Formula 1 championship decider on Sunday.

[AngleEyes]

Several points appear to be up for consideration, IMO, and only considering this race. There are other discussion points about previous races, but I'm ignoring those for now.
1. If diving into the corner at the last moment, and forcing another driver to take avoiding action and/or leaving the track, is now considered an acceptable manoeuvre, and it appears it is (sometimes, but then not other times ), then there's going to be carnage in future. Until now there's always been the consideration of who was in front going into the corner, but that consideration now seems to have been ignored.
A possible way to avoid such carnage in future is to have an "overtaking line" before each corner, so that in cases of cars being forced off or drivers having to take avoiding action, then whoever was in front at that "overtaking line" before the corner should be deemed to have had precedence in that corner.

2. Rules are rules.

a) If you want to apply the rules strictly, then that applies to all the rules. If you insist that a driver has left the track, and gained an advantage, then the rule relating to cars not overtaking under safety car conditions, must also be applied rigidly. It wasn't.
b) The rule relating to cars un-lapping themselves must also be applied rigidly, and that rule was not applied, but was 'over-ridden' by another convenient rule.
c) The rule about the safety car ending on the following lap was also not consistently applied, it was also over-ridden by another rule to the advantage of one of the drivers.
​

Masi appears to be making a right pigs ear of this.

 

[AngleEyes]

Diving into a corner at last minute? You mean racing. The door had been left open and he went through it pure and simple.

If it relies on another driver taking avoiding action to avoid an inevitable collision, it's hardly racing.

Unless it is, then it'll be carnage for the future. Those with nothing to lose will be employing such tactics. And those with something to lose will have to take the inevitable avoiding action.
I wouldn't call that F1 racing. I'd call it stock car racing, or demolition derby.
And it's only possible due to the ever advancing safety features of the cars.

 

[AngleEyes]

If it relies on another driver taking avoiding action to avoid an inevitable collision, it's hardly racing.

It's exactly that it is racing if you are the car in front and you haven't took up correct position on the track which allows another driver to out brake and manouvere you that's your problem and should take avoiding action

And the rule about allowing sufficient room for the other car?
You can't just ignore the rule that doesn't align with your style of driving.

If you allow sufficient room for the other car, either your manoeuvre won't be successful, or there will be a collision, or you will end up in an accident all on your own.
If you don't leave sufficient room for the other car, you should either be penalised, or the avoiding action taken by the other driver should be allowed as part of the 'racing' that your style has caused.

Let's take a similar situation on the road.
Suppose you jump in front of another car. They have the option of taking avoiding action, or simply hitting you.
If they take avoiding action which results in their accident on their own, then you are free to drive away, using the argument that they lost control of their vehicle, albeit caused by your poor driving.
If they choose to not take avoiding action, and hit you, it would clearly be your fault. There would be no point in you arguing that they should have taken avoiding action to avoid a collision.
We could expand on that: if the car hits you in the rear, instead of taking avoiding action, then you might have a reasonable argument.
If however the other car hits you in the side, instead of taking avoiding action, it would clearly be your fault.
In each case of aggressive 'racing' MV would have been hit in the side, if LH had not taken avoiding action.

 

[sxturbo]

You have to be ahead of the other car before going into the corner to be able to 'claim' the corner and choose the racing line.

You are also required to leave the other car sufficient room on the track, which Max didn't do. It was a classic block pass, but Max only just made the corner himself with 2 wheels off the track. If Max had been able to turn a little earlier (which he either couldn't or chose not to) then it should have been a penalty or a requirement to give back the position.

While leaving the track to gain an advantage is against the rules, so is forcing/crowding a car off the track. That, and it was the first lap, is why I think there was no further action on the incident.

However, like with all of these things whichever drive you support will influence your bias.



It would seem the race directly did not entirely follow the FIA's own rules.

Did this breach affect the outcome of the race? Probably.

Is the breach bad enough to warrant some change to the result? Probably not.

Seems there will be a further appeal by Merc and it could end up in court, which is a rubbish way to settle an exciting championship. I hope Lewis might tell them to let it go for the good of the sport, as ultimately it's his championship/race that was lost not the constructors championship...

Even in defeat Lewis (and his dad) were gracious. Not like last weekend when Max stropped his way off the podium...

Lewis and his dad did impress me with their sportsmanship yesterday, very graceful

 

[gas112]

And the rule about allowing sufficient room for the other car?
You can't just ignore the rule that doesn't align with your style of driving.

If you allow sufficient room for the other car, either your manoeuvre won't be successful, or there will be a collision, or you will end up in an accident all on your own.
If you don't leave sufficient room for the other car, you should either be penalised, or the avoiding action taken by the other driver should be allowed as part of the 'racing' that your style has caused.

Let's take a similar situation on the road.
Suppose you jump in front of another car. They have the option of taking avoiding action, or simply hitting you.
If they take avoiding action which results in their accident on their own, then you are free to drive away, using the argument that they lost control of their vehicle, albeit caused by your poor driving.
If they choose to not take avoiding action, and hit you, it would clearly be your fault. There would be no point in you arguing that they should have taken avoiding action to avoid a collision.
We could expand on that: if the car hits you in the rear, instead of taking avoiding action, then you might have a reasonable argument.
If however the other car hits you in the side, instead of taking avoiding action, it would clearly be your fault.
In each case of aggressive 'racing' MV would have been hit in the side, if LH had not taken avoiding action.

