2021 f1

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To me, this clip just further supports the "divebomb" verdict.

Max is ahead, Lewis brakes late so he's beside him for a moment, then collides with Max when he lifts up for the corner (though I'd agree that Max should have moved further to the outside given Lewis divebombed).

That’s not how a divebomb works lol.

Frame by frame shows ham ahead right before turn in. Uh oh.

[Xtrema]

[Buster]

I'm not sure I agree with the concept that you can't punish based on the outcome.

A driver's risk:reward calculation will include what benefit they derive by punting their faster rival out of the race. Lewis was in a position to disproportionately benefit from punting Max, so he took a risk he might not otherwise have taken, and it paid off.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure I agree with the concept that you can't punish based on the outcome.

A driver's risk:reward calculation will include what benefit they derive by punting their faster rival out of the race. Lewis was in a position to disproportionately benefit from punting Max, so he took a risk he might not otherwise have taken, and it paid off.

So you want the stewards, who everyone complains is inconsistent, to add another layer and add outcome to their decisions? That’ll go well. Might as well just not have a race.

Another new replay, with telemetry!



Max went in flat lol. His intention was 100% to close the door on Hamilton. Case closed.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Supposedly what Toto emailed.

Attachment 100762

Seems weird that Toto would email something to support the Lewis penalty.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ya, I posted that a page or two ago. It's a really good analysis.

Oh my bad, didn't notice it. I follow this guys channel already, has lots of good content in regards to racing in general.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Another new replay, with telemetry!



Max went in flat lol. His intention was 100% to close the door on Hamilton. Case closed.

His intention was to take the fast line through the corner, and since hamilton carried too much speed into the corner, his car was somewhere it was not supposed to be. This is the big oversight everyone keeps making, is that if you take Max out of the equation completely, and follow Ham through this telemetry, it puts Ham understeering wide and going off the track. If Ham was going to be off track regradless of what Max did, then it's Ham's fault. Period.

I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to Ham that he was being aggressive but did not intentionally understeer into Max. But fact of the matter is that his aggressiveness caused the accident. Ignorance is not excuse to escape blame.

As far as what the stewards do for penalties, I have no comment on that. They have to make split second decisions on these things that aren't always clear. Hell, we are still arguing about this almost a week later and it's still not resolved for some of us. The only real "racing incident" here is the penalties. You have to have a penalty system to penalize drivers that do this sort of dangerous stuff, but it would be very hard to apply a dynamic penalty system that ensures some form of retribution for the victim driver in these situations. 10 seconds didn't even affect Ham's race, but what possible penalty could they doll out to Lewis that would even the score for Max being taken out of the race? Other than just disqualifying him from the race completely, I can't think of anything. And even if that was a penalty option, I feel like the FIA would be under some big responsibility to prove malicious intent before a drastic penalty like that. Which would be bloody near impossible.

[phreezee]

I agree with this guy's take in the comments: https://the-race.com/formula-1/not-o...rstappen-case/

"You can argue as much as you like about it but it’s irrelevant. Max paid the price for his aggressivity - which he has always had - and Lewis paid the price for not getting out of his way. The key question beyond all the yapping and griping is whether Max will do the same again if the circumstances occur, or whether he will have learned that Lewis is not going to be shoved out of the way.
A line was drawn in the sand, if you like…

If Max does not take that onboard, I fear we will see some more incidents this year because Hamilton is still a lion by nature and cuffing troublesome cubs only works so many times before a bite is required to get the message across."

Also in that link, hitting the apex is optional

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree with this guy's take in the comments: https://the-race.com/formula-1/not-o...rstappen-case/



Also in that link, hitting the apex is optional

So here is a question based on comments like this. What exactly would be the expected course of action for Max, when he sees last second that this moron is just planning to plow through the corner into him? Is he supposed to make a last minute lockup in an attempt to let Lewis understeer right past in front of him, and then sharp dive to the right to stay on the track and pray to F1 Jesus that Ham didn't clean the front wing completely off his car and that his tires aren't too flat spotted to continue?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His intention was to take the fast line through the corner, and since hamilton carried too much speed into the corner, his car was somewhere it was not supposed to be. This is the big oversight everyone keeps making, is that if you take Max out of the equation completely, and follow Ham through this telemetry, it puts Ham understeering wide and going off the track. If Ham was going to be off track regradless of what Max did, then it's Ham's fault. Period.

I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to Ham that he was being aggressive but did not intentionally understeer into Max. But fact of the matter is that his aggressiveness caused the accident. Ignorance is not excuse to escape blame.

As far as what the stewards do for penalties, I have no comment on that. They have to make split second decisions on these things that aren't always clear. Hell, we are still arguing about this almost a week later and it's still not resolved for some of us. The only real "racing incident" here is the penalties. You have to have a penalty system to penalize drivers that do this sort of dangerous stuff, but it would be very hard to apply a dynamic penalty system that ensures some form of retribution for the victim driver in these situations. 10 seconds didn't even affect Ham's race, but what possible penalty could they doll out to Lewis that would even the score for Max being taken out of the race? Other than just disqualifying him from the race completely, I can't think of anything. And even if that was a penalty option, I feel like the FIA would be under some big responsibility to prove malicious intent before a drastic penalty like that. Which would be bloody near impossible.

Intent should matter. Or we get more Lewis and more '97 jerez

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Intent should matter. Or we get more Lewis and more '97 jerez

97 Jerez is a great comparison, glad you brought it up.



Outside car doesn’t defend the inside. Outside car turns into inside car. Outside car gets fucked. Outside car in the wrong. Sorta like what happened in Silverstone except the inconsistent penalties haha.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

97 Jerez is a great comparison, glad you brought it up.



Outside car doesn’t defend the inside. Outside car turns into inside car. Outside car gets fucked. Outside car in the wrong. Sorta like what happened in Silverstone except the inconsistent penalties haha.

Totally different than what happened at Silverstone. It just so happens that in one case the person with intent was on the outside and in the other case, the person with intent was on the inside.

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not how a divebomb works lol.

Frame by frame shows ham ahead right before turn in. Uh oh.

You selected the only frame where Hamilton was ahead.

In the next few frames Max's half a car length ahead since he's turning in to the corner and presumably Hamilton has to lift since he can't make the corner at the same speed on the inside line so he basically plows straight ahead into Max.

What is divebombing if not taking too aggressive of a line on the inside and needing to lift/brake?

[eblend]

Racingnews365.com: Hamilton: You shouldn't be able to finish in front of someone you've taken out.
https://racingnews365.com/hamilton-y...ouve-taken-out

Doesn't apply to him obviously since he is blessed.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Intent should matter. Or we get more Lewis and more '97 jerez

Maybe you're right. All I'm saying is that proving intent is an impossible standard most times. Even this accident with Max and Lewis, I can't say for sure if Lewis had intent to hit Max, or if he just had terrible judgement in the moment.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

97 Jerez is a great comparison, glad you brought it up.



Outside car doesn’t defend the inside. Outside car turns into inside car. Outside car gets fucked. Outside car in the wrong. Sorta like what happened in Silverstone except the inconsistent penalties haha.

This looks a lot more like the outside car turning into the inside car attempting to pass. Not the inside car trying to pass and understeering into the side of the lead car like Lewis and Max incident.

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This looks a lot more like the outside car turning into the inside car attempting to pass. Not the inside car trying to pass and understeering into the side of the lead car like Lewis and Max incident.

I don't know... I'd say they're pretty similar.

Villneuve took a line on the inside where he wouldn't have made it without braking harder (you can even see he locks up his fronts braking late to make the turn) so it's basically the same divebomb that Lewis pulled, IMO.

(Obviously, this debate could rage on for another 14 years).

[rage2]

Just to make it clear, I’m not here to debate. I’m just here to rile up buster haha.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

97 Jerez is a great comparison, glad you brought it up.



Outside car doesn’t defend the inside. Outside car turns into inside car. Outside car gets fucked. Outside car in the wrong. Sorta like what happened in Silverstone except the inconsistent penalties haha.

I love how when it comes down to it how easy it is to sort of understand what Germans are saying as an English speaker.

“Ist Villeneuve’s auto ohhh kayyy”

That’s all i took from that video lol.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just to make it clear, I’m not here to debate. I’m just here to rile up buster haha.

There is no debate. The results say mountains about who fucked up.



Also a huge lol at seb

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just to make it clear, I’m not here to debate. I’m just here to rile up buster haha.

mission accomplished