FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[myownalias]

"Avoidable accident" and "motor racing" are two phrases that really don't work together do they? I really see Vaptin's point here; if 24 drivers are racing each other; there will almost certainly be contact between drivers. All these avoidable accidents that have been punished have one thing in common; having the front wing/wheels inside the rear wheels of the car being passed!

[vaptin]

"Avoidable accident" and "motor racing" are two phrases that really don't work together do they? I really see Vaptin's point here; if 24 drivers are racing each other; there will almost certainly be contact between drivers. All these avoidable accidents that have been punished have one thing in common; having the front wing/wheels inside the rear wheels of the car being passed!

Yes, there needs to be some distinction between contact due to drivers racing each other, which is inevitable unless we start having processional races again, and reckless/ aggressive moves more about trying to bully the other driver than get by (Schumacher squeezing Rubens) or when the driver clearly wasn't thinking clearly.

I suppose, the rule should be asking, "is this an incident where an accident was more unlucky than anything, or virtually inevitable?".

I hate seeing drivers retiring due to contact which wasn't really their fault, but a harsh rule is unnecessary really, drivers more often than not lose out from contact, both drivers want to avoid accidents, its in their interest.

[myownalias]

The problem is that with modern F1 cars it's possible to be Mr. Crashi Bashi driver and remain in the race as the cars are much stronger than they used to be. In the past any sort of contact would have resulted in damage to both cars often ending both drivers races, or a lengthy pitstop. I think that bringing back gravel traps will discourage drivers from making rash moves as it will more than likely end in disaster for the attacking driver, like when Schumacher attempted to take out Villeneuve in '97 and ended up in the gravel trap in Jerez!

[darwin dali]

Which is the point that I'd made previously that if something can be argued 50/50 or 60/40 type of incident, there shouldn't be a penalty issued. Jenson had a very uncharacteristically Lewis Hamilton type drive, and he won the race, and there isn't anyone here criticizing him for it, no criticism for being reckless of endangering other driver's lives, the consensus was, damn that was one great race we got to watch. Would the consensus have been the same had it been Lewis with the same performance? Lewis taking out Button, and then Lewis taking out Alonso?

Let them race, and unless something is clearly avoidable contact or a kamikaze move with no chance to succeed, something that we look at and say yeah 100% or 90/10 or 80/20 stay out of it and give the drivers the benefit of the doubt. There are just as many passes gone wrong caused by the person being passed than the person doing the overtaking, that's just the nature of the sport, and in Canada, they were allowed to do just that, race.

Where do you draw the line? 75/25? 71/29? 69/31?

[What's Burning?]

Which is the point that I'd made previously that if something can be argued 50/50 or 60/40 type of incident, there shouldn't be a penalty issued. Jenson had a very uncharacteristically Lewis Hamilton type drive, and he won the race, and there isn't anyone here criticizing him for it, no criticism for being reckless of endangering other driver's lives, the consensus was, damn that was one great race we got to watch. Would the consensus have been the same had it been Lewis with the same performance? Lewis taking out Button, and then Lewis taking out Alonso?

Let them race, and unless something is clearly avoidable contact or a kamikaze move with no chance to succeed, something that we look at and say yeah 100% or 90/10 or 80/20 stay out of it and give the drivers the benefit of the doubt. There are just as many passes gone wrong caused by the person being passed than the person doing the overtaking, that's just the nature of the sport, and in Canada, they were allowed to do just that, race.

Where do you draw the line? 75/25? 71/29? 69/31?

At giving the racers the benefit of the doubt. There will always be blown or arguable calls, but I'd much rather see one in ten be a questionable penalty than every incident leading to a penalty compounded by inconsistent enforcement.

[billindenver]

Which is the point that I'd made previously that if something can be argued 50/50 or 60/40 type of incident, there shouldn't be a penalty issued. Jenson had a very uncharacteristically Lewis Hamilton type drive, and he won the race, and there isn't anyone here criticizing him for it, no criticism for being reckless of endangering other driver's lives, the consensus was, damn that was one great race we got to watch. Would the consensus have been the same had it been Lewis with the same performance? Lewis taking out Button, and then Lewis taking out Alonso?

Let them race, and unless something is clearly avoidable contact or a kamikaze move with no chance to succeed, something that we look at and say yeah 100% or 90/10 or 80/