it also ensures victory..

And that would be why Button finished second I suppose.

Quote from 5haz :

And that would be why Button finished second I suppose.

A 1-2 sure is a heck of a lot better than a 3rd and a DNF. Which was what happened to the Red Bulls, and exactly what McLaren was trying to avoid.

Quote from 5haz :

There needs to be less of an obsession with constructors and more emphasis on the drivers who are the ones doing the racing, racing is after all is what everyone supposedly turns up for.

Quite right, lately I only watch the starts, finishes and any incidents so I know what everyone is talking about.

I don't see what is normal about not racing in a race.

Because thats not racing.

I could understand Hamilton or Button backing off if they were alone on the track with many seconds to spare over the next car, but they were in a position to race eachother and I think its awful that people seem to think its wrong that Button chose to have a race, regardless how how many times teams have opted for an easy 1-2 before, it still isn't right.

Unfortunately, it's also the team that pay the drivers their salaries, and no team would want a driver that doesn't obey to their instructions/decisions on a continual basis.

They were in a position to race each other only because Lewis thought the race was effectively over, but Jensen didn't. Which is also exactly why Lewis asked the question on the radio to begin with. If the team answered back Jensen was going to race him, do you think he'd push harder?
If you look at the replay from Jensen's onboard again, Lewis must have been on a very lean fuel mixture, that's how Jensen caught him massively despite being quite far back coming out of turn 9/10.

And to sum it up in one sentence, perhaps you are taking the word "racing" too literally.

Quote from JCTK :

A 1-2 sure is a heck of a lot better than a 3rd and a DNF. Which was what happened to the Red Bulls, and exactly what McLaren was trying to avoid.

Just because Vettel was daft enough to drive his car into the side of Webbers dosen't mean every battle between team mates ends in a crash.

A good team manager will not pick favourites out of quite evenly matched drivers.

Quote from BenjiMC :

Because i'm pretty confident it is a coded message, as is pretty much everybody but you.

Yes, and when Lewis asked if would button pass him and was told 'no', the team maybe realised that this was a bit too obvious, and that they were going to get in trouble for it, so they u-turned to prevent punishment of losing time and/or grid position for the next race.

In the future, when they are told to 'save fuel' I bet Hamilton wont be asking silly questions in public that make the coded message too obvious.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Responsibility isn't a one way thing at 185mph

It can be.

Quote from JCTK :

by saying that, it shows what kind of ..... you are, I'll stop short of using the word you used.

it was the stewards that decided to take a look at the situation, not Hamilton the one that whine about it to the big boys.

And mind you, Vettel did get a warning for that incident.

Having said that, yes Webber shouldn't have been that defensive, but whichever way one cut it, Vettel was the one that CAUSED the accident.

You are probably right, but about the big boys... what i didn't made clear is that i meant the situation when Hamilton was talking to Button/Webber just before they gone on the podium. I know that he didn't complaion about the little notch officially. So credit for him for not being that soft and maybe i was a little bit too hard on.

Cheers

Quote from JPeace :

But Webber didn't have to move, he should have, but he didn't have too, it was Vettels responsablity as the person making the move, to make sure no contact occured, and that it was a fully legal and fair move.

Vettel didn't have to yield to Webber either, at that point. The knife of responsibility cuts both ways.

The onus of safety is not decided on whether a driver is overtaking, being overtaken, or is alongside. That is an over-simplification which only applies to the most basic situations. The onus of safety is assigned proportionately depending on the ability of each driver to prevent a collision. Generally that means if a driver is attempting to overtake the car in front, then the onus of safety is on him; when he is alongside the other driver, the onus falls equally on both; when he is ahead, the onus is on the driver being overtaken. There is no One Rule to Rule Them All; each situation is unique.

Vettel was nearly half a car-length ahead of Webber. He was not behind Webber, nor was he merely alongside in equal measure. Webber was not visible from Vettel's position, while Vettel's car was fully visible to Webber. Therefore, Webber was the driver who was in the best position to prevent a collision. Unfortunately for Vettel, he naively believed Webber would be a gentleman and provide fair room to move... the rest is history.

Vettel swerving into Webber when he knew Webber was there, is a separate issue. Vettel is the guilty party without a doubt.

I'd describe it like this: Webber was guilty of being unfair, and Vettel was guilty of being stupid. The former guilt is easy enough to dismiss as a "racing incident", the latter is not so easy to overlook.

I don't believe Vettel not able to see Webber in the mirror is a strong enough reason to say he didn't know he was there. He knew the speed difference between both cars, he saw how close he is when he came up from behind, surely he would have some basic idea where Webber is as he came pass, out of intuition and experience.

Ohhh, guys.. Still..? I mean.. Still?! Man this discussion has gone round more then Vettel and Webbers wheels combined!

No, it was just Vettels fault. You can tell that by the way Webber and Vettel handled the situation after the race.
Vettel went to the pit wall with his tail between his legs, Webber was describing to Hamilton what happened. You wouldn't explain what happened in a crash if you thought you were responsible for it, would you? It would be like bringing attention to the fact theres chocolate on your hands and the cookie jar is open.

Even if it was 100% Vettel's fault (which I don't believe it was), then Webber will still has his version of what happened to tell Lewis. And Vettel had to go to the pitwall in all probability - he's out of the race, back at the garage, and his bosses are on the pitwall - where else are you going to go. He'd have gone there if it was 100% Webber's fault or if the engine had failed.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Even if it was 100% Vettel's fault (which I don't believe it was), then Webber will still has his version of what happened to tell Lewis. And Vettel had to go to the pitwall in all probability - he's out of the race, back at the garage, and his bosses are on the pitwall - where else are you going to go. He'd have gone there if it was 100% Webber's fault or if the engine had failed.

I guess you're not familiar with positive and negetive body language then? It seemed to be SV was thinking they were going to bollock him, but it turns out they didn't. MW was seeming generally suprised at the incident, which to me, says it wasn't his fault.

I'm totally aware of body language, and I'm aware that you can't read what you seem to be doing into it.

Vettel had to go and report to his bosses. It was an inter-team collision, and he was out of the race whilst his team mate was still in the points. Of course he's going to look down. But I'd say that his finger around his ear shows he thought it was Webber's fault more than anything.

I bet both drivers were fairly surprised at the incident - neither would have expected the collision to occur, and neither was attempting to have an accident.

ffs! can you guys stop this? the guys at redbull are over it, you should be too!

Gotta have something to do till the next GP

Quote from JPeace :

Vettel did a gesture to the cameras that indicated that Webber was crazy.

That's not 'body language', that's a conscious gesture. 'body language' is a subconscious thing that tells tales on you, and is difficult to hide/fake.
fwiw, watching the race, I thought Vettel was gesturing the crazy sign about himself - kinda like when people shout at themselves after making stupid error - its intended for others, but with a helmet on, it has to be a hand gesture.

One classic 'body language' sign is when people bring a hand near their face when talking (eg. to the mouth, nose or ear) this suggests that they might not be telling the truth . Of course, on the pit wall this might have been more about dealing with the background noise... But certainly, Vettel looked every inch the worried culprit, and webber the surprised and somewhat confused innocent party.

Let's not play amateur psychologists.

Bringing one's hand to the face is not a definitive sign of untruthfulness. It may indicate nervousness or thoughtfulness, but unless you can discount other reasonable causes for the behaviour or corroborate it with other indicators, it carries no significant meaning.

When analysing behaviour, you have to establish a baseline. I don't think anyone here can say for sure what Vettel's baseline would be in that type of situation. The world of behaviour science is not so cut and dry as Dr Lightman of Lie to Me makes out.

Quote from samjh :

Let's not play amateur psychologists.

Bringing one's hand to the face is not a definitive sign of untruthfulness

er.. who said it was a definitive anything?
I guess that although you seem to be an expert on "behaviour science", you're not quite so hot on elementary interpretation of English language? ("suggests that they might" != "definitive")

I was just pointing out what a hand near the face *can be* an indicator of because for some reason Tristan suggested that it meant Vettel believed Webber was at fault.

I thought you were hiding behind your words (ie. writing "might" when you actually think it as certain).

I might have assumed wrongly. My fault.

Quote from samjh :

I thought you were hiding behind your words (ie. writing "might" when you actually think it as certain).

I might have assumed wrongly. My fault.

Yep your fault.

At first you falsely attack me for claiming that 'body language' signs are certainties.
Then you accuse me of 'hiding behind my words' for correctly making it clear that they are not certanties.

What a dick you are being.