2014 Belgian Grand Prix

[niky]

So why isn't that the case with the whole issue (first sentence of quote) and it be put down, as obviously mirrors are used for something...?

Hamilton and Kobayashi collided on the straight. Because Hamilton drifted absent-mindedly into the line Kobayashi was taking to overtake him. As per the rules, you have to leave space on the straights. Which is where the mirrors come in handy.

The rules specifically don't specify how much space you're supposed to leave mid-corner, just that you don't deliberately crowd someone off or perform an abnormal change of direction to fend them off. The mirrors, in this case, will tell you that someone is there, but you are now committed to the line and it is up to the guy behind you to adjust.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

Roll the clip at 2:00

or watch it all.... It doesn't really help him that he still keeps these double standards from 3 years ago..

The incident at around 0:50 looks rather familiar...

 

[zippy_the_cat]

That's still quite high on the list of dumbest things I've seen in F1

#1 with a bullet, I'd say.

 

[Ninners]

So decided to watch the 2009 Spanish GP and found this. Alonso & Hamilton.

 

[Swagger897]

The rules specifically don't specify how much space you're supposed to leave mid-corner, just that you don't deliberately crowd someone off or perform an abnormal change of direction to fend them off. The mirrors, in this case, will tell you that someone is there, but you are now committed to the line and it is up to the guy behind you to adjust.

If don't deliberately crowd someone off of change of direction to fend off (which Hamilton did), why should it be the fault of Rosberg then, as the statement you said contradicts what happened?

So decided to watch the 2009 Spanish GP and found this. Alonso & Hamilton.

View attachment 212108

View attachment 212110

View attachment 212114

View attachment 212115

That was a car coming out of pit lane, which Hamilton most likely thought wouldn't be up to speed, and tried to overtake; however, there was enough room to go two wide had he stuck it in, or accelerated to match pace. No different than Rosberg's case, however, Hamilton shut the door mid-corner..

 

[TenEightyOne]

That was a car coming out of pit lane, which Hamilton most likely thought wouldn't be up to speed, and tried to overtake; however, there was enough room to go two wide had he stuck it in, or accelerated to match pace. No different than Rosberg's case, however, Hamilton shut the door mid-corner..

As is his entitlement, I'm not sure how often you need the rules, precedents or positioning explaining to you. More often, it seems.

The incident you picture, did Hamilton touch the Renault? If so he would have been very much at fault in my opinion (from those pictures, I'd have to look at the video).

See, that's the thing, Hamilton isn't always right, not by quite some margin. That doesn't make him always wrong.

Perhaps you need to remove your idea of personality from each incident and look at the cars as moving cars in their own right, like what normals does.

 

[niky]

If don't deliberately crowd someone off of change of direction to fend off (which Hamilton did), why should it be the fault of Rosberg then, as the statement you said contradicts what happened?

The rules being cited are for the defending driver.

The rules for the attacking driver are covered by 16.1.d: causing a collision.

But while Rosberg is at fault for not backing off when he should have, there's little evidence that he deliberately turned into Lewis and caused a collision... (Anthony Davidson seems to think there is, but I don't believe Nico cut into Lewis on purpose).

He is guilty, however, of being very, very foolish.

 

[Carlos]

The rules being cited are for the defending driver.

The rules for the attacking driver are covered by 16.1.d: causing a collision.

But while Rosberg is at fault for not backing off when he should have, there's little evidence that he deliberately turned into Lewis and caused a collision... (Anthony Davidson seems to think there is, but I don't believe Nico cut into Lewis on purpose).

He is guilty, however, of being very, very foolish.

Rosberg as you said should have backed off, but I think it wasn't that clever of Hamilton to claim the line he had every right to..

I understand you can live by rules but that doesn't always gets you better results.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Pretty amazing that two of the three RBR wins this year have been at tracks that benefit Mercedes power the most. At this rate Ricciardo is going to win at Monza too.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Is the only one applicable midcorner, and requires you to prove deliberate crowding. As in: The driver has no other reason to be on that part of the track other than to force the other guy off way of not giving him space. Which is patently not true if you're ahead, on the racing line, and don't deviate from it.

Fixed.

Narrowing the car behind's angle through corners can also force it to take a later apex and even run wide, even if it has successfully made the pass - and this can result in the slower car getting back in front again. A side-effect of this defensive driving is that it tends to slow both drivers down.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_f1_racing/5293.html

Run wide, not run off the track. Difference.

If the "car in front" rule was true, itd be in the regulations page. If you think it's common knowledge and implicit, so is DRIVING THE CAR YOURSELF UNAIDED. Yet that's rule #1.

There is no explicit law saying the car ahead takes whatever line it wants, get over it everyone. The irony is, Nico Rosberg himself shares your point of view but knows that the rules disagree with him (and you).

