First time I've agreed with Vileneuve for a long time!

[~misfit~]

<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>

At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.

It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).

His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

[Alan Baker]

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

Agreed.

The first incident was in the heat of the first lap melee...

...but there is no excuse for the second. Someone—multiple someones in
fact—could have been killed by what was a completely deliberate act (or
if it wasn't deliberate, Perez is too stupid to be allowed to race ever
again).

A one race ban is the MINIMUM he should have received.

[geoff]

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't
accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

Ummmmmm... ...no.

There was no "apex" for Perez to be going for. The next corner was a
flat-out left-hander where it wasn't even necessary to start from the
extreme right edge of the track.

Note that the car ahead of them is essentially in mid-track (or even
left of mid-track) going past the point where Perez moved into Ocon.

Perez had just taken the extreme inside line into the hairpin going past
Ocon, so he knows (KNOWS!) that Ocon is going to get a better drive off
of the corner than he was going to get.

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.

Ocon was already alongside him when Perez moved to the right.

Perez moved over on a car he KNEW was there, leaving Ocon less than a
car width between Perez and the wall. It was dangerous blocking.

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker
There was no "apex" for Perez to be going for. The next corner was a
flat-out left-hander where it wasn't even necessary to start from the
extreme right edge of the track.

Yes going far outside left to set up optimally for the left-hand curve.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
There was no "apex" for Perez to be going for. The next corner was a
flat-out left-hander where it wasn't even necessary to start from the
extreme right edge of the track.

Yes going far outside left to set up optimally for the left-hand curve.
geoff

Except that isn't the normal line.

You only got to the far RIGHT to set up for a left-hander if you'd need
to lift if you didn't. If you do it when you can go flat-out from a
mid-track entry, you're just making the line you need to drive longer.

Look at the car entering the left immediately ahead of the Force Indias
in this video:

http://youtu.be/Eb0CG12rz1w

When he is on the same place on the track as Perez will be in just a
moment as he runs Ocon into the wall, he is at mid-track.

Perez was blocking and doing so in a manner that was completely unsafe.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
There was no "apex" for Perez to be going for. The next corner
was a flat-out left-hander where it wasn't even necessary to
start from the extreme right edge of the track.

Yes going far outside left to set up optimally for the left-hand curve.
geoff

Except that isn't the normal line.
You only got to the far RIGHT to set up for a left-hander if you'd
need to lift if you didn't. If you do it when you can go flat-out
from a mid-track entry, you're just making the line you need to drive
longer.
Look at the car entering the left immediately ahead of the Force
http://youtu.be/Eb0CG12rz1w
When he is on the same place on the track as Perez will be in just a
moment as he runs Ocon into the wall, he is at mid-track.
Perez was blocking and doing so in a manner that was completely unsafe.

You're wrong. Look at the race and the line frequently taken by many
cars.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
There was no "apex" for Perez to be going for. The next corner
was a flat-out left-hander where it wasn't even necessary to
start from the extreme right edge of the track.

Yes going far outside left to set up optimally for the left-hand curve.
geoff

Except that isn't the normal line.
You only got to the far RIGHT to set up for a left-hander if you'd
need to lift if you didn't. If you do it when you can go flat-out
from a mid-track entry, you're just making the line you need to drive
longer.
Look at the car entering the left immediately ahead of the Force
http://youtu.be/Eb0CG12rz1w
When he is on the same place on the track as Perez will be in just a
moment as he runs Ocon into the wall, he is at mid-track.
Perez was blocking and doing so in a manner that was completely unsafe.

You're wrong. Look at the race and the line frequently taken by many
cars.

I have, and even if that were the normal racing line (it's not), Perez
was still wrong to move right into a car that was alongside his.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
You're wrong. Look at the race and the line frequently taken by many
cars.

I have, and even if that were the normal racing line (it's not),

(Stupid to say that given so many cars take that line.)

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
You're wrong. Look at the race and the line frequently taken by many
cars.

I have, and even if that were the normal racing line (it's not),

(Stupid to say that given so many cars take that line.)

Show some video to back up your claim...

[geoff]

On 30/08/2017 7:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
.

Post by Alan Baker
Ocon was already alongside him when Perez moved to the right.

Your definition of 'alongside' is obviously different to that of mine,
and that of the stewards who clearly don't know as much about racing as
you do.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff
.

Post by Alan Baker
Ocon was already alongside him when Perez moved to the right.

Your definition of 'alongside' is obviously different to that of mine,
and that of the stewards who clearly don't know as much about racing as
you do.
geoff

Was Ocon's front wheel level with Perez's back wheel, yes or no?

