The Official 2017 Singapore Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I enjoyed that; thanks for posting.
Autosport, not an unimpeachable authority I accept, came out firmly on the side of the accident being down to Vettel. 'Vettel blunder', 'How Vettel shot himself in the foot', 'Vettel was the trigger', 'Short of vanishing into the ether, Verstappen could do nothing' and, from the point of view of Hamilton, 'The reward was a victory snatched from the jaws of likely defeat'.
I've read the race report a couple of times and there seems to be gentle criticism of the stewards' decision not to punish Vettel, suggesting that they decided that 'Vettel had already been punished enough'. From an entirely selfish point of view, I would have hated Vettel to lose more points as I want to see a battle down to the wire.
Interesting edition this week with a bit on the McL/Honda parting of the ways.
The thing about that Derek, is that Vettel was not the only one impacted. If he'd binned it himself on his own, then yes, punishing someone who's conceded 25 points to his opposition would be silly. The fact that Verstappen and Kimi's races were also ruined, means that punishment of some sort should be handed out, otherwise where's the deterrent to stop other people driving in the same manner?Autosport, not an unimpeachable authority I accept, came out firmly on the side of the accident being down to Vettel. 'Vettel blunder', 'How Vettel shot himself in the foot', 'Vettel was the trigger', 'Short of vanishing into the ether, Verstappen could do nothing' and, from the point of view of Hamilton, 'The reward was a victory snatched from the jaws of likely defeat'.
I've read the race report a couple of times and there seems to be gentle criticism of the stewards' decision not to punish Vettel, suggesting that they decided that 'Vettel had already been punished enough'. From an entirely selfish point of view, I would have hated Vettel to lose more points as I want to see a battle down to the wire.
Interesting edition this week with a bit on the McL/Honda parting of the ways.
The above paragraph is based on the Autosport assumption that the accident was Vettel's fault and doesn't apply if wasn't.
So in summary, if you cause an accident that impacts someone else, neither your or their position in the WDC should have a bearing on if, or how much, punishment is handed out.
I wonder if F1 will ultimately go down an "augmented reality visor" route similar to that which fighter pilots use. It would allow the driver to "see" other cars through the sides of their cockpits, around corners, through the car in front, etc. Not sure it would help here, but there are certainly situations where it would.
Derek Smith said:
I enjoyed that; thanks for posting.
Autosport, not an unimpeachable authority I accept, came out firmly on the side of the accident being down to Vettel. 'Vettel blunder', 'How Vettel shot himself in the foot', 'Vettel was the trigger', 'Short of vanishing into the ether, Verstappen could do nothing' and, from the point of view of Hamilton, 'The reward was a victory snatched from the jaws of likely defeat'.
I've read the race report a couple of times and there seems to be gentle criticism of the stewards' decision not to punish Vettel, suggesting that they decided that 'Vettel had already been punished enough'. From an entirely selfish point of view, I would have hated Vettel to lose more points as I want to see a battle down to the wire.
Interesting edition this week with a bit on the McL/Honda parting of the ways.
Given the amount of detrimental to their championship rulings the fia have conjoured up over the years to inflict on anyone not in the red car, forgive me feeling its more than a little cynical now, regardless of my own feelings whether penalties should happen.Autosport, not an unimpeachable authority I accept, came out firmly on the side of the accident being down to Vettel. 'Vettel blunder', 'How Vettel shot himself in the foot', 'Vettel was the trigger', 'Short of vanishing into the ether, Verstappen could do nothing' and, from the point of view of Hamilton, 'The reward was a victory snatched from the jaws of likely defeat'.
I've read the race report a couple of times and there seems to be gentle criticism of the stewards' decision not to punish Vettel, suggesting that they decided that 'Vettel had already been punished enough'. From an entirely selfish point of view, I would have hated Vettel to lose more points as I want to see a battle down to the wire.
Interesting edition this week with a bit on the McL/Honda parting of the ways.
Morbid curiosity wonders what they may feed in vettel by constantly letting him off the hook though. It wont be an urge to improve.
kambites said:
I wonder if F1 will ultimately go down an "augmented reality visor" route similar to that which fighter pilots use. It would allow the driver to "see" other cars through the sides of their cockpits, around corners, through the car in front, etc. Not sure it would help here, but there are certainly situations where it would.
