2017 Formula 1 Azerbaijan Grand PrixFormula 1

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Excerpt from the BBC race report.

"The stewards examined data from his car and found that he had maintained a more or less constant speed, had not lifted off the throttle or braked, and had behaved no differently at that re-start at that point on the track than at the other two re-starts."

Lewis this, Lewis that, blah, blah, bleugh.

This right here, see people saying that let's be "unbiased" I feel don't get the term. I feel that those saying so, perhaps like Vettel more than Lewis and think instantly that Lewis had to be doing something evil. So if you're going to punish one you must punish Lewis too, cause it's obviously his fault Seb ran into the side of him and none of this would have happened had he backed up the pack like every leader has done under an SC. This victim blaming crap should not be called "unbiased" as if some transition term, because a driver is or isn't liked.

I'm still waiting Hamilton's penalty... (somehow he never get those...)

That's interesting considering he got a 5 second stop and go this season at the third round. He has a couple points on his license currently...but please keep on with uniformed drivel and pass it about as if you wont get called on it.

You accused him of delibetately crashing into Hamilton based on nothing more than conjecture. That's an attack.

So is claiming brake check like so many, why aren't you doing the same arbitration on those individuals?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This victim blaming crap should not be called "unbiased" as if some transition term, because a driver is or isn't liked.

I'd hardly call Hamilton a victim, since he suffered no net loss, the contact was not malicious, and I can understand why Vettel felt aggreived at the time.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'd hardly call Hamilton a victim, since he suffered no net loss, the contact was not malicious, and I can understand why Vettel felt aggreived at the time.

Okay, I hate my neighbors noisy music while my kids sleep, clearly the correct action would be to beat on their door, and punch whoever answers said door. Cause you understand my aggravation in the moment, and loss of rational thought. Though any actual governing body wouldn't.

It is victim blaming when someone retaliates as Vettel did, and then make the claim or suggest something like...

"well he didn't mean too do it and wouldn't have done it if that devil Hamilton didn't brake check, what a dangerous act!"

Yet we know that he didn't brake check because stewards analyzed the data saw a correlation between that and the several other prior restarts, wow. That would be called a trend, indicating that no error was to be seen or *le gasp* made! And yes there is inflection in my recent posts. So I plan to take a break after this as to not say something really bad.

Of course this goes without to say your opinion is one of the few lowest here on the boards when it comes to drivers, especially those who are British.

 

[NW48]

especially those who are British.

I don't think it's a British driver problem. He was a fan of Button so it isn't that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't think it's a British driver problem. He was a fan of Button so it isn't that.

That's my point he has no objective middle ground. Either he hates most of them or loves one. Getting an impartial conversation out of him is like pulling teeth from a crocodile.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Either he hates most of them or loves one.

I also liked Colin McRae so you can make that two.

I'm enthusiastic about the prospects of Lando Norris and George Russell.

I'm neutral about the likes of David Coulthard and Jordan King and Scott Redding.

Maybe the issue is not that I have a bias for or against the concept of British drivers, but that you've never asked me about specific ones.

It is victim blaming when someone retaliates as Vettel did, and then make the claim or suggest something like...

When you use the term "victim-blaming" it implies that Hamilton suffered from some sort of crime against his person. Since there is no evidence that Vettel deliberately hit him, I don't think you can really call Vettel's actions a crime.

If you're following someone in the street and they stop abruptly, causing you to trip and hit them as you fall, are they your victim? No. It was an accident. And until such time as you can show me evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that Vettel did not deliberately hit Hamilton.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

When you use the term "victim-blaming" it implies that Hamilton suffered from some sort of crime against his person. Since there is no evidence that Vettel deliberately hit him, I don't think you can really call Vettel's actions a crime.

No it doesn't, unlike the term brake check which is very definitive. The word victim has a broad scope, and a "crime" was done, a driver caused a avoidable contact with him. So people are going to the keyboards, claiming as you did and myself somewhat "well it was on purpose, and he only did it cause of Lewis to begin with. Had Lewis not done that Vettel wouldn't have hit him, so it's Lewis's fault Vettel acted like a five year old with a multi million dollar cars."

That right there is victim blaming, as if one Lewis asked for it, two deserved it, and three due to one and two creates a buffer where either both are punished or none. Doesn't work that way.

If you're following someone in the street and they stop abruptly, causing you to trip and hit them as you fall, are they your victim? No. It was an accident. And until such time as you can show me evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that Vettel did not deliberately hit Hamilton.

Well he didn't stop abruptly that's been proven so...this is a non-argument in that case. It's also a non-argument because no one is talking about the accident where Vettel ran into the back of Lewis who was backing up the pack before the restart. The FIA punished him based on evidence, that is evidence enough, Seb is pretending he is unaware of colliding with Lewis. The point being whether Vettel did it on purpose (I too don't believe he did) or not, he put both of them in that position and never should have. That's it, there is no well or what if, no. You want to do a revolving door argument, reread this post here forward.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Seb is pretending he is unaware of colliding with Lewis.

I'm not so sure about that. We know he gets fired up when he's angry - his behaviour in Mexico being a prime example of as much - and he was clearly worked up enough to take both hands off the wheel after the initial contact. Given that it was a low-speed collision that didn't cause any damage to his car, I wonder if he could have been so angry that he didn't even realise that he had hit Hamilton.

You want to do a revolving door argument,

No, what I want is for people to judge drivers by the same standards. At the time of the collision, everyone assumed that Hamilton had done nothing wrong and that Vettel had deliberately hit him. If Hamilton got the benefit of the doubt, why didn't Vettel? Why the assumption of intentional wrongdoing when an accident born out of misjudgement in the heat of the moment was and equally (if not more) valid explanation?

 

[Earth]

I get the feeling some people post in these F1 threads just for the arguments

 

[niky]

lol are you cereal?

The stewards consistently allow the leading driver on the inside to run out to the edge of the corner on exit. Because the car is, at the moment, on the racing line and can't tighten it without conceding the corner. A driver overtaking on the outside has to adjust.

They also penalize the leading driver if the following driver is alongside him under braking on the inside. Basically, you can't turn off the racing line to block, but you can stick to the racing line and the following driver has to adjust.

-

Also, on Vettel's guilt: intentional or accidental, that bump was worth points on his license, period. This isn't NASCAR. Which is why he gets a penalty.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not so sure about that. We know he gets fired up when he's angry - his behaviour in Mexico being a prime example of as much - and he was clearly worked up enough to take both hands off the wheel after the initial contact. Given that it was a low-speed collision that didn't cause any damage to his car, I wonder if he could have been so angry that he didn't even realise that he had hit Hamilton.


No, what I want is for people to judge drivers by the same standards. At the time of the collision, everyone assumed that Hamilton had done nothing wrong and that Vettel had deliberately hit him. If Hamilton got the benefit of the doubt, why didn't Vettel? Why the assumption of intentional wrongdoing when an accident born out of misjudgement in the heat of the moment was and equally (if not more) valid explanation?

First off I don't speak for everyone, I just give a general outlook based on my perspective that I try very hard to keep objective. Second, I gave both the benefit of the doubt equally. What I didn't excuse was a driver pulling out of the queue and causing an avoidable collision even if it wasn't deliberate. He shouldn't have done that. Everything else I spoke on. So I'm just making sure this singular piece is clear to you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So I'm just making sure this singular piece is clear to you.

I get that - I do - but ever since I suggested that Vettel deserves the benefit of the doubt, people have been spinning it as if I think that Vettel shouldn't have gotten the penalty and/or that Hamilton should have gotten one.

 

[daan]

Until the stewards release their telemetry all we have to go by is what FOM have already shared:

The last I heard, that on-screen telemetry came from sensors in the TV camera, so I wouldn't necessarily vouch for the absolute accuracy of it.

The way I saw it at the time, was that Hamilton rolled round the corner, didn't accelerate as is his prerogative as leader of the pack. Vettel misjudged and ran into the back of Hamilton. He was then incensed and drove next to Hamilton, gesticulating, and then he drove into the side of Hamilton. I don't think at the time that Vettel even realised he hit Hamilton. However, Vettel did drive into Hamilton and that deserved a penalty and, in my view, a stronger one than the one he got.

 

[BrainsBush]

Today seen on Marktplaats.nl (kind of Dutch Ebay). For sale RB13 of Max, barely driven

It is written like Max himself offered it via Marktplaats.nl:

"I've driven it for just a couple of months and I'm in to something new.
This RB13 is a well maintained vehicle has new tires and not that many kilometers on the ODO
I did a couple of races but just a few laps per race and for the rest of the time the car was always inside".

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

This right here, see people saying that let's be "unbiased" I feel don't get the term. I feel that those saying so, perhaps like Vettel more than Lewis and think instantly that Lewis had to be doing something evil.

I get the feeling some people post in these F1 threads just for the arguments

These quotes pretty much sum up most of the reasons as to why I don't bother participating in F1 threads either here or any other site. Seemingly more people over time would prefer to turn reality on its head for whatever reason.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

However, Vettel did drive into Hamilton and that deserved a penalty and, in my view, a stronger one than the one he got.

Only if it was intentional. The last time this sort of penalty was handed out was when Grosjean nearly killed Alonso. While that certainly wasn't intentional, it was a much more serious incident. The only penalties more severe than a ten-second stop/go are outright disqualification and a race ban, and those are far too harsh for the situation.

 

[spyrrari]

Today seen on Marktplaats.nl (kind of Dutch Ebay). For sale RB13 of Max, barely driven

It is written like Max himself offered it via Marktplaats.nl:

"I've driven it for just a couple of months and I'm in to something new.
This RB13 is a well maintained vehicle has new tires and not that many kilometers on the ODO
I did a couple of races but just a few laps per race and for the rest of the time the car was always inside".



View attachment 656400

Spy.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Interestingly, this is the earliest in a season that all teams have scored points since 1996

 

[JayOTT]

Interestingly, this is the earliest in a season that all teams have scored points since 1996

Minardi and Forti never scored in 1996.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I don't care if Vettel and Hamilton had a prang, all I care about is Ricciardo winning his first race of the season... After a couple of unfortunate retirements.

But if I could say one thing about the crash, it's that I find it hard to believe how Vettel could be childish. It's just stupid.

 

[Liquid]

He is blamed for everything, including his Monaco spin, and is treated a lot worse than other drivers of his 'caliber' - i.e. Nasr, Ericsson, Merhi. I feel that he has the Chilton-Stroll problem in that he is directly related to the 'money' and people tend to be less civil in those cases.

Pay drivers are fine as long as they have talent.

 

[gt362gamer]

The stewards consistently allow the leading driver on the inside to run out to the edge of the corner on exit. Because the car is, at the moment, on the racing line and can't tighten it without conceding the corner. A driver overtaking on the outside has to adjust.

They also penalize the leading driver if the following driver is alongside him under braking.

-

Also, on Vettel's guilt: intentional or accidental, that bump was worth points on his license, period. This isn't NASCAR. Which is why he gets a penalty.

Maldonado was alongside Hamilton on braking so...

 

[JayOTT]

Maldonado was alongside Hamilton on braking so...

If there's one thing I've learned from trying to debate this incident over the years, it's that some people simply refuse to accept that forcing another driver off the track is unsportsmanlike and should never be done on purpose.

 

[ShiftingGears]

When Kimi needed his steering wheel.

- Kimi "The Iceman" Raikkonen

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But if I could say one thing about the crash, it's that I find it hard to believe how Vettel could be childish.

Vettel wants to talk to Hamilton and "clear the air". Hamilton says he's not interested in anything Vettel has to say.

 

[wajdi1977]

 

[TenEightyOne]

No comment from you, just a stolen video?

 

[Touring Mars]

Sebastian Vettel's post-race interview may end up being used in Psychology classes across the world as a classic example of 'complete denial'. The fact that he suggested that his penalty was due to him accidentally rear-ending Hamilton (and not the subsequent deliberate ramming incident) is as astonishing as it was laughable, but it was also adding to insult to injury, except this time he was insulting the intelligence of every person who saw what happened. Vettel had plenty of time to process what had happened and to figure out what he could have said to the waiting media - a credible explanation and an apology would have been a smart move, but he chose not to do that and instead offered a garbled excuse ('it's a man's sport and these things happen') coupled with a childish attempt at shifting the blame on to someone else. I think everyone can appreciate that even the top sportspeople can make mistakes and can do or say stupid things in the heat of the moment, but acting like it never happened or making mealy-mouthed excuses just makes a bad incident worse. I was hoping that Vettel could have just said 'I was angry at what I thought was unsporting behaviour and I wanted him to know that I was not happy about it - but I shouldn't have lashed out and I regret what I did'. Is that too much to expect from a 4-time World Champion?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Touring Mars, as I often remind people Martin Brundle claims that two parts of the "normal" brain are missing in the best F1 drivers: fear and self-blame

 

[JayOTT]

It's a ploy from Vettel to gain a psychological advantage(tm). By deleting the 2nd collision from his memory bank he is able to maintain complete self-confidence in his own ability to drive flawlessly, and also paint himself as the hero fighting against the "evil corrupt" FIA and Mercedes World Order...