[Sir Tim]

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

What apex? Bear in mind that Eau Rouge has, effectively, three apexes
(apices?). The second one is the most important and, coming down the hill
it is necessary to be slightly right of centre to get the best line, which
is more or less where Perez was. Admittedly Ocon's move was audacious and I
doubt he would have got away with it but Perez was completely out of order
in driving him into the barrier (as every expert except you seems to
acknowledge).

The enmity between the two drivers seems to be such that Perez was
absolutely determined that Ocon should not get past. Drivers don't really
*think* in these situations, their reactions are purely visceral (e.g. the
Schumacher/Hill and Schumacher/Villeneuve incidents).

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.
geoff

[larkim]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

What apex? Bear in mind that Eau Rouge has, effectively, three apexes
(apices?). The second one is the most important and, coming down the hill
it is necessary to be slightly right of centre to get the best line, which
is more or less where Perez was. Admittedly Ocon's move was audacious and I
doubt he would have got away with it but Perez was completely out of order
in driving him into the barrier (as every expert except you seems to
acknowledge).
The enmity between the two drivers seems to be such that Perez was
absolutely determined that Ocon should not get past. Drivers don't really
*think* in these situations, their reactions are purely visceral (e.g. the
Schumacher/Hill and Schumacher/Villeneuve incidents).

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.
geoff

--
Sir Tim

Perez blamed himself for the lap 1 incident (he said he was in the wrong
engine mode) which I thought was interesting, as it was simple enough to
say "we were three cars wide, these things happen".

[geoff]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

What apex?

Sorry not clear. Try "setting up optimally for the following apex".


Admittedly Ocon's move was audacious and I

Post by Sir Tim
doubt he would have got away with it but Perez was completely out of order
in driving him into the barrier (as every expert except you seems to
acknowledge).

... and the stewards who are just bunnies - clearly not experts.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~
<http://en.f1i.com/news/278113-villeneuve-slams-perez-dirty-blocking-move.html>
At the time of the second incident I said to the TV "Time for a one race ban
for Perez" and was blown away when the investigation was closed with no
action.
It coulde be argued that his actions were tanatamount to attempted murder
yet the FIA do nothing. I posted here a month or so back that Perez was
losing control and getting dangerous in his efforts to beat Ocon (and that
it was only because of his Pesos packet that he was getting away with it).
His star is waning and Ocons is rising and certainly he isn't accepting it
gracefully.

I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

What apex?

Sorry not clear. Try "setting up optimally for the following apex".

Except it isn't optimal to go right to the wall.

Post by geoff
 Admittedly Ocon's move was audacious and I

Post by Sir Tim
doubt he would have got away with it but Perez was completely out of order
in driving him into the barrier (as every expert except you seems to
acknowledge).

... and the stewards who are just bunnies - clearly not experts.

The stewards play politics and favourites all the time.

[Bobster]

Post by geoff
I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

Well, they've just come out of La Source and were heading down the hill to Eau Rouge. He didn't have to get onto that line there and then.

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.

He was not a car length ahead. Ocon's front wing hit Perez's rear tyre. How much overlap was there when Perez started moving over?

I think the stewards look at if one car is alongside the other and by how much. They don't look at intent. It seems that in this case they decided that any overlap was such that Perez could get at least the benefit of doubt.

This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team should care.

[geoff]

Post by Bobster

Post by geoff
I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

Well, they've just come out of La Source and were heading down the hill to Eau Rouge. He didn't have to get onto that line there and then.

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.

He was not a car length ahead. Ocon's front wing hit Perez's rear tyre. How much overlap was there when Perez started moving over?

Less overlap. Next to none.
.

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team should care.

Agreed. Same car, same engine, sa\me straight. Unrealistic to think you
are going to be able to surge past your team-mate who is ahead. So ,
both of them, restrain yourselves.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Bobster

Post by geoff
I didn't (and just watched it again, and still don't) think that Perez
was particularly at fault. He was ahead, going for the apex, and Ocon
tried to squeeze into a gap that was never going to be there.

Well, they've just come out of La Source and were heading down the
hill to Eau Rouge. He didn't have to get onto that line there and then.

Post by geoff
At no point was Perez in a situation where he should have felt obligated
to make room, and Ocon should have dropped back rather that surging forward.

He was not a car length ahead. Ocon's front wing hit Perez's rear
tyre. How much overlap was there when Perez started moving over?

Less overlap. Next to none.

Was Ocon's front tire level with Perez's rear at one point, yes or no?

Did Ocon get a much better drive out of the hairpin and so was going
faster than Perez, yes or no?

Post by geoff
.

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

Agreed. Same car, same engine, sa\me straight. Unrealistic to think you
are going to be able to surge past your team-mate who is ahead.  So ,
both of them, restrain yourselves.

Same car, same engine, same straight...

...completely different lines through La Source.

Ocon is completely behind Perez as the exit La Source, then is very
quickly pulling on Perez.

Perez knows he's there and knows he's got the drive.

Perez starts to move over on Ocon as Ocon's front wheel draws level with
Perez's rear wheel.

Ocon sees what's coming and so quite sensibly tries to back out of it.
That's why Perez ended up hitting only the front wing.

But if Perez doesn't move over on him, Ocon is by him.

[Bigbird]

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

It is nonsense to imply that the stewards do not care about safety just
because the protagonists are teammates.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

It is nonsense to imply that the stewards do not care about safety just
because the protagonists are teammates.

It isn't that they don't care... ...but they're clearly making
allowances for the fact that Perez's move penalized him more than it did
Ocon...

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

It is nonsense to imply that the stewards do not care about safety
just because the protagonists are teammates.

It isn't that they don't care... ...but they're clearly making
allowances for the fact that Perez's move penalized him more than it
did Ocon...

That has zero to do with safety and is simply your chosen 'assumption'
made to justify your opinion. They made little clear other than thier
verdict.

[Bobster]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

It is nonsense to imply that the stewards do not care about safety just
because the protagonists are teammates.

It isn't that they don't care... ...but they're clearly making
allowances for the fact that Perez's move penalized him more than it did
Ocon...

Just to steer things back to what I actually said, my point is that the stewards don't care that it's two drivers from the same team. It's two drivers.

Other than that, I don't know what allowances they made, or if they made any. They didn't actually investigate the incident, which suggests that they don't think there was a case worth investigating.

Watching the race highlights package is interesting, because of the similarities between the two incidents involving the two FI drivers. In both Ocon is in about the same position and Perez is on a similar line (so maybe they both should have known what to expect?). The key difference is that there is no argument to be had about whether or not Ocon was alongside Perez.

In the second instance Ocon was much farther behind. So far that his front wing touches Perez's rear tyre.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bobster

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
This is really for Force India to sort out, not the stewards. The
stewards don't car that it's two cars from the same team. The team
should care.

It is nonsense to imply that the stewards do not care about safety just
because the protagonists are teammates.

It isn't that they don't care... ...but they're clearly making
allowances for the fact that Perez's move penalized him more than it did
Ocon...

Just to steer things back to what I actually said, my point is that the stewards don't care that it's two drivers from the same team. It's two drivers.
Other than that, I don't know what allowances they made, or if they made any. They didn't actually investigate the incident, which suggests that they don't think there was a case worth investigating.
Watching the race highlights package is interesting, because of the similarities between the two incidents involving the two FI drivers. In both Ocon is in about the same position and Perez is on a similar line (so maybe they both should have known what to expect?). The key difference is that there is no argument to be had about whether or not Ocon was alongside Perez.
In the second instance Ocon was much farther behind. So far that his front wing touches Perez's rear tyre.

Ummm... ...no.

Ocon is farther up than that and and only ends up with contact made
there because he backs out of it.

[Bobster]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bobster
Just to steer things back to what I actually said, my point is that the stewards don't care that it's two drivers from the same team. It's two drivers.
Other than that, I don't know what allowances they made, or if they made any. They didn't actually investigate the incident, which suggests that they don't think there was a case worth investigating.
Watching the race highlights package is interesting, because of the similarities between the two incidents involving the two FI drivers. In both Ocon is in about the same position and Perez is on a similar line (so maybe they both should have known what to expect?). The key difference is that there is no argument to be had about whether or not Ocon was alongside Perez.
In the second instance Ocon was much farther behind. So far that his front wing touches Perez's rear tyre.

Ummm... ...no.
Ocon is farther up than that and and only ends up with contact made
there because he backs out of it.

OK... but I stand by the bit that it's none of the stewards concern whether or not the two drivers involved in whatever are from the same team, and I don't believe they take into account what other disadvantages anybody involved suffered.

Regarding position, I fall back on my default position: the stewards have amongst their number an experienced driver (for this race it was Salo), and have a lot of data about the positions of the car, steering inputs, throttle and etc - and not just for the lap on which the incident occurred but for previous laps.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bobster

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bobster
Just to steer things back to what I actually said, my point is that the stewards don't care that it's two drivers from the same team. It's two drivers.
Other than that, I don't know what allowances they made, or if they made any. They didn't actually investigate the incident, which suggests that they don't think there was a case worth investigating.
Watching the race highlights package is interesting, because of the similarities between the two incidents involving the two FI drivers. In both Ocon is in about the same position and Perez is on a similar line (so maybe they both should have known what to expect?). The key difference is that there is no argument to be had about whether or not Ocon was alongside Perez.
In the second instance Ocon was much farther behind. So far that his front wing touches Perez's rear tyre.

Ummm... ...no.
Ocon is farther up than that and and only ends up with contact made
there because he backs out of it.

OK... but I stand by the bit that it's none of the stewards concern whether or not the two drivers involved in whatever are from the same team, and I don't believe they take into account what other disadvantages anybody involved suffered.
Regarding position, I fall back on my default position: the stewards have amongst their number an experienced driver (for this race it was Salo), and have a lot of data about the positions of the car, steering inputs, throttle and etc - and not just for the lap on which the incident occurred but for previous laps.

And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a car
width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a car
width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

geoff

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a
car width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

A driver in F1 should be able to keep track of vectors and closing speeds
etc. in his head (and use his mirrors). He should be able to calculate "If I
move over there at the current closing rate we'll colide". Seems Perez isn't
up to the task. He broke the cardinal rule twice in one race - both times he
was slightly ahead so he was in the box seat to avoid the collisions.

He must be bringing mucho pesos to FI for them to be able to keep rebuilding
cars...

[Alan Baker]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a
car width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.
A driver in F1 should be able to keep track of vectors and closing speeds
etc. in his head (and use his mirrors). He should be able to calculate "If I
move over there at the current closing rate we'll colide". Seems Perez isn't
up to the task. He broke the cardinal rule twice in one race - both times he
was slightly ahead so he was in the box seat to avoid the collisions.

Especially since he knew that the manner in which he got ahead of Ocon
would definitely result in Ocon getting a much better drive out of La
Source.

Post by ~misfit~
He must be bringing mucho pesos to FI for them to be able to keep rebuilding
cars...

[geoff]

s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.

If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame? or do
you need some context for that?

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame? or do
you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and slams it
shut anyway, is that assault?

Yes or no.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where
your woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction, then
either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the
path of motion would result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame? or do
you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and slams
it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?

Yes or no?

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where
your woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction, then
either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the
path of motion would result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame? or do
you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and slams
it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and sacrificing
good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows) Ocon was going to
have.

So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...

...and he moved over anyway.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame?
or do you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Good.

Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)

Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.

All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.

I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside" just
because there was contact ignores relevant context.

Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go in a
different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.

Perhaps that is what you are doing above. You do have a habit of
choosing a conclusion and making arguments to fit that conclusion
rather than considering the facts.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame?
or do you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Good.
Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)

Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.

All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.
I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside" just
because there was contact ignores relevant context.

No. It does not.

That someone can put themselves alongside in a situation where the
person they are alongside doesn't KNOW it and is therefore not culpable
doesn't change that they WERE alongside.

Post by Bigbird
Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go in a
different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.

No. "Alongside" is not subject to context. It either exists or it doesn't.

Post by Bigbird
Perhaps that is what you are doing above. You do have a habit of
choosing a conclusion and making arguments to fit that conclusion
rather than considering the facts.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word
"alongside" is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually
walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same
direction, then either of them shifting toward the other
at 90 degrees to the path of motion would result in
contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to
blame? or do you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question
but enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Good.
Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)

Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.

All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.
I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside"
just because there was contact ignores relevant context.

No. It does not.

My god man. You are just proving my point that you are so focussed on
your conclusion that you are unwilling to think about what you are
reading or writing.

If someone shoves thier foot in the door as you close it, to jump to
the conclusion that the person closing the door is guilty of assault is
pure ignorance.

Adding that it is someone closing the door on a knife wielding thug
makes no difference to you because context is nothing to you.

Post by Alan Baker
That someone can put themselves alongside in a situation where the
person they are alongside doesn't KNOW it and is therefore not
culpable doesn't change that they WERE alongside.

Post by Bigbird
Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go
in a different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.

No. "Alongside" is not subject to context. It either exists or it doesn't.

When a car is not alongside when the other starts his move across track
to defend but it is when he gets there then context is very important.
More investigation is warranted.

Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

GNF

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word
"alongside" is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually
walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same
direction, then either of them shifting toward the other
at 90 degrees to the path of motion would result in
contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to
blame? or do you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question
but enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Good.
Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)

Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.

All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.
I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside"
just because there was contact ignores relevant context.

No. It does not.

My god man. You are just proving my point that you are so focussed on
your conclusion that you are unwilling to think about what you are
reading or writing.
If someone shoves thier foot in the door as you close it, to jump to
the conclusion that the person closing the door is guilty of assault is
pure ignorance.

Ocon didn't "shove his foot in" as Perez "closed it".

His foot was clearly already there.

Post by Bigbird
Adding that it is someone closing the door on a knife wielding thug
makes no difference to you because context is nothing to you.

Are you familiar with the Latin, "no sequitur"?

How about, "ungermane"?

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker
That someone can put themselves alongside in a situation where the
person they are alongside doesn't KNOW it and is therefore not
culpable doesn't change that they WERE alongside.

Post by Bigbird
Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go
in a different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.

No. "Alongside" is not subject to context. It either exists or it doesn't.

When a car is not alongside when the other starts his move across track
to defend but it is when he gets there then context is very important.
More investigation is warranted.

Except Ocon WAS alongside when Perez started his move.

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.
GNF

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
When a car is not alongside when the other starts his move across track
to defend but it is when he gets there then context is very important.
More investigation is warranted.

Except Ocon WAS alongside when Perez started his move.

Not in the mind of anybody who mattered.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
When a car is not alongside when the other starts his move across track
to defend but it is when he gets there then context is very important.
More investigation is warranted.

Except Ocon WAS alongside when Perez started his move.

Not in the mind of anybody who mattered.

I'm sorry, but the meaning of words is not subject to "anybody who matters".

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?

Yes or no.

I have.

:-)

[Bobster]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.

The stewards at Grands Prix are very experienced, but you chose to not automatically bow to their experience.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bobster

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.

The stewards at Grands Prix are very experienced, but you chose to not automatically bow to their experience.

I notice you fail to answer the question.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bobster

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.

The stewards at Grands Prix are very experienced, but you chose to not automatically bow to their experience.

I asked about you... ...you dodged.

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.
:-)

Wow so you've driven a toy racing car. So you must be always 100% right,
and anybody who hasn't is 100% wrong - even many who have driven in F1.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.
:-)

Wow so you've driven a toy racing car. So you must be always 100% right,
and anybody who hasn't is 100% wrong - even many who have driven in F1.
geoff

Jacques Villeneuve has driven in F1, and he agrees with me.

Can you name a driver who disagrees?

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.
:-)

Wow so you've driven a toy racing car. So you must be always 100%
right, and anybody who hasn't is 100% wrong - even many who have
driven in F1.
geoff

Jacques Villeneuve has driven in F1, and he agrees with me.

Well at least one agrees with you.

Post by Alan Baker
Can you name a driver who disagrees?

"Five of the seven officials are nominated by the FIA. These are the
race director (currently Charlie Whiting), a permanent starter and three
additional stewards, one of whom is nominated chairman and one of whom
is an experienced former driver. The additional stewards must be FIA
Super Licence holders."

Oh, you meant 'current driver'. Weasel.

Don't know , but can't hear any making a huge noise about it.

geoff

[Bigbird]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject
rather than indefinitely go all out to defend your previous
assertion bores the shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.
:-)

Wow so you've driven a toy racing car. So you must be always 100%
right, and anybody who hasn't is 100% wrong - even many who have
driven in F1.
geoff

Jacques Villeneuve has driven in F1, and he agrees with me.

Well at least one agrees with you.

Post by Alan Baker
Can you name a driver who disagrees?

"Five of the seven officials are nominated by the FIA. These are the
race director (currently Charlie Whiting), a permanent starter and
three additional stewards, one of whom is nominated chairman and one
of whom is an experienced former driver. The additional stewards must
be FIA Super Licence holders."
Oh, you meant 'current driver'. Weasel.
Don't know , but can't hear any making a huge noise about it.
geoff

OMG is he playing that card again.

Do you think that if I told him I was an engineer and know a damn sight
more about applied mechanics than he does he would concede his
ignorance? No, of course not. When he sees he is wrong he merely
changes tack.

He made a stupid comment and was picked up on it, so naturally he tries
to make the disagreement about something else.

It looks like half a dozen replies since I told him I'm not interested
if he won't think before jerking off.

So sad!

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Anyway as usual your failure to think about the subject rather than
indefinitely go all out to defend your previous assertion bores the
shit out of me so I'll leave it there.

Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.
:-)

Wow so you've driven a toy racing car. So you must be always 100%
right, and anybody who hasn't is 100% wrong - even many who have
driven in F1.
geoff

Jacques Villeneuve has driven in F1, and he agrees with me.

Well at least one agrees with you.

Post by Alan Baker
Can you name a driver who disagrees?

"Five of the seven officials are nominated by the FIA. These are the
race director (currently Charlie Whiting), a permanent starter and three
additional stewards, one of whom is nominated chairman and one of whom
is an experienced former driver. The additional stewards must be FIA
Super Licence holders."
Oh, you meant 'current driver'. Weasel.

Nope.

You don't know how the voting went for that incident.

Post by geoff
Don't know , but can't hear any making a huge noise about it.
geoff

[Alan LeHun]

Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever been out there, doing this sport?
Yes or no.
I have.

It is not bird you are countering. It is the stewards. Many of them have
indeed, been out there, doing F1. Others have done their time in other
racing classes and all are involved in Motor Sport in a professional
capacity.

Your 'being out there' is insignificant by comparison.

Which is apt....

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.

A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame?
or do you need some context for that?

If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.

Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?

Yes. I do see how important that is.

Good.
Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)

Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.

This si what I was alluding to with my earlier post about good drivers
having spacial awareness and a knowledge of closing speeds and vectors etc.

Post by Bigbird
All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.
I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside" just
because there was contact ignores relevant context.
Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go in a
different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.
Perhaps that is what you are doing above. You do have a habit of
choosing a conclusion and making arguments to fit that conclusion
rather than considering the facts.

I sometimes do what you're saying Alan does above. However the 'conclusion'
made is based on shitloads of input and experience. What you call 'making
arguments' is often simply trying to explain the (often semi-subconscious)
reason for the conclusion to other people. Sometimes people who insist on
explainations of a position rather than accepting that a person has a right
to a position and often good reasons for it.

If we all had to explain the processes that lead to every conclusion we'd be
tapping keys to the exclusion enjoying Formula 1 and even of living life.

(IMO this is what Bob tries to force posters to do that I so dislike -
atempting to make people explain concusions and opinions while undermining
them and diverting from the issue at hand, taking snide side-swipes over
days and days - all to stroke his own ego rather than find truth or discuss
F1.
IMO his egotistical 'must win or demolish 'opposition' tendancies while
debating to his own rules (with veiled ad hominems) make his post less about
F1 and more about him.)

Again IMO after a while (and to an extent) peoples views and opinions can
either be taken or queitly disregarded without incessant questioning and
deliberate undermining. That's not to say a few civil questions as to why
that concusion was reached can't be asked and answered. :)

A usenet 'discussion group' should be more about the groups *subject* than
the art and deviousness of discussion for its own sake.

[Bobster]

Post by ~misfit~
(IMO this is what Bob tries to force posters to do that I so dislike -
atempting to make people explain concusions and opinions while undermining
them and diverting from the issue at hand, taking snide side-swipes over
days and days - all to stroke his own ego rather than find truth or discuss
F1.

Can't have personal attacks here, can we? Oh yes, we can, from behind a pretend killfile so we can pretend to not see the responses.

The trouble too often these days is that people confuse their freedom of speech (which, really, just means that government can't stop you speaking freely) with some imagined right to not be countered. And they assert that all opinions are equally valid and must be treated with the same respect.

Post by ~misfit~
IMO his egotistical 'must win or demolish 'opposition' tendancies while
debating to his own rules (with veiled ad hominems) make his post less about
F1 and more about him.)

Bwahaha! How many column inches do I give to my health problems and my financial situation?

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.

geoff

[geoff]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.

geoff

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.
geoff

That is lateral separation...

...which Ocon had and was entitled to have, and which Perez then took away.

[Sir Tim]

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.

No.
The ship is alongside the pier now. Bump. Damage. Captain gets the sack!

[Alan Baker]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.

No.
The ship is alongside the pier now. Bump. Damage. Captain gets the sack!

Precisely.

Once you're alongside a pier or another car, there are supposed to be
limits on how far you can move laterally.

F1 isn't bumper cars. If that contact had happened only slightly
differently, one of those two cars could have been seriously airborne.

[bra]

Post by Alan Baker
F1 isn't bumper cars.

Hmm, are you sure it won't go that way:

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as
"alongside". Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.

No.
The ship is alongside the pier now. Bump. Damage. Captain gets the sack!

Precisely.
Once you're alongside a pier or another car, there are supposed to be
limits on how far you can move laterally.

Oh stop being a prick. Once you are alongside a pier. You are
stationary ready to disembark.

They are taking the piss out of you and you are too slow to notice.

[bra]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker
Once you're alongside a pier or another car, there are supposed to be
limits on how far you can move laterally.

Oh stop being a prick. Once you are alongside a pier. You are
stationary ready to disembark.

There's usually quite a rush from my ferry to the line-up at the bus stop, and sometimes a stranger will appear "alongside" me, and we pretend not to notice each other. So we shuffle carefully forward, maintaining millimeter-fine forward motion and keeping lateral centimeter separation until one or the other concedes. I shall ask the bus company to adopt the FIA regs and issue pamphlets to all passengers.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Sir Tim

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as
"alongside". Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.

No.
The ship is alongside the pier now. Bump. Damage. Captain gets the sack!

Precisely.
Once you're alongside a pier or another car, there are supposed to be
limits on how far you can move laterally.

Oh stop being a prick. Once you are alongside a pier. You are
stationary ready to disembark.

No. You can be alongside and not yet tied up. You can be alongside and
it is absolutely a bad idea to move more in the direction of the pier...

...because there would be contact if you did.

Post by Bigbird
They are taking the piss out of you and you are too slow to notice.

[bra]

Post by Alan Baker
No. You can be alongside and not yet tied up. You can be alongside and
it is absolutely a bad idea to move more in the direction of the pier...
...because there would be contact if you did.

Post by Bigbird
They are taking the piss out of you and you are too slow to notice.

Sir Tim made the most sense: the captain of the moving vessel carries the can, whether his motion is forward, rearward, or lateral. Better get a sailing expert to give me the correct terms for direction ---- "abaft?"

BTW: I believe a captain is held responsible even if he's asleep in his cabin and a mate is on watch --- is that true?

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by Alan Baker
No. You can be alongside and not yet tied up. You can be alongside
and it is absolutely a bad idea to move more in the direction of the
pier...
...because there would be contact if you did.

Post by Bigbird
They are taking the piss out of you and you are too slow to notice.

Sir Tim made the most sense: the captain of the moving vessel carries
the can, whether his motion is forward, rearward, or lateral. Better
get a sailing expert to give me the correct terms for direction ----
"abaft?"
BTW: I believe a captain is held responsible even if he's asleep in
his cabin and a mate is on watch --- is that true?

The term 'mate' has several connotations for a reason! ;)

[Bigbird]

Alan Baker wrote:

Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of "concepts
I understand".

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?

Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.

:-)

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?
Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.
:-)

Yet you are still a twat.

...and wrong.

:)))))))))))))

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?
Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.
:-)

Yet you are still a twat.
...and wrong.
:)))))))))))))

No... ...I am not.

I'm sorry your education was sub-standard.

[Bigbird]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?
Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.
:-)

Yet you are still a twat.
...and wrong.
:)))))))))))))

No... ...I am not.

Yep, you're a victim of Skitt's law; know why?

It's because you are a twat.

Post by Alan Baker
I'm sorry your education was sub-standard.

Why would you be sorry. That's not just bad grammar or a keyboard error
it's a falsehood.

That would be like me saying I'm sorry you are a twat. I mean I am not
responsible for you being a twat and I don't have any sympathy for you
being a twat so why would I be sorry.

You're wrong again.

I had a much better education than you; I learned not to lie and
important stuff like that.

You like to talk about yourself a lot; why not tell us about your
wonderful education... and where it all went wrong.

I'm sorry, you're a twat!

[Alan Baker]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?
Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.
:-)

Yet you are still a twat.
...and wrong.
:)))))))))))))

No... ...I am not.

Yep, you're a victim of Skitt's law; know why?
It's because you are a twat.

Post by Alan Baker
I'm sorry your education was sub-standard.

Why would you be sorry. That's not just bad grammar or a keyboard error
it's a falsehood.

No, it isn't.

I'm am genuinely sorry that your education in English was so lacking
that you don't understand the vocative case and the necessity to
separate a name at the end of a sentence with a comma.

You also don't appear to understand that saying "I'm sorry" isn't the
same thing as "I apologize"

Post by Bigbird
That would be like me saying I'm sorry you are a twat. I mean I am not
responsible for you being a twat and I don't have any sympathy for you
being a twat so why would I be sorry.
You're wrong again.
I had a much better education than you; I learned not to lie and
important stuff like that.

Riiiiiiight.

Post by Bigbird
You like to talk about yourself a lot; why not tell us about your
wonderful education... and where it all went wrong.
I'm sorry, you're a twat!

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Bigbird
Let me know when the word "relevant" makes onto your "word of the day".

Let me know when the word "grammar" makes it onto your list of
"concepts I understand".

Grammar nazi, that's the best you can do. Get a life you twat!

What: are you too slow to notice when someone is taking the piss out of you?
Oh, and "you twat" should be proceeded by a comma, you twit.
:-)

Yet you are still a twat.
...and wrong.
:)))))))))))))

No... ...I am not.

Yep, you're a victim of Skitt's law; know why?
It's because you are a twat.

Post by Alan Baker
I'm sorry your education was sub-standard.

Why would you be sorry. That's not just bad grammar or a keyboard
error it's a falsehood.
That would be like me saying I'm sorry you are a twat. I mean I am not
responsible for you being a twat and I don't have any sympathy for you
being a twat so why would I be sorry.
You're wrong again.
I had a much better education than you; I learned not to lie and
important stuff like that.
You like to talk about yourself a lot; why not tell us about your
wonderful education... and where it all went wrong.
I'm sorry, you're a twat!

LOL!

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction, then
either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path
of motion would result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as
"alongside". Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

The ship is alongside the pier now, so you can disembark now. Splash.
geoff

"Overlap" and "alongside" in the *context* of F1 needs to take into account
trajectories and velocities. Ocon was more 'alongside' by the time Perez got
to him than he was when Perez started to move sideways due to closing
velocities. Things like this aren't easy to see with video alone as the
simple act of slo-mo replaying and 'freeze-framing' reduces or removes
relative velocities. Personally I think that stewards decisions should only
be made using real-time replays from all available angles (of course
including drivers PoV cameras which, if they aren't already should IMO be
compulsory*).

* I think there should maybe be three compulsory 'drivers PoV' cameras, one
slightly wide-angle foward and two others pointed at the mirrors and these
should be available to the adjudicators. Preferably and for transparency's
sake as soon as there's an enquiry or maybe when it's concluded they should
be made available to the public as well. After all the whole thing is a
public specatacle. All stewards decisions should be primarilly based on what
these show, not what TV camera angles appear to show. IMO of course. <g>

There's a whole different *context* to "alongside" with passenger ships
which you'd best brush up on before your next cruise. ;)

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by geoff
s.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.

If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.

So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside. Where your
woman walking alongside you much actually walk at heel ?
geoff

I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is "alongside"
another object in motion in the same direction, then either of them
shifting toward the other at 90 degrees to the path of motion would
result in contact.

So you think the merest whisker of overlap is the same as "alongside".
Others more expert than you apparently disagree.
geoff

It wasn't the "merest whisker" by any sensible definition. Ocon's left
front tire was even or perhaps even slightly ahead of Perez's right
rear. The only reason the subsequent contact took place on Ocon's wing
is that he backed out of it.

But what does it matter?

Did Perez know he was there? Yes.

Therefore Perez deliberately closed a gap between his car and the wall
to less than a car width when he knew another car was there.

[Alan Baker]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a
car width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.
geoff

It certainly includes the idea that if you move to one "side" and you
make contact with another car, that car is at least partially alongSIDE you.

[Bobster]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than a car
width between his car and the wall when another car was already
alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is somewhat
different to that of others.
geoff

The subject of what an overlap is came up several times last year with the Merc drivers hitting each other so often.

The 2016 sporting regulations included this
"27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any
braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move,
provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is
alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the
track without justifiable reason.

"For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car
attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this
will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’."


There's the definition that the stewards could apply: Part of the front wing must be alongside the rear wheel - then there is an overlap.

This was under article 27, which is titled driving. There is an argument to be made that the definition applies only to overtaking attempts, but Ocon was trying to overtake coming out of La Source.

This year, article 27 is a lot shorter, and the item quoted above is not there. Not modified, just not there at all.

So there's less of a case for arguing that A's wing was alongside B's rear wheel and so B shouldn't move over because that's the rule. It may also make things harder for the stewards. Now they can't say A had a significant portion of his car alongside B so B shouldn't have moved. Maybe now they have to look at not intent, but what either driver could have been expected to see would happen.

Or maybe they only take action now if it's just a clear attempt to drive into another car.

[geoff]

Post by Bobster

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker
And regardless of all that Perez drove a line that left less than
a car width between his car and the wall when another car was
already alongside his.

Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside" is
somewhat different to that of others.
geoff

The subject of what an overlap is came up several times last year
with the Merc drivers hitting each other so often.
The 2016 sporting regulations included this "27.7 Any driver
defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area,
may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided
no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside
his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track
without justifiable reason.
"For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the
car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in
front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’."
There's the definition that the stewards could apply: Part of the
front wing must be alongside the rear wheel - then there is an
overlap.

That is very clear and straightforward.

Post by Bobster
This was under article 27, which is titled driving. There is an
argument to be made that the definition applies only to overtaking
attempts, but Ocon was trying to overtake coming out of La Source.
This year, article 27 is a lot shorter, and the item quoted above is
not there. Not modified, just not there at all.

Pity, because some have short memories.

Post by Bobster
Or maybe they only take action now if it's just a clear attempt to drive into another car.

Or if the front wing is alongside the rear wheel before the front car
starts it's defending move.

geoff