So ....

Discussion:

So ....

(too old to reply)

geoff

2019-06-12 02:38:35 UTC

All these outraged pundits are suggesting that a driver should be able to:
- lose control
- completely leave the track effectively cutting a corner
- rejoin the track in an unsafe manner (either by choice or not)
- squeeze a following car to the barriers forcing it to brake

..... and it is just fine for it to keep the position ?

geoff

Alan Baker

2019-06-12 02:55:33 UTC

Permalink

Post by geoff
- lose control

Or are they just acknowledging that it happens.

Post by geoff
- completely leave the track effectively cutting a corner

That's a consequence of pushing the limits, yes.

Post by geoff
- rejoin the track in an unsafe manner (either by choice or not)

Physics: it's not just a good idea: it's the law.

Post by geoff
- squeeze a following car to the barriers forcing it to brake

Momentum.

Post by geoff
..... and it is just fine for it to keep the position ?

That's the way it is almost always adjudicated, yes.

RzR

2019-06-12 06:45:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by geoff
- lose control
- completely leave the track effectively cutting a corner
- rejoin the track in an unsafe manner (either by choice or not)
- squeeze a following car to the barriers forcing it to brake
..... and it is just fine for it to keep the position

reading through about 3 forums, reddit, and more, I can conclude that
99% of Ferrari fans are morons :D

larkim

2019-06-12 09:33:49 UTC

Permalink

Agree, broadly.

Given the small margins at play here, let's imagine for a moment that
Hamilton was 0.1s closer to Vettel on corner entry, and that Vettel's
car was returned under control say 0.1s later, or that he was unable to
get control back before moving a further 1m or 2m to the right.

And therefore he'd have hit Hamilton and both ended up out of the race.

Would we be defending Vettel as "just a racing incident"?

larkim

2019-06-12 09:43:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by larkim

Agree, broadly.
Given the small margins at play here, let's imagine for a moment that
Hamilton was 0.1s closer to Vettel on corner entry, and that Vettel's
car was returned under control say 0.1s later, or that he was unable to
get control back before moving a further 1m or 2m to the right.
And therefore he'd have hit Hamilton and both ended up out of the race.
Would we be defending Vettel as "just a racing incident"?

I should add, i've just rewatched the video and after some of the comments
here I'd expected to see Vettel wrestling with his car as it rejoined the
circuit. Nothing could be further from the truth, he was back well in
control at a point at which Hamilton was along side him and there was clear
track available for Vettel to leave Hamilton.

Before the point at which Vettel had squeezed Hamilton off the track, he
had full control restored.

Alan Baker

2019-06-12 15:50:41 UTC

Permalink

Post by larkim

Agree, broadly.
Given the small margins at play here, let's imagine for a moment that
Hamilton was 0.1s closer to Vettel on corner entry, and that Vettel's
car was returned under control say 0.1s later, or that he was unable to
get control back before moving a further 1m or 2m to the right.
And therefore he'd have hit Hamilton and both ended up out of the race.
Would we be defending Vettel as "just a racing incident"?

1. No. He wasn't "back well in control". Watching the video in slow
motion makes it look like that.

2. Even IN control, a car can only corner so tightly at a given speed.

Post by larkim
Before the point at which Vettel had squeezed Hamilton off the track, he
had full control restored.

You're are in disagreement with almost every F1 driver who has looked at
that same video.

larkim

2019-06-13 05:50:56 UTC

Permalink

I wasn’t watching in slow motion.

I’m not aware of huge volumes of quotes by F1 drivers about the level of control that he had - lots of those drivers didn’t like the penalty though.

Alan Baker

2019-06-13 17:16:24 UTC

Permalink

Post by larkim
I wasn’t watching in slow motion.
I’m not aware of huge volumes of quotes by F1 drivers about the level
of control that he had - lots of those drivers didn’t like the
penalty though.

Then you need to look at this:

<https://f1bythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/vet_telem2.svg>

Do you see that last flat spot in the throttle graph just half a second
before he finally goes to full throttle?

That is a classic sign that the car was NOT under full control. He
THOUGHT he had it, and started adding 4.75s, but had to back out of it.

If the car was under control...

If he really could have driven more to left and provided Hamilton more room.

...his throttle trace would show one progressive move back to full throttle.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that he'd pull of this amazing feat
of blocking Lewis, but leave himself as close to Hamilton as possible
after it was done.

That data was pulled off F1 Live Timing:

'I took the telemetry from the F1 live timings. It is not 100% accurate.
For example, braking is displayed as either 0% or 100%. Basically, it is
accurate when the pedal is not pressed, but not entirely accurate when
the pedal is pressed. While this is not a perfect display of what
happened in real life, we do get an insight of what happened during the
incident. You can click right or left on the image to see the telemetry
of the incident for both Hamilton and Vettel.'

<https://f1bythenumbers.com/2019-canadian-gp-was-vettels-penalty-correctly-awarded/>

Note the trace they provide of Lewis throttle after 2.9s; progressive
without break... ...until he does have to brake for Vettel's presence.

Alan Baker

2019-06-12 15:48:43 UTC

Permalink

Post by larkim

Agree, broadly.
Given the small margins at play here, let's imagine for a moment that
Hamilton was 0.1s closer to Vettel on corner entry, and that Vettel's
car was returned under control say 0.1s later, or that he was unable to
get control back before moving a further 1m or 2m to the right.
And therefore he'd have hit Hamilton and both ended up out of the race.
Would we be defending Vettel as "just a racing incident"?

Yes. We would.

Losing control of your car under those circumstance and then hitting
another car would normally be deemed a "racing incident"; unfortunate
for both drivers, but no penalties.

That's the point.

geoff

2019-06-12 19:57:56 UTC

Permalink

Post by larkim

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?

geoff

Alan Baker

2019-06-12 20:25:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by geoff

Post by larkim

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

geoff

2019-06-12 21:19:17 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

geoff

Alan Baker

2019-06-12 21:27:59 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

I think the two have always been treated differently.

The only times that going off accidentally has been treated as "gaining
an advantage" is when a driver behind shoots through a corner and comes
out ahead.

I wouldn't be against a rule that says that if you are in imminent
danger of being passed (let's define it specifically as—say—1 second gap
or less) and you go off due to an error, you have to give up the place.
That's not a rule that currently exists, but I think it could be a good one.

But that's not the rule at the moment. Losing control, cutting a corner
and remaining in front isn't currently against any rule, and in this
specific case, Hamilton was closer after Vettel's error so Vettel LOST
advantage.

geoff

2019-06-12 21:52:27 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

I think the two have always been treated differently.
The only times that going off accidentally has been treated as "gaining
an advantage" is when a driver behind shoots through a corner and comes
out ahead.
I wouldn't be against a rule that says that if you are in imminent
danger of being passed (let's define it specifically as—say—1 second gap
or less) and you go off due to an error, you have to give up the place.
That's not a rule that currently exists, but I think it could be a good one.
But that's not the rule at the moment. Losing control, cutting a corner
and remaining in front isn't currently against any rule, and in this
specific case, Hamilton was closer after Vettel's error so Vettel LOST
advantage.

I recall the phrase "gain or maintain an advantage" being commonly
quoted by commentators in relation to leaving the track.

geoff

Alan Baker

2019-06-13 00:05:53 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

I think the two have always been treated differently.
The only times that going off accidentally has been treated as
"gaining an advantage" is when a driver behind shoots through a corner
and comes out ahead.
I wouldn't be against a rule that says that if you are in imminent
danger of being passed (let's define it specifically as—say—1 second
gap or less) and you go off due to an error, you have to give up the
place. That's not a rule that currently exists, but I think it could
be a good one.
But that's not the rule at the moment. Losing control, cutting a
corner and remaining in front isn't currently against any rule, and in
this specific case, Hamilton was closer after Vettel's error so Vettel
LOST advantage.

I recall the phrase "gain or maintain an advantage" being commonly
quoted by commentators in relation to leaving the track.
geoff

Except Vettel did neither. He didn't gain or maintain his advantage.

geoff

2019-06-13 01:31:25 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

I think the two have always been treated differently.
The only times that going off accidentally has been treated as
"gaining an advantage" is when a driver behind shoots through a
corner and comes out ahead.
I wouldn't be against a rule that says that if you are in imminent
danger of being passed (let's define it specifically as—say—1 second
gap or less) and you go off due to an error, you have to give up the
place. That's not a rule that currently exists, but I think it could
be a good one.
But that's not the rule at the moment. Losing control, cutting a
corner and remaining in front isn't currently against any rule, and
in this specific case, Hamilton was closer after Vettel's error so
Vettel LOST advantage.

I recall the phrase "gain or maintain an advantage" being commonly
quoted by commentators in relation to leaving the track.
geoff

Except Vettel did neither. He didn't gain or maintain his advantage.

Um yes - he maintained his advantage.

geoff

Alan Baker

2019-06-13 02:34:57 UTC

Agree, broadly.

So cutting as corner and avoiding losing an advantage is OK then ?
geoff

Deliberately or accidentally?

Either.

I think the two have always been treated differently.
The only times that going off accidentally has been treated as
"gaining an advantage" is when a driver behind shoots through a
corner and comes out ahead.
I wouldn't be against a rule that says that if you are in imminent
danger of being passed (let's define it specifically as—say—1 second
gap or less) and you go off due to an error, you have to give up the
place. That's not a rule that currently exists, but I think it could
be a good one.
But that's not the rule at the moment. Losing control, cutting a
corner and remaining in front isn't currently against any rule, and
in this specific case, Hamilton was closer after Vettel's error so
Vettel LOST advantage.

I recall the phrase "gain or maintain an advantage" being commonly
quoted by commentators in relation to leaving the track.
geoff

Except Vettel did neither. He didn't gain or maintain his advantage.

Um yes - he maintained his advantage.
geoff

Um, no.

Hamilton was closer to him after the excursion.

Zvonimir

2019-06-12 10:51:10 UTC

Permalink

Yeah, and it all goes under the notion of "improving the show" and "let
the boys race"! Bollocks!

---
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2019-06-12 13:07:35 UTC

Permalink

Vettel cracked. Red mist. In his mindset it is better to crash with 0 points for both rather than loose 7 points to LH.

Calum

2019-06-12 23:49:44 UTC

Permalink

Post by CS
Vettel cracked. Red mist. In his mindset it is better to crash with 0 points for both rather than loose 7 points to LH.

So why didn't he crash, then? He could easily have done so.

~misfit~

2019-06-14 23:54:14 UTC

Permalink

Post by Calum

Vettel cracked. Red mist. In his mindset it is better to crash with 0 points for both rather
than loose 7 points to LH.

So why didn't he crash, then? He could easily have done so.

He didn't crash because Lewis had the foresight to back out of his own push for the lead (and his
own racing line, gained by not leaving the track) knowing that Vettel would likely chop him in a
'do or die' attempt to keep the lead of the race.

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

t***@gmail.com

2019-06-15 00:09:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by ~misfit~
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

Hey Fuckhead. When did you fix the
spelling mistake in this add on poem?
Fucking idiot.

Alan Baker

2019-06-18 01:26:44 UTC

Permalink

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Calum

Vettel cracked. Red mist. In his mindset it is better to crash with
0 points for both rather than loose 7 points to LH.

So why didn't he crash, then? He could easily have done so.

He didn't crash because Lewis had the foresight to back out of his own
push for the lead (and his own racing line, gained by not leaving the
track) knowing that Vettel would likely chop him in a 'do or die'
attempt to keep the lead of the race.

No. If you're claiming that much foresight for Hamilton, he would have
braked earlier and gone to the one part of the exit of turn 4 that
Vettel COULD NOT possibly have ended up on: the left side.