FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[elfinitty]

Remember the thing happened in Istanbul.Some people said that Vettel did it again.I thought he did a same kind of crash and typed that.After i watched the crash i saw that it was different but it was Vettel's fault.

[hipcheck5]

Remember the thing happened in Istanbul.Some people said that Vettel did it again.I thought he did a same kind of crash and typed that.After i watched the crash i saw that it was different but it was Vettel's fault.

Of course Vettel was at fault (as I have mentioned previously but some choose to ignore it in order to attack me...perhaps they will send me a pm to try to get in a last word without others knowing about it like one serial offender!) he was driving the car and made the move that ended in a loss of traction.

[elfinitty]

Remember the thing happened in Istanbul.Some people said that Vettel did it again.I thought he did a same kind of crash and typed that.After i watched the crash i saw that it was different but it was Vettel's fault.

Of course Vettel was at fault (as I have mentioned previously but some choose to ignore it in order to attack me...perhaps they will send me a pm to try to get in a last word without others knowing about it like one serial offender!) he was driving the car and made the move that ended in a loss of traction.

Yeah i couldnt believe when he had the loss of traction.They are supposed to be very strong.But these losses are happening it is something about controlling their force.(By the way i had one of those attacks and my advice to you would be...Dont bother just chill you are here to share an interest and discuss )

[Juliet P]

Seriously, McLaren fans are getting way out of hand. Any driver who is involved in any way with a McLaren driver is evil incarnate. Any fan not agreeing is clearly a McLaren hater and loves the team they are talking about. McLaren does nothing wrong. It's gotten about a thousand times worse then any claims about Ferrari fans.

You have just spent four pages posting unnecessarily confrontational and personal posts that are deliberately designed to provoke an argument and have the audacity to say that it is the Mclaren fans who are way out of hand?!?

Oh, the irony.

You all need to calm down a few notches unless you want to attract the attention of the mods and end up sinbinned.

And you have posted four times since the race began one of which is this post, not discussing the topic, playing the role of mod and attacking me. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before you post.

Perhaps you could illuminate me as to what I have done wrong? Have I posted too much, or not enough, according to you? I was in the chatroom during the race, so we had already discussed the Vettel incident from various different angles. I had nothing new to add to the thread discussion, so I didn't post.

And at what point did I imply I was a mod? In fact I referred to 'the mods', clearly indicating that I am not one.

You're just trying to cause trouble - goodness knows why. I, for one, have no intention whatsoever of rising to your bait.

I think Andrew Benson describes the incident in a pretty balanced way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2010/08/spa.html

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Article 16.1 of the SR prohibits "...illegitimately imped[ing] another driver during overtaking." This is one of many phrases in the SR & TR which leave much to the reader's interpretation. As often is the case, the teams regarded the phrase "illegitimately impeded" as excessively vague and petitioned the FIA for clarification so as to make certain it is equally administered and that no one team be advantaged by it. The same process also can occur when a team exploits what they believe to be a gray area in the rules, as was the case last year with Brawn's "shadow diffuser."

From that inquiry, the FIA's clarification was that the defending driver shall be deemed to be "illegitimately imped[ing] another driver" if he should make more than one legitimate blocking manoeuver against the overtaking driver. This is the origin of the "one move" rule, which isn't a rule as much as a clarification and an instruction. That was the instruction passed to race director and the stewards as to how they should enforce TR 16.1. There is nothing in the letter or the spirit of this clarification that in any wise restricts how many maneovers the overtaking driver may perform.

Further, this clarification makes no mention of "corners" or any fictitious "braking zone." Blocking can occur anywhere, not just in corners. The Schumacher-Barrichello incident at Hungary occurred under acceleration, not braking. Or, witness the Hamilton-Petrov incident at Malaysia. By my count, Hambone makes four distinct manoeuvers and Petrov five. Five clearly is more than one so why wasn't Petrov even criticised, much less penalised for this incident?

Answer: Because the rule applies only to the defending driver. There is no rule restricting how many manoeuvers the overtaking driver may perform.

The one thing about TR 16.1 that no one outside this forum disputes is that, apart colliding with him, it is not possible for an overtaking driver to "illegitimately imped[e] another driver" unless and until the overtaking manoeuver is successful and he subsequently becomes the defending driver. The overtaking driver cannot therefore be in voilation of SR 16.1.

Consider for a moment if this fictitious rule were true.

Driver B follows Driver A into a corner. Driver B attempts a pass but Driver A susses the move and moves to block it. Win, lose or draw, by the "rules," that one manoeuver is driver B's sole opportunity to pass in that corner. He may not by the fictitious rule change to another line if the first is thwarted and make a second attempt.

But wait, there's more. If I am Driver A, I know the rules, and I know whenever I can force Driver B to adjust his line in response to me, unless he is successful in that initial attempt, he is not permitted a second. So I adopt the strategy of brake-checking at the entrance to every corner, forcing Driver B either to collide with me or alter his line. So long as my blocking manoeuver is successful, Driver B will never be able to pass me.

Every race would be a parade from green to checquered (even worse than the TilkeDromes), with the only changes in position coming from penalties, mechanicals, collisions or running out of petrol.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

There's no disputing Vettel was at fault. The dispute is whether he did something so outside the rules that he should be further penalised. The act of being involved in a crash normally carries its own penalty.

Vettel was not attempting a pass, his car spun while Button was under braking. It was impossible for him to brake in response and when the direction of the spin reversed, the collision was unavoidable.

See my add on, it's common knowledge you're only allowed on move in an overtake attempt, dunno why you're even arguing that fact!

No, that's one blocking move on the part of the overtaken. The overtaker may move as much as he pleases.

Oh, I was right, then.

Absolutely.

[f1ea]

I dont know why theres even a debate.
The rules clearly state drivers are allowed 1 blocking move. With no regulated limit for the overtaker.

If the overtaker could only make 1 move, and the defender 1 block, then overtaking would be impossible.

Think about this:
Driver A makes a move on the inside, Driver B blocks. Is that the end of the overtaking attempt? of course not. Driver A can make more moves. in fact, he can make at least one additional move once the pass is made to close the door.

[The Immortal Dragon]

See my add on, it's common knowledge you're only allowed on move in an overtake attempt, dunno why you're even arguing that fact!

No, that's one blocking move on the part of the overtaken. The overtaker may move as much as he pleases.

Oh, I was right, then.

Absolutely.

Good.

Yeah the other way didn't make sense

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

I dont know why theres even a debate.
The rules clearly state drivers are allowed 1 blocking move. With no regulated limit for the overtaker....

This "common knowledge" thing isn't as common as some of us let on.

[hipcheck5]

Seriously, McLaren fans are getting way out of hand. Any driver who is involved in any way with a McLaren driver is evil incarnate. Any fan not agreeing is clearly a McLaren hater and loves the team they are talking about. McLaren does nothing wrong. It's gotten about a thousand times worse then any claims about Ferrari fans.

You have just spent four pages posting unnecessarily confrontational and personal posts that are deliberately designed to provoke an argument and have the audacity to say that it is the Mclaren fans who are way out of hand?!?

Oh, the irony.

You all need to calm down a few notches unless you want to attract the attention of the mods and end up sinbinned.

And you have posted four times since the race began one of which is this post, not discussing the topic, playing the role of mod and attacking me. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before you post.

Perhaps you could illuminate me as to what I have done wrong? Have I posted too much, or not enough, according to you? I was in the chatroom during the race, so we had already discussed the Vettel incident from various different angles. I had nothing new to add to the thread discussion, so I didn't post.

And at what point did I imply I was a mod? In fact I referred to 'the mods', clearly indicating that I am not one.

You're just trying to cause trouble - goodness knows why. I, for one, have no intention whatsoever of rising to your bait.

I think Andrew Benson describes the incident in a pretty balanced way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2010/08/spa.html

1) I could have sworn the following were against forum rules: posting completely off topic and personally attacking other members.

2) Telling others how to post and what they are doing wrong is an attempt to moderate. Of course I never said you implied you were a mod, I said you were "playing the role of a mod." (Wow another poster who either chooses not to read the actual words or simply likes to make things up.)

3) No, actually I am not, I was posting my opinion. Interestingly you don't seem to have a problem with others posting their opinions on various topics.

4) I love when people say they won't rise to your "bait" as they are doing so for the second time. You and bud must be good friends.

I will expect no response since you already claimed you wouldn't. Have a great evening.

[Juliet P]

I will expect no response since you already claimed you wouldn't. Have a great evening.

Clever. I'll give you that. If I don't respond, then it looks like I'm admitting you're right. If I do respond, then I'm going back on what I said previously. Ah well, as I've lost either way, I might as well respond.

1) I could have sworn the following were against forum rules: posting completely off topic and personally attacking other members.

So you agree that the following are all against forum rules:

It's pretty sad when people can't see what happens due to being blinded by their hate for a driver.

Classic response, when you have nothing make something up.

My initial comment was not an "angry, defensive comment" (note the usage of the comma) it was a simple statement of fact, which I have already explained. perhaps English isn't your first language since you clearly don't understand it. On another note nice job constantly changing tacts in order to avoid the things I am calling you out for. It's pretty pathetic actually and just makes me realize that I won't get any intelligent discussion talking to you, so I am done with you.

If you are going to try to use my words to go after me at least use the words I actually said. I guess you, like peng, prefer to make things up in order to claim an internet victory. I am done with you as well. I am sure you, like your buddy peng will need to get in a last word, enjoy it.

What is it with this forum and all the people who either choose not to read what someone actually wrote or are simply unable to comprehend what was actually written.
Is illiteracy and/or ignorance really that big of an issue in F1 fans?

He asked you to provide the actual rule and you turn this into your xenophobia?!?!?!

Typical Bud, spout of, post xenophobic comments, refuse to back up what you claim, insult people who disagree and always come back to get the badly needed last word.

And finally...

2) Telling others how to post and what they are doing wrong is an attempt to moderate. Of course I never said you implied you were a mod, I said you were "playing the role of a mod." (Wow another poster who either chooses not to read the actual words or simply likes to make things up.)

I don't dispute any of that. But neither is it against the forum rules. Impersonating a moderator would be against forum rules. But I didn't do that, did I?

(PS - sorry Scotty, I'm all done now. )

[darwin dali]

You'd better all of you lot

Back to topic or with attached vacation!

[hipcheck5]

Juliet, I commend you for doing a stellar job dancing, spinning, moving the goalposts and flat out ignoring what you can't dance around or spin. You are really good at that.


Fred C. Dobbs- You scoured the rules and found nothing about how many moves a following driver can make to overpass and when they can try? I am shocked, absolutely shocked, I tell you!

[smokin]

Back to topic, Brindle said at the start that Massa overshot his start box by a couple of metres but nothing more was said after that. Did he reverse back before the lights went out or did none of the officials notice?

[hipcheck5]

Back to topic, Brindle said at the start that Massa overshot his start box by a couple of metres but nothing more was said after that. Did he reverse back before the lights went out or did none of the officials notice?

It looked to me like everyone was good.

Any word on the various incidents that were supposed to be reviewed besides the Vettel one?