"Imagine this scenario - 2 races left, two drivers (Driver A and Driver B) tied 'for points'. but Driver A has 3 races win more than Driver B. Your robbed of a grand stand finish!" This kind of argument's a red herring. Both systems can provide both close finishes and blowouts (there've been plenty of championships where there was a >10 point differential going into the last race). The correct argument is that it's a *completely braindead way of doing things* that does not in any way reflect overall driver skill. It'll be a horrible train wreck and be revoked after one season if not sooner.
jamesf1: well, duh. Who else is competitive with Ferrari? No-one. If you went back to the 1990s it would be Hill or Hakkinen fans, I guess. Doesn't really mean anything in particular. The top two teams in F1 are Ferrari and Mclaren, so by nature most with an interest will be fans of one or the other, and it's hardly likely to be Ferrari fans who join an anti-Ferrari group, is it? Sooo, by process of elimination...yeah.
To be clear, I don't think the issue is that we should throw the rule book away. But:
a) there is a very good case that Hamilton did not break the rules. You can argue the toss on this, as we have been doing, but it's certainly not clear cut. Not everyone is saying "yeah, he cheated, but let him get away with it because it was entertaining!", as you try to characterize it.
b) the authorities have already demonstrated numerous times that they are happy to exercise discretion in awarding penalties. The most obvious example being the tap on the wrist given to Massa for a dangerous pit lane exit. It's therefore entirely legitimate to argue that it would have been better for the sake of consistency and the sport for them to exercise discretion in punishing Hamilton for the supposed infraction at Spa, given the ultimate nature of the result.
To be clear, I don't think the issue is that we should throw the rule book away. But:
a) there is a very good case that Hamilton did not break the rules. You can argue the toss on this, as we have been doing, but it's certainly not clear cut. Not everyone is saying "yeah, he cheated, but let him get away with it because it was entertaining!", as you try to characterize it.
b) the authorities have already demonstrated numerous times that they are happy to exercise discretion in awarding penalties. The most obvious example being the tap on the wrist given to Massa for a dangerous pit lane exit. It's therefore entirely legitimate to argue that it would have been better for the sake of consistency and the sport for them to exercise discretion in punishing Hamilton for the supposed infraction at Spa, given the ultimate nature of the result.
amp: AFAIK you can only be penalized for making excessive moves on a straight when you're the lead car trying to block someone from passing you, which was not the case here. The chasing car can make as many moves as he likes, but the lead car can only make one move. In this case there isn't really a clear lead car - Hamilton has a lead at the start of the straight, then relinquishes it and cuts across the back of Raikkonen more or less in one movement - so I can't really see that rule applying.
Aside from the debate, I think it's amazing to watch Hamilton drive Raikkonen down in that extended onboard footage. And remember that Raikkonen isn't exactly a slouch in the wet - he laps about as fast as everyone else except Hamilton does. Hamilton's just an absolute demon.
It doesn't show anything because it's an angled shot with no useful reference point. Remember watching rowing at the Olympics?
shotglass: we're just going over the same ground now. You consider the second half of the chicane to be a corner in itself, and the position halfway through the chicane to be the 'entry to a corner'; I don't. We're not going to resolve that, so there's no point arguing about it. To my mind the entry point is the entry of the chicane, at which point they were exactly level.
jctk: sorry, can't get behind you on that. Raikkonen either just screwed up or, as I said, had an unlucky accident. He wasn't racing anyone at the time and neither was Sutil. It was purely unlucky.
The situation with Kovalainen was entirely different. The two were racing and he made a completely ill-judged passing attempt; he had no right to be there as he was *clearly* behind entering the corner, and he made the choice to simply punt it straight into Webber when he had all sorts of other options and absolutely no right to intentionally tag Webber. It wasn't a mistake, he didn't overbrake and lose control of the car, he just drove it right up there and tagged him. It was a conscious decision, not an unfortunate consequence of an accident. Penalizing him for it was completely correct and I can't see any problem with it, and it's really not comparable to Raikkonen / Sutil.
