Those pictures of yours don't show anything relevant. Kobayashi didn't turn in. He rove straight. Hamilton did Maldonado move to him. Just watch Kobayashi's front tires in the video I posted. Hamilton comes at Kobayashi not the other way around. Hamilton's rear tire hit Kobayashi's front tire because Kobayashi braked earlier and was going slower than Hamilton. Just watch the video. That picture doesn't prove anything else than where Hamilton hit Kobayashi.
And if I want to bet I'll bet against someone I know who will give me the money if I win or I'll bet in a trusted betting company. Not some arrogant nobody who just wants to prove a point. To be right you don't have to bet on it.
I think it was Hamilton's lack of concentration that caused the incident. They were racing so you can call it a racing incident or whatever but if Hamilton had survived the crash he would've 100% sure gotten a drive through penalty.
You think there was sauber sized space? Kobayashi drove STRAIGHT and Hamilton hit him. Koba was alongside so he shouldn't have had to evade Hamilton and he most certainly did not cause the crash. Lewis was inside and didn't even know Koba existed and you're saying that he left Kobayashi enough room? Come on. Aggressive and stupid are not the same thing. If you don't know someone exists how can you drive aggressively against him? This is like talking to a 5-year-old who says everything his hero (in sports) does is exactly the way he meant it and that the hero never does anything wrong.
Since you haven't found anyone to bet against HAMILTON I'll bet that VETTEL will be higher in standings after the season than Hamilton. How's that?
You are just showing that you have no idea about racing. Let's use this term ''causing an unavoidable accident''. That's pretty simple right? Doing something that no matter what the other driver does causes a collision.
In Canada Button did take a line that was towards the left side of the track right after a corner. When he took that line Hamilton was behind and had time to react to that move. (try to overtake from right, withdraw, etc.) He had a choice to withdraw and live to fight another day or to try overtake from right. He CHOSE to go for the gap in left but didn't make it. Button didn't alter his racing line much and all the time he drove towards the left side of the road.
Here we have a situation where Hamilton had DRIVEN the ENTIRE straight on the right side and then when he starts to brake suddenly makes a move to left. I know it doesn't seem like a too sudden move but it was enough. Koba was already braking and couldn't have evaded the collision no matter what he did because he was already braking. (assuming he'd stay on track)
Both accidents could've been prevented if the driver in front would've left room. That's where you are right. But the thing is that Button was in front and had chosen his line already so he didn't need to look in the mirrors or leave room because he was driving straight and as a driver in front was allowed to choose his racing line first. Button did not cause ''an unavoidable accident'' because Hamilton could've avoided it but Hamilton did cause an unavoidable accident because nothing Kobayashi could've done after he saw Hamilton coming straight for him would have prevented them from hitting each others.
I have you a little video here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48QsD1H0sM
Look at 1:11-1:13. Notice something? -Kobayashi is side by side with Hamilton. Why is that important? -Because it means that according to rules Hamilton has to leave room for him. Was Hamilton in Canada even close being side by side? -NO.
Hamilton even said himself after watching the video that he was to blame so why are we still arguing here?
And no, I won't bet anything against you. How do I know you'd keep your promise even if you lost? I'm quite sure Button will be ahead of Hamilton but there's always chance he won't be because of luck, team or maybe Hamilton starts to learn from his mistakes or has a stroke of good luck. I'm 90% sure you will not pay me anything so why would I bet against you and give you money if I lost when I most likely won't gain anything if I win?
Completely agree with ATC Quicksilver
We have 2 completely different situations here. Are you too trolling or are you just blind? In canada Button took his line way before Hamilton pushed himself in the closing gap. Not to mention that they were accelerating and midway on a straight.
Then we have this situation where Hamilton and Kobayashi were almost alongside before braking. Kobayashi didn't push himself anywhere, he was braking and had been alongside for almost the whole straight. (meaning he couldn't do anything to prevent a collision because he couldn't brake any harder nor could he turn away because he was already on the left side) Then Hamilton for some reason chanced his line so that he'd hit Kobayashi. Hamilton changed his line towards Kobayashi while braking (something that young drivers are taught not to do in any circumstance when racing) and caused the collision.
Hamilton did not realize that Kobayashi was there and foolishly changed his driving line while braking. Something completely different than what Button and Hamilton had in Canada.
Great race. Button and Schumacher drove brilliantly and Vettel drove really good too. Couple of nice passes in the race by Webber and Vettel.
About Hamilton... he messed up...again. Currently the best British F1 driver is Jenson Button. (just look at the point totals if you don't believe me)
About Hamilton... he messed up...again. Currently the best British F1 driver is Jenson Button. (just look at the point totals if you don't believe me)
I honestly don't know what the stewards were thinking. The penalties throughout the season have been quite light at times but this -5 position penalty for Maldonado should've at least been a -10.
Hamilton's warning is just weird. His pass with Maldonado was fair. It was rude but that's what it's supposed to be when you're fighting for places in qualifying. I just can't see the penalty being given because of the pass. I didn't see Hamilton do anything when Maldonado cut him but I understood that his warning was given because he was also causing the collision by his way of driving. Maybe the stewards have another cameras or statistics that show Hamilton turning in on Maldonado or something. Because we can't see all the data the stewards have it's always guessing. My opinion is though that this time Hamilton did not deserve a warning.
I think it's time that every time the stewards make a decision we should be able to see every bit of information that the stewards use to make the decision.
Hamilton's warning is just weird. His pass with Maldonado was fair. It was rude but that's what it's supposed to be when you're fighting for places in qualifying. I just can't see the penalty being given because of the pass. I didn't see Hamilton do anything when Maldonado cut him but I understood that his warning was given because he was also causing the collision by his way of driving. Maybe the stewards have another cameras or statistics that show Hamilton turning in on Maldonado or something. Because we can't see all the data the stewards have it's always guessing. My opinion is though that this time Hamilton did not deserve a warning.
I think it's time that every time the stewards make a decision we should be able to see every bit of information that the stewards use to make the decision.
LOL. Keynesian economics are not bulletproof. Do you even believe what you are saying? This is getting so funny to read because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please check what monopoly means from a dictionary and stop using it in this situation. It means one producer or supplier who has total control of the trade of a certain area. BBC is not the only tv company in Britain so it can't have a monopoly. No matter how it's funded. If your nation supported Nokia it would not mean Nokia had a monopoly in cell phones. BBC does have an advantage over other tv channels but that doesn't make a monopoly.
Let me get this straight. You are saying Pironi had a hard time winning San Marino GP since his gap to Villneuve was so small and you are also saying Villneuve got a team order to stand down. (which would mean he barely needed to race at all in the race) Which one was true?
You're also saying that even though the top drivers have about as much retires their driving skill didn't matter since they'd finish high nevertheless what they did if they finished. What you are saying means that any driver could've won the championship if they had a good car thus making driver skill useless because it was the car that finishes the race. So actually Piquet, Prost, Lauda and Senna were all just crappy drivers who had the most reliable and fastest car since their driving didn't count for shit...Man you are high.
The win was different because Villneuve was not as good as the ''top drivers''. His last season wasn't great and his season hadn't started well at all. That second place was his only points that season (probably due to his death later, but you get the point) In that particular race there were not many top drivers. Rosberg, Watson and Lauda didn't participate.
You've clearly forgotten what we were talking about. I'm not arguing about how reliability wasn't a big issue back then. I'm saying that it didn't have a major effect on the championship winner in -82. Rosberg had no major advantage in reliability and he won because of ''smart driving'', which you seem to have trouble admitting, was important back then and is currently. You don't win by making mistakes in many races is all I've been trying to tell you. To win championship driver needs to finish every race possible with steady good points if he doesn't have the best car. Hamilton has won the championship only once because he has made many mistakes and he almost lost the championship he won in 2008 because of his mistakes that season. He could be much closer to Vettel right now and maybe even having a real shot at fighting for the championship if he hadn't made so many mistakes.
