2014 Belgian Grand Prix
- Thread starter Azure Flare
- 975 comments
- 39,893 views
- 6,282
- Washington State
- OutlawQuadrant
This back and forth about an incident that happened over two years ago... 
I'll put in my two cents and leave it at that:
In short:
Hamilton's actions - Questionable but more often allowed than not
Maldonado's actions - Not allowed
Next race is going to be quite interesting. As much as Rosberg gained an advantage at Spa, I have to wonder what's going to happen if it's another Mercedes 1-2 starting grid at Monza. I can just imagine a scenario where Hamilton would want to be taken out by Rosberg a second time because in that case, it puts everything from race bans and even exclusion from the WDC on the table. Sounds crazy but hey, it seems like anything's possible now.
I'll put in my two cents and leave it at that:
Going with the letter of the law, Hamilton should have been penalized for crowding Maldonado off the track. However, the same can be said for a long list of drivers that have used the exact same tactic over who knows how many years without repercussions. Hamilton knew this and took advantage of it. Should we blame him for that or F1 because they are wishy-washy on this particular rule? In this specific case, we never got a clear answer thanks to Maldonado and this rule.
Regardless of whether Hamilton's actions were justified, it was still Maldonado's responsibility to rejoin the track in a way that would not endanger Hamilton or any other driver on track. It's like with how Vettel went off at Les Combes on Lap 1 and subsequently slotted in behind Rosberg. Like it wasn't Hamilton's responsibility to predict where Maldonado would go, Rosberg has a reasonable expectation that Vettel would not cut right in front of nose and take him out. Had Maldonado used his head and went straight through the chicane, he might've had a chance to protest. When you hit a car on the side and nearly flip him over, though, good luck finding a steward in the world that will side with you.
In short:
Hamilton's actions - Questionable but more often allowed than not
Maldonado's actions - Not allowed
Next race is going to be quite interesting. As much as Rosberg gained an advantage at Spa, I have to wonder what's going to happen if it's another Mercedes 1-2 starting grid at Monza. I can just imagine a scenario where Hamilton would want to be taken out by Rosberg a second time because in that case, it puts everything from race bans and even exclusion from the WDC on the table. Sounds crazy but hey, it seems like anything's possible now.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 3,204
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Since "OG" is slang for "Original Gangsta", I think he's trying to imply that Hamilton is making a career out of glorifying thuggish behaviour. Or something.
Like I said, ignore list. This is a perfect example of why.
- 2,998
- England
- Peasantslayer
Hamilton/Button - misunderstanding as discussed
Hamilton/Raikonnen - massive lock up
Hamilton/Rosberg - an attempt at an impossible move
Button thought the move was pretty harsh to.
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report...is-hamilton-at-spa-was-8216-unbelievable8217-
He has also implied in the past that Hamilton smokes weed, stereotyping probably.
Wasn't trying to with the fuel-flow thing, BHRx criticized Hamilton for using the fuel-flow setting but didn't mention that Rosberg had used it, they were both in the wrong here.
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
I myself said that the penalty seemed a bit harsh. The question, really, is whether you consider the Parabolica a corner or a straight. Considering it's a constant radius curve taken flat out, the stewards seem to treat it as a straight.
As here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/09/vettel-penalty-alonso-curva-grande/
This also falls under the "deliberate" part of the rule. A door being shut in a kerb-apex-kerb corner by the leading driver is one thing. Edging someone off on such a long, flat out section of track, after seeing them in your mirror, is another.
It's a controversial decision, indeed... and again, I personally didn't think it was worth a penalty, at first.
As discussed, ad nauseum, in the thread about Rosberg v Hamilton, the rules are, and have always been, applied, with the implicit acceptance that the car ahead has the right to the racing line. This is why the other rules are very explicit in citing the straights and the braking zone. The driver behind has the choice to either back off or crash.
And, as discussed, previously, ad nauseum, it is leaving the racing line to block, and/or trying to return to it once you've given it up, that is not allowed.
And, as further discussed... holding the racing line is not an abnormal change of direction. And if the guy behind sticks his nose up the outside of the racing line
Lewis had the racing line. Lewis held it. As Brundle said... the throttle is not a one-way switch. Maldonado had the choice to either back off or crash. Guess which choice he made?
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
Interesting old clarification by Charlie that I found, which changes my view on the incident between Lewis and Nico at Spa: http://www.formula1blog.com/f1-news/fia-clarify-aggressive-driving-rules-is-it-significant/
Rule 20.4: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html
I don't know how many times I must've glanced over that rule, I missed it, and so has Anthony Davidson apparently! (who says Nico didn't have sufficient overlap)
But moving to defend on a straight is much different than staying on line during a corner.
These are the moves Rosberg made back in 2012 that the article refers to:
And it also mentions Maldonado's antics, like in Valencia.
