2014 Belgian Grand Prix

[SVT Cobra GT]

British Humor is not funny to an Australia.
Australian humor is not funny to a British.
US humor is not funny to either British or Australia.

Nearly all the top comedy films of all time are American. The humor does translate.

As does Monty Python.

 

[Grayfox]

Nearly all the top comedy films of all time are American. The humor does translate.

As does Monty Python.

I know many brits that did not even chuckle at darren and damo, just as not many aussies chuckle at mrs brown.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

I know many brits that did not even chuckle at darren and damo, just as not many aussies chuckle at mrs brown.

To be honest, there aren't many Brits who chuckle at Mrs. Browns Boys.
And to be fair I've not really seen much Aussie comedy but I do find a lot of Aussies funny.

Anyway that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Swagger897]

Do people in America really find this man funny?

I prefer Fallon, but this gif worked...

 

[Hun200kmh]

I am a Monty Python fan and my favourite Monty Python joke is the one where they are all australians (and all called Bruce) and comment how american beer is like making love in a canoe.

Also, a bit of international humour: I love thread derails!


(... and it would be lovely to read @niky , @daan and @Famine entering now in quick succession, explaining the chief weapons of the GTPlanet Inquisition )

 

[BHRxRacer]

So going back to previous grand prix are off topic, but discussing comedy isn't

I personally don't mind btw. Have your fun.

If you would like odometer pictures, you'll have to wait a while. I'm currently working. Of course, that won't prove anything, because I'm not the only driver in the household, but we have two cars with 120k (though one has been through a flood, and the odometer is dead), and one with 250k.

We sold one a while back with 200k on the odometer, but that was purchased secondhand at 150k.

-

Beyond that, I average around 500-1,000 kilometers per test unit, and that's around one to two test units a month, or up to four a week, when I'm unlucky. For those I did from my first test drive until around 2010 or so, you'll have to check webarchive.org for bigbigcar.com (and even then, drives for 2010 were in the forums, not on the main page). After that, everything is available on kotse.com... and for the past two years, at Top Gear Philippines, on the website and in the print magazine... which you can download from buqo.com. It'll cost you, though.

I only put about two to three kilometers on the hundreds of others we've done for COTY, but those are easy to dig up... as it's a matter of public record.

http://caroftheyear.ph/

So it's public. Ok, I wanted to ask for something private or not available to the public. I'll try again.

As for how you feel... I can and do research articles, videos and interviews to back my opinions up. If I can't find something, I don't use it or cite it.

But what if I ask you to cite something you saw on the street? Would you be able to verify that? What if you made the claim that a certain something in your vicinity within an arm's reach that is vital to your survival is 10 inches long, would you be required to verify that according to the AUP?

Which is obviously why he ended up behind Hamilton despite reaching the apex nose to nose? Again, nope.

Make up your mind. If he ended up behind Hamilton then he didn't outbrake himself. If he ended up behind, he wanted to cut in for the switchback and got forced off.

Which one is it?

I have. But you're debating with me.

I didn't start posting here debating with you.

I'm not saying Ayrton didn't do dickish things. The difference here is that Schumacher and Hamilton, when they've bent and broken the rules, they did it in a very calculated manner. Ayrton... he did stupid things out of emotion, really. Though that's not to say some of his more infamous incidents were not done without some forethought.

Some??? Ok let's just disagree then. Ayrton Senna is the biggest total dick since Ayrton Senna. Closest 3 on the current grid to how much of a total dick he is are Hamilton, Maldonado and Kobayashi.

I can also argue that Hamilton/Schumacher's dickiness are also because of emotion. It's emotion that drives you, motivates you to do the calculations (if one is "calculated").

Let's not discuss this anymore I'm tired of going off topic.

In the past, you have criticized Lewis Hamilton for every single incident he's been involved in, whether the rules, the stewards and the analysts have deemed him the perpetrator or victim. Excuse me for not being impressed with your supposed impartiality without being presented with evidence to the contrary.

That's jut flat out wrong.

It's Massa's fault at India.

The funny thing is, according to your guy ahead logic, it's be Hamilton's fault.

I have given him the benefit of the doubt when there was doubt, then criticized him when doubt was removed.

You mean in incidents?

I've given Hamilton credit before. A lot.