So you're saying the results of one race show everything about a season rather than looking statistics? Look at this race;http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1982/345/ Pironi was the only top driver to enter. You took the only race where neither Pironi or Watson made it to finish and didn't think others would have same circumstances at some point of the season? Well done. Pironi's win in San Marino was no doubt easier than Rosberg's win in Switzerland since Villneuve was the only driver who was fast and he hadn't performed well at all in the season so far. In other races at least one of them made it to the finish. Also one race hardly shows anything. What if Rosberg and Prost just happened to be so great drivers in that track. Or maybe some other top drivers made mistakes? (like Watson for example) Do you remember this year's race in Spain? http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2011/853/ Pretty much like the same to me. Only that we had 4 cars in the same lap this year. I suggest you see the results of every race per top three drivers;
Rosberg; http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/1982/204.html
Pironi; http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/1982/238.html
Watson; http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/1982/226.html
You'll see that even though Rosberg doesn't have more podiums than other drivers he has many fourth and fifth places his opponents don't have.
Those fourth and fifth places are the important ones since Rosberg is behind the others if you only look points gained by podium finishes.
Rosberg had 3 retires and a one disqualification (due to illegal water tank, not his fault he was second in the race). Since car breaking and own mistakes are all counted as retire disqualification by a team error seems to be in the same category. That would mean Rosberg and Watson had 4 retires and Pironi had a total of one retire plus he missed 4 races due to his crash. That's 5 races total. Missing a few races because of a big crash is something that could happen it modern F1 so I don't see you point in that. If you make a major mistake you have to pay for it.
Actually the reason Pironi was ahead so much when he crashed was because he had a more reliable car than any other top driver.(only one retire in 11 races where Rosberg and Pironi had already those 3 and 4) Rosberg and Watson lost 4 races due to their teams and even if Pironi or Watson would've had one retire less they had a point average of 3 per race so they would've still been behind Rosberg if we assume they gained as much points in that ''extra race'' by the statistics on how they scored points per race.
The scene was of course different in the 80's but racing and the importance of driving smart has never changed. As no driver entered all the races winning and finishing high was no doubt easier but it has no effect on standings since it's as easy to every one. With same conditions for everyone the conditions aren't relevant. Best driver wins. Luck has always something to do with the results but it would be quite foolish to claim luck alone has given one a championship victory.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
Tell me how the reliability affected on anything if no one had an advantage in that. Let's assume we have 15 races and every driver retires 5 of the races. Everyone can achieve as much points as the others can so there's no advantage in that. If you're lucky you might have races where you are the only top driver remaining but that would be quite rare assuming we have 3-5 top drivers. (which in -82 they had) Wouldn't that actually make winning easier and give it more importance than today since there is a clear point advantage with being first than being second and with every top driver retiring 1/3 of the races you don't have to race against all them in every race?
I'm not sure how to get you understand that reliability is only a factor between drivers if one driver has a clear advantage in it. If all have about the same amount of reliability problems you can't say reliability has any major role with the final results.
And if finishing the race with competitive car at that time meant good points how is it possible the other 2 top drivers than Rosberg had more races where they finished but didn't get any points than Rosberg? Shouldn't they have gotten points every time they finished?
The thing you don't seem to understand is that when other drivers retire a race you might gain more points but when you retire the same opponents that ''gave'' you points might gain more points. In a long term the +/- for top drivers is 0 if they are evenly matched.
I've seen the results of each race of the top drivers. So what? Where other's had both good and bad days Rosberg seemed to have had only one bad day in the entire season. That consistency he showed throughout the season is what gave him the champion title.
Final statistics are the only thing that determine your standings so rather than driving each race like it was your last one should drive each race so that they would get as much points as possible. Driving on the edge is great as long as you stay on track. If you don't or crash it means you just lost points. Driving with too much aggression only makes you lose points in a long run. What you gain in few races you succeed is not enough to cover for what you lose in other races. I'm not saying that you should drive as carefully as you can. I'm just saying that aggression is good until you overdo it and start making many mistakes. (which Hamilton has done this season)
Monopoly means that there is only ONE(1) specific individual or an enterprise that is the only supplier of a particular kind of product or service.
