But then again, Hatemelol should have left room on the inside. As for the Bourdais incident it's the only penalty I haven't agreed with, but it was only one point. They wouldn't have mattered if Hamilton/McLaren hadn't broken the rules so often and required penalising, but sadly Hamilton just loves to get into trouble (possibly because he's not quite good enough to keep out of it, even when driving for a championship).

Quote from tristancliffe :

But then again, Hatemelol should have left room on the inside. As for the Bourdais incident it's the only penalty I haven't agreed with, but it was only one point. They wouldn't have mattered if Hamilton/McLaren hadn't broken the rules so often and required penalising, but sadly Hamilton just loves to get into trouble (possibly because he's not quite good enough to keep out of it, even when driving for a championship).

Massa was off the track, not Hamilton, why should Hamilton have given Massa room when Hamilton had the right of way? Besides, it's not like he could see him from in the mirrors unless he looked left as much as he could, he obviously didn't expect Massa to be there, Massa just made no attempt to avoid the accident, it's clear as crystal. If that happened to you in an LFS pick-up race you'd feel the same way.

Why should Hamilton have left a bit of room for insurance? To make sure that his championship rival that was probably going to try everything not to be passed couldn't accidentally (or on purpose depending on your paranoia) spin you round.

Especially as Hamilton will have been able to see that Massa has managed to turn and was now disadvantaged on the inside. Massa even took to the grass in the hope of staying alongside without contact, but there wasn't enough room left by Lewis "I'm so good I don't need to think" Hamilton.

Edit: Lol, "Hamilton had right of way". This isn't the Green Cross Code you know, this is racing at high speeds. It's obvious from that comment alone you've never sat in a race car and had your championship rival pass you because of a small mistake on your part. You're attempting to analyse F1 using the wrong mindset.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Explain this Mustafur. Please.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5aMMRgTEk
For that alone. Massa just loses all respect, he makes no attempt to avoid the crash. And the Bourdais incident is just pathetic, gifted my the FIA so he can get another point, ****ing pathetic gifted another point he didn't deserve, because he ****ed up Hamiltons race (arguably ****ed up anyway)

Its bad i know, but as soon as he touched the grass he had no hope of avioding collision.

Basically what would happen if Lewis didn't cut the track when racing Kimi in spa.

Massa did'nt go on the grass to avoid a collision if he wanted to do that he could have braked, he went on the grass with the intention of causing a collision.

****... not this arguement again.

How about we come to this compromise:

They crashed, Hamilton still won, lets ****ing be done with it.

Quote from andybarsblade :

Massa didn't go on the grass to avoid a collision; if he wanted to do that he could have braked. He went on the grass with the intention of retaining/regaining his position.

Fixed

It was down to Massa to avoid the collision. Hamilton has passed him. Even if he didn't "leave him enough room", which in my opinion is a load of rubbish, Hamilton has every right to defend his position anyway. It's not as if he totally obstructed Massa, Hamilton just had the line in the corner and Massa tried to force his way back down the inside, through a gap that wasn't there.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Edit: Lol, "Hamilton had right of way". This isn't the Green Cross Code you know, this is racing at high speeds. It's obvious from that comment alone you've never sat in a race car and had your championship rival pass you because of a small mistake on your part. You're attempting to analyse F1 using the wrong mindset.

It looks like your experience in a race car doesn´t help either, since your opninions are based on the drivers involved, and not in the situation itself. At least considering your views regarding the acident at SPA:

Quote from tristancliffe :

It was still the same manouveur though. Kimi realised he'd misjudged the grip, and reduced his braking as part of his defence - totally legal. He had the inside line and was also totally allowed to squeeze Hamilton prior to the second apex.

Let's pretend there is no run off area. Just armco. Had Hamilton kept it out of the armco and navigated the corner then he would have lost a lot of ground. He didn't - he cut the track and stayed close to the Ferrari.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Hamilton had the inside line to the second apex, but because of the turn itself he was no longer ahead or even alongside, and thus had no rights to the racing line.

So Hamilton had neither overlap (at the critical point) or momentum (Kimi got there first).

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't see what the problem is either. He came into the corner behind Kimi, and left the corner much closer to Kimi than he would have been had he not cut.

Surely being closer is an advantage. And it was gained by cutting the track. Which bit doesn't make sense here?

Hehehe. Shows you the consistancy in Tristan's interpretations of things.

Quote from chunkyracer :

..

That appears to be some significant tristan-pwnage

I don't really see how. One was someone trying and failing to get by, and was given just enough room by the other but chose to cut the corner and pass him via that advantage. The other was someone making a mistake and trying not to concede a position in the latter stages of a championship. Personally, and I suspect I'm in a minority of not being a Hamilton fan blinded by his apparent brilliance, I think the two situations are completely different.

I'm not going to pretend, like some, that I'm totally unbiased, as unbiased simply does not, has not and never will exist in sport in any form, especially amongst the fans and spectators, but I don't think my bias against Hamilton has much bearing on these two incidents. You lot, no doubt, will disagree

For me it depends where the bias is found. For example, I'm biased in favour of Hamilton. That bias extends only as far as aspiration, though. Given a choice of WDCs, I'd choose Hamilton because of my bias.

That's entirely different from a non-aspirational bias, such as in assessing driving incidents. Bias in this case should be regarded as a personal flaw or an adversary to be overcome. Being able to beat your own biases and deliver a "reasoned" observation is a challenge in itself, but it's a worthy goal - the ability to make a GOOD call over a BIASED call.

Plus, if it becomes apparent that your bias is such that you clearly CAN'T consistently make a good call, it won't be long before nobody will give credence to your calls at all, whether they happen to be good or not.

I'm not biased at all, there's some dick things Hamilton has done, and some nob things that Massa has done too, but Hamilton is clearly a better driver and with a less agressive mentality can win the hearts of everyone who watches Formula 1.

I think Hamilton was a fan of Senna, because he drives alot like Senna with his agression. Tristan you're too biased against Hamilton to notice that if in his situation you would of done the same thing (except spa which to me is an open debate, i haven't come to a conclusion on this yet). Why should Hamilton compromise his exit line at Fuji because SOMEONE else made a mistake? He shouldn't Tristan, if you believe he should of you're talking out of a very dark and smelly place. (And not your armpit :razz Hamilton clearly wasn't responsible for the incident for the Fuji chicane crash, nor should he be held responsible for avoiding it.

I don't think Massa intentionally hit Hamilton but he could of avoided it, so in that instance, the only conclusion is that he DID want to collide with Hamilton, and lets face it, as a result of the contact, he got more points. He didn't win the championship but still, I'm suprised your anti-hammi-bias hasn't taken you to the stupid heights of believing that Glock pulled over.

Quote from BlueFlame :

I'm not biased at all, there's some dick things Hamilton has done, and some nob things that Massa has done too, but Hamilton is clearly a better driver and with a less agressive mentality can win the hearts of everyone who watches Formula 1.

I think Hamilton was a fan of Senna, because he drives alot like Senna with his agression. Tristan you're too biased against Hamilton to notice that if in his situation you would of done the same thing (except spa which to me is an open debate, i haven't come to a conclusion on this yet). Why should Hamilton compromise his exit line at Fuji because SOMEONE else made a mistake? He shouldn't Tristan, if you believe he should of you're talking out of a very dark and smelly place. (And not your armpit :razz Hamilton clearly wasn't responsible for the incident for the Fuji chicane crash, nor should he be held responsible for avoiding it.

I don't think Massa intentionally hit Hamilton but he could of avoided it, so in that instance, the only conclusion is that he DID want to collide with Hamilton, and lets face it, as a result of the contact, he got more points. He didn't win the championship but still, I'm suprised your anti-hammi-bias hasn't taken you to the stupid heights of believing that Glock pulled over.

Thats just stupid, Ever seen Hamilton get overtaken and what happens with that, he ends up hitting them or outbraking himself and cutting the track and taking the position.

Massa couldn't of seen hamilton in hes mirriors till the time he was nearly on the grass, but hes a F1 driver meaning he is going to look for a gap that exists even if the other person will make sure there will be none.

By saying Massa loses all respect for this crash is just fanboyism to be honest, hamilton has done worse and this crash was close to a racing incident in the way it happened(still massa fault somewhat), but hes human so what do you expect?

Quote from Intrepid :

He only lost a championship that he should never have been in contention with in the first place in Brazil. Took it well? He shouldn't have had a chance to take anything well!

Interesting statistic:

Discounting races where either driver DNF'd, average points scored per race for 2008 are as follows:


Hamilton: 5.76
Massa : 6.06

Read in to that what you will.

Or if we just discount non finishes due to reliability:

Hamilton: 5.76
Massa: 5.70

First race of the season Massa's engine gave way. He was almost certain to have picked up 5 points at least from that race.

Would seem to me that ulitmately Massa lost the championship in Australia.

Looking at the last 1/3 of the season (last 6 races) to try and predict any potential form for next season brings up some intersting stats:

Points per race:

Alonso: 6.33
Massa: 3.83
Hamilton: 3.66
Raikonnen: 3.00
Kubica: 2.83


I know it's not necessarily any indication, but it does appear that Alonso was on competitive terms. Next year might turn out to be very interesting indeed.

Quote from gezmoor :

Looking at the last 1/3 of the season (last 6 races) to try and predict any potential form for next season brings up some intersting stats:

Points per race:

Alonso: 6.33
Massa: 3.83
Hamilton: 3.66
Raikonnen: 3.00
Kubica: 2.83

Vettel should be in there, too, shouldn't he?

He's not staying in the same team but still...

Renault have a bigger budget now too, and with a 2 year deal I think we could see Alonso back in the title fight. I'm suprised, I thought Renault would pull out of F1 in light of the financial crises, but instead they are investing more money into the team.

2009-2008


The front wing is way to big compared to the rear one IMO. I don't like it.

The rear wing looks a bit silly, but I'm sure we'll get used to it. But the rest of the car is much nicer without the shitty fiddly bits all over the place. They should move the mirrors back towards the centreline of the car though - I think several accidents (also in GP2) have been caused by the mirrors not being in the general vision of the driver.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But the rest of the car is much nicer without the shitty fiddly bits all over the place.

In my view that just makes them look plain. I always liked the fiddly bits. Made the cars look more advanced somehow. More cutting edge. Not that appearance matters much in the end, but still.

Quote from wien :

In my view that just makes them look plain. I always liked the fiddly bits. Made the cars look more advanced somehow. More cutting edge. Not that appearance matters much in the end, but still.

Indeed, also the Ferrari wings(on the nose) looked awesome IMO

History would suggest that cluttered, over complicated shapes are rarely design icons or even very attractive in hindsight.

You might like them now. You might like Pagani Zondas now. But in 10 years time you'll probably look at pictures of them both and vomit.

Heh, I don't care about 10-years-from-now-me. I hate that guy. Always ragging on all the cool stuff I find interesting.

It's not that F1 cars are especially aesthetically pleasing now (single seaters generally aren't in my view), but more the engineering of it I like. Function over form at all cost. I find that kind of beautiful in its own way.

I'd agree with that in general, but my personal feeling is that it's gone too far in F1 recently, with all the winglets and flick-ups detracting from the look of the cars. Functional they might be, but they are also partly to blame for the lack of overtaking. And that makes them bad