Option or Prime wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

You can even see him moving right and the on-board shows same.

Rockie wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

You can even see him moving right and the on-board shows same.

It's been blocked now so we can't really comment further.

Indeed Mr P, I'm happy having seen the video that Leclerc was tracking as straight as the track allowed. Vettel was at fault, I think Ferrari have enough to worry about having had bits of the engine confiscated!

Clarky wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

Charles actually moves to the right.

When I say right that is our right his left (away from Vettel).

Clarky wrote:

Clarky wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:https://media.giphy.com/media/TjdxbFbyp ... /giphy.gif

The image that picture is taken from.

Says a lot.

That's a good find just to confirm the facts and quieten a certain Seb supporter I posted this on the Vettel v Leclerc thread.

Charles actually moves to the right.

When I say right that is our right his left (away from Vettel).

He did indeed. From leaving only just enough room to his right for Vettel to try an overtake, he moved further left than he needed to. How anybody could possibly lay blame at Leclerc's door is hard to imagine.

Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Cars get damaged too often to force them to pit every time IMO. The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine poor Magnussen having to pit because he was turned around by Ricciardo. We would see a lot of that.

You also can't have a rule that enforces drivers slowing down if they do have damage. Drivers can't see for themselves and unless the incident was caught on camera then the team can't see either.

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Cars get damaged too often to force them to pit every time IMO. The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine poor Magnussen having to pit because he was turned around by Ricciardo. We would see a lot of that.

You also can't have a rule that enforces drivers slowing down if they do have damage. Drivers can't see for themselves and unless the incident was caught on camera then the team can't see either.

The team have got to know about it as they have access to onboards that would show it, then they can let the drivers know. It would be pretty silly if the people at home know the car is damaged and the team don't. I would feel sorry for magnussen, and i could understand it would ruin it if he had to box. But to me his damage didn't look quite as bad as Hamilton's. Both were very little, but IMO Hamilton's was enough to come loose and possibly cause problems.

I will accept that I am in the minority here, but I feel that they are not quite strict enough sometimes and it will take something more serious then they will likely change their approach.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Cars get damaged too often to force them to pit every time IMO. The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine poor Magnussen having to pit because he was turned around by Ricciardo. We would see a lot of that.

You also can't have a rule that enforces drivers slowing down if they do have damage. Drivers can't see for themselves and unless the incident was caught on camera then the team can't see either.

The team have got to know about it as they have access to onboards that would show it, then they can let the drivers know. It would be pretty silly if the people at home know the car is damaged and the team don't. I would feel sorry for magnussen, and i could understand it would ruin it if he had to box. But to me his damage didn't look quite as bad as Hamilton's. Both were very little, but IMO Hamilton's was enough to come loose and possibly cause problems.

I will accept that I am in the minority here, but I feel that they are not quite strict enough sometimes and it will take something more serious then they will likely change their approach.

So its not wing damage that causes you concern, its how much. And in your opinion Mags was OK, but Hams not? And you knew Mags wasnt in danger of coming off how?

shoot999 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Cars get damaged too often to force them to pit every time IMO. The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine poor Magnussen having to pit because he was turned around by Ricciardo. We would see a lot of that.

You also can't have a rule that enforces drivers slowing down if they do have damage. Drivers can't see for themselves and unless the incident was caught on camera then the team can't see either.

The team have got to know about it as they have access to onboards that would show it, then they can let the drivers know. It would be pretty silly if the people at home know the car is damaged and the team don't. I would feel sorry for magnussen, and i could understand it would ruin it if he had to box. But to me his damage didn't look quite as bad as Hamilton's. Both were very little, but IMO Hamilton's was enough to come loose and possibly cause problems.

I will accept that I am in the minority here, but I feel that they are not quite strict enough sometimes and it will take something more serious then they will likely change their approach.

So its not wing damage that causes you concern, its how much. And in your opinion Mags was OK, but Hams not? And you knew Mags wasnt in danger of coming off how?

I just didn't see enough footage of him going around with enough damage for me to make a comment on him, if I did, i would have felt exactly the same. Hamilton on the other hand, I clearly saw loose parts flapping around. If magnussens's was possibly this bad or worse but i just missed it, then I would agree magnussen should be forced to box in this situation. No difference really.

The main reason why i am against what Masi said was that there was nothing loose on Hamilton. That was totally wrong.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:Well, there are reasons given here as to why Hamilton was not instructed to pit after his damage compared to when Leclerc was in Japan: https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/21/rac ... p-21-11-2/

But the quotes from Michael Masi saying there was "nothing" hanging off that wing is a total joke. I don't know how i can upload an image to this site, but when Hamilton parked his car by the podium, they flimed his front wing up close and there was broken piece just being held on because it had a small rod going through it. but it was loose and it was hanging off. How can they possibly miss this? I don't blame Hamilton for continuing, but their Masi's description is just silly and not accurate.