If BBC was the only channel possible to watch from tv that would mean it had a monopoly.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If everyone retires about the same amount the standings are not altered greatly. Rosberg finished high every but one time he finished so how would it be possible for all his finishes to be related to other retirements every single time?
Reliability only matters if someone has an advantage with it. If all retire as much they all lose equal amount of points due retiring and gain as much due to retiring in a long term (which season I believe, is).
About reliability in that season; Rosberg's car didn't last any better than his opponent's. All retired about the same amount of races so reliability doesn't have any effect on the total standings. When Rosberg finished a race he finished high enough to get points all but one race of the entire season. Others did not and that was why Rosberg won the championship. Reliability had nothing to do with Rosberg's victory since the second driver actually retired less races than Rosberg.
So actually this example of Keke Rosberg is quite comparable to today since the top three had about the same reliability and none had a major advantage over their car being more durable.
It's no suprise that the majority of the championships are won with the best car. But you need to remember that the differences change along the season. Button had the best car for only the first half the season. After that he had only two finishes in the podium (2nd and 3rd) and no victories. That shows you only need to be the best for half the season and drive intelligently when you are not the fastest. Mclaren has shown in the last races that it's probably the fastest car right now. Because the situations in car advantage changes throughout the season driving intelligently and taking home as much points as possible is the most important thing for anyone hoping to win the championship. It doesn't matter how you get the points just that you get them. Finishing third two times is better than having one victory and one race where you mess up and end up 8th. It might not be as entertaining but in the end only your results in the championship matter.
If Hamilton had finished third every race (which you are saying is a bad choice) he would have 165 points instead of 146. That's a huge difference and if Mclanren manage to get the advantage in cars Hamilton will end up wishing he hadn't driven so aggressively throwing good positions away.
Also driving intelligently doesn't mean you should stay behind every slow car. It just means taking less chances and being patient. With DRS passing a slower car is almost too easy and if you are faster you can just wait until you are close enough to get past with DRS without doing anything spectacular or stupid. Intelligent driving is all about knowing when to risk and knowing when not to risk. If you are second fighting for first place taking a risk is a better idea than taking a risk when battling for sixth position.
So you're saying that Hamilton never accused Massa or Maldonado for his mistakes in Monaco and that it was ''taken out of context''? Or maybe Hamilton's famous line ''it's because I'm black'' which he intended as a joke in an interview was taken ''out? of context too?'' I'm sure all his visits with the Stewards and penalties+warnings are just something else ''taken out of the context''. Also claiming Stewards to be a joke was ''taken out of the context''...
I've seen few of his interviews myself and can guarantee those above for example were not taken out of the context. Actually I'd like to see one thing that we've been discussing about Hamilton that was taken out of the context.
And Mustafur, you're partly right but don't you think that with the current points system it's better to finish races than not? Hamilton has driven fast this season but has also ruined many of his races with wild driving. It's understandable to make mistakes at times but trying impossible overtakes for example is not the best way to gather points. There are not many championship victories gained by absolutely reckless driving because for almost every successful race there's also one that you screwed up with a mistake. If you look at other former champions for the last one and a half decade (Vettel Button, Räikkönen, Alonso, Schumacher, Häkkinen) none of them drove extremely aggressively but rather intelligently (apart from Vettel last season). Looking that fact I'd claim that you don't need to drive extremely aggressively to win championships. Actually I'd go a bit further and suggest that you shouldn't drive as aggressively as Hamilton has because most of the time it costs you more than you gain in a long shot.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
You know why most of my posts are about Hamilton? Because you Hamilton fans seem to comment only how Hamilton was punished unfairly or how he ''showed'' he is the best driver in the league. When I reply to something it starts a chain reaction where you pick one sentence of my post which you don't like and start telling how I hate Hamilton for saying he made a mistake. Then I back up my comment and you pick another sentence of it that you feel is wrong and don't even bother to look the whole picture.
You do realize that most of your posts are about Hamilton as well? Because every one is so eager to talk about Hamilton it's no wonder most of my posts have something to do with him. Especially when he's given so many reasons to critizise his performance and intelligence this season. I could say that because most of your posts are about mocking others and defending Hamilton no matter what he does you clearly have your head deep in Hamilton's ass and it would be just as valid comment as yours above.
