Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans
Mags didn't swerve into him, he swerved ahead of him defending his track position, Alonso was not forced off, he chose to take to the grass, watch it again with this in mind- did Alonso have a choice
Mags didn't swerve into him, he swerved ahead of him defending his track position, Alonso was not forced off, he chose to take to the grass, watch it again with this in mind- did Alonso have a choice
He follows Alonso's move, briefly tries to leave a car's width then goes further wide. He crowded him out. There was a 'significant portion' of Alonso's car beside Mags at the time.
Schumacher did the exact sh!t on the straights at this section to Hakkinen in 98....2 laps before Hakkinen made that legendary overtake on him on the outside around a BAR backmarker car.
But of course...that was the era when real men were allowed to race and penalties were consistent. And when a penalty was applied, it was a 10 second stop/go so people thought twice before trying to make an offence.
If thats how you see it then it would be ok for the penalty. But I dont see it like that, I saw one wily defensive move stopping an inch short of 2, still think mags should have been given the benefit of doubt especially in light of how many similar moves went un investigated thro the race
Schumacher did the exact sh!t on the straights at this section to Hakkinen in 98....2 laps before Hakkinen made that legendary overtake on him on the outside around a BAR backmarker car.
But of course...that was the era when real men were allowed to race and penalties were consistent. And when a penalty was applied, it was a 10 second stop/go so people thought twice before trying to make an offence.
Alonso's penalty at the start for not having his team clear was utter crap, such a short penalty for a major safety infringement. I got a text from my dad when that happened saying "Would have been harsher if it was anyone but Ferrari."
Actually, overboost makes a good point. What ripped the floor was the tyre disintegrating. I remember watching a race where it happened at the old Hockenheim and Brundle said if you go any faster than 10-20mph you risk shredding the tyre. If that happens its that that destroys the floor, not the puncture itself. That said, if Lewis did that he may have been lapped and out of contention anyway.
But faster can do more damage as while the tyre is intact but punctured it wont damage the car, the damage only starts when it rips/disintegrates and starts flapping around and hitting the floor causing damage.
Actually, overboost makes a good point. What ripped the floor was the tyre disintegrating. I remember watching a race where it happened at the old Hockenheim and Brundle said if you go any faster than 10-20mph you risk shredding the tyre. If that happens its that that destroys the floor, not the puncture itself. That said, if Lewis did that he may have been lapped and out of contention anyway.
But faster can do more damage as while the tyre is intact but punctured it wont damage the car, the damage only starts when it rips/disintegrates and starts flapping around and hitting the floor causing damage.
10-20mph! That is not realistic to say the least and just to keep a deflated tire intact, I doubt the team has any use for a intact deflated tire!
What I am pointing out is that Hamilton was only concerned with getting back to the pits as fast as possible to the detriment of his car. If he had slowed a little bit to prevent beating his car to pieces and if it cost him an extra 10-20 secs and he could have given himself a shot at getting points. I mean looking at the replay Hamilton was really pushing that car hard on the way back to the pits, imo there was no regard at all given to taking care of the equipment at all. I believe he said it cost 50 points of downforce!
Bianchi found a way to do it, got the car back in one piece. I was suggesting that Hamilton might have been able to do it as well with a bit of care and without being lapped of course.
It was well within the rules. You are allowed one move to defend your position.
It was well within the rules. You are allowed one move to defend your position.
I think you need to read the rules. When defending a position you must leave a cars width of space and must NOT force a driver to go off the track. Magnussen did it and he was penalised.
Lets be honest, if Rosberg did that to Hamilton you lot would be crying for Rosberg to be penalised. That others werent penalised before makes NO difference - that is the stewards fault in the past for not correctly applying the rules. Again, the fact Ferrari got away with the start issue in relation can not be compared. They are all ISOLATED incidents.
It was well within the rules. You are allowed one move to defend your position.
I think you need to read the rules. When defending a position you must leave a cars width of space and must NOT force a driver to go off the track. Magnussen did it and he was penalised.
Lets be honest, if Rosberg did that to Hamilton you lot would be crying for Rosberg to be penalised. That others werent penalised before makes NO difference - that is the stewards fault in the past for not correctly applying the rules. Again, the fact Ferrari got away with the start issue in relation can not be compared. They are all ISOLATED incidents.
It was well within the rules. You are allowed one move to defend your position.
I think you need to read the rules. When defending a position you must leave a cars width of space and must NOT force a driver to go off the track. Magnussen did it and he was penalised.
Lets be honest, if Rosberg did that to Hamilton you lot would be crying for Rosberg to be penalised. That others werent penalised before makes NO difference - that is the stewards fault in the past for not correctly applying the rules. Again, the fact Ferrari got away with the start issue in relation can not be compared. They are all ISOLATED incidents.
The rules requires you to leave a car's width when moving back to take the corner not when making the initial move to defend position.
Rosberg did the exact same thing two years ago in Bahrain and wasn't penalised.
Actually, overboost makes a good point. What ripped the floor was the tyre disintegrating. I remember watching a race where it happened at the old Hockenheim and Brundle said if you go any faster than 10-20mph you risk shredding the tyre. If that happens its that that destroys the floor, not the puncture itself. That said, if Lewis did that he may have been lapped and out of contention anyway.
But faster can do more damage as while the tyre is intact but punctured it wont damage the car, the damage only starts when it rips/disintegrates and starts flapping around and hitting the floor causing damage.
10-20mph! That is not realistic to say the least and just to keep a deflated tire intact, I doubt the team has any use for a intact deflated tire!
What I am pointing out is that Hamilton was only concerned with getting back to the pits as fast as possible to the detriment of his car. If he had slowed a little bit to prevent beating his car to pieces and if it cost him an extra 10-20 secs and he could have given himself a shot at getting points. I mean looking at the replay Hamilton was really pushing that car hard on the way back to the pits, imo there was no regard at all given to taking care of the equipment at all. I believe he said it cost 50 points of downforce!
Bianchi found a way to do it, got the car back in one piece. I was suggesting that Hamilton might have been able to do it as well with a bit of care and without being lapped of course.
Was this after you wrote at lenght about your "suggestion" to Nico?
it's worked pretty well so far.See our F1 related articles too!
