Was it Nico or Lewis at fault in Spain?

[jm doc]

Vocal Minority said:

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.

Hi I agree about Mercedes and Lewis, they were falling over themselves to defend Rosberg. The issue is not the move to defend which is of course acceptable, but the fact that in doing so he forced a car that was faster and overtaking him off the road. That's illegal and there is no mitigation. Whether Hamilton was aggressive is irrelevant, that's his job, he's one of the best F1 driver there are, it was a straight forward overtake on a significantly slower car and he was clearly alongside him as you can see from the picture, and it's superfluous to say that Rosberg may have not realistically known there was an overlap (which is actually crucial), he knows he's slow at that point and he's driving in F1, what did he think was going to happen. If you pull out into the fast lane without looking and hit somone it's your fault and no one else.

[Vocal Minority]

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. 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.

But this is my whole point really, since when have the rules said that defence can only constitute taking a line? As far as I know there is nothing illegal about blocking, so long as you don't move wildly in a braking area (they weren't) or move twice (he didn't).

[swisstoni]

All academic now.
I very much doubt the stewards had the benefit of the video detective work by Anr Davidson before they had to make their decision.

[jm doc]

deadslow said:

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.

I think your posts have lost all credibility after your last few attempts at dialogue mate. Stick to the colouring by numbers book and laughing at your own jokes.

[deadslow]

jm doc said:

I think your posts have lost all credibility after your last few attempts at dialogue mate. Stick to the colouring by numbers book and laughing at your own jokes.

you're right, my jokes do hit the spot

[jm doc]

swisstoni said:

All academic now.
I very much doubt the stewards had the benefit of the video detective work by Anr Davidson before they had to make their decision.

I think you are almost certainly correct. Certainly that still photo of Lewis's front wheel alongside Rosberg's rear wheel while all four of his wheels are still within the track limits is conclusive proof that Lewis had track position. Add that to Rosberg's admission that he moved off the racing line to defend and that he knew where lewis was makes him entirely and comprehensively culpable.

[Hungrymc]

Vocal Minority said:

But this is my whole point really, since when have the rules said that defence can only constitute taking a line? As far as I know there is nothing illegal about blocking, so long as you don't move wildly in a braking area (they weren't) or move twice (he didn't).

It isn't that rule, it's one about the lead car having to allow a cars width to the edge of the track once the passing car gets a part along side (described as the front wing in line with the rear wheels). And I would also say it was close to a 'wild move' because the block was very late and aggressive.... BUT I do also see how the stewards got to the conclusion they did. I think they will apportion blame next time it happens.

[NJK44]

deadslow said:

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.

It was though, so..

FIA state a 'significant' part is a wing.

Lewis had a wing and a wheel.

[deadslow]

NJK44 said:

deadslow said:

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.

It was though, so..

FIA state a 'significant' part is a wing.

Lewis had a wing and a wheel.

Please do send your comments/analysis on the back of a picture of Lewis to 'The Stewards', Barcelona, Spain

[VladD]

deadslow said:

NJK44 said:

deadslow said:

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.

It was though, so..

FIA state a 'significant' part is a wing.

Lewis had a wing and a wheel.

Please do send your comments/analysis on the back of a picture of Lewis to 'The Stewards', Barcelona, Spain

As has been demonstrated earlier in the thread, Nico was technically in the wrong because Lewis was alongside enough for article 27 to apply. The stewards know this, but obviously applied mitigation because of Nico's setting and the closing speed and decided it was a racing incident.

So, in black and white it's Nico's fault. In real life it's a racing incident.

Edited by VladD on Friday 27th May 09:03

[Vocal Minority]

NJK44 said:

deadslow said:

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.

It was though, so..

FIA state a 'significant' part is a wing.

Lewis had a wing and a wheel.

But the thing is, that one still photo a lot of people are basing their whole argument on because it's convenient, only tells half the story.

If you would indulge me for just a moment with some absurdum ad reductio - by the absolute letter of the law, that still photo is equivalent to this statement.

'Person A shot Person B in the heart at point Blank range'.

The statement, like the photo, taken in isolation is an open and shut case when the law is applied.

However.

Person B was about to stab person A in the chest, and Person A had to make the choice of pulling the trigger, or in all liklihood dying.

It's not so clear cut now we have some context around this snapshot in time, is it?

I know it isn't a perfect metaphor, but I do think it demonstrates that context and what has happened around that moment in time is needed to make a correct judgement. About anything.


The context in this case was that Rosberg knew the pass was coming and started his move across prior to their being any overlap with the cars. I haven't measured anything, but I reckon if you did you would find that any overlap was considerably under one second in duration, and the car was already moving.

Let's put it this way - I do not think that the incident is so clear cut that if you reversed the roles and it had been Rosberg going for the gap, that the respective fans wouldn't still be insisting it was the other ones fault.

[cho]

If Rosberg was aware that Hamilton was there, justifying closing the door, then he would/should have been looking in the mirrors at which point he would have seen that Hamilton was alongside and then used his steering wheel to avoid pushing his teammate off the track. The same steering wheel he used so effectively to initiate a block

[Vocal Minority]

cho said:

If Rosberg was aware that Hamilton was there, justifying closing the door, then he would/should have been looking in the mirrors at which point he would have seen that Hamilton was alongside and then used his steering wheel to avoid pushing his teammate off the track. The same steering wheel he used so effectively to initiate a block

Seriously - Hamilton was along side him to the tune of 8 inches for well under one second. It takes way longer to read that sentence than to make the assessment. That's why most people agree its just a racing incident.

[VladD]

Vocal Minority said:

But the thing is, that one still photo a lot of people are basing their whole argument on because it's convenient, only tells half the story.

If you would indulge me for just a moment with some absurdum ad reductio - by the absolute letter of the law, that still photo is equivalent to this statement.

'Person A shot Person B in the heart at point Blank range'.

The statement, like the photo, taken in isolation is an open and shut case when the law is applied.

However.

Person B was about to stab person A in the chest, and Person A had to make the choice of pulling the trigger, or in all liklihood dying.

It's not so clear cut now we have some context around this snapshot in time, is it?

I know it isn't a perfect metaphor, but I do think it demonstrates that context and what has happened around that moment in time is needed to make a correct judgement. About anything.


The context in this case was that Rosberg knew the pass was coming and started his move across prior to their being any overlap with the cars. I haven't measured anything, but I reckon if you did you would find that any overlap was considerably under one second in duration, and the car was already moving.

Let's put it this way - I do not think that the incident is so clear cut that if you reversed the roles and it had been Rosberg going for the gap, that the respective fans wouldn't still be insisting it was the other ones fault.

I can see what you're saying, but I think your example is wrong.

If we still assume that "'Person A shot Person B in the heart at point Blank range'." then "Person B was about to stab person A in the chest, and Person A had to make the choice of pulling the trigger, or in all liklihood dying." has to be changed to "Person B was about to slap Person A, so Person A had to make to choice of being slapped, trying to duck the slap, or shooting B in the heart at point blank range." Person A chose the third option.

[VladD]

Vocal Minority said:

cho said:

If Rosberg was aware that Hamilton was there, justifying closing the door, then he would/should have been looking in the mirrors at which point he would have seen that Hamilton was alongside and then used his steering wheel to avoid pushing his teammate off the track. The same steering wheel he used so effectively to initiate a block

Seriously - Hamilton was along side him to the tune of 8 inches for well under one second. It takes way longer to read that sentence than to make the assessment. That's why most people agree its just a racing incident.

I agree for the most part. What we will never know is how aware was Nico of where Lewis was. I'm assuming he thought Lewis was still fully behind and assumed the block was on and made an understandable misjudgement. The only doubt I have arises from Spa a few years ago when Nico hit the back of Lewis and admitted that he could have backed out of it but chose not to. Did he have that same mind set again? We'll never know.

[NJK44]

Vocal Minority said:

But the thing is, that one still photo a lot of people are basing their whole argument on because it's convenient, only tells half the story.

That's a fair point but I'm basing my opinion on that still AND video. Taking everything into account.

[deadslow]

ok, not a qwerty warrior like most of us, but a guy who knows something about racing:

“Hamilton was really optimistic to be honest,” Montoya told Motorsport.com when asked for his opinion on the incident. “Was he expecting he was gonna get some room?

“After you pull a pass like that the start, there is no way – even if he was in the wrong position – that Rosberg was going to give him an inch.

“You have to see it coming. Being a teammate they should perhaps have been a little fairer [in battle], but from a pure racing perspective… really?”

racing incident. move on.

[HustleRussell]

deadslow said:

racing incident. move on.

Is anybody arguing that it wasn't a racing incident?

I thought the past several pages were arguing over what shade of grey this racing incident was?

[Gary C]

HustleRussell said:

Is anybody arguing that it wasn't a racing incident?

I thought the past several pages were arguing over what shade of grey this racing incident was?

Agreed, and Nico's lying.

[jm doc]

HustleRussell said:

deadslow said:

racing incident. move on.

Is anybody arguing that it wasn't a racing incident?

I thought the past several pages were arguing over what shade of grey this racing incident was?

So when is running someone off the track who already has track position, as defined by the regulations, not a racing incident???