Its not on the road its on a race track pure and simple

 

[AngleEyes]

Its not on the road its on a race track pure and simple

The similarity is that there are rules, that need to be observed and applied.
There is a rule about overtaking and leaving sufficient room for the other car.
If that rule is not observed, and it is broken, then penalties need to be applied, or the avoiding action taken by the other driver, if they break other rules in that process of avoiding action, needs to also be allowed.
You cannot have a situation whereby one driver is allowed to break a rule, but in the process of avoiding a collision the other driver breaks a different rule, which is then penalised. (Unless your name happens to be Boris, and you make and break the rules at whim).

 

[Lower]

Diving into a corner at last minute? You mean racing. The door had been left open and he went through it pure and simple.

If we're talking about the attempted overtake at the start of the race where Hamilton had to take to the run off area, i don't agree that it was a legit overtake attempt by Verstappen. Whilst Verstappen did manage to stay on the track this time, he forced Hamilton off. If there had been a gravel trap instead of a tarmac run off area, as there used to be, it would have been the end of Hamilton's race. There is a rule against crowding other cars off the track, and Verstappen broke it in my opinion.

Masi needs to start enforcing this rule. F1 is not stock car racing where you can just drive into other cars or force them off the track.

 

[AngleEyes]

Was he penalised or was Hamilton?

Neither of them were penalised. That's exactly my point.
MV broke one rule, which ensured that LH had to break another rule in order to avoid a collision.
If MV was penalised for breaking a rule, AND LH was also penalised, fair do's.
Both receive, say a 5 second penalty.
But if one rule breaking is ignored, then so should the other be ignored. Which is, in effect, what happened.

Additionally, it was at the very start of the race when much "off-roading" tends to take place.

This in no way affects the total mess at the end of the race.

 

[gas112]

Neither of them were penalised. That's exactly my point.
MV broke one rule, which ensured that LH had to break another rule in order to avoid a collision.
If MV was penalised for breaking a rule, AND LH was also penalised, fair do's.
Both receive, say a 5 second penalty.
But if one rule breaking is ignored, then so should the other be ignored. Which is, in effect, what happened.

Additionally, it was at the very start of the race when much "off-roading" tends to take place.

This in no way affects the total mess at the end of the race.

They weren't punished because the rule makers decided no rule had been broken

 

[AngleEyes]

They weren't punished because the rule makers decided no rule had been broken

So what is your point?
MV overtook LH, and LH retained the lead?
And either no rule was broken by either driver?
Or both drivers broke a rule, in which case the first rule breaking was cancelled out by the second rule breaking?

Which is it?

 

[AngleEyes]

Did you forget it was you on winging about supposed rule break merely pointing out no rule break unless you know better than the guys running the sport

1. So if no-one broke any rules on the first overtake, where LH retained the lead, there's no discussion.

2. IMO (and I am allowed an opinion) both drivers broke a rule. But the LH rule breaking was a forced manoeuvre, caused by the first rule break by MV.

So, either the first condition applies, which I consider, in effect, to have happened, or the second condition applies, which I believe actually happened.
Either way the result, for that overtake, is the same.

But my point was, you cannot moan about one driver (LH) breaking a rule which was a forced consequence of the other driver's (MV) rule breaking.
That is what Horner (and MV) was moaning about.
Either they both broke the rules, and it was overlooked, or they both broke the rules, and both should be penalised.

 

[gas112]

1. So if no-one broke any rules on the first overtake, where LH retained the lead, there's no discussion.

2. IMO (and I am allowed an opinion) both drivers broke a rule. But the LH rule breaking was a forced manoeuvre, caused by the first rule break by MV.

So, either the first condition applies, which I consider, in effect, to have happened, or the second condition applies, which I believe actually happened.
Either way the result, for that overtake, is the same.

But my point was, you cannot moan about one driver (LH) breaking a rule which was a forced consequence of the other driver's (MV) rule breaking.
That is what Horner (and MV) was moaning about.
Either they both broke the rules, and it was overlooked, or they both broke the rules, and both should be penalised.

whatever at least the best driver won over the course of the season

 

[AngleEyes]

Hope the whinging git gets hammered

whatever at least the best driver won over the course of the season

Evidently, the whinging git (sic) didn't get hammered and only won by circumstances created by the inconsistent decisions of the Race Director.
If the rules had been applied strictly, then MV would not have won the race.
Mercedes were unable to plan for the unpredictable and irrational interpretation and application of the rules.

 

[gas112]

Evidently, the whinging git (sic) didn't get hammered and only won by circumstances created by the inconsistent decisions of the Race Director.
If the rules had been applied strictly, then MV would not have won the race.
Mercedes were unable to plan for the unpredictable and irrational interpretation and application of the rules.

why are you presuming i meant hamilton by whinging git ? as max has also moaned about various things over the season or have you come to the conclusion because its what you think of him ?

 

[AngleEyes]

why are you presuming i meant hamilton by whinging git ? as max has also moaned about various things over the season or have you come to the conclusion because its what you think of him ?

Why are you presuming what I was presuming?
My comments were intentionally restricted to the recent race.
If we start discussing all the races throughout the season, and all the championships throughout the years.....