If he said there was something loose and it was not big enough to cause concern, I would have felt different. But the concerns for safety are not consistent enough sometimes. The cars were all bunched up close and they had a very fast restart. If that fell off, it could have just caused more problems.

I really, really don't think we want to box ourselves into a situation where a car has to pit every time there is a small amount of damage. We've surrendered enough of the sport to safety as it is.

I know it will ruin the excitement for some. But when things do happen, there seems to be a lot of criticism about how it could have been avoided. Masi was incorrect about there being noting hanging loose. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it flew off and narrowly missed going into a drivers cockpit, don't you think they may have started taking things more seriously and be more strict against allowing drivers to continue with damage at full speed? Even if it did disappoint the viewers, i wouldn't be surprised that if something happened to turn out worse a few times purely because of the outcome, they would then take more action. It seems to take bad things happening to make things safer. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Cars get damaged too often to force them to pit every time IMO. The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine poor Magnussen having to pit because he was turned around by Ricciardo. We would see a lot of that.

You also can't have a rule that enforces drivers slowing down if they do have damage. Drivers can't see for themselves and unless the incident was caught on camera then the team can't see either.

The team have got to know about it as they have access to onboards that would show it, then they can let the drivers know. It would be pretty silly if the people at home know the car is damaged and the team don't. I would feel sorry for magnussen, and i could understand it would ruin it if he had to box. But to me his damage didn't look quite as bad as Hamilton's. Both were very little, but IMO Hamilton's was enough to come loose and possibly cause problems.

I will accept that I am in the minority here, but I feel that they are not quite strict enough sometimes and it will take something more serious then they will likely change their approach.

You can barely see the wing from the on-board. And what if it's damage on the side of the car like the floor?

If you are going to have motor racing then you have to accept that sometimes things are going to cause problems. I'd hate it if a driver had to pit every time he had a tiny bit of damage. I think we've lost enough in the name of safety already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA5P3dal4JM

Well Palmer gives a good explanation why he thinks it is Vettel to blame for this incident. Though he mentions other occations where Leclerc effectively did even worse than this, but the outcome was not as bad. When you see what Leclerc did on Noris on the 1st lap. That is way more dangerous than what Vettel did. That was a sudden and totally inappropriate change of direction. Noris had incredibly fast reactions to avoid that going wrong. Like we often say, it doesn't seem the stewards always do base things on the incident itself, they often only do if there are consequences. This IMO was worse than what vettel did by quite some way actually.


And I can maybe understand why some thought the ricciardo magnussen incident was more 50 - 50 rather than more against Ricciardo now. he explains it quite well.
I had brought this up myself too - Leclerc did similar aswell on Bottas in Hungary. He went off line to defend Bottas despite having more than enough speed to get by. So he both compromised his line for the next corner and gave Bottas a puncture.

I think both of these drivers at Ferrari are looking pretty bad regarding some cheeky moves that could result badly. In terms of the driver line up, again, I just can't see better than Hamilton and Bottas at the moment. They may not fight anywhere near as much, but they have way more respect for each other as well as other drivers to me.

Looking at that Joleon Palmer video, he blames SV for coming across into Leclerc, with SV's rear wheel in line with CL's front wheel. I agree with him here.

But then he doesn't blame Albon for coming across into Hamilton, with Albon's rear wheel in line with LH's front wheel in pretty much the same way. I don't care that one incident was on a 'straight' and the other incident was on a 'corner', it's a ribbon of tarmac as far as I am concerned and at no point on the ribbon of tarmac can you just chop across into the side of another car when you are not physically clear of their car.

So yeah, for me the two incidents are essentially the same and Albon was not fully clear of LH and so had no right to just jink across on him like that. LH is easily making the corner on the inside path from the look of the replays.

Yes, Albon wasn't looking so he didn't know if he was clear of LH's car or not, but maybe SV wasn't looking either and so SV didn't know he was clear of CL's car, yet SV is being blamed by a lot of people. In essence it doesn't matter if a driver was aware of it or not, they moved their car across into the path of another car, so both SV and Albon are to blame I believe.

And remember that turn 10 is an overtaking spot, we have seen passes there over the years so it wasn't some completely crazy move from LH, the pass was so on, as long as Albon behaved himself, which he didn't.

The incident was 100% Vettel's fault. Hen made the overtake and then proceeded to initiate the squeeze in order to squeeze Leclerc out of prime real estate he could otherwise have utilized to attempt to take the position back under braking. It's the same move he pulled on Webber and then made the Crazy gesture, referring to Webber when it was he who made the mistake by initiating the squeeze. Just an unwise thing some drivers needlessly do, and I don't care for it from anyone.

F1 Racer wrote:Looking at that Joleon Palmer video, he blames SV for coming across into Leclerc, with SV's rear wheel in line with CL's front wheel. I agree with him here.

But then he doesn't blame Albon for coming across into Hamilton, with Albon's rear wheel in line with LH's front wheel in pretty much the same way. I don't care that one incident was on a 'straight' and the other incident was on a 'corner', it's a ribbon of tarmac as far as I am concerned and at no point on the ribbon of tarmac can you just chop across into the side of another car when you are not physically clear of their car.

So yeah, for me the two incidents are essentially the same and Albon was not fully clear of LH and so had no right to just jink across on him like that. LH is easily making the corner on the inside path from the look of the replays.

Yes, Albon wasn't looking so he didn't know if he was clear of LH's car or not, but maybe SV wasn't looking either and so SV didn't know he was clear of CL's car, yet SV is being blamed by a lot of people. In essence it doesn't matter if a driver was aware of it or not, they moved their car across into the path of another car, so both SV and Albon are to blame I believe.

And remember that turn 10 is an overtaking spot, we have seen passes there over the years so it wasn't some completely crazy move from LH, the pass was so on, as long as Albon behaved himself, which he didn't.

I agree with Albon turning in rather abruptly on Hamilton. Hamilton had the opening and dove down the inside to try and overtake him and Albon turned in too tight. What I didn't like more than that was that we saw Hamilton hold up and slow down for a couple of seconds saying my bad, and that's what allowed Gasly to get by, and then he's given a 5 second penalty for "causing" the collision with Albon.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Looking at that Joleon Palmer video, he blames SV for coming across into Leclerc, with SV's rear wheel in line with CL's front wheel. I agree with him here.

But then he doesn't blame Albon for coming across into Hamilton, with Albon's rear wheel in line with LH's front wheel in pretty much the same way. I don't care that one incident was on a 'straight' and the other incident was on a 'corner', it's a ribbon of tarmac as far as I am concerned and at no point on the ribbon of tarmac can you just chop across into the side of another car when you are not physically clear of their car.

So yeah, for me the two incidents are essentially the same and Albon was not fully clear of LH and so had no right to just jink across on him like that. LH is easily making the corner on the inside path from the look of the replays.

Yes, Albon wasn't looking so he didn't know if he was clear of LH's car or not, but maybe SV wasn't looking either and so SV didn't know he was clear of CL's car, yet SV is being blamed by a lot of people. In essence it doesn't matter if a driver was aware of it or not, they moved their car across into the path of another car, so both SV and Albon are to blame I believe.

And remember that turn 10 is an overtaking spot, we have seen passes there over the years so it wasn't some completely crazy move from LH, the pass was so on, as long as Albon behaved himself, which he didn't.

I agree with Albon turning in rather abruptly on Hamilton. Hamilton had the opening and dove down the inside to try and overtake him and Albon turned in too tight. What I didn't like more than that was that we saw Hamilton hold up and slow down for a couple of seconds saying my bad, and that's what allowed Gasly to get by, and then he's given a 5 second penalty for "causing" the collision with Albon.

Yeah, and the main defence to Albon seems to be that he didn't see Lewis and therefore wasn't expecting it and so he is completely free to just turn in normally as though no one is there.

However hypothetically if Albon had seen Lewis and decided to chop across him to block him but had left his block attempt too late so that instead he ended up crunching into the side of Lewis, with Albon's rear wheel hitting Lewis' front wheel in exactly the same manner with the movement of the cars being perfectly identical to what actually happened with the one difference being that Albon was 'aware', then everyone would be blaming Albon for a cynical block attempt and that he should be penalised.

So if your car movement is identical in either case, then you are still committing a foul on your opponent whether you realised they were there or not. Ignorance isn't a defence and you are still worthy of a penalty for being careless as your opponent lost out as a result of your clumsy conduct. In football if you accidentally trip an opponent over in the penalty area, it is still a penalty kick with a foul awarded the same as if you deliberately fouled them and tripped them over on purpose. The only difference might be a lack of award of a yellow card if you did it by accident. In F1 this would maybe be the difference between say a 5 second penalty, (if you weren't aware your opponent was there and took a clumsy action), and a 20 second penalty, (if you were aware of where your opponent was and took a miss-timed and perhaps cynical action).

I think Hamilton made a mistake not to go for slipstream. He should have tucked behind behind going to final corner. But Gasly did well not to make mistake even though he went for the outside line in the final corner and had slightly few more meter to travel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsbjI6H-jP4