Interesting idea. They've already got augmented reality brains.VladD said:
The thing about that Derek, is that Vettel was not the only one impacted. If he'd binned it himself on his own, then yes, punishing someone who's conceded 25 points to his opposition would be silly. The fact that Verstappen and Kimi's races were also ruined, means that punishment of some sort should be handed out, otherwise where's the deterrent to stop other people driving in the same manner?
The above paragraph is based on the Autosport assumption that the accident was Vettel's fault and doesn't apply if wasn't.
So in summary, if you cause an accident that impacts someone else, neither your or their position in the WDC should have a bearing on if, or how much, punishment is handed out.
I see where you are coming from and agree to a great extent. I was merely being selfish, as I said. I've given up on the hope of justice where the FIA and Ferrari are concerned. I just want the excitement of the run in to the final flag. I think the season has a few more twists and turns. It might be a close run thing.The above paragraph is based on the Autosport assumption that the accident was Vettel's fault and doesn't apply if wasn't.
So in summary, if you cause an accident that impacts someone else, neither your or their position in the WDC should have a bearing on if, or how much, punishment is handed out.
That said, I know that the WDC is a construct that has limited reference to the best driver. But it can be fun.
I still look back to Brazil, the last race, the last lap, the last corner; it had everything. I was gutted for one bloke whilst cheering the other. I probably would have done the same thing if it had happened the other way around. Yet it proved little.
Derek Smith said:
I still look back to Brazil, the last race, the last lap, the last corner; it had everything. I was gutted for one bloke whilst cheering the other. I probably would have done the same thing if it had happened the other way around. Yet it proved little.
Indeed, that was an incredible finish. As heart warming for me as 2007 was heart breaking when Lewis's McLaren suddenly had gearbox gremlins. Treasured moments indeed.VladD said:
Indeed, that was an incredible finish. As heart warming for me as 2007 was heart breaking when Lewis's McLaren suddenly had gearbox gremlins. Treasured moments indeed.
I am about the last person on earth who is usually taken in by conspiracy theories, but I found the Hamilton gear box issue in Brazil 2007 VERY suspicious. It was, of course, the year of all the ‘Spygate’ drama, and at the last race, Lewis’s gearbox gave out for PRECISELY the appropriate amount of time for him to lose the title.Anyone else remember thinking it was kind of weird?
paulguitar said:
I am about the last person on earth who is usually taken in by conspiracy theories, but I found the Hamilton gear box issue in Brazil 2007 VERY suspicious. It was, of course, the year of all the ‘Spygate’ drama, and at the last race, Lewis’s gearbox gave out for PRECISELY the appropriate amount of time for him to lose the title.
Anyone else remember thinking it was kind of weird?
More suspicious was LH v secondberg and LHs car suddenly dying before the flag.Anyone else remember thinking it was kind of weird?
As for conspiracy theories I always though this was a bit suspect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
liner33 said:
As for conspiracy theories I always though this was a bit suspect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
Why? It was a bad call about managing the tyre life. People make mistakes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
The Hamilton penalty at Spa was outrageous.
Hamiltons gearbox issue in Brazil did stink a bit, but when you consider pits to car transmittion has been banned since 2003, there is no system that can remotely hobble the car. 99% of the time conspiracy theories can be shown to be just mistakes, bad calls or technical problems. When you have such complex pieces of kit like a racing car, its amazing any of them get to the end of a race in working order.
jsf said:
liner33 said:
As for conspiracy theories I always though this was a bit suspect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
Why? It was a bad call about managing the tyre life. People make mistakes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY
The Hamilton penalty at Spa was outrageous.
Hamiltons gearbox issue in Brazil did stink a bit, but when you consider pits to car transmittion has been banned since 2003, there is no system that can remotely hobble the car. 99% of the time conspiracy theories can be shown to be just mistakes, bad calls or technical problems. When you have such complex pieces of kit like a racing car, its amazing any of them get to the end of a race in working order.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff