How much space did Raikkonen have to move to the lef?

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or 3'
3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

Alan Baker

2017-09-21 03:56:02 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

And Verstappen DID slow down.

You lose twice.

Edmund

2017-09-21 07:41:12 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

It seldom is and does it matter, what do the regulations say about
being in front of a corner?

Post by Alan Baker
And Verstappen DID slow down.

Did he, when exactly, after he hit Kimi?

Edmund

Alan Baker

2017-09-21 17:32:15 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

It seldom is and does it matter, what do the regulations say about
being in front of a corner?

This wasn't at a corner. The regulations allow a car being overtaken to
move to make that overtake harder provided the driver doesn't crowd the
overtaker beyond the edge of the track.

Post by Edmund

Post by Alan Baker
And Verstappen DID slow down.

Did he, when exactly, after he hit Kimi?

Immediately before, actually.

Watch the in-car from his car and you can hear it.

Mark

2017-09-21 08:30:25 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

The rules don't say that a pass must be complete. You must leave space
for other drivers even if they're even partially alongside. It's
normally expressed in terms of the driver coming through, but it applies
in both directions. In layman's terms (and has been said many times in
F1): you can't expect a car to suddenly vanish.

Post by Alan Baker
And Verstappen DID slow down.

Verstappen himself admitted he didn't slow much after the race. He
explained that, however, as being a consequence of the new rules this
year; he says that the greater width of the rear tyres meant that by the
time he could react, he couldn't slow without his fronts colliding with
the rears of the Ferraris.

I haven't looked that closely at the footage, but it sounds plausible
that he was (effectively) locked-in by the Ferrari's either side of him.

~misfit~

2017-09-21 10:49:50 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

The rules don't say that a pass must be complete. You must leave
space for other drivers even if they're even partially alongside.
It's normally expressed in terms of the driver coming through, but it
applies in both directions. In layman's terms (and has been said
many times in F1): you can't expect a car to suddenly vanish.

Post by Alan Baker
And Verstappen DID slow down.

Verstappen himself admitted he didn't slow much after the race. He
explained that, however, as being a consequence of the new rules this
year; he says that the greater width of the rear tyres meant that by
the time he could react, he couldn't slow without his fronts
colliding with the rears of the Ferraris.
I haven't looked that closely at the footage, but it sounds plausible
that he was (effectively) locked-in by the Ferrari's either side of him.

Heh! I sould have read the whole group before saying essentially the same
thing in the other thread. ;)

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

t***@gmail.com

2017-09-21 17:40:14 UTC

Post by ~misfit~
I sould have read the whole group before saying essentially the same
thing in the other thread. ;)

You should have did a lot of things.

Alan Baker

2017-09-21 17:34:02 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.

And Raikkonen had MORE than enough space.

Post by Mark

Post by Alan Baker
And Verstappen DID slow down.

I agree he didn't slow much. It was a breath on the throttle.

But if Raikkonen uses the more than 3 feet of track he had to his left,
this is all moot.

Post by Mark
I haven't looked that closely at the footage, but it sounds plausible
that he was (effectively) locked-in by the Ferrari's either side of him.

Only because Raikkonen didn't move to the left by perhaps as little as 8
inches.

Grant

2017-09-22 02:39:45 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.
And Verstappen DID slow down.
You lose twice.

No you lose fuck nut for even trying to put any of the blame upon KR. The
whole incident was caused by SV cutting hard to the left to block MV.

Alan Baker

2017-09-22 02:41:11 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

He was still at least half beside Verstappen, so the pass wasn't complete.
And Verstappen DID slow down.
You lose twice.

No you lose fuck nut for even trying to put any of the blame upon KR. The
whole incident was caused by SV cutting hard to the left to block MV.

1. Moving over over the span of two seconds isn't "cutting hard".

2. He is allowed by the regulations to do what he did.

Heiner Hass

2017-09-22 05:09:14 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
2. He is allowed by the regulations to do what he did.

he is allowed by the regulations to go full-throttle into the wall. The
level of stupidity is the same.

HH

Alan Baker

2017-09-23 03:54:00 UTC

Post by Heiner Hass

Post by Alan Baker
2. He is allowed by the regulations to do what he did.

he is allowed by the regulations to go full-throttle into the wall. The
level of stupidity is the same.
HH

Don't be absurd.

m***@gmail.com

2017-09-25 06:26:26 UTC

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

You think? I think there was no requirement for him to do anything. He got a good start and went straight. It wasn't him trying to cut off another driver.

Watching the in cars it looked like he did slow down a bit, when he realised he was likely to be the filling in a Ferrari sandwich. He obviously couldn't just slam on the brakes that soon after the start. I think he did about all he could - which, wasn't that much.

Alan Baker

2017-09-25 18:05:48 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com

KR was ahead of MV. MV should have braked.

You think? I think there was no requirement for him to do anything. He got a good start and went straight. It wasn't him trying to cut off another driver.
Watching the in cars it looked like he did slow down a bit, when he realised he was likely to be the filling in a Ferrari sandwich. He obviously couldn't just slam on the brakes that soon after the start. I think he did about all he could - which, wasn't that much.

Precisely.

There were three cars involved, but only two who could have changed the
outcome, and only one who had any obligation to do so.

Verstappen was in the middle and getting pressure from Vettel when he
moved a little to the left to stay clear, which he really had to do. He
did try to save it by slowing, but it was too late.

Vettel was in the lead, had the right to defend as he did (whether doing
so was strategically wise is another question).

Raikkonen got a rocket start and was overtaking. He could have moved
left a little more, but he didn't read the situation very well.

Naked Fame

2017-09-25 19:17:32 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
There were three cars involved, but only two who could have changed
the outcome, and only one who had any obligation to do so.
Verstappen was in the middle and getting pressure from Vettel when he
moved a little to the left to stay clear, which he really had to
do. He did try to save it by slowing, but it was too late.
Vettel was in the lead, had the right to defend as he did (whether
doing so was strategically wise is another question).
Raikkonen got a rocket start and was overtaking. He could have moved
left a little more, but he didn't read the situation very well.

Quite honestly, I have to agree to the consensus that _you_ are not
reading the situation very well.

For example, see this:

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/singapore-f1-start-accident-were-raikkonen-verstappen-and-vettel-all-entitled-to-go-for-it/

Poll: Who was most at fault for the startline crash in Singapore?

75.91% Vettel
17.28% Racing incident
4.69% Verstappen
2.12% Raikkonen

Alan, have you ever considered the possibility that if you feel you
are the only one person in the right, you just might be the only one
in the wrong?

--
Signature

Alan Baker

2017-09-25 19:38:32 UTC

Post by Naked Fame

Quite honestly, I have to agree to the consensus that _you_ are not
reading the situation very well.
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/singapore-f1-start-accident-were-raikkonen-verstappen-and-vettel-all-entitled-to-go-for-it/

You mean where he says:

'Raikkonen had about a metre and a half to the pit wall to play with on
the left. The problem was that as he came through, his right rear wheel
hit Verstappen’s left front. There was nothing Verstappen could have
done to avoid that. He moves very slightly to the left as he sees Vettel
coming across.'

The only thing he got wrong is that it was actually more like 2+ metres
to the actual wall.

Post by Naked Fame
Poll: Who was most at fault for the startline crash in Singapore?
75.91% Vettel
17.28% Racing incident
4.69% Verstappen
2.12% Raikkonen
Alan, have you ever considered the possibility that if you feel you
are the only one person in the right, you just might be the only one
in the wrong?

All the time.

I'm sorry, but a poll of the largely uninformed on a matter of a racing
incident just isn't much support.

Is Vettel entitled by the rules to move to the left? Simply, yes.

So right there, he cannot be "at fault" in a rules sense.

If he doesn't move left does the incident happen? No, probably not.

The ONLY driver who fell short of his obligations under the rules in
that incident was Raikkonen. He was the passing driver: he was obligated
to complete the pass safely. He didn't.

Naked Fame

2017-09-25 19:50:56 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
The ONLY driver who fell short of his obligations under the rules in
that incident was Raikkonen. He was the passing driver: he was
obligated to complete the pass safely. He didn't.

Yes, the car being passed is entitled to crash into the car that has
almost completed their overtaking manoeuvre. That much is clear from what
you've now said time and time again. Yet, somehow, if an overtaking car
is "along" the leading car even by a few inches, he is entitled to space.

Honestly, I don't have a clue of how your thought processes work. Then
again, unlike some others, I will not end up with an endless and
fruitless "debate" with you. So, this will be it, at least for now.

--
Signature

Alan Baker

2017-09-25 21:06:17 UTC

Post by Naked Fame

Yes, the car being passed is entitled to crash into the car that has
almost completed their overtaking manoeuvre. That much is clear from what
you've now said time and time again. Yet, somehow, if an overtaking car
is "along" the leading car even by a few inches, he is entitled to space.
Honestly, I don't have a clue of how your thought processes work. Then
again, unlike some others, I will not end up with an endless and
fruitless "debate" with you. So, this will be it, at least for now.

Certainly, you'll avoid actually learning anything.

The fact is that the rules of racing come out of the need to try and
avoid collisions. In this, they are very much like the rules of sailboat
racing.

In each situation, the drivers involved must know what their
responsibilities are, and like sailing, an overtaking driver is given
the onus of keeping the pass safe in general while the overtaking driver
is only limited from making moves that would force the overtaking driver
off the track or are so abrupt as to make it impossible for the passing
driver to meet his obligations.

Raikkonen had more than a metre of racing surface to the left of his
car. He also had the best view of what was unfolding, and if he had
chosen to move over by as little as perhaps 10" of the nearly 40" he had
available, the incident might have been avoided.

He got it wrong.

m***@gmail.com

2017-09-26 02:32:32 UTC

Post by Naked Fame
Poll: Who was most at fault for the startline crash in Singapore?
75.91% Vettel
17.28% Racing incident
4.69% Verstappen
2.12% Raikkonen

A reader poll? That's scientific and authoritative.

Willsy

2017-09-21 08:33:36 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

It doesn't matter. It was the first few seconds of the race. It's all
wide-eyes and white-knuckles until at least the third corner.

It was just a racing incident. SV knew MV was on his inside and moved
to block him off. To be expected. What SV couldn't have known, was that
KR took off from the line like a bullet out of a gun, and was beside MV,
leaving MV nowhere to go.

It's just racing. Stuff happens. The stewards recognised it, took no
action an moved on.

It's a great shame because I was looking forward to seeing MV and DR go
wheel-to-wheel.

Alan Baker

2017-09-21 17:30:38 UTC

Post by Willsy

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

It doesn't matter. It was the first few seconds of the race. It's all
wide-eyes and white-knuckles until at least the third corner.

It DOES matter.

There's no "first few seconds of the race" exception to the rules.

Post by Willsy
It was just a racing incident. SV knew MV was on his inside and moved
to block him off. To be expected. What SV couldn't have known, was that
KR took off from the line like a bullet out of a gun, and was beside MV,
leaving MV nowhere to go.

Except for the fact that KR could have been 3 more feet to the left.

That might have saved everyone's bacon. It might not have, but NOT
moving over cost him HIS race for certain.

Post by Willsy
It's just racing. Stuff happens. The stewards recognised it, took no
action an moved on.

Which I think is appropriate.

Post by Willsy
It's a great shame because I was looking forward to seeing MV and DR go
wheel-to-wheel.

D Munz

2017-09-21 11:37:26 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

Yes there is room but Kimi is drag racing Max down the straight. He doesn't know about Seb or that Max will move over and he looses momentum if he just glides over to the left (for no apparent reason).

I actually agree with the whole "its a racing incident" theme. Seb was moving to block, which is OK. Max got squeezed, which happens. Kimi got tangled. Sucks for everyone.

It would be interesting to see the telemetry from Seb and Kimi to compare their starts. Kimi really did get off like a rocket and I'm curious why he was that much better this time. (If he was...)

FWIW
DLM

Alan Baker

2017-09-21 17:35:27 UTC

Post by D Munz

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

No. You really don't lose any momentum worth measuring by moving over by
a foot at most. He was going by like a rocket and moving over wasn't
going to change that.

Post by D Munz
I actually agree with the whole "its a racing incident" theme. Seb was moving to block, which is OK. Max got squeezed, which happens. Kimi got tangled. Sucks for everyone.

So do I.

Post by D Munz
It would be interesting to see the telemetry from Seb and Kimi to compare their starts. Kimi really did get off like a rocket and I'm curious why he was that much better this time. (If he was...)
FWIW
DLM

Dan the Man

2017-09-22 13:08:13 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces', something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing accident.

Alan Baker

2017-09-22 18:41:23 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a metre, or
3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces', something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing accident.

And so do I.

But technically, the only driver who didn't fulfill his obligations
under the rules was Raikkonen.

Bigbird

2017-09-23 03:38:49 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a
metre, or 3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces',
something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing accident.

And so do I.
But technically, the only driver who didn't fulfill his obligations
under the rules was Raikkonen.

Technically incorrect. Technically, Max was under a similar obligation
and failed and Vettel failed to allow racing room for the cars
alongside.

Sensible people have for the most part accepted it was a racing
incident and let it lie.

You on the other hand... a hundred posts?

Alan Baker

2017-09-23 03:41:56 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a
metre, or 3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces',
something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing accident.

And so do I.

Hey! "Bigbird"!

Can't you read?

Post by Alan Baker
But technically, the only driver who didn't fulfill his obligations
under the rules was Raikkonen.

Technically incorrect. Technically, Max was under a similar obligation
and failed and Vettel failed to allow racing room for the cars
alongside.

No. That's not true. Max kept clear of Vettel.

Post by Bigbird
Sensible people have for the most part accepted it was a racing
incident and let it lie.

I agreed it was a racing incident. Several times.

Post by Bigbird
You on the other hand... a hundred posts?

That makes this post of yours kind of ironic, don't you think?

:-)

Bigbird

2017-09-23 04:25:04 UTC

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a
metre, or 3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces',
something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing accident.

And so do I.

Hey! "Bigbird"!
Can't you read?

Yes, but clearly you either can't read or can't process what you read.

No need to debate this fact.

I am not intending to engage your nonsense just indicate the pointless
nature of your many dozens of inaccurate posts.

t***@gmail.com

2017-09-23 04:32:53 UTC

Post by Bigbird
I am not intending to engage your nonsense

lol

Alan Baker

2017-09-23 04:49:19 UTC

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-4, alan

Post by Alan Baker
<https://ibb.co/nBHXDk>
As I said: more than 3 feet.
<https://ibb.co/diFfzQ>
(FYI: an F1 car this year is 2000mmm wide, so half that is a
metre, or 3' 3.375")
And that's before he even edges onto the painted area.

When you've got three cars trying to squeeze into two 'spaces',
something is bound to go wrong. I still see it as a racing
accident.

And so do I.

Hey! "Bigbird"!
Can't you read?

Yes, but clearly you either can't read or can't process what you read.
No need to debate this fact.
I am not intending to engage your nonsense just indicate the pointless
nature of your many dozens of inaccurate posts.

Funny how you just snipped the rest of my post for this reply, isn't it?

Post by Alan Baker
But technically, the only driver who didn't fulfill his obligations
under the rules was Raikkonen.

Technically incorrect. Technically, Max was under a similar obligation
and failed and Vettel failed to allow racing room for the cars
alongside.

No. That's not true. Max kept clear of Vettel.

Couldn't rebut this, so you ran.

Post by Bigbird
Sensible people have for the most part accepted it was a racing
incident and let it lie.

I agreed it was a racing incident. Several times.

Couldn't deal with the fact that I clearly have accepted this was a
racing incident, so you ran.

Post by Bigbird
You on the other hand... a hundred posts?

That makes this post of yours kind of ironic, don't you think?

And you ran.

Don't worry.

If you run again, I'll help you out.

:-)

t***@gmail.com

2017-09-23 04:24:32 UTC