If you were to put all current drivers on a brand new track, in a car they never drove, with no telemetry or data, and only 3 laps? Hamilton would probably get the quickest one.

The true test of impartiality is the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence.

But I have seen no new evidence in this discussion. All I see are contradictory claims.

You should try it, sometime.

Honestly? That's your problem if you think I'm impartial. Your memories are weak.

The previous years I was called a Vettel hater, and that I'd hate him no matter what etc etc. I gave him credit for some race last year, and guess how many times I praised him this season? SMH

We tremble in anticipation. Truly.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

@BHRxRacer, there are 21 other accidents awaiting each driver at the start of a race. Sometimes one of those is visited on a driver completely outside their own fault and irregardless of the statistical probability that the driver will cause such an incident themselves.

Each driver is pushing the bounds of legal acceptability in the technical and sporting regulations in order to take the biggest advantage over their rivals... at least those heading for WDCs often are.

The idea that Driver X (no relation to Malcolm, it's not what you think) is more to blame in an incident because they caused a similar one themselves is irrelevant. Each case is judged on the position and movement of the cars above all else.

You don't seem to be able employ that same impartiality, at least not from what I've read in here in recent pages.

It's a long time since I saw a 24 Months of Spa thread though, who's winning?

I understand the confusion, somewhat.

Sometimes when I argue, I don't argue my opinion. I argue the member's previous opinion, so that when they disagree, they're basically disagreeing with their own logic that they used before. This is mainly what I've been doing here. If you want to know my personal opinion, find my initial post in this thread. The one you said I put out my point well?

And hey, I can use @Danoff 's logic in defining rights and say it's logic that dictates Hamilton is ALWAYS at fault(or sharing it). By initiating a wrongdoing (crashing into somenoe saying he needs space, or being crashed to saying it's his line), he announces that he does not believe that the wrongdoing is wrong, and therefore when others do it to him it's not wrong. In that case, at best, anything with Hamilton is a racing incident.

I love how I can respond to any post here with an old post. Sometimes by the same member.

Looked like you were still putting some blame on Hamilton:Which proved my earlier point. No comment necessary.

Whose fault do you think the incident at India was? Please answer.

The 1% is because one can always avoid the incident simply by not racing that day. It was a joke that you failed to understand, again.

 

[Danoff]

And hey, I can use @Danoff 's logic in defining rights and say it's logic that dictates Hamilton is ALWAYS at fault(or sharing it). By initiating a wrongdoing (crashing into somenoe saying he needs space, or being crashed to saying it's his line), he announces that he does not believe that the wrongdoing is wrong, and therefore when others do it to him it's not wrong. In that case, at best, anything with Hamilton is a racing incident.

I think you're starting to get it. Of course it doesn't apply here because contracts, but I know you were joking.

 

[FormulaKimball]

Having ignored a particular user, my browser gives the appearance that niky is having a long and difficult argument with himself.

And it really just goes to show how even when providing TEXTBOOK examples of proper racing technique, there are some that will say "that's just your opinion/how you race", despite not having any actual racing experience themselves. Moreover it illustrates why in this past race and many others, you can find many examples of how to race properly (e.g. the number of times Alonso similarly tried the outside there but instead checked up and counterattacked on the EXIT and not on the entry) but you still get the handful of drivers who will say Nuh-uh! and end up crashing or making contact that destroys their race and several others'.

There's more to worry about than who has rights to how much of the track based on how much of their nose they managed to stick in. Racing on a road course primarily involves using the racing line, it is the fastest way around the track and should not be deviated from if you can help it. You use all the width of the track in most places, and part of why it is fast is because you can ACCELERATE through the apex and out the exit. Getting caught in endless side-by-side battles slows both of you down, so you need to pick your battles and in particular with corner complexes (e.g. the s-turn that caused the contact we've been endlessly discussing) you shouldn't wait to back out of a hopeless overtake attempt until you're now not going to make the corner without clipping the guy's rear wheel on your front wing - by then you are so far off the racing line that you have no good angle through the exit and who knows how much longer before you can put your right foot back down. If you tried a move like Rosberg's in racing school, I assure you your racing instructor would give you a stern talking to.

Rosberg didn't have any part of his car next to Hamilton until AFTER the 50m board - that was a dive bomb with no hope of overtaking successfully/cleanly. Way too late to expect the car in front to give room - even if you get your car a little overlapped you now have to slow down so much for the following left hander that all you're going to accomplish is hitting the car in front who will naturally be trying to accelerate through the apex - he can't look at his mirrors at that point, he's committed to his line through the corner. Anyone who has actually raced understands this. If you try to look at your mirrors mid-corner you're likely to end up off the circuit. That's why an overtaking driver who expects to pass safely MUST get enough of his car side-by-side BEFORE the braking zone... typically at least a wheel BEFORE you start braking so you can be side-by-side with both wheels for the corner entry. If you're attacking the outside, you need your front wheel IN FRONT of the guy on the inside or it probably won't work due to simple geometry.

Ultimately, the stewards decided not to apply a penalty but if Rosberg had just put up his hand and said "oops, sorry", well then that's racing, he ruined the race for at least himself and Lewis and Massa but not intentionally. And we all would have moved on. I know of plenty of examples of this in IndyCar (e.g. radio "tell him I'm sorry") or the past Tudor race at Road America (Ricky Taylor did almost the same thing and spun the car in front, afterwards he said "I feel so bad for them, you never want to spin somebody... I thought I was up to his doors, but I think we may have got away with one today"). I guess maybe it brings more interest to the sport by getting everyone wound up rather than squashing incidents right away. Drama instead of sportsmanship...

 

[niky]

But what if I ask you to cite something you saw on the street? Would you be able to verify that? What if you made the claim that a certain something in your vicinity within an arm's reach that is vital to your survival is 10 inches long, would you be required to verify that according to the AUP?

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way.

You're claiming certain people said certain things on-air. That is a matter of public record, and if they said such things, there should be proof. And if they truly said such things, their own writing online or in print should corroborate it.

Make up your mind. If he ended up behind Hamilton then he didn't outbrake himself. If he ended up behind, he wanted to cut in for the switchback and got forced off.

Which one is it?

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way.

He got to the corner first and ended up behind past the apex. Why is that? Braked too late. Braked too hard. Got a slow exit. As is painfully obvious in the video.

Some??? Ok let's just disagree then. Ayrton Senna is the biggest total dick since Ayrton Senna. Closest 3 on the current grid to how much of a total dick he is are Hamilton, Maldonado and Kobayashi.

I can also argue that Hamilton/Schumacher's dickiness are also because of emotion. It's emotion that drives you, motivates you to do the calculations (if one is "calculated").

Let's not discuss this anymore I'm tired of going off topic.

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way.

You can't say your piece and say the discussion is over. Not on a public forum.

If you're having trouble telling the difference between a calculated move and an impulsive one, perhaps discussing driver psychology is not your strong suit.

That's jut flat out wrong.

It's Massa's fault at India.

The funny thing is, according to your guy ahead logic, it's be Hamilton's fault.

Nope. Collision at corner entry and in a braking zone. As covered in the rules.

You mean in incidents?

I've given Hamilton credit before. A lot.

If you were to put all current drivers on a brand new track, in a car they never drove, with no telemetry or data, and only 3 laps? Hamilton would probably get the quickest one.

So what do quickest laps have to do with incidents?

But I have seen no new evidence in this discussion. All I see are contradictory claims.

Well, if you're asked to read the instructions for the dozenth time, then yes, there's nothing new there, if you refuse to believe the letter of the regulations.

Honestly? That's your problem if you think I'm impartial. Your memories are weak.

I'm pretty sure you're as far from impartial as possible when it comes to interpretation of the rules. Which have been explained to you dozens of times, and which you still refuse to acknowledge.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

What sarcasm?

logic

As Danoff has noted... contracts... and the contractual obligation to follow the rules of the road.

And that contract means, whether you like it or not, that drivers follow the explicit rules set by the series. And that's that.

The 1% is because one can always avoid the incident simply by not racing that day. It was a joke that you failed to understand, again.

Humour doesn't suit you.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way.

You're claiming certain people said certain things on-air. That is a matter of public record, and if they said such things, there should be proof. And if they truly said such things, their own writing online or in print should corroborate it.

No, sometimes the things I say I claim people said it on air on a specific program. I have proven this to be true on several occasions, perhaps some of them I did confuse two pundits together, but I have proven it to be true before. Also, I don't always remember WHEN I saw it on live TV. There's countless of hours available. It's infeasible for either of us to validate that.

