Was it Nico or Lewis at fault in Spain?

[Jabbah]

VladD said:

It has been mentioned. The difference being that Button's mirrors would have just shown spray (probably), so he wouldn't have known that Lewis was there (probably). Secondly, Button was driving on the racing line.

Fair points. Thanks for the synopsis.

[jm doc]

Some of the stuff on here is unbelievable. Rosberg admits to a mistake, then admits to attempting to defend this error by driving completely off the racing line whilst knowing exactly where his team mate was (he admits). He illegally (by the rules Lewis is alongside) forces said team mate off track and in doing so causes a serious accident.

There are NO excuses, "Lewis was coming very quicky", no, really?? "he only had fractions of a second", it's called F1 and Rosberg claims to be an F1 driver??

His driving was shocking, and what's worse looked very deliberate. He drove across the track and rammed his team mate off it. End of story.

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

[deadslow]

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

[Z3MCJez]

HustleRussell said:

Quite;

HustleRussell on 16th May said:

Racing incident, as per findings of stewards enquiry- the stewards as always having access to all the data they want plus with their vast experience greater than any current competitor's to draw upon.

Seems churlish to disagree.

Did you think it was a racing incident when it happened to you J? Or when it happened to Duncan?

[Z3MCJez]

Jasandjules said:

deadslow said:

The stewards said each of them was perfectly entitled to do what they did.

If they were on different teams, I rather suspect we would have had a very different result from the Stewards.

This and only this. Nico would be down 3, 5 or 10 places at Monaco. Depending on how severe the stewards were being if that had been a Ferrari or a Ref Bull. But Nico probably wouldn't have run another car off the road as he would expect to get past later.

[Z3MCJez]

jm doc said:

Some of the stuff on here is unbelievable. Rosberg admits to a mistake, then admits to attempting to defend this error by driving completely off the racing line whilst knowing exactly where his team mate was (he admits). He illegally (by the rules Lewis is alongside) forces said team mate off track and in doing so causes a serious accident.

There are NO excuses, "Lewis was coming very quicky", no, really?? "he only had fractions of a second", it's called F1 and Rosberg claims to be an F1 driver??

His driving was shocking, and what's worse looked very deliberate. He drove across the track and rammed his team mate off it. End of story.

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

And this too. But I think it's the same point.

I think Nico is very lucky to not have points on his Superlicence after this.

[deadslow]

surprised so many experts are posting on a school night

[angrymoby]

Jabbah said:

Has Hamilton and Button's coming together at Canada 2011 been mentioned? Seems quite similar and also a racing incident. Hamilton gets a run on car ahead, goes for a gap that is closing, gets hit / pushed off track. Only difference is that Button in that case wasn't disadvantaged. In both of those cases it seems to me that Button and Rosberg didn't realise exactly where Hamilton was whilst completing their move across the track.

Lewis's fault pure & simple ...Button didn't have a clue he was there (spray) & was sticking to the racing line

[jm doc]

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

Now that you've finished your homework (hopefully), your explanation of how he wasn't punished for running his closest rival off the track at high speed and causing a serious accident whilst admitting he knew exactly where his rival was, would be interesting.

[HustleRussell]

Z3MCJez said:

Did you think it was a racing incident when it happened to you J? Or when it happened to Duncan?

Hi Jeremy, hope you're keeping well.

I didn't see / don't remember Duncan's unfortunately.

In the case of my incident, you may remember I had a bit of a history with the other driver (the 'Rosberg' in this scenario), he is an older more experienced driver and was at the time a member of the club's driving standards team- so immediately afterwards in parc ferme when he was on the offensive about the incident I wasn't actually as firm as I should've been. He also had the benefit of onboard video while I did not.

To be honest I came away grateful that I hadn't ended up in the catch fencing at Maggots.

Even when I obtained the footage and showed it to my Dad he didn't immediately come down on my side.

In the end the rest of the driving standards team pointed out that Silverstone is an FIA grade 'A' circuit and I had about 9 meters of free circuit on the right to pass on so why did I go for the 1.6 meter gap on the left. Was I happy with that response? Not particularly- I had every right to that 1.6 meters and was trying to get the best run out of Chapel- but 'that's racing'.

What makes this worse for Rosberg is the fact that he knew he was at a significant power disadvantage and he made a dangerous late blocking move despite this.

[hairyben]

Z3MCJez said:

This and only this. Nico would be down 3, 5 or 10 places at Monaco. Depending on how severe the stewards were being if that had been a Ferrari or a Ref Bull. But Nico probably wouldn't have run another car off the road as he would expect to get past later.

rosberg does seem to be teflon coated when it comes to stuff other drivers would be/have been punished for.

[deadslow]

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

Now that you've finished your homework (hopefully), your explanation of how he wasn't punished for running his closest rival off the track at high speed and causing a serious accident whilst admitting he knew exactly where his rival was, would be interesting.

You've not read the stewards report, have you? Now, please go do your homework before shouting nonsense from the back

[jm doc]

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

Now that you've finished your homework (hopefully), your explanation of how he wasn't punished for running his closest rival off the track at high speed and causing a serious accident whilst admitting he knew exactly where his rival was, would be interesting.

You've not read the stewards report, have you? Now, please go do your homework before shouting nonsense from the back

So he didn't run his rival off the track, and he didn't admit to knowing where Lewis was?? Which of these two statements is nonsense????

[Vocal Minority]

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

Evidence?

[jm doc]

Vocal Minority said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

Evidence?

he said he knew where Lewis was. He then drove completely off the racing line and in so doing ran him off the track. That's not a racing incident, that's illegal and caused a serious accident.

Have you another explanation of the verdict in the face of such unequivocal and self-admitted evidence???

[deadslow]

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

Now that you've finished your homework (hopefully), your explanation of how he wasn't punished for running his closest rival off the track at high speed and causing a serious accident whilst admitting he knew exactly where his rival was, would be interesting.

You've not read the stewards report, have you? Now, please go do your homework before shouting nonsense from the back

So he didn't run his rival off the track, and he didn't admit to knowing where Lewis was?? Which of these two statements is nonsense????

As I said, do some research to avoid coming across like a feeble-minded fanboy.

[jm doc]

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

deadslow said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

crap

Now that you've finished your homework (hopefully), your explanation of how he wasn't punished for running his closest rival off the track at high speed and causing a serious accident whilst admitting he knew exactly where his rival was, would be interesting.

You've not read the stewards report, have you? Now, please go do your homework before shouting nonsense from the back

So he didn't run his rival off the track, and he didn't admit to knowing where Lewis was?? Which of these two statements is nonsense????

As I said, do some research to avoid coming across like a feeble-minded fanboy.

your replies so far have been that i'm talking crap, i'm talking nonsense and that i'm feeble minded, and managed to laugh hysterically at your own comments. I think you might struggle when you get to primary school in a couple of years.

[Vocal Minority]

jm doc said:

Vocal Minority said:

jm doc said:

He got off because the team backed him in the stewards room and Lewis didn't protest.

Evidence?

he said he knew where Lewis was. He then drove completely off the racing line and in so doing ran him off the track. That's not a racing incident, that's illegal and caused a serious accident.

Have you another explanation of the verdict in the face of such unequivocal and self-admitted evidence???

Because Mercedes hate Lewis with sufficient gusto - despite him being their most successful driver and infinitely better brand ambassador (for want of a less st word).

On another note - I am probably missing something, forgeting about (the much less significant than some are making out) over lap, just for a moment.

Talking in broad principals - since when has it been bad form/illegal to alter your line on a straight to defend your position? I have seen it done countless times and no one has seemed to give a st before. I always thought it was the second move that was considered the no no?

That's why I have always thought this was a racing incident. Admittedly there was an over speed, and Nico moved over to defend his line, and moved once. He started his move prior to realistically knowing there was an overlap, and Hamilton decided to be aggressive. One of them things. Nico never moved back across.

But as I say - maybe I have misunderstood all along, and you cant defend your position at all on the straight.

[Hungrymc]

Vocal Minority said:

Because Mercedes hate Lewis with sufficient gusto - despite him being their most successful driver and infinitely better brand ambassador (for want of a less st word).

On another note - I am probably missing something, forgeting about (the much less significant than some are making out) over lap, just for a moment.

Talking in broad principals - since when has it been bad form/illegal to alter your line on a straight to defend your position? I have seen it done countless times and no one has seemed to give a st before. I always thought it was the second move that was considered the no no?

That's why I have always thought this was a racing incident. Admittedly there was an over speed, and Nico moved over to defend his line, and moved once. He started his move prior to realistically knowing there was an overlap, and Hamilton decided to be aggressive. One of them things. Nico never moved back across.

But as I say - maybe I have misunderstood all along, and you cant defend your position at all on the straight.

I think it's about the recent rule change that says you have to leave a cars width once any of the overtaking car gets along side. It was also a very aggressive defence, it wasn't 'taking the line' it was very much 'blocking'. I don't think Nico moved until Lewis was pretty committed because he didn't see the move as he was messing with his settings. You can argue that Lewis shouldn't be that committed but you'd never see a pass if you followed that approach.

The Lewis / Button incident that has been mentioned is slightly different as I don't think Button defended or blocked, he was on a fairly natural line all be it on a part of the track where there is plenty of room to pass and many lines that work. The problem there was that Button had no idea where Lewis was because he wasn't expecting a pass there. The first thing Button knew was the impact (should have been aware of the cars around him? I think so but again, there was certainly no aggressive block by Button).

I'll qualify all of the above by saying that I think 'racing incident' is a reasonable decision.

There has been lots of talk about how this will impact racing between them (if the team don't intervene). I don't think it changes anything. There is a difference between driving into a gap that isn't there and driving into one that gets closed after you're in it and by a defensive move as opposed to just occupying the racing line. Lewis will still try and pass, and Nico will try and defend. But we're far more likely to get blame apportioned by the officials if it happens again soon.

[deadslow]

Hungrymc said:

I think it's about the recent rule change that says you have to leave a cars width once any of the overtaking car gets along side.

I don't think LH was alongside in terms of that rule. A substantial part of his car was not alongside as I saw it, nor as the stewards saw it, nor as Merc saw it. He went for a rapidly diminishing gap, he lost control of his car and took his teammate out. He was within his rights to try for the overtake, but it didn't work out.