I mean that Massa would've not hit Webber at all without Hamilton. Watch the replay I posted some time ago and you'll see there was room for him to go. He also has brakes to use if it gets too close and Webber was accelerating.
I don't see how my points about kobayashi contradict my third point could you please please explain that? In the video I looked Kobayashi got side by side which made the move legal. Only if he hadn't gotten side by side would it have been his fault.
You fail, Sutil and Kobayashi were NOT side by side, and they DIDN'T bang wheels.
Kobayashi hit his right rear with the front wing, that's why Sutil had a puncture.
You fail so bad, desperate attempt at clutching straws to support an already shitty argument.
Effectively what you're saying is that Webber deserved a penalty for last year in Singapore.
Kobayashi-Sutil incident was a carbon copy of Hamilton and Maldonado, the guy infront (and on the outside) turns in earlier to squeez their opponent and ruin their own race.
All three, Sutil, Massa AND Maldonado effectively ruined their results because they turned in too early in a desperate attempt to block an overtake. WHICH IS NOT RACING.
The white bike (Simoncelli) got penalized for this. Which isn't an intentional collision instigating manouvre. He was infront. Doesn't mean he's not to blame.
No wonder Moto GP has been regarded as a better motorsport.
Being infront doesn't give you the right to cut across as if nobody is there. Ironically bikes don't have the advantage of mirrors........
So Simoncelli is far less to blame than Maldo or Massa..
Blueflame please stop posting before you've carefully read the post you're commenting. I was talking about Koba's banzai move in suzuka against a toro rosso. (he listed incidents with sutil and a Toro Rosso in Suzuka and I did not find incident Sutil with first try from youtube)
which I found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPc_Z-QQjM
Now look who's the one who failed Perhaps you can give me a link about Kobayashi's moves against Sutil? I also can't remember every race from the past years so if you want to argue about another move please post a video. I'm not going to search videos of any of your arguments.
If you want to argue please back them up so that your argument might be considered as valid.
Without any proof that something actually happened you're just shouting names of races and drivers that no one remembers. Post videos it'll be much easier to discuss about them.
And please don't bring any motorcycles into this since it's a totally different sport with different rules. Next you'll probably bring up some Nascar or maybe Indycar accident.
Now where in my posts do I prove I'm not neutral? If you accuse me of something or argue about something please back up your comments. Otherwise they're worth nothing.
And since you can't give me footage about Koba - Sutil move I obviously can't discuss about it since I do not remember the incident.
1. sorry. But I cannot see how on earth was Massa "pushed" into Webber.
2. Then why don't you think about the full picture? Kobayashi had no hope of making the apex in some of those situation, that's why he's alongside.
What didn't made Lewis completely alongside was because:
a. Lewis still tried to make the apex instead of risking his car and banging into the other driver to make his way through.
b. Massa was also going too fast, that's why he went into Webber. At no point did Lewis pushed him into Webber.
3. Yes, the driver behind has a big part of the responsibility, but does the driver in front has NO responsibility at all to avoid it? Massa and Maldonado didn't, and they crashed out as a result.
4. Drivers need to think about the whole picture. Maldonado might just as well lost his teams a few millions Euro with risking it on turning into Lewis. And those few millions would be very important to Williams.
And mind you, Button isn't the number 2, he knows it, the team knows it, Lewis knew it. Just that you didn't. Those two were able to battle it out at Turkey, and Button were able to retook the position after Lewis passed him. How would that had happened if Lewis has so much power of being the favoured driver in the team?
1. Watch the video I posted. You'll see that Hamilton pushed Massa into Webber.
2. Maybe but the point that I've been told here with Hamilton Maldonado applies to this too. ''If he had no hope of making it the other one could've just let him go wide.
3. They do not have the responsibility to give room until other one is alongside. That's why Hamilton got the penalties. He pushed there knowing what would happen and crashed.
4. True but think about his reputation. Had he given room he might have been thought as a coward or quitter. He did not know Hamilton was going to crash. Perhaps he though Hamilton would hit the brakes or turn right and cut the corner.
About Button you might be right or might not. I have strong suspicions the car is made to be handled like Lewis wants to.
You don't have to be fully side by side to control the corner. Everyone knows the nose at the driver's door principle. F1 cars don't have doors but the overlap rules are the same. Also the only thing that counts is track position. It doesn't matter if you're defending the inside or attacking down the inside, what you are allowed to do is determined by your position relative to the other car(s).
I do agree with Lewis being penalised. Just wanted to say it wasn't completely his fault as that's what looked like you were saying.
1. Having watched it again yes Massa was helped into Webber. But at the speed and angle that Massa took the corner, I can't see how much chance he had of not hitting Webber even if Lewis wasn't there.
2. So Lewis would better off carrying more speed into the corner, run wide, and run Maldonado straight into the wall instead of banging him into the wall?
3. They might not have the responsibility to give room and give way, but have the responsibility to the team to bring home the points, and as a result of not giving room we all saw how much it cost them. Lewis got penalised but he still made the finish.
4. So Vettel is a coward or quitter for letting Hamilton through for the win in China?
Maldonado can be seen as the one that helped throw away a much needed 7th for Williams now.
How about because it isn't in the rules. It's an unwritten rule. Part of the code of conduct. If every 'rule' from life had to be written down we wouldn't be able to breathe.
Sadly, young people today work on the principle that if it isn't written it doesn't count. That's why young people are nearly all morons.
Unwritten rules generally exist where if it were written down then it would be too complex and restricting and a new sub-clause would be required every time something happens that does quite follow what has gone before.
That means they are more open to interpretation and opinion, which is why there has been a week of pointless arguing in this thread.
I think from what we have seen is there is no penalty as long as no one retires, which Is stupid as it just contradicts the accidents don't result in retirements.
Of course the fia try there hardest to be as inconsistent as possible.
Both of hamiltons incidents where racing accidents plain and simple, forget the super inconsistent fia and troll cliffe it's plain and simple.
In the Irvine clip, Irvine was the leading driver, Fisichella was the overtaker, so whilst Fisi was half a car length in front, Irvine still had the right to the inside.
Hamilton has deserved every penalty he's ever had. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he's got away with a lot more things than he should have, not just in F1.
You have good points. In n.1 we have our differences and we can't be certain which one is right due to missing information about their speeds at the corner in that situation.
In number two there you are partly right. I do however doubt that had Hamilton did a ''banzai'' move and came way too fast Maldonado would not have turned in, braked some more and let Hamilton crash if Hamilton got alongside Maldonado when he began to turn.
3 Your comments about Maldonado are true. I admit that looking at the results it might have been wiser for Maldonado to let Hamilton pass but he couldn't have known that maintaining his position and turning in was going to end up so poorly for him. Had he let Hamilton pass he might have also broken the responsibility to bring as much points in as possible since then we would be guessing whether he should or shouldn't have given room and just turned in. Letting Hamilton go could have been seen that he did not bring as many points in as he possibly could have brought home. It goes both ways.
4. I see Vettel more as a strategist since he doens't care for one victory. He needs to think about the whole situation and get as many points as possible to win the championship. When in that big lead he needs to think about getting enough points to keep his lead. He can't start risking few points when he could lose them all. Vettel also had so poor tires that I believe Hamilton would've gotten past anyway.
The situation whether to turn in is different to each driver since they need to think their responsibilities and chances to crash. When you are beginning your journey in F1 you most definately need to get good positions and drive fast to maintain your place in the team and perhaps get into a better team and one day get a shot at winning the championship.
ok... I see the distinction you are making here... and I disagree that that's how it should be viewed. In my view, it should be the driver on the inside with the right to the apex, not the defending driver. Both ways end with the fault on Fisichella, but different in Hamilton's case (Maldonado, I still think the Massa move was never on)
But F1 cars have no B-pillar to judge from like in (for example) V8 Supercars, so it does make it tough to judge exactly when the car is seen as alongside, and when he should back out. This is partly why I'm not such an open-wheeler fan... the rules on passing are too vague and they often end up in penalties that contradict eachother.
I generally look at it and ask if the front wheel is next to the front of the sidepod... if it is I tend to see it as being rightfully alongside, if it is clearly not, then he was behind and it's his fault. Unfortunately there are shades of grey, but I do think in Maldonado's case that Hamilton was far enough along side him that Maldonado should have seen.
I think everything Tristan has said has been quite reasonable and correct. So the big question is what's wrong with you?
Oh and BTW Hamilton has called Maldonado and apologized for his behavior on and off the track. I'm surprised that he had the balls to do so. I hope that he actually learned from his mistakes in Monaco and this apologize was not ordered by Mclaren.
Perhaps you can give me a link about Kobayashi's moves against Sutil? I also can't remember every race from the past years so if you want to argue about another move please post a video. I'm not going to search videos of any of your arguments. 