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way.

He got to the corner first and ended up behind past the apex. Why is that? Braked too late. Braked too hard. Got a slow exit. As is painfully obvious in the video.

sigh

You can't say your piece and say the discussion is over. Not on a public forum.

I was suggesting.

If you're having trouble telling the difference between a calculated move and an impulsive one, perhaps discussing driver psychology is not your strong suit.

Senna's moves weren't impulsive. Your calculations can influence your impulse.

So what do quickest laps have to do with incidents?

If I was impartial I wouldn't give Hamilton that much credit would I?

Well, if you're asked to read the instructions for the dozenth time, then yes, there's nothing new there, if you refuse to believe the letter of the regulations.



I'm pretty sure you're as far from impartial as possible when it comes to interpretation of the rules. Which have been explained to you dozens of times, and which you still refuse to acknowledge.

Rules say you can't hinder another driver.

What sarcasm?

Glad I can make you all so excited to get on GTP then.

And that contract means, whether you like it or not, that drivers follow the explicit rules set by the series. And that's that.

Explicit rules, right? After all this talk defending your point with implicit rules

Humour doesn't suit you.

Thanks?

I think you're starting to get it. Of course it doesn't apply here because contracts, but I know you were joking.

I always did get it, I just disagree on the label you put on your logic. Back to that other thread.

 

[Famine]

Whose fault do you think the incident at India was? Please answer.

No idea. I don't even know what incident you're talking about.

The 1% is because one can always avoid the incident simply by not racing that day. It was a joke that you failed to understand, again.

I guess that means you've still utterly failed to answer the question - or you were lying with your answer. No wonder you rack up so many pages. A straight answer would do you the world of good - and stop so many people from having to put you on their ignore list.

Try to answer the question with, as I asked last time, honesty. Answering it with dishonesty, as you've now done twice, is not acceptable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@BHRxRacer, here's Jackie Stewart (on day release from Guantanamo Bay) being trolled by interviewing Ayrton Senna, the impulseless driver of your earlier post. Great clip, actually.

 

[BHRxRacer]

No idea. I don't even know what incident you're talking about.I guess that means you've still utterly failed to answer the question - or you were lying with your answer. No wonder you rack up so many pages. A straight answer would do you the world of good - and stop so many people from having to put you on their ignore list.

Try to answer the question with, as I asked last time, honesty. Answering it with dishonesty, as you've now done twice, is not acceptable.

I don't think you read every post here. This incident:





I did give a straight answer. I think it's Massa's fault. If you think I didn't, I did now so just stop nitpicking.

@BHRxRacer, here's Jackie Stewart (on day release from Guantanamo Bay) being trolled by interviewing Ayrton Senna, the impulseless driver of your earlier post. Great clip, actually.

I must have seen this 9000 times and it makes me like him less every time

I still think that his calculated mindset (when I see a gap I'll just go for it) is the one that drives his impulse. Which technically means it's not an impulse, but for the love of god let's not get into what words mean.

 

[Famine]

I don't think you read every post here. This incident:

[video]

I did give a straight answer. I think it's Massa's fault. If you think I didn't, I did now so just stop nitpicking.

You said it was 99% Massa's fault - thus partly Hamilton's. Then you said the 1% was because Hamilton was driving and if he hadn't the crash wouldn't have happened. Then you said that bit was a joke, several posts later.

At best this means you're not being honest with your answers. There'd be far fewer posts for people to read if you were just honest with your answers. Why can't you just answer a straight question with a straight answer rather than dancing around with this crap for days?

 

[BHRxRacer]

You said it was 99% Massa's fault - thus partly Hamilton's. Then you said the 1% was because Hamilton was driving and if he hadn't the crash wouldn't have happened. Then you said that bit was a joke, several posts later.

At best this means you're not being honest with your answers. There'd be far fewer posts for people to read if you were just honest with your answers. Why can't you just answer a straight question with a straight answer rather than dancing around with this crap for days?

OMG I gave you the straight answer. It's 100% Massa's fault. Now that I've demonstrated that I can indeed not blame Hamilton (which you wrongfully claimed I can't), what do YOU think of the incident?