So from there it should be a bit clearer. We'll compare Rosberg's defending in Bahrain vs. Lewis Hamilton's defending in Valencia. Alonso and Lewis both got their front wings up to Nico's rear wheel on exit, then Rosberg pushed him out; not allowed/frowned upon. Nico should've left space or closed the gap before Alonso or Lewis had a chance to stick their noses in; that's allowed.
So we can define defense on a straight as moving off the regular racing line in order to counter a chasing car's attack.
Now we look over to the Maldonado incident. What would constitute Hamilton's move as being a defensive one? Same as with Nico, right? Moving off the regular racing line in order to cover a chasing car's attack.
Did Hamilton do this? Yes, he went right and defended going into the corner, braking early to force Pastor onto the left, giving Hamilton the advantage going into the corner, and thus sealing up corner rights for it.
So because of that, he can continue on the regular racing line through the corner itself, which is where things get tricky. He didn't close a gap, he didn't force Pastor off, it was up to Pastor to give up since there was absolutely no way to pass safely since he gave up his advantage. Had Pastor been able to tuck into Lewis's inside, the story would've been completely different.
Also, since he did technically have sufficient overlap going into the corner, things would've been different had Pastor made contact with Lewis in the first part of that corner, but he went off alongside him instead of backing off, then kept right on going into Lewis after he made a direction change. Pastor went from being off track where he easily could've backed down and avoided the incident, to ramming Lewis, and so was his fault.
Anyway, moving back to Spa, I now see this as a racing incident. Sufficient overlap was had and Nico tried hard to just stay out of trouble, but it managed to break his wing in Lewis's tire. He wanted to stay close and not look like a complete pushover by letting completely off like in Bahrain.
Lewis's resulting tire failure could be seen as tipping the scales a bit toward it being more than just a racing incident, but it was a freak occurrence. Most of the time when there's contact like that between cars, there's no puncture (happened a couple times in the race between other drivers, and check out Lewis in Germany, and Kimi, to name just a few).
Rule 20.4: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html
I don't know how many times I must've glanced over that rule, I missed it, and so has Anthony Davidson apparently! (who says Nico didn't have sufficient overlap)
But moving to defend on a straight is much different than staying on line during a corner.
These are the moves Rosberg made back in 2012 that the article refers to:
And it also mentions Maldonado's antics, like in Valencia.
So from there it should be a bit clearer. We'll compare Rosberg's defending in Bahrain vs. Lewis Hamilton's defending in Valencia. Alonso and Lewis both got their front wings up to Nico's rear wheel on exit, then Rosberg pushed him out; not allowed/frowned upon. Nico should've left space or closed the gap before Alonso or Lewis had a chance to stick their noses in; that's allowed.
So we can define defense on a straight as moving off the regular racing line in order to counter a chasing car's attack.
Now we look over to the Maldonado incident. What would constitute Hamilton's move as being a defensive one? Same as with Nico, right? Moving off the regular racing line in order to cover a chasing car's attack.
Did Hamilton do this? Yes, he went right and defended going into the corner, braking early to force Pastor onto the left, giving Hamilton the advantage going into the corner, and thus sealing up corner rights for it.
So because of that, he can continue on the regular racing line through the corner itself, which is where things get tricky. He didn't close a gap, he didn't force Pastor off, it was up to Pastor to give up since there was absolutely no way to pass safely since he gave up his advantage. Had Pastor been able to tuck into Lewis's inside, the story would've been completely different.
Also, since he did technically have sufficient overlap going into the corner, things would've been different had Pastor made contact with Lewis in the first part of that corner, but he went off alongside him instead of backing off, then kept right on going into Lewis after he made a direction change. Pastor went from being off track where he easily could've backed down and avoided the incident, to ramming Lewis, and so was his fault.
Anyway, moving back to Spa, I now see this as a racing incident. Sufficient overlap was had and Nico tried hard to just stay out of trouble, but it managed to break his wing in Lewis's tire. He wanted to stay close and not look like a complete pushover by letting completely off like in Bahrain.
Lewis's resulting tire failure could be seen as tipping the scales a bit toward it being more than just a racing incident, but it was a freak occurrence. Most of the time when there's contact like that between cars, there's no puncture (happened a couple times in the race between other drivers, and check out Lewis in Germany, and Kimi, to name just a few).
Lion-Face
Premium
- 1,467
- Invercargill
- Lion-Face
It was a slim chance, but saw a chance and took it. In theory, if Rosberg could have gotten up beside Lewis, they could have gone side by side through the following 3 - 4 turns. It was a long shot, but the opportunity was there, and I'm glad to see the opportunity taken. Sure the end result wasn't what anyone wanted, but that happens. As have been said, a minor incident with major consequences.
Although I agree with the consensus that it was up to the 2nd car to make sure both drivers make it safely through the corner, I'm surprised to see no comments on Hamiltons move across Rosberg. To me it looked like Hamilton took an earlier than usual line into the left hander. I would guess, as many drivers do, to send a message by 'chopping' in front of the 2nd car. I haven't seen all the angles, and not many on board cameras of the corner, just to my eye it looked as if Hamilton took a more direct line to an early apex, didn't work out so well. I'm not saying it's Hamiltons fault, just not quite the full innocent party.
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
Original gangsta. Something to be proud of in the hip hop community that Hamilton has been trying to be in.
Why do you ask?
Careful. Accusing someone of racism is as bad as being racist yourself. I didn't imply he smokes weed, I was giving a general example about how a loser can gain success through his loserness.
Implicit...acceptance....
What happened to FOLLOWING THE RULES for what they say and not what Charlie/stewards put in practice?
He didn't have the racing line to hold it in the first place. See the pic I drew.
This is where you're wrong and wrong.
So did Hamilton. Hamilton created the incident, and left it up to Maldonado to decide if they're going to crash or not. If they crash, which they did, it's a racing incident at best.
Just answer what I asked that guy last night. Had Maldonado not gone off, and Hamilton touched/damaged him. Would you give Hamilton a penalty?
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...tel-singapore-grand-prix.288271/#post-8824936
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 268
- NLinks
- MonSpaNur
The Valencia's crash was primarily caused by Hamilton and he should share the blame with Maldonado.
Two hot heads fighting for the same piece of tarmac.
Race accident.
Same race, same corner, same defending driver.
Check the difference in attitude from Lewis:
If Lewis had acted with Maldonado, exactly in the same way as he had previously acted with Grosjean and the accident would never have happened.
Two hot heads fighting for the same piece of tarmac.
Race accident.
Same race, same corner, same defending driver.
Check the difference in attitude from Lewis:
If Lewis had acted with Maldonado, exactly in the same way as he had previously acted with Grosjean and the accident would never have happened.
Last edited:
- 86,488
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Grosjean is ahead of Hamilton at the apex of the corner. Hamilton is ahead of Maldonado at the apex of the corner. The leading driver gets to pick his line and the other guy has to take what he can get.
Grosjean could have been slightly more aggressive than he was with Hamilton, but he kept the car at the very edge of the track limits. Maldonado had to leave the track (because he was the following car and Hamilton took the racing line) and chose to ignore rule 20.2.
Amusingly, one of the pictures the FIA use to illustrate driving standard rules is from the above incident. Their caption?
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
It's not a rule in all forms of racing, because formula one is a form of racing and it's not a rule in it as per this:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html
Show me where it says the leading car has the right to do whatever the **** it wants.
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
- 86,488
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Indeed - because Grosjean was on the track and had a significant portion of his car alongside - he was required to leave room.
Maldonado was no longer on the track and was required to rejoin the circuit only when safe to do so. He failed.
- 126
- Massachusetts
- NearFear
I just believe it was a fairly clumsy attempt at trying to gain track position. People may not agree with Mr but the distance between the two into the left hander should have been a clear indication for the car behind to just back off and tuck in behind.
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
HAHAHA! @Famine ignored a request for a citation! Behold, everyone
So you've changed your words. Now you're saying that because Grosjean had a significant portion of his car alongside(Not because he's ahead) he was entitled to some room. Allow me:
Oh look Maldonado had a significant portion. Just concede
- 2,998
- England
- Peasantslayer
No, feel free to read the post again.
- 8,100
- Guelph, Ontario
HAHAHA! @Famine ignored a request for a citation! Behold, everyone
So you've changed your words. Now you're saying that because Grosjean had a significant portion of his car alongside(Not because he's ahead) he was entitled to some room. Allow me:
Oh look Maldonado had a significant portion. Just concede
Probably ignored it because there is no reason the cite something that is one of the basic racing laws.
Seeing this it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Try racing with that metality in real life and see how far it gets you, first race you'd end up being black flagged after the first lap.
Hamilton has had the worst of luck this year, can't catch a break. Next race is going to be very interesting.
- 86,488
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Why are you reading only what you want to read?HAHAHA! @Famine ignored a request for a citation! Behold, everyone
So you've changed your words. Now you're saying that because Grosjean had a significant portion of his car alongside(Not because he's ahead) he was entitled to some room. Allow me:
Oh look Maldonado had a significant portion. Just concede
Now, let's keep that in mind and then read the post...Famine
Grosjean was ahead of Hamilton going into the corner. That means he gets to choose his line and Hamilton has to position his car safely. With Grosjean still alongside him and on the track, he had to leave room into the next left-hander for Grosjean's car.
Maldonado was behind Hamilton going into the corner. That means he has to position his car safely while the other chooses his line. He chose to leave the track rather than cede the line, so Hamilton did not have to leave any room for the left hander. Maldonado then chose to drive back onto it without ensuring it was clear to do so.
Amusingly, Hamilton said afterwards "That's just racing." - and at the time I said Hamilton's only mistake was not driving a bit smarter and chucking 12pt away knowing that the lunatic crash-machine Maldonado was near him. Maldonado blamed Hamilton for "driving too aggressive". Delusional.
I don't like Hamilton one bit, but your attempts to blame him for literally everything regardless of circumstances are beyond lunacy. You were utterly done when you answered this question:
with this:Famine
BHRxRacer
