The Official 2016 Austrian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**

[Dr Z]

RichB said:

Still desperately trying to prove it was hamilton's fault despite world opinion

No...not Hamilton's fault but trying to see the intricacies of the incident!

[Dr Z]

rsbmw said:

As far as I'm aware, Hamilton hasn't indicated he was going for a switch back, that's just conjecture? I would suggest he was simply going to use his better grip to drive around the outside of the corner, then better traction + DRS would see him heading first into T3.

Pics also make clear that LH was ahead going into the corner, and left a huge amount of room for Rosberg on the inside.

Not a lot of point going over it again though, it's clear who's at fault hence the stewards issuing a penalty!

Cool, yeah I assumed that's what Hamilton was trying to do (a la Bahrain). The incident is an interesting one.

[Dr Z]

johnxjsc1985 said:

RichB said:

Fairy Nuff.

Until I saw his post I thought I was looking at photographs of Rosberg trying to T bone Hamilton.

Just out of interest, how did you get that from my post?

[Dr Z]

HustleRussell said:

Hamilton was not going for the switch back.

Hamilton was going to humiliate Rosberg by overtaking him around the outside at turn two. No driver wants to be overtaken, but being overtaken around the outside is doubly humiliating. And by your team mate? Being overtaken around the outside means that the guy passing you is not only faster and more confident than you, but he is also assuming you will be subservient enough to let him do it. Of course, if he has track position at the apex there’s not a damn thing you can do about it either- if he’s ahead, you can’t just tough him off the track on the exit like a Formula 1 driver usually would. And then of course you can’t use that last car’s width of track on the exit which means your competitor will have a higher exit speed too.

Such circumstances often cause spur of the moment decisions. It’s a matter of pride.

Judging by how much of Hamilton’s car is ahead of Rosberg’s at the normal turn-in point, and the relative health of Hamilton’s tyres, I think he would’ve pulled it off- just so long as Rosberg didn’t do anything untoward.

However, Rosberg didn’t turn in- and for all intents and purposes looked as though he wouldn’t until he was practically on the white line. He went several car lengths beyond a normal turn in point. A game of chicken ensued. Rosberg knew that to stay on the track Hamilton would have to turn in- but surely he wouldn’t while Rosberg was there?

Hamilton was either going to go off the track and be forced to concede the win or attempt to spook Rosberg into turning and risk potential damage in by turning in first. So that was that. Hamilton basically called his bluff.

The most damning features for Rosberg were that he was clearly not going to allow Hamilton to stay on the track had Hamilton not turned in when he did, forcing the issue. This was re-enforced on the way out when the slowing Rosberg wouldn’t let him back on. Secondly he was a long way from his normal line and there was no lock-up or understeer to make it appear accidental.

Great post, this is pretty much how I imagined the thought processes behind that incident between the two drivers--a sense of immovable object meeting unstoppable force.

[Dr Z]

RichB said:

Dr Z said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

RichB said:

Fairy Nuff.

Until I saw his post I thought I was looking at photographs of Rosberg trying to T bone Hamilton.

Just out of interest, how did you get that from my post?

Lighten up Z... how about because that's exactly what it looks like.
No amount of fancy words dresses up the fact that Rosberg drove into the side of Hamilton's car.

Gosh yes, but wasn't johnxjsc1985 insinuating that I was suggesting otherwise? Maybe I've had too much coffee but I didn't even comment about who was to blame, but people are so quick to get up in arms. One of the reasons I tend to actively avoid discussing anything to do with Hamilton in here (even the positives). You get the feeling that people are just waiting to jump on you with the merest hint of any negatives about him. It's pretty unpleasant.

[Dr Z]

HustleRussell said:

Dr Z said:

Gosh yes, but wasn't johnxjsc1985 insinuating…

Someone insinuated that I’d claimed Rosberg had tried to squeeze Hamilton off the circuit in the braking zone earlier. I find it easier to ignore insinuations!

I should learn to ignore better, I guess.

[Dr Z]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Dr Z said:

Gosh yes, but wasn't johnxjsc1985 insinuating that I was suggesting otherwise? Maybe I've had too much coffee but I didn't even comment about who was to blame, but people are so quick to get up in arms. One of the reasons I tend to actively avoid discussing anything to do with Hamilton in here (even the positives). You get the feeling that people are just waiting to jump on you with the merest hint of any negatives about him. It's pretty unpleasant.

not sure if you are on a wind up but its called banter . If its such a harsh environment for your sensitive nature you always have options. So many people complain about the forum but they still keep posting its a
broad church best not to take things to heart.

Banter is fine, but at least read what was posted and respond to the points made rather than attacking the motives which you have no clue about, or invent stuff that the poster never said. Is it really too hard to pay attention a bit? Oh well. On to the next one.