 

[Famine]

OMG I gave you the straight answer. It's 100% Massa's fault.

Are you sure this time, or is it a joke that I don't get?

Now that I've demonstrated that I can indeed not blame Hamilton (which you wrongfully claimed I can't)

It has taken you two days to come out with a straight answer to a question I asked you. Anyone else when asked what accident Hamilton would have to be in before they didn't blame him would have answered. But then no-one else has displayed such rabid, one-track hatred for a single driver to need the question to be asked...

As said above, that means that at best you are choosing not to be honest with your answers. At worst it means you're choosing not to be honest with yourself. In both cases I have no reason to put any kind of value into a single word you say on this site - and the quantity of people who now have you on their ignore list would seem to suggest I'm not alone.

Is that really what you want your character on this site to be?

what do YOU think of the incident?

I don't really care about the incident.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Are you sure this time, or is it a joke that I don't get?It has taken you two days to come out with a straight answer to a question I asked you. Anyone else when asked what accident Hamilton would have to be in before they didn't blame him would have answered. But then no-one else has displayed such rabid, one-track hatred for a single driver to need the question to be asked...

As said above, that means that at best you are choosing not to be honest with your answers. At worst it means you're choosing not to be honest with yourself. In both cases I have no reason to put any kind of value into a single word you say on this site - and the quantity of people who now have you on their ignore list would seem to suggest I'm not alone.

Is that really what you want your character on this site to be?I don't really care about the incident.

It's not like I was being tortured for 48 hours into giving you the answer. You only gave me a clear question once, and that question was rather insulting so I mocked that with a joke (the 1%). After that I said it's Massa's fault. Plain, simple, straight and direct.

I don't want my character to be anything. I see people contradicting themselves, I call it out. That doesn't work, so I try a different tactic in arguing their counter argument (proof by contradiction). Some fall for it but refuse to concede. When they show stubbornness, I mock it by giving less than serious answers. I honestly do not care what people think of me, I do what I think is right, what I think is fair. People can take from it what they please.

I don't care if you don't care about the incident. I want to know whose fault you think it is, and see if it's consistent with the logic behind your opinion on other incidents.

edit-

Also the "collides with himself" answer.

 

[Famine]

It's not like I was being tortured for 48 hours into giving you the answer. You only gave me a clear question once, and that question was rather insulting so I mocked that with a joke (the 1%). After that I said it's Massa's fault. Plain, simple, straight and direct.

The story of Matilda in a nutshell.

You didn't want to answer, so you lied. You didn't want to answer again, so you lied. Now you've lied so much, nothing you say can be trusted.


That's your character here, now. Good job you don't care.

 

[BHRxRacer]

The story of Matilda in a nutshell.

You didn't want to answer, so you lied. You didn't want to answer again, so you lied. Now you've lied so much, nothing you say can be trusted.


That's your character here, now. Good job you don't care.

Good job dodging the Massa incident. You're smarter than others here, I'll give you that. No wonder they like you so much.

Also blame yourselves if you I don't give you a straight answer. Ask me nicely, and I will answer anything directly. If someone comes up to you and says "Hey idiot, what's your IQ? HAHA 0 right? What a moron". Would you seriously answer a question like that with honesty? You were wrongfully* accusing me of bias in a rather mean way, I wasn't going to give you a direct answer for that.

Wrongfully because if you had been reading my posts about F1 since I signed up, you'd know I've praised and not blamed Hamilton before. If you haven't been reading much of my posts, then it's wrong of you to make such an accusation. Own up.

 

[Famine]

Good job dodging the Massa incident. You're smarter than others here, I'll give you that. No wonder they like you so much.

Also blame yourselves if you I don't give you a straight answer. Ask me nicely, and I will answer anything directly. If someone comes up to you and says "Hey idiot, what's your IQ? HAHA 0 right? What a moron". Would you seriously answer a question like that with honesty? You were wrongfully* accusing me of bias in a rather mean way, I wasn't going to give you a direct answer for that.

Wrongfully because if you had been reading my posts about F1 since I signed up, you'd know I've praised and not blamed Hamilton before. If you haven't been reading much of my posts, then it's wrong of you to make such an accusation. Own up.

Yep, it's everyone else's fault. We made you lie.

As I said three days ago now, sometimes, when faced with someone so irrational they will call right left, all that's left is to laugh.

 

[BHRxRacer]

when faced with someone so irrational they will call right left, all that's left is to laugh.

Indeed.

 

[NotThePrez]

Not sure if its been posted, but apparentley the FIA is not going to investigate the Hamilton-Rosberg incident.

I guess they figured that maybe Toto will rain down hell for them.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not sure if it's been posted, but apparentley the FIA is not going to investigate the Hamilton-Rosberg incident.

I guess they figured that maybe Toto will rain down hell for them.

Because no new evidence has been presented. Wolffinator denied Hamilton's claim calling it nonsense. No reason to further investigate.

 

[jtv90069]

Because no new evidence has been presented. Wolffinator denied Hamilton's claim calling it nonsense. No reason to further investigate.

Tito Wolf denied it was 'deliberately crashing', but Hamilton was 'broadly correct' in his recollection of the meeting. Where exactly do you get nonsense from?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Tito Wolf denied it was 'deliberately crashing', but Hamilton was 'broadly correct' in his recollection of the meeting. Where exactly do you get nonsense from?

He literally said that.

edit

What he didn't say was that Hamilton is broadly correct. You made that one up.

 

[jtv90069]

He literally said that.

edit

What he didn't say was that Hamilton is broadly correct. You made that one up.

Thanks for the link I missed that part before.

Wolff was keen to distance himself from an initial briefing from within Mercedes that Hamilton’s recollection of his meeting with Rosberg was ‘broadly correct’. Wolff said: ‘They agreed to disagree in a very heated discussion, but it wasn’t deliberately crashing. That is nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-body-crash-team-mate-Lewis-Hamilton-Spa.html

and here

"But while confirming that Hamilton's account of Rosberg's phrasing was correct"
http://racer.com/f1/item/107825-wolff-rosberg-was-misinterpreted

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Simon Cass also said this on his twitter account which was then also used on f1fanatic and others so it's not made up by anyone. Only an easy out for those who themselves haven't also read everything on the situation.

https://twitter.com/simon_cass/status/503885738963111937

 

[niky]

It's infeasible for either of us to validate that.

On the other hand, it's easy to validate that said people have stated an opinion to the opposite effect, as I've shown. Hence: research, and if the research doesn't support the claim, don't make it.

Senna's moves weren't impulsive. Your calculations can influence your impulse.

You've got it the wrong way around. Emotional impulses affect decisions.

Rules say you can't hinder another driver.

Explicit rules, right? After all this talk defending your point with implicit rules

Let's get this straight: The rules allow drivers to perform defensive maneuvers. Which is "hindering."

Any reference for allowable movement in defense is made in regards to the racing line. Explicitly. Not the track centerline. Not the lane centerline. The racing line.

When most people look at a track, this is what they see.

In this case, Hamilton would have no excuse for moving into the line Rosberg occupies.

But when a racing driver or steward looks at a track, this is what they see.

Note, if this were at the corner entry, Hamilton would be judged to be at fault, as Massa was in the incident you love to cite. As at the bottom, on the straight and in the braking area before the apex, drivers are expected to leave at least one car's width for each other.

Past the apex, the racing line takes precedence. Hamilton is not allowed to deviate from the racing line to hinder or block his opponent.

He is allowed to follow the racing line, as it is not an abnormal change of direction. Which is why Hamilton is moving across the track and is entitled to do so. In your interpretation, which is all I'm here to debate, the lead driver does not have this right.

In the interpretation of racing officials and the majority of drivers (except Maldonado), he does. He simply can't chop to the inside of the next turn (corner entry) if a "significant portion" of the other car is alongside his rear wheel. As the edge of Nico's wing juuuust clipped his rear tire, after Nico made that "correction" to the right, that means Nico's car was not alongside... and, furthermore, Nico still had space to his left during the contact. If he'd kept to that space, there would have been none.

Do note: I agree this is a race incident, and shall remain such unless it is proven that Rosberg did cause a collision deliberately. There is some question as to whether not backing out is deliberately causing a collision. Whether it's punishable is questionable, but it is very, very naughty.

-

I have challenged you to find any rule that explicitly states a driver is not allowed to stay on the racing line mid-corner or on corner exit if they have not deviated from it. And so far, you have not.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Thanks for the link I missed that part before.

Wolff was keen to distance himself from an initial briefing from within Mercedes that Hamilton’s recollection of his meeting with Rosberg was ‘broadly correct’. Wolff said: ‘They agreed to disagree in a very heated discussion, but it wasn’t deliberately crashing. That is nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-body-crash-team-mate-Lewis-Hamilton-Spa.html

and here

"But while confirming that Hamilton's account of Rosberg's phrasing was correct"
http://racer.com/f1/item/107825-wolff-rosberg-was-misinterpreted

I still don't see any direct quote from Totto saying "broadly incorrect".

Simon Cass also said this on his twitter account which was then also used on f1fanatic and others so it's not made up by anyone. Only an easy out for those who themselves haven't also read everything on the situation.

https://twitter.com/simon_cass/status/503885738963111937

But it wasn't Totto that said that.

@niky that just hurt my eyes. It's 5:30 AM.

On the other hand, it's easy to validate that said people have stated an opinion to the opposite effect, as I've shown. Hence: research, and if the research doesn't support the claim, don't make it.



You've got it the wrong way around. Emotional impulses affect decisions.





Let's get this straight: The rules allow drivers to perform defensive maneuvers. Which is "hindering."

Any reference for allowable movement in defense is made in regards to the racing line. Explicitly. Not the track centerline. Not the lane centerline. The racing line.

When most people look at a track, this is what they see.
View attachment 212908
In this case, Hamilton would have no excuse for moving into the line Rosberg occupies.

But when a racing driver or steward looks at a track, this is what they see.
View attachment 212907
Note, if this were at the corner entry, Hamilton would be judged to be at fault, as Massa was in the incident you love to cite. As at the bottom, on the straight and in the braking area before the apex, drivers are expected to leave at least one car's width for each other.

Past the apex, the racing line takes precedence. Hamilton is not allowed to deviate from the racing line to hinder or block his opponent.

He is allowed to follow the racing line, as it is not an abnormal change of direction. Which is why Hamilton is moving across the track and is entitled to do so. In your interpretation, which is all I'm here to debate, the lead driver does not have this right.

In the interpretation of racing officials and the majority of drivers (except Maldonado), he does. He simply can't chop to the inside of the next turn (corner entry) if a "significant portion" of the other car is alongside his rear wheel. As the edge of Nico's wing juuuust clipped his rear tire, after Nico made that "correction" to the right, that means Nico's car was not alongside... and, furthermore, Nico still had space to his left during the contact. If he'd kept to that space, there would have been none.

Do note: I agree this is a race incident, and shall remain such unless it is proven that Rosberg did cause a collision deliberately. There is some question as to whether not backing out is deliberately causing a collision. Whether it's punishable is questionable, but it is very, very naughty.

-

I have challenged you to find any rule that explicitly states a driver is not allowed to stay on the racing line mid-corner or on corner exit if they have not deviated from it. And so far, you have not.

I hope you don't think I'm part of "most people".

Look, I'm tired. You can't find explicit rules supporting what you said either, you're just interpreting the rules based on what racing is (as I do, and others including Nico himself). This took too long. At some point I'm sure Nico will have Charlie make the rules more explicit, then we can have this argument again.


Did you draw those things yourself?

 

[niky]

Look, I'm tired. You can't find explicit rules supporting what you said either, you're just interpreting the rules based on what racing is.

Nope. I'm telling you exactly what the rules say you're not allowed to do. And I'm clarifying the reference point of the rules. All rules are referenced against the racing line. And nowhere does it say that you're not allowed to follow it, except if you've already moved away from it, or if someone is alongside you on the straight or in the braking zone.

Again: where does it say you're not allowed to follow the racing line if you are not on the straight or braking zone?

Deliberate crowding doesn't count. It's deliberate if the only reason to move in that direction is to force the other guy off. As another example, if the other guy is coming off the pit exit road onto the straight, and you're passing through ahead of him... he's got no place to go, but you have the right to that line... his choice is either to crash into you or slot in behind you.

You are not "deliberately crowding" him. It's his choice to be on a part of the track that has no continuation.

Did you draw those things yourself?

Took all of fifteen minutes after finding a Google Map capture of Les Combes.

Not enough chartreuse?