Just as you can't judge Raikkonen 2014 by Raikkonen back-when-he-was-still-fantastic

Some members here think he was never fantastic Years of supreme driving at Mclaren for nothing. Let's not get off topic though.


@Famine no comment on me not blaming Hamilton for an incident?

 

[Swagger897]

As is his entitlement, I'm not sure how often you need the rules, precedents or positioning explaining to you. More often, it seems.

The incident you picture, did Hamilton touch the Renault? If so he would have been very much at fault in my opinion (from those pictures, I'd have to look at the video).

See, that's the thing, Hamilton isn't always right, not by quite some margin. That doesn't make him always wrong.

Perhaps you need to remove your idea of personality from each incident and look at the cars as moving cars in their own right, like what normals does.

I show no favoritism in F1... Right now, I dislike the entire sport, as it is too corrupt to really be any fun.

It looks as if he never touched him, but how would one determine (other than the obvious turning left of the wheel as pictured) who did what, unless an erratic movement provoked an incident to occur?

And with the crash at Spa, Nico's onboard seems to show Lewis inching left more and more so.. The turn slows down the cars enough to be taken two wide, so really the incident should never had occurred.

The rules being cited are for the defending driver.

The rules for the attacking driver are covered by 16.1.d: causing a collision.

That was whom I was talking about. Why is Rosberg being penalized, for a rule Lewis exceeded? Lewis was making adjustments while in the corner, which caused the two to touch.

But while Rosberg is at fault for not backing off when he should have

And why should Rosberg have to back off? This isn't like we are exiting an Interstate/Highway and there is a car between you and the exit.. Hamilton showed no track etiquette for Rosberg, and then was punted off by his own mistake..

there's little evidence that he deliberately turned into Lewis and caused a collision... (Anthony Davidson seems to think there is, but I don't believe Nico cut into Lewis on purpose).

How could Nico turn into Lewis, if the incident occurred in a left hand turn, with Nico on the "driving line".

He is guilty, however, of being very, very foolish.

Both were, as Toto was obviously pissed off at the end..

This seems recent..

 

[jtv90069]

@BHRxRacer It seems to me, you are adamant that all the drivers, teams and stewards don't understand the rules but you do. If everything allowable and not allowable had to be explicitly individually mentioned in the sporting code there would be hundreds if not thousands of dot points rather than six points defining driving standards in the sporting code. As you said yourself Nico Rosberg has the same view of the rules as many of us, and he's been racing F1 for about eight years.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@BHRxRacer It seems to me, you are adamant that all the drivers, teams and stewards don't understand the rules but you do. If everything allowable and not allowable had to be explicitly individually mentioned in the sporting code there would be hundreds if not thousands of dot points rather than six points defining driving standards in the sporting code. As you said yourself Nico Rosberg has the same view of the rules as many of us, and he's been racing F1 for about eight years.

No No No No No No No

Nico has the same view as you do, of what the rules SHOULD BE.Not what the rules are. He even said in the sky interview that people booing don't understand the rules.

The rules are clear to me, and many others in the community. You're the ones that want to include extra rules from other series into F1.

And dude, everything IS more or less explicitly mentioned. EVEN THIS:

20.1 The driver must drive the car alone and unaided.

Going by your logic they wouldn't have to specifically mention that, but they did.

How could Nico turn into Lewis, if the incident occurred in a left hand turn, with Nico on the "driving line".

BECAUSE LEWIS IN TEH FRONTZ!!!!11

 

[TenEightyOne]

How could Nico turn into Lewis, if the incident occurred in a left hand turn, with Nico on the "driving line".

.....?????????

You know how a car "goes to the right", yes? What if I told you (puts sunglasses on) that you could still be steering left when that happens?

 

[Furinkazen]

No No No No No No No

Nico has the same view as you do, of what the rules SHOULD BE.Not what the rules are. He even said in the sky interview that people booing don't understand the rules.

The rules are clear to me, and many others in the community. You're the ones that want to include extra rules from other series into F1.

And dude, everything IS more or less explicitly mentioned. EVEN THIS:

20.1 The driver must drive the car alone and unaided.

Going by your logic they wouldn't have to specifically mention that, but they did.



BECAUSE LEWIS IN TEH FRONTZ!!!!11

Yes and as Nico is off line initially attempting the manouevre, it is his responsobility to ensure it is safe, especially as Hamilton had rights to the line and was more than easily correct in the line.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Yes and as Nico is off line initially attempting the manouevre, it is his responsobility to ensure it is safe, especially as Hamilton had rights to the line and was more than easily correct in the line.

When your front wing is alongside the other car's tyres, the responsibility to ensure a safe overtake is on BOTH drivers.

 

[niky]

That was whom I was talking about. Why is Rosberg being penalized, for a rule Lewis exceeded? Lewis was making adjustments while in the corner, which caused the two to touch.

What adjustments? Lewis was following the racing line between the two corners.

And why should Rosberg have to back off? This isn't like we are exiting an Interstate/Highway and there is a car between you and the exit.. Hamilton showed no track etiquette for Rosberg, and then was punted off by his own mistake..

How could Nico turn into Lewis, if the incident occurred in a left hand turn, with Nico on the "driving line".

A corner is not a straight piece of track with clearly marked lanes. Perhaps they should mark the racing line for viewers to make things clearer. The racing line crosses across the track. Nico turned into Lewis by crossing the racing line with a car in front of him.

As so:

Yes and as Nico is off line initially attempting the manouevre, it is his responsobility to ensure it is safe, especially as Hamilton had rights to the line and was more than easily correct in the line.

When your front wing is alongside the other car's tyres, the responsibility to ensure a safe overtake is on BOTH drivers.

The driver in front is negotiating a turn at high speeds, trying to hold the car on a line at over three lateral gravities. He's got a lot on his plate. The driver in the back has more options and the responsibility to ensure a safe pass. Again, last chance to avoid a collision is solely on the following driver.

There is no explicit law saying the car ahead takes whatever line it wants, get over it everyone.

Let me ask you again, since you seem to have ignored it. Where is the explicit rule that a driver is supposed to leave space for another car, midcorner, if he does not leave the racing line?

There isn't, because it isn't possible to enforce that rule. And having such a rule would make overtaking ridiculously easy. Get your nose up under braking and the guy will be required to slow down and compromise his line, even if you have the option of braking to avoid hitting him.

We've been over this before, and you're basically arguing an unwinnable case.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Where is the explicit rule that a driver is supposed to leave space for another car, midcorner, if he does not leave the racing line?

20.5

There isn't, because it isn't possible to enforce that rule.
.

It is.

And having such a rule would make overtaking ridiculously easy.
.

So does DRS.

Get your nose up under braking and the guy will be required to slow down and compromise his line, even if you have the option of braking to avoid hitting him.
.

Which guy? Go back to my drawing and see how a legal overtake looks like.

We've been over this before, and you're basically arguing an unwinnable case
.

No, sir. You are.

edit-

I HAVE FOUND IT



That ladies and gentleman, is how to defend your line without breaking the rules. Brought to you by Schumacher almighty.

He was basically in Lewis' position at Spa 2014 and Valencia 2012, and he left room for Kimi.

 

[niky]

20.5

Already discussed. Following the racing line is not an abnormal change of direction.

It is.

Which is why the following driver, whether it be Hamilton or Maldonado is most often the one to get the penalty, right?

So does DRS.

Irrelevant.

Which guy? Go back to my drawing and see how a legal overtake looks like.

It would be funny if it weren't useless. Without showing the relative position of each car at each point of the overtake, it doesn't illustrate anything.

No, sir. You are.

Which is why the following driver, whether it be Hamilton or Maldonado is most often the one to get the penalty, right?

Oh, wait... Deja Vu. As is this entire topic.

 

[Swagger897]

What adjustments? Lewis was following the racing line between the two corners.

Hamilton's car moved mid corner.... how else did his tire get blown?

A corner is not a straight piece of track with clearly marked lanes. Perhaps they should mark the racing line for viewers to make things clearer. The racing line crosses across the track. Nico turned into Lewis by crossing the racing line with a car in front of him.

Racing lines depends on the situation. There were two cars, meaning two lines are possible, which Lewis negated and wanted to have it his way. His way didn't work.

 

[Bopop4]

20.5
That ladies and gentleman, is how to defend your line without breaking the rules. Brought to you by Schumacher almighty.

That is nowhere near like the previous incidents at all.

If Micheal could've he would have run wide and blocked the line.
The difference is that Maldonado was only alongside Lewis by a couple of feet, Kimi was neck and neck with Micheal.

Again, how much racing have you done that isn't of the armchair variety?

 

[BHRxRacer]

If Micheal could've he would have run wide and blocked the line.

He could've but he didn't want to.

The difference is that Maldonado was only alongside Lewis by a couple of feet, Kimi was neck and neck with Micheal.

Couple of feet? Get out of here


Are you guys this blind or you're just ****ing with me? We used to do this on forums years ago, pick on the newbie for a while and make his e-life hell. Is this what's going on? Karma would truly be a bitch if it is.

Again, how much racing have you done that isn't of the armchair variety?

How many F1 races have you done?

Already discussed. Following the racing line is not an abnormal change of direction.

UGH.

Which is why the following driver, whether it be Hamilton or Maldonado is most often the one to get the penalty, right?

Massa got the penalty at India despite having the "racing line".

Irrelevant.

Exactly the point.

It would be funny if it weren't useless. Without showing the relative position of each car at each point of the overtake, it doesn't illustrate anything.

Would you like it in frames? I'm not going to do an animation for you.

Just see the Schumi/Kimi overtake. It's either that kind of overtake, or one where Kimi dives behind Michael to the left for the switchback. All while leaving room.

 

[Bopop4]

He could've but he didn't want to.

He couldn't because there was a car right in line with him.

The picture you just posted shows them mid-corner, by the time the are getting ready to turn back to the left Pastor is not enough ahead to have any rights to the corner.

How many F1 races have you done?

(About 8 years in karts and bikes.)
Whether it's F1 or not it doesn't matter, racing is racing, doesn't matter if it's in karts, F1, or bikes.
(More important on bikes because if you hit you're probably going to fall off, not just a damaged car.)


We are not "picking" on you for being new, I have no idea when you joined but there have been members who have joined before they were allowed to, and still had a better sense of logic than yourself.

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

That is nowhere near like the previous incidents at all.

If Micheal could've he would have run wide and blocked the line.

And he has done that before too. Good example here:





For the record, Schumacher was NOT penalized for that move.

 

[BHRxRacer]

He couldn't because there was a car right in line with him.

Just like Maldonado was in line with Hamilton?

The picture you just posted shows them mid-corner,

Just as Kimi/Michael were alongside midcorner.

by the time the are getting ready to turn back to the left Pastor is not enough ahead to have any rights to the corner.

By the time they were ready to turn back to the left, Hamilton had already forced Maldonado off track.

(About 8 years in karts and bikes.)
Whether it's F1 or not it doesn't matter, racing is racing, doesn't matter if it's in karts, F1, or bikes.
(More important on bikes because if you hit you're probably going to fall off, not just a damaged car.)

Really? Trying pulling the **** that happens in NASCAR or BTCC in F1 and see where it takes you.

Each series/formula have their own guidelines in racing.

We are not "picking" on you for being new, I have no idea when you joined but there have been members who have joined before they were allowed to, and still had a better sense of logic than yourself.

There's that word again, "logic"

And he has done that before too. Good example here:





For the record, Schumacher was NOT penalized for that move.

Which begs the question, do the people defending Hamilton's defensive moves think Michael's move on Montoya was also fair? I'm looking at you @Peasantslayer . Others as well but I'm bad with memorizing names.




This is the whole discussion to me. Most people that defend **** Hamilton does, would be all over other drivers when they do it.

Just like how Senna is adored for being an asshole, but Schumacher is hated for it.

 

[Bopop4]

It's amazing that someone who is deaf and blind can use the internet.

Done.

 

[BHRxRacer]

What gave it away? I am deaf and blind, using brailles.

 

[noshog]

I thought all of this was quite simple, the leading car does not have to deviate from his chosen line to allow a competitor to overtake around the outside. If you are the car behind it's up to you to overtake cleanly and not make contact.
I thought anyone who's watched/taken part in racing knows if you try to overtake around the outside you are always likely to be shown the track limits. That's the risk you take when you try to overtake around the outside.

There have been many lovely examples of attempted outside overtakes in this thread, and frankly none of them look similiar to Hamilton/Rosberg's at Spa.
I have no bias towards any of those two drivers, my view is that Rosberg was no way near making a legit attempt at making an overtake...he should've backed off and fallen into line.

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

Which begs the question, do the people defending Hamilton's defensive moves think Michael's move on Montoya was also fair? I'm looking at you @Peasantslayer . Others as well but I'm bad with memorizing names.

A fan may believe it to be fair/unfair but on the race track, it's all about what's allowed. Since Formula 1 has demonstrated time and again that they refrain from penalizing drivers for using such a tactic, then it is implicitly declared legal through non-action. You may not think it's fair but the stewards will and at the end of the day, that's all the matters to the drivers.

 

[BHRxRacer]

A fan may believe it to be fair/unfair but on the race track, it's all about what's allowed. Since Formula 1 has demonstrated time and again that they refrain from penalizing drivers for using such a tactic, then it is implicitly declared legal through non-action. You may not think it's fair but the stewards will and at the end of the day, that's all the matters to the drivers.

First of all don't mention the words stewards please. Their idiocy, bias and inconsistency is well documented.

Now, like I said before, I am personally all for implicit rules (So was Rosberg until Hungary), but my problem with some members here, particularly @niky , is that whenever I bring up an implicit rule, they jump all over me.

Whenever I say there's an implicit rule, or that Charlie Whiting said something, I get jumped and hear **** like "Charlie doesn't make the rules" or "You're an idiot there isn't a rule for that" or my personal favourite, "citation required".