F1 2014

Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Nico cost the team a 1-2 is why it's more than a "racing incident". It was a clumsy move on his part - not purposeful, just dumb, and it may mean the end of the Mercedes battles. Toto Wolff is obviously very angry about it - BBC had a wicked interview with him where he did not pull any punches.

Except that the implication is it was purposeful.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/08/did-rosberg-admit-to-crashing-into-hamilton-on-purpose/

My impression of that is that he deliberately chose not to back out and to let the incident happen, and actually admitted that to his management.

Basil Exposition wrote: I can't see how there was any blame on Hamilton for the contact. The passing driver has the responsibility to back out cleanly if he can't manage a clean pass. There was no question that Hamilton had the corner. Rosberg could have avoided the contact and had the ability to do so. He knew where his nose was, no way Hamilton could know. Rosberg was just being way to aggressive with his teammate. It was unfortunate that he was rewarded for it when Hamilton had to take a DNF.

I just think Hamilton should have been in this racing game long enough to know that sometimes you have to give room to the guy that has some need to get by you. Aand that need means he won't check up when he should.

He has to consider that he needs to take action to avoid Nico. Nick has had his pride bruised by Hamilton's defense on two occasions. Bahrain and Hungary.

So Hamilton needs to think more strategic at that point and know he has more to lose than Nico so let him lead the rest of lap 2 and pass him when DRS is enabled.

As far as the collision, Nico's fault in a racing incident. Just timed his braking wrong. No penalty needed. He knows he was the one that lost the team the 1-2 finish.

Advan046 wrote: As far as the collision, Nico's fault in a racing incident. Just timed his braking wrong. No penalty needed. He knows he was the one that lost the team the 1-2 finish.

A "racing incident" means that when two guys are racing hard sometimes mistakes happen and that's just the way it works. If Nico says he did it "to prove a point", that suggests to me that he saw the collision coming, had the option of doing something to avoid it, and chose not to. That's something entirely different. Maybe that's OK in NASCAR (is it? I dunno, I've heard people say it is, but I don't follow the series), but it's definitely not OK in single-seater, open wheel cars.

In reply to codrus:

Waahmilton needs to stop whining because every time he complains he comes-off as an ever bigger hypocrite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8eYGbSALYY

oldsaw wrote: In reply to codrus: Waahmilton needs to stop whining because every time he complains he comes-off as an ever bigger hypocrite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8eYGbSALYY

Yes, because pulling your weel along side the driver is EXACTLY like when you get hit in the back part of your rear tire. Exactly.

That's nuts, if you ask me.

Not to say that Hamilton was right against Massa, but the incidents were nowhere nearly the same.

Here's a question for the group who are debating....

When you are the lead car, how much space does the trailing car overlap you car before you should give way?

Full car, 3/4 car, 1/2 car, 1/4 car, front wheel to rear tire, wing even with tire, or just enough wing to puncture your tire?

kevlarcorolla wrote: .Lewis shutting down mentally afterwards and asking the team to quit doesn't sit well at all however.

there are reasons for that … the power units HAVE to last … if there was zero chance of his receiving any points (team or personal) then the smart thing to do would be to shut it down and save the wear and tear on the engine

Basil Exposition wrote: I can't see how there was any blame on Hamilton for the contact. The passing driver has the responsibility to back out cleanly if he can't manage a clean pass. There was no question that Hamilton had the corner. Rosberg could have avoided the contact and had the ability to do so. He knew where his nose was, no way Hamilton could know. Rosberg was just being way to aggressive with his teammate. It was unfortunate that he was rewarded for it when Hamilton had to take a DNF.

well … actually both drivers have a responsibility to avoid making contact .. Hamilton knew Rosberg was there … prior to the corner, Rosberg was all the way up to the "door" of Hamilton's car …. since he had no way of knowing how far back Rosberg had dropped in the braking zone/turn in … the smart thing to do is to be sure YOU don't get hit

the proof in the pudding, so to speak, is the fact that his refusal to leave some room cost him the race

aussiesmg wrote: Ricciardo has won from behind and now he has held off a charging title contender in a better chassis, with better tires. I am thrilled for Australia's newest star If I didn't know better I would have put the Rosberg move right up there with the Senna/Prost actions

happy for Ricciardo … drove a superb race, good pace, good strategy …. but 22 sec and 10 laps wasn't going to happen … better chassis/better tires not withstanding

well driven by Ricciardo… with Rosberg coming as quickly as he was .. there didn't seem to be any panic in Ricciardo's driving

codrus wrote:

Advan046 wrote: As far as the collision, Nico's fault in a racing incident. Just timed his braking wrong. No penalty needed. He knows he was the one that lost the team the 1-2 finish.

A "racing incident" means that when two guys are racing hard sometimes mistakes happen and that's just the way it works. If Nico says he did it "to prove a point", that suggests to me that he saw the collision coming, had the option of doing something to avoid it, and chose not to. That's something entirely different. Maybe that's OK in NASCAR (is it? I dunno, I've heard people say it is, but I don't follow the series), but it's definitely not OK in single-seater, open wheel cars.

Ha didn't see that news report until after I posted. I agree with you.

I think a lot of folks are going into this "incident" with their own preconceived notions about the drivers involved. Here's how I see it:

I don't see how you can blame Lewis at all. He was defending his position. He did NOTHING wrong.

The idea that Nico hit Lewis on purpose is, frankly, pretty insane. How could he have known who'd get the worst of that collision? He was lucky to only get the damage he did. He's fighting for a championship, and even if he was "pulling a Senna" it's WAY too early in the season for that. And for those who say "Well, he admitted it!", no he didn't. Look at the latest reports.

Nico got too aggressive too early in the race and berkeleyed up. That's it.

Tom_Spangler wrote: I think a lot of folks are going into this "incident" with their own preconceived notions about the drivers involved. Here's how I see it: I don't see how you can blame Lewis at all. He was defending his position. He did NOTHING wrong. The idea that Nico hit Lewis on purpose is, frankly, pretty insane. How could he have known who'd get the worst of that collision? He was lucky to only get the damage he did. He's fighting for a championship, and even if he was "pulling a Senna" it's WAY too early in the season for that. And for those who say "Well, he admitted it!", no he didn't. Look at the latest reports. Nico got too aggressive too early in the race and berkeleyed up. That's it.

I have a strong Brit bias and I'm a Hamilton fan, but I have to agree with everything Tom said. It was too risky a move to have been deliberate. The outcome could just as easily have been he lost his front wing completely not just the end plate and Hamilton could have carried on with no issue. It was a dumb move, but not a deliberate move. He's now got Hamilton pissed at him, not that he cares, but he's also got Lauda, Wolff and the BOD of Mercedes pissed at him. If you listened to the BBC5 podcast post race there were board members there at the race and they aren't happy with him either and it's embarrassed Toto and the whole team. I think the up shot will be team orders against wheel to wheel racing from here on out until both the drivers and constructors championship are out of reach of any other team. With Ricciardo only 35 points behind Hamilton and 64 behind Rosberg it's no long an absolute given they will win both. It would only take another couple of races like this one for him to be right in contention going into the silly double points finally.

The one thing I still don't get is how Magnussen got a 20 seconds penalty and Rosberg got nothing. If Rosberg hitting Hamilton was a racing incident I don't see how Magnussen holding line and 'forcing' Alonso off the track was anything more.

It's a shame that other than the loss of 25 points for Hamilton, the incident is overshadowing talk of those amazing last 5 laps for Alonso, Vettel, Button and MAgnussen. That scrap rivaled Dijon 79 for spectacle.

yeah the Magnussen penalty was BS … and I'm a Ferrari fan

alfadriver said: Yes, because pulling your weel along side the driver is EXACTLY like when you get hit in the back part of your rear tire. Exactly. That's nuts, if you ask me. Not to say that Hamilton was right against Massa, but the incidents were nowhere nearly the same

The point is that Hamilton has a history of making ill-advised, aggressive moves where the other driver suffered worse consequences than he did.

alfadriver said: Here's a question for the group who are debating.... When you are the lead car, how much space does the trailing car overlap you car before you should give way? Full car, 3/4 car, 1/2 car, 1/4 car, front wheel to rear tire, wing even with tire, or just enough wing to puncture your tire?

Hamilton is guilty of all the above so he has little to complain about when he's hoisted on his own petard.

Tom_Spangler said: The idea that Nico hit Lewis on purpose is, frankly, pretty insane. How could he have known who'd get the worst of that collision? He was lucky to only get the damage he did. He's fighting for a championship, and even if he was "pulling a Senna" it's WAY too early in the season for that. And for those who say "Well, he admitted it!", no he didn't. Look at the latest reports. Nico got too aggressive too early in the race and berkeleyed up. That's it.

Excellent summation, Tom.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: The one thing I still don't get is how Magnussen got a 20 seconds penalty and Rosberg got nothing. If Rosberg hitting Hamilton was a racing incident I don't see how Magnussen holding line and 'forcing' Alonso off the track was anything more. It's a shame that other than the loss of 25 points for Hamilton, the incident is overshadowing talk of those amazing last 5 laps for Alonso, Vettel, Button and MAgnussen. That scrap rivaled Dijon 79 for spectacle.

Agreed on both counts. I'd say Kevin made that McLaren pretty wide, but he certainly didn't do anything dirty.

And oh, lord, that 5th-place scrap at the end! Edge-of-your-seat stuff to be sure. My wife came into the room to see why I was hollering at the TV.

For those of you who said hamilton should have left room... How? It seems to me there is the assumption that he was not cornering at the max grip of the car at that point (how else could he tighten his line?).

The incident happened while "tracking out" from being on the inside line going into the corner. I was actually surprised he was able to hold the line as well as he did!

IMHO.

So, this could be getting silly. Toto Wolff is now saying Rosberg may be facing more internal consequences for the Hamilton shunt.Link. So Mercedes are obviously very very pissed with him for costing them an almost certain 1-2 in front of not just the world press and TV, but Mercedes Board members. This has got to berkeley with his head.

I think he was in the wrong, but as above I don't believe it was deliberate. I think the team needs to shut the berkeley up right now and deal with it internally, not in the press.

Honestly, the Mercedes brass is coming off worse in this whole thing than either driver, IMO.

I can't blame Mercedes.

I agree, the battle at the end was amazing. We had to watch it a couple of times.

The track limits were being ignored coming up Eau Rouge - Vettel was pretty clearly going four off. I think that track needs some dragon's teeth.

I'm not a Hamilton or Nico fan, but I'd lay it entirely on Nico. It wasn't exactly a passing zone anyway, and if Hamilton went "off line" to make room, there could have been much worse issues.

And anyway, it's passing 101. If Nico didn't like it, he needs to go back to school. A good Skip Barber class can teach him how to do it correctly. And then to admit he let the damage happen to prove a point, if I were his team boss he would be suspended immediately. Most of the drivers out there could win in that car, he's not irreplaceable. It's far different to a racing accident. And yes, I would have suspended Prost and Senna for the same thing.

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver said: Yes, because pulling your weel along side the driver is EXACTLY like when you get hit in the back part of your rear tire. Exactly. That's nuts, if you ask me. Not to say that Hamilton was right against Massa, but the incidents were nowhere nearly the same

The point is that Hamilton has a history of making ill-advised, aggressive moves where the other driver suffered worse consequences than he did.

alfadriver said: Here's a question for the group who are debating.... When you are the lead car, how much space does the trailing car overlap you car before you should give way? Full car, 3/4 car, 1/2 car, 1/4 car, front wheel to rear tire, wing even with tire, or just enough wing to puncture your tire?

Hamilton is guilty of all the above so he has little to complain about when he's hoisted on his own petard.

Had he done all of the above, you could have at least found an example where he punctured at tire of a competitor just like that. Otherwise, your bitching sounds much like what you are bitching about.

Your posts sound like most of the other anti Hamilton posts.

In reply to alfadriver:

What, one has to find an exact example of Hamilton cutting a competitor's tire to prove he's guilty of being a tool, too?

If my posts come across as "anti-Hamilton" its' because I don't place him or any other driver on a pedestal. They're human and in spite of alien skill levels they still make human errors.

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

Reactions by Mercedes team principals expose them as incompetent PR managers. It doesn't say much for the corporate stuffed shirts who put them in charge, either.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to alfadriver: What, one has to find an exact example of Hamilton cutting a competitor's tire to prove he's guilty of being a tool, too? If my posts come across as "anti-Hamilton" its' because I don't place him or any other driver on a pedestal. They're human and in spite of alien skill levels they still make human errors.

Ok, if you say so...

So, then answer my original question- it didn't have any reference to who the lead or trailing driver is.

It's a simple survey, when do you think that there's some burdon on the front driver?

oldsaw wrote: In reply to alfadriver: What, one has to find an exact example of Hamilton cutting a competitor's tire to prove he's guilty of being a tool, too? If my posts come across as "anti-Hamilton" its' because I don't place him or any other driver on a pedestal. They're human and in spite of alien skill levels they still make human errors.

alfadriver wrote: Ok, if you say so.

I said it; no "if's" about it.

alfadriver wrote: So, then answer my original question- it didn't have any reference to who the lead or trailing driver is. It's a simple survey, when do you think that there's some burdon on the front driver?

If a leading driver turns into a competitor to prevent a pass, I'm going to call a foul on the leading driver. A leading driver carries some burden (and its' a situational judgement) when yielding and living to carry on with the fight is an alternative to getting taken out. That wasn't the case yesterday but I never suggested it was.

oldsaw wrote: If a leading driver turns into a competitor to prevent a pass, I'm going to call a foul on the leading driver. A leading driver carries some burden (and its' a situational judgement) when yielding and living to carry on with the fight is an alternative to getting taken out. That wasn't the case yesterday but I never suggested it was.

I don't understand your answer to the original question, except that you consider Hamilton at blame... Lewis took the inside line into the first corner, and lead going into the second.

At some point the leading driver needs to turn into a corner to make the corner. So if the trailing car can put his wing on the rear of the leading car's tires, then the leading car should give way? that's what you are suggesting. That's all that Nico had in the second part of the corner, since that's where his car hit Hamilton- wing to behind the tire bead.

What do others think?

3/4 car, nose even with leading driver, half car, interlocking wheels, 1/4 car, wing even with rear tire, or just enough space to have a puncture? At what point should the leading driver give space?

Lots of choices there.

In reply to alfadriver:

Eric, I've never said or suggested that Hamilton is to blame for yesterday's incident - regardless of his history for doing similar bonehead things. Rosberg exhibited poor judgement and ended-up with his car in a position that Hamilton couldn't avoid.

If you still can't figure that out, please change your username to "Obtuse by Choice - Dammit".