The situation with Kovalainen was entirely different. The two were racing and he made a completely ill-judged passing attempt; he had no right to be there as he was *clearly* behind entering the corner, and he made the choice to simply punt it straight into Webber when he had all sorts of other options and absolutely no right to intentionally tag Webber. It wasn't a mistake, he didn't overbrake and lose control of the car, he just drove it right up there and tagged him. It was a conscious decision, not an unfortunate consequence of an accident. Penalizing him for it was completely correct and I can't see any problem with it, and it's really not comparable to Raikkonen / Sutil.
shotglass: at that point in the picture, Hamilton has already been forced off the track. Look at the amount of space Raikkonen has left him: there's not a car's width on the track.
jctk: I agree on that, but it's not something they can magically change for this particular decision. But yes, the regulations are probably wrong there, it should be 15 or 20 seconds, as that's about how much track time a drive through costs on most circuits.
As for the points about previous decisions, well, I think it's a dangerous road to go down, as it just opens twenty million cans of worms. FWIW I though the Kimi and Massa decisions were sensible. The thing with the Massa incident is it's hard to issue a sanction on the basis that it's Massa's fault - that's hard to prove. So it's a bit tough to issue a sanction that costs Massa in terms of championship chances for an incident that may not even have been his fault. I think it's good for the sport to let that one ride without penalizing Massa, though they could have issued a more meaningful sanction to the *team* somehow.
Again with Raikkonen in Monaco I can see the decision there. It was simply a flat out mistake / accident - either Raikkonen overbraked or he got unlucky and hit something on the track. There was absolutely no reason for him to intentionally take out Sutil, and I don't think anyone has even suggested that was the case. Again I think it would be bad for the sport for him to be artificially hurt in the standings for what was either an honest mistake or an unlucky accident.
For me the thing is, if you establish a perfectly sensible precedent with decisions like that - of not enforcing regulations to the strictest extent in the interests of letting the championship play out fairly - why throw it out of the window when it comes to Hamilton? Aside from the whole debate about whether Hamilton did anything wrong, even if you were to accept for the purposes of argument that he did, the prior incidents clearly set a precedent for not giving Hamilton a points penalty, since the incident in the end did not materially affect the outcome of the race. It's very hard, IMHO, to support *both* the penalties given to Raikkonen and Massa *and* the penalty given to Hamilton. I think the former were correct, I don't think Raikkonen or Massa should have been punished any more than they were...but in that context, even if it were undeniable that Hamilton had been at fault in the incident with Raikkonen, the punishment meted out seems unduly harsh.
As for the points about previous decisions, well, I think it's a dangerous road to go down, as it just opens twenty million cans of worms. FWIW I though the Kimi and Massa decisions were sensible. The thing with the Massa incident is it's hard to issue a sanction on the basis that it's Massa's fault - that's hard to prove. So it's a bit tough to issue a sanction that costs Massa in terms of championship chances for an incident that may not even have been his fault. I think it's good for the sport to let that one ride without penalizing Massa, though they could have issued a more meaningful sanction to the *team* somehow.
Again with Raikkonen in Monaco I can see the decision there. It was simply a flat out mistake / accident - either Raikkonen overbraked or he got unlucky and hit something on the track. There was absolutely no reason for him to intentionally take out Sutil, and I don't think anyone has even suggested that was the case. Again I think it would be bad for the sport for him to be artificially hurt in the standings for what was either an honest mistake or an unlucky accident.
For me the thing is, if you establish a perfectly sensible precedent with decisions like that - of not enforcing regulations to the strictest extent in the interests of letting the championship play out fairly - why throw it out of the window when it comes to Hamilton? Aside from the whole debate about whether Hamilton did anything wrong, even if you were to accept for the purposes of argument that he did, the prior incidents clearly set a precedent for not giving Hamilton a points penalty, since the incident in the end did not materially affect the outcome of the race. It's very hard, IMHO, to support *both* the penalties given to Raikkonen and Massa *and* the penalty given to Hamilton. I think the former were correct, I don't think Raikkonen or Massa should have been punished any more than they were...but in that context, even if it were undeniable that Hamilton had been at fault in the incident with Raikkonen, the punishment meted out seems unduly harsh.
jctk: the 25 seconds is written into the regulations; if they choose a drive through as the sanction, it has to count as 25 seconds.
shotglass: I don't know if it's codified in the rules, but to my mind a chicane is a single element. It's not two separate corners. That's why they are inevitably called "a chicane" (note the singular), not "those two separate corners which happen to be very close to each other". 
Edit: the issue isn't that Hamilton can complain about being run off the track - the issue is that it's hardly fair to penalize *him* for it.
Edit: the issue isn't that Hamilton can complain about being run off the track - the issue is that it's hardly fair to penalize *him* for it.
Last edited by AdamW, .
I can only say what I see, and from the regular camera view, Hamilton is clearly a full car width *outside* (with respect to the corner when they finally reach it) Raikkonen for the first half of the straight, then cuts directly across the back of him and is a full car width *inside* when they begin to brake for the corner. I just can't see any point in that straight when he could possibly be in the slipstream of Raikkonen's car. Perhaps he was just using the phrase as shorthand for "close behind"? But if you can point out on the video the point at which Hamilton's car is directly behind Raikkonen's (other than the split second where he switches position from outside to inside), please do.
I guess during the chicane is more open to interpretation, but to my view, Raikkonen is not clearly ahead at any point during entry to the chicane. He only pulls ahead (always by less than a car length) during the right hand section, which as I said is to be expected since he has the inside line during that section. I don't think he has the right to the inside line of the left hand section unless he can drive it without blocking off Hamilton's natural line, which he clearly can't.
I guess during the chicane is more open to interpretation, but to my view, Raikkonen is not clearly ahead at any point during entry to the chicane. He only pulls ahead (always by less than a car length) during the right hand section, which as I said is to be expected since he has the inside line during that section. I don't think he has the right to the inside line of the left hand section unless he can drive it without blocking off Hamilton's natural line, which he clearly can't.
Right. You can't consider their position halfway through a chicane; as I already wrote, when two cars enter a chicane side by side, whoever has the outside line for the *first* half will inevitably lose out through it, but then gain through the *second* half where he has a right to the inside line. Just think Blackwood chicane - if you went in side-by-side with someone with you on the right, you would feel pretty aggrieved if the other guy cut across you to the apex of the second part of the chicane, right? You have a right to that line, he should leave you a car's width at the apex.
Each racer must leave the other room; it would be wrong for Hamilton to have tried to hit the apex of the right hand section and force Raikkonen off the track, so it's equally wrong for Raikkonen to try and hit the apex (actually he hits it early) of the left hand section given that they went into the corner together. If he leaves Hamilton room, as he should have done given that they went in neck and neck, they would likely have come out side by side, or with one slightly ahead if he drove the corner better. But by driving right to the apex of the left hand section, Raikkonen never let it be a fair contest.
Commander, it's already been completely and unarguably demonstrated that Hamilton never got any slipstream from Raikkonen. He is never directly behind Raikkonen as they go up the straight. He simply outbrakes him.
Each racer must leave the other room; it would be wrong for Hamilton to have tried to hit the apex of the right hand section and force Raikkonen off the track, so it's equally wrong for Raikkonen to try and hit the apex (actually he hits it early) of the left hand section given that they went into the corner together. If he leaves Hamilton room, as he should have done given that they went in neck and neck, they would likely have come out side by side, or with one slightly ahead if he drove the corner better. But by driving right to the apex of the left hand section, Raikkonen never let it be a fair contest.
Commander, it's already been completely and unarguably demonstrated that Hamilton never got any slipstream from Raikkonen. He is never directly behind Raikkonen as they go up the straight. He simply outbrakes him.
Last edited by AdamW, .
If you watch the external camera it certainly doesn't look like Hamilton could just lift off to get back behind Raikkonen halfway through the chicane. The cars are still substantially overlapping, and they're travelling quite slowly at that point. I think it would've taken brakes to get back behind him.
I'm not quite sure what the point is in arguing about how much / whether Hamilton lifted off the throttle to let Raikkonen back; the point is, Raikkonen was clearly a full car length ahead of Hamilton during the length of the straight, so he had the position back. How it was done doesn't really matter. I don't think either was close to full throttle during the straight. Certainly Raikkonen couldn't possibly have been, or else it would not have been possible for Hamilton to gain on him slightly after returning the position; if they'd both been accelerating at the same rate, given that Hamilton logically *must* have started from a slower speed, Raikkonen would inevitably gain on Hamilton (even without the fact that the Ferrari has slightly superior acceleration). The only way the battle could possibly have worked out the way it did is if Hamilton is accelerating harder than Raikkonen up the straight *after* giving back the position.
I'm not quite sure what the point is in arguing about how much / whether Hamilton lifted off the throttle to let Raikkonen back; the point is, Raikkonen was clearly a full car length ahead of Hamilton during the length of the straight, so he had the position back. How it was done doesn't really matter. I don't think either was close to full throttle during the straight. Certainly Raikkonen couldn't possibly have been, or else it would not have been possible for Hamilton to gain on him slightly after returning the position; if they'd both been accelerating at the same rate, given that Hamilton logically *must* have started from a slower speed, Raikkonen would inevitably gain on Hamilton (even without the fact that the Ferrari has slightly superior acceleration). The only way the battle could possibly have worked out the way it did is if Hamilton is accelerating harder than Raikkonen up the straight *after* giving back the position.
Additional - I don't think you can consider the position of the two cars partway through the chicane. A chicane is a single element. Inevitably, whichever car takes the left hand line in a right->left chicane will be slower through the first part and faster through the second. To me it makes sense to consider the position of the cars entering the chicane as the determining factor for the whole chicane, although I don't know if this is actually how it's done under the official regulations.
There's a good quality video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4TZww5f6ko
To me it shows clearly that the two are level going into the chicane, which gives both the right to room to race. To me, Raikkonen does not grant this to Hamilton in the left hand section of the chicane; he drives to the extreme inside of the track even before the apex (not a natural racing line, even, let alone the correct line to drive two abreast).
It's not reasonable to expect Hamilton to attempt to brake smoothly and slot in behind Raikkonen in that situation, it's Raikkonen's responsibility to give him room to race. It would have been very dangerous to try and back off, actually, in a slow corner, on a wet track, on dry weather tires, off the racing line, with his tires already committed to turning the corner - he'd more likely wind up spinning it straight off the track.
It doesn't look to me like Hamilton overcooked it coming into the chicane; he makes the right hand part quite comfortably with no waggling or lockups, and he looks like he had the correct speed and traction to make it around the left hander if he had been given room. It doesn't look like he *had* to cut the corner to make it through, if Raikkonen's position were not a factor.
On the following run up the straight, it's clearly visible that Hamilton is not in Raikkonen's slipstream at any point. He's able to regain the position simply be accelerating more aggressively and braking better for the next turn. It doesn't look like something worth a penalty, to me.
To me it shows clearly that the two are level going into the chicane, which gives both the right to room to race. To me, Raikkonen does not grant this to Hamilton in the left hand section of the chicane; he drives to the extreme inside of the track even before the apex (not a natural racing line, even, let alone the correct line to drive two abreast).
It's not reasonable to expect Hamilton to attempt to brake smoothly and slot in behind Raikkonen in that situation, it's Raikkonen's responsibility to give him room to race. It would have been very dangerous to try and back off, actually, in a slow corner, on a wet track, on dry weather tires, off the racing line, with his tires already committed to turning the corner - he'd more likely wind up spinning it straight off the track.
It doesn't look to me like Hamilton overcooked it coming into the chicane; he makes the right hand part quite comfortably with no waggling or lockups, and he looks like he had the correct speed and traction to make it around the left hander if he had been given room. It doesn't look like he *had* to cut the corner to make it through, if Raikkonen's position were not a factor.
On the following run up the straight, it's clearly visible that Hamilton is not in Raikkonen's slipstream at any point. He's able to regain the position simply be accelerating more aggressively and braking better for the next turn. It doesn't look like something worth a penalty, to me.
Last edited by AdamW, .
Reason : what happened to my paragraphs?!
I use Chris from vmax's set, whatever that has . 1:01.15.
ryan: it's quite easy to be faster online than in hotlapping mode on as club, because you can take a much wider (hence faster) line through the flat-out chicane. it's much trickier to get through it fast while still making the verification system happy.
. 1:01.15.ryan: it's quite easy to be faster online than in hotlapping mode on as club, because you can take a much wider (hence faster) line through the flat-out chicane. it's much trickier to get through it fast while still making the verification system happy.
Er, that lines up pretty much exactly with what I said. If you'd driven a 1:07.4 split you'd have driven 1:35.8. OK, getting a 1:07 from a 32 is a bit tricky (you need to be a 1:34 driver to do it, I guess), but still. You don't need a _low_ 31.
Low 31 and 1:05 second split is basically world record pace, which is why I pulled you up on it. Go to one of the alien servers and watch the guys who drive 1:33s every lap - those are the splits they run. This guy's only trying to improve on a 1:36.09, and he can do that without driving a 1:05 second split...
Low 31 and 1:05 second split is basically world record pace, which is why I pulled you up on it. Go to one of the alien servers and watch the guys who drive 1:33s every lap - those are the splits they run. This guy's only trying to improve on a 1:36.09, and he can do that without driving a 1:05 second split...
gentle: you've got your splits entirely wrong. A low 31 and a 1:05 will give you a low 1:34 or 1:33. To drive a 1:35 you only need a 32 and a 1:07.
For the first corner, brake a little before the kerb and turn in around 52mph, you can keep full throttle since this is an FF and just use steering to control line and speed, aim to get near the inside (but don't touch the kerb) and keep at least 45mph throughout the corner. The following chicane is very important - you need to drive it very smoothly, taking full advantage of the kerbs and changing direction for the second part of the chicane _early_, keeping your steering input as minimal and smooth as possible so the tyres never squeal and you keep building speed throughout the complex. You should be shifting into 3rd just as you change direction and 4th pretty soon after you exit the complex.
As everyone else said, brake early. Braking early then getting the turn right will only cost you a very small amount of time compared to a WR lap. Braking at the same time then messing up the turn will cost you way more time. You CAN brake at the 75 mark for T1, but unless you're aiming for a WR you really don't want to try. Same with the turn after the long straight, you CAN brake past the 100 mark, but it's a lot easier to brake a little bit before it and give yourself a nice large margin of error for the corner, only costing maybe a tenth or two in time.
I never made it down to 1:33 yet (hotlap 1:34.19) but I can drive 1:34s quite consistently in races when I'm warmed up.
For the first corner, brake a little before the kerb and turn in around 52mph, you can keep full throttle since this is an FF and just use steering to control line and speed, aim to get near the inside (but don't touch the kerb) and keep at least 45mph throughout the corner. The following chicane is very important - you need to drive it very smoothly, taking full advantage of the kerbs and changing direction for the second part of the chicane _early_, keeping your steering input as minimal and smooth as possible so the tyres never squeal and you keep building speed throughout the complex. You should be shifting into 3rd just as you change direction and 4th pretty soon after you exit the complex.
As everyone else said, brake early. Braking early then getting the turn right will only cost you a very small amount of time compared to a WR lap. Braking at the same time then messing up the turn will cost you way more time. You CAN brake at the 75 mark for T1, but unless you're aiming for a WR you really don't want to try. Same with the turn after the long straight, you CAN brake past the 100 mark, but it's a lot easier to brake a little bit before it and give yourself a nice large margin of error for the corner, only costing maybe a tenth or two in time.
I never made it down to 1:33 yet (hotlap 1:34.19) but I can drive 1:34s quite consistently in races when I'm warmed up.
I think I got banned from there too, not entirely sure why. I had a racing incident with a guy in the race before, but he didn't seem at all angry about it and we were chatting quite happily after the race. Then the server seemed to go down and after it came back up I couldn't get in again. *shrug*
I have one, and I know it's 200 degrees, not 180. You can't actually get the LFS interface to 200 degrees, though. At least not on my machine. Closest I could get it was 198. Silly design - a slider bar you can only control with the mouse, no fine control with keyboard.
maggot: precisely . when you phrase it "the brakes yadda yadda", it really does sound like you're talking specifically about the real physical brakes, not the whole effect of braking.
. when you phrase it "the brakes yadda yadda", it really does sound like you're talking specifically about the real physical brakes, not the whole effect of braking.mostly Japanese TV shows and watching mlb.tv. But man, I think just my OS updates and web surfing get over 3GB a month.
I wrote a novel on the back straight at Blackwood in the UF1000...
I shall be there lagging things up for everybody on a transatlantic line and swearing blind that it's not my fault. And running Chris off the road, again. 
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG