Earlier you said you had read the FIA rules, now you wish for me to post links for you... Rather lazy on your part and you're taking part in this conversation without accurate information, which also makes your assessment incorrect. Anyway, in the interests of helping people improve their knowledge, I'll post these yet again :
It would be useful to follow your own advice instead of cherry picking.
Earlier you said you had read the FIA rules, now you wish for me to post links for you... Rather lazy on your part and you're taking part in this conversation without accurate information, which also makes your assessment incorrect. Anyway, in the interests of helping people improve their knowledge, I'll post these yet again :
Read all of the information you post... this is information that has been posted by others in the past including me, your application of said rules as far as I can tell is as long as a car is alongside at the apex, regardless of how it got there it is a legal manoeuvre, this is ridiculous.
If you wish to present this a rebuttal you'll need to post the rules to which you are referring because I find no ruling which supports your opinion. GTS is associated with the FIA rules - those are the rules I'm referring to, and that is why GTS was right. My right or wrongness in this isn't the point
Your right or wrongness is the point, it is your interpretation of said rules that is questionable. So I'll play ball here is my rebuttal supported by the rules that you are craving.
if the car is blocking the "racing line", then there is another part of the track not being "blocked" which is legal for other cars to use
Correct, doesn't change the fact that the Mclarens route to the apex was always going to be blocked by the Ferrari. Irrelevant, What you are proving here is that the McLaren should have chosen the outside.
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/
"Who owns the racing line?
The most complicated cases naturally arise once we leave the straight and get into a corner. Both drivers would ideally like to the follow the quickest possible line — the racing line — but there may not be physical space for both drivers to do this. At the same time, drivers would like to obstruct one another as much as possible.
Some of you might be surprised to learn that once a corner begins, the FIA sporting regulations have almost nothing to say, besides ruling that drivers must remain within the track limits! Here, the sporting regulations defer to long-established norms for racing, which may not be known by all fans, and which contain significant grey areas."
The FIA rules do not provide any special protection for cars on the "racing line".
This is because Incidents are reviewed individually. Common sense. Whilst the FIA rules don't provide any special protection, it is understood that there are certain boxes to tick to decide who has the right to the racing line.
You use the term "block" - again this isn't defined in the FIA rules - they only refer to a car "defending" a line. So I'll assume we are talking about a car "defending" the outside line as the OP did
The outside line does not include running as close to the apex as the Ferrari does. The OP may have admitted this but this quite clearly not an outside line.
The overtaking car was far enough alongside at that moment to be entitled to space
Yes but how did that car get there?
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/
"5. Disputes over the apex
Consider the textbook method for overtaking in a corner: the attacker takes an inside line, gets alongside the defender in the braking zone, and beats the defender to the apex. If the attacker is ahead at the apex, there is no dispute over ownership of the racing line. The defender must yield. But what if the attacker is only partially alongside? Who owns the apex then?
Different racing series have their own criteria for how far alongside an attacker must be to have a claim to the apex. In Formula 1, the norms have been explored and refined over the years as a result of drivers like Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher pushing the boundaries and exploiting any grey areas. Today, it is generally accepted that the attacker must be at least halfway alongside the defender when they reach the apex to have a reasonable claim to this piece of track. Moreover, the attacker should not have achieved this position by carrying too much speed to make the corner — this method is called dive-bombing.
Let’s consider three illustrative examples."
In this example the Ferrari did not get alongside during the breaking zone. Yes the Ferrari did get alongside at the apex, but as is written above, he got there in an illegal manner, one by not correctly braking for the corner that has been shown therefore carrying too much speed to successfully take the corner and race alongside the Ferrari who only has to leave a cars width, which he does. Also after watching the video it is clear that the Mclaren opens the steering just before collision, aiming directly for the Ferrari, this is will shorten the distance the Mclaren has to travel and therefore make it quicker to get alongside and also that is without even considering the half hearted braking attempt.
So above is an example of how the following corner could have legally played out, could the Mclaren manage this? No.
So, it is the OP's poor judgement in this case in continuing to turn when another car was on the apex that caused the incident.
You are wrong, it is the Mcalrens poor breaking, poor choice of track to occupy, yes the op could have avoided it, but did he legally have to? no absolutely not, the Ferrari has every right to be where he is, the Mclarens speed steering and angle of attack make navigating this corner impossible, and collision inevitable.
Your assessment is encouraging attempts at poor overtaking judgement the ferrar broke no racing rules as you quote them and I would challenge to prove how he did.
The only reason for the ferrari to avoid contact here is to protect SR racing, which is not in any FIA regulation as you keep quoting. Enough space was left, the Mclaren speed and angle of attack meant it was never going to work.
