FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#414684
I read that yesterday and it's a joke, of an excuse with the bizarre POV that it's okay, it was dirty but done out of frustration so it's excusable. But where the laughable excuse falls apart is that Nico wasn't even given a "harsh" five second stop an go penalty for what is clearly avoidable contact.

And it's not this they're tying to let racers race crap because Mags was given a very harsh penalty in the same race for less.
#414688
My point was more that I can see what Overboost is saying but as a few of you rightly say he would have been lapped at least once maybe twice if he slowed to that sort of speed and may have overheated parts of the engine. I think its fair to say when he got the puncture it was race over for him to be honest (in terms of scoring any meaningful points).
#414691
I read that yesterday and it's a joke, of an excuse with the bizarre POV that it's okay, it was dirty but done out of frustration so it's excusable. But where the laughable excuse falls apart is that Nico wasn't even given a "harsh" five second stop an go penalty for what is clearly avoidable contact.

And it's not this they're tying to let racers race crap because Mags was given a very harsh penalty in the same race for less.


I mentioned this just after the race >>here<<, but I thought Mag's penalty in Malaysia this year was for a very similar incident.
#414695
My point was more that I can see what Overboost is saying but as a few of you rightly say he would have been lapped at least once maybe twice if he slowed to that sort of speed and may have overheated parts of the engine. I think its fair to say when he got the puncture it was race over for him to be honest (in terms of scoring any meaningful points).


Spa is over 4 miles long, let's assume Lewis had 3 miles to get to the pits , 3 miles at 20 mph while everyone else is lapping under 2 minutes would drop him 10 laps behind. Overboost suggested Lewis had cost himself good points by not driving at that speed (any higher then you might as well go all out) but did not take the time to suggest what he could have done

It's like saying Alonso is stupid because this years Ferrari is a sb!tbox - doesn't make sense but the point is not to make sense just to have a pop . It's like saying 'Lewis was wrong' without even watching the race
#414702
My point was more that I can see what Overboost is saying but as a few of you rightly say he would have been lapped at least once maybe twice if he slowed to that sort of speed and may have overheated parts of the engine. I think its fair to say when he got the puncture it was race over for him to be honest (in terms of scoring any meaningful points).


Spa is over 4 miles long, let's assume Lewis had 3 miles to get to the pits , 3 miles at 20 mph while everyone else is lapping under 2 minutes would drop him 10 laps behind. Overboost suggested Lewis had cost himself good points by not driving at that speed (any higher then you might as well go all out) but did not take the time to suggest what he could have done

It's like saying Alonso is stupid because this years Ferrari is a sb!tbox - doesn't make sense but the point is not to make sense just to have a pop . It's like saying 'Lewis was wrong' without even watching the race


In theory what overboost said is right, in practice clearly doesnt work as I mentioned above. That said I dont think he would end up 10 laps down. It would be around 6 as the lap record is only 146mph average speed and that was in the days of low fuel.

Basically, Lewis was screwed whichever way he handled the situation and I dont feel he did anything wrong before, during or after the incident.
#414706
My point was more that I can see what Overboost is saying but as a few of you rightly say he would have been lapped at least once maybe twice if he slowed to that sort of speed and may have overheated parts of the engine. I think its fair to say when he got the puncture it was race over for him to be honest (in terms of scoring any meaningful points).


Spa is over 4 miles long, let's assume Lewis had 3 miles to get to the pits , 3 miles at 20 mph while everyone else is lapping under 2 minutes would drop him 10 laps behind. Overboost suggested Lewis had cost himself good points by not driving at that speed (any higher then you might as well go all out) but did not take the time to suggest what he could have done

It's like saying Alonso is stupid because this years Ferrari is a sb!tbox - doesn't make sense but the point is not to make sense just to have a pop . It's like saying 'Lewis was wrong' without even watching the race


In theory what overboost said is right, in practice clearly doesnt work as I mentioned above. That said I dont think he would end up 10 laps down. It would be around 6 as the lap record is only 146mph average speed and that was in the days of low fuel.

Basically, Lewis was screwed whichever way he handled the situation and I dont feel he did anything wrong before, during or after the incident.


Brundle said one had to drive at BETWEEN 10 and 20 mph to avoid delaminating the tyre after a puncture as you pointed out (assuming the pucture wasnt an immediate rupture in the first place) so its fair to assume 20 mph could be too fast considering the elevation changes around SPa (further causing problems for a 3 wheeler) so lets say he would have been lapped around 10 times if not 12 :hehe:

Yet overboost feels he could have done something else that Lewis didnt think about in his brainless haste - thats the point, in theory is all good and well when one is not in the driving seat with a WDC at stake. But ITS LEWIS' FAULT ANYWAY :rofl:
#414711
Well the drive at 20mph would take about 9 mins but the distance he went could probably be covered in 1.5 mins at racing speed so he mightve only been 7.5 mins + time for pitstop down, so at 20mph he'd be at least 4 laps down, going slower he'd be even further down. No chance of any points. As they say, you can only p*** with the c*** you've got and Lewis did what he could to try and stay in it.
#414712
In theory what overboost said is right, in practice clearly doesnt work as I mentioned above. That said I dont think he would end up 10 laps down. It would be around 6 as the lap record is only 146mph average speed and that was in the days of low fuel.

Basically, Lewis was screwed whichever way he handled the situation and I dont feel he did anything wrong before, during or after the incident.


It took Lewis 2 minutes to get to the pits after the collision. But the tire carcass looked to keep shape for about 90 seconds of that, at the speed Lewis was going. In that last 30 seconds, as the tire lost all form, you can see the shredded tire and its not hard to imagine how much damage was done in that last 30 seconds before Lewis got to the pits. If he had taken 30 or 40 seconds longer he would still have been out on the lead lap - the question is would the damage have been limited enough to give him time to get back into the points? That question can never be accurately answered. It's fair ro assume that going slower and arriving say 30 seconds later would have left his car more intact/competitive. He would then have come out say 20 seconds ahead of the leaders (on track which would be say 90 seconds behind them on the lap), but with fresh tires. He would then have had 42 laps to make up ground. Given that, at the end of the race, 7th to 10th were a minute behind the leader, then if Lewis could make up 30 odd seconds over 42 laps he could have targeted some points at least - even without a safety car. Brundle's instinct was for Lewis to slow down a bit, and whilst we don't know how much him slowing down a little might have saved his floor, for sure it would have saved it to some degree.
#414717

It took Lewis 2 minutes to get to the pits after the collision. But the tire carcass looked to keep shape for about 90 seconds of that, at the speed Lewis was going. In that last 30 seconds, as the tire lost all form, you can see the shredded tire and its not hard to imagine how much damage was done in that last 30 seconds before Lewis got to the pits. If he had taken 30 or 40 seconds longer he would still have been out on the lead lap - the question is would the damage have been limited enough to give him time to get back into the points? That question can never be accurately answered. It's fair ro assume that going slower and arriving say 30 seconds later would have left his car more intact/competitive. He would then have come out say 20 seconds ahead of the leaders (on track which would be say 90 seconds behind them on the lap), but with fresh tires. He would then have had 42 laps to make up ground. Given that, at the end of the race, 7th to 10th were a minute behind the leader, then if Lewis could make up 30 odd seconds over 42 laps he could have targeted some points at least - even without a safety car. Brundle's instinct was for Lewis to slow down a bit, and whilst we don't know how much him slowing down a little might have saved his floor, for sure it would have saved it to some degree.


That point makes the rest academic. Because we do not know if that damage was cumulative. Its likely the damage would have occured ANYWAY, especially if he stayed out on track for a further 30 seconds or 60. Going slower might not have made a difference because the symptoms for the cause of the damage were already in place unseen within the 90 seconds. i.e just because the tire carcass "looked in good shape for 90 seconds" just doesnt mean the damage had not been done internally - therefore the rest is academic.

Its a safe assumption that the only way to have avoided any damage would be to drive at between 10-20mph, above that there is going to be damage full stop, and damage is damage - thats all we do know
Last edited by CookinFlat6 on 27 Aug 14, 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
#414718
I don't know Brundle's history but it's pointless to even talk about it because the discussion is there simply to take the focus away from what his teammate did. This is like talking about the lack of police presence being the reason twenty kids died in the Sandy Hook school shooting.

This is not only hypothetical, it's disingenuous. The guy that needed to avoid damage in the first place was Nico, he didn't against his teams explicit demands for not contact racing.
#414719
Its another comforting crutch for all those brand new *ico supporters who have crawled out the woodwork to say thier piece - Lewis was partly to blame somehow so lets focus on strawman A
#414723
What I find most interesting is how poor *icos racecraft really is how that is the biggest point even for those apologists who find excuses for his sportsmanship, he is a liability on track amongst skillful drivers and the only thing saving him so far is good qualifying that keeps in in front out of harms way.
If he were to start in the pack even a couple of times we will see how average he appears to really be (apart from the 1 lap instinctive pace)
Last edited by CookinFlat6 on 27 Aug 14, 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
#414739
We know that had this been the other way round, there would've been total uproar. As long as the stewards are consistent and give everyone the same level of courtesy everything should be fine.

Personally I found the decision to give Mags a post race penalty more frustrating than the decision not to penalise Rosberg. It was almost kangaroo court stuff when you consider the corrupt 5second stop and go penalty they gave Ferrari. Same thing happened a couple of years ago when the same team failed to fit Kimi's tyres before the start and they were given another lenient penalty. Until F1 moves to permanent stewards, the credibility of the sport will always be questionable.
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35

See our F1 related articles too!