So you're saying that we critizise hamilton because he's in F1 and we're not? There's just one thing...Why aren't we critizising all other F1 drivers as much? We have to hate them all for being better than us...
We critizise Hamilton the most because he acts like a kid when he should act like a F1 champion. Where other drivers do act at least like adults. Saying we critizise Hamilton because of envy is actually the funniest thing I've heard in a while. If I critizised someone for pure envy I'd be aiming a lot higher. For example Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher, Michael Phelps, Kobe Bryant Tom Brady and Valentino Rossi would make good candidates.
Of cource we don't need to critizise Hamilton for every single mistake but for the major ones...why not? If he does something stupid why shouldn't he be critizised. I'm quite sure Schumacher was critizided quite a lot for his biggest mistakes so it's not like Hamilton's the only one who's ever been critizised for doing stupid things. Schumacher learned though from his mistakes and rose to be the greatest F1 driver in the history of the sport. We just have to wait and see if Hamilton learns from the critique he's getting and maybe grows up both as a person and as a driver.
We all categorize drivers in different ways. I categorize him as a kid since he acts like one. I do realize he's a F1 champion and such but tell me does he act like one? He has acted the beginning of the season like a 13 year old kid blaming every one but himself for his mistakes and making a fool out of himself in every possible situations. He's supposed to be F1 champion god dammit. A role figure for kids, someone young drivers can look up to and say ''I wanna be like him''. Now look what he's accomplished this season. If he wasn't such a star he would've gotten some 4 races penalty for the race card alone. Also making new records about visiting the stewards and then claiming they are but a joke is no way to act.
And where did I say any victory Hamilton has had was not earned by him? I was following the basic idea you Hamilton freaks have said all along trying to prove how you comment Hamilton on his strategy when he wins and whine about Mclaren ruining his races when he loses You are just making this story of how I see things up as you go aren't you?
I did post a comment in the thread about last race how Hamilton drove well and deserved the win. That you either missed or forgot immediately. Show me ANY post of mine where I say Hamilton did not deserve his win or that his win was solely because of his team and that he is not a good driver.
Also you seem to think Vettel is only winning because of his team so what does that mean according to what you just said to me? Maybe you are the one who has issues here.
When Hamilton loses much it's mostly about him making mistakes on the track than being perfect in every way and team making the errors. When you are telling me he won because he outsmarted someone on dry track that's being biased.
Remember; on dry conditions teams make the strategy 99% and when it starts to rain the driver has more authority in doing the strategy because he knows the circumstances around the track and the pitcrew doesn't.
Anyway I was just following the logic you have seemed to use many times. You've implied that Hamilton has nothing to do with the tactics but still claim that he outsmarts his opponents in some races. That's quite funny actually. If he loses because of his team's strategies he also must win because of his team's strategies and he is not to get credit for tactics. Hamilton has not outsmarted anyone this season and that was what I was trying to imply. I didn't say it was so I just said it was so if I followed your logic.
If Hamilton got info that it was going to rain hard his risk was worth taking as you said. But that's one of the things we'll never know. I remember seeing a weather machine in the broadcast that only said the rain would continue for maybe 15 minutes, not increase or diminish but just continue. I doubt that Mclaren believed it was going to rain very hard within the next lap since no other top teams had come to the same conclusion, but it's a possibility. Red Bull clearly didn't think so because they gave Webber slick tires and quite often the teams do have a similar view of the circumstances because they all have the best possible gear and people there. It's just a matter of taking risks.
Maybe Hamilton just decided that he wanted to win the race and didn't care if he was third or fourth. That's a logical risk since he knew he couldn't have won Button or Vettel because he had to pit and they didn't.
I agree with you that it wasn't a bizarre decision but we really can't be sure about the ''poor judged'' part. Also I strongly believe that it was Hamilton's call and Mclaren is just covering him trying to get him look ahead to the next race and not dwell in the last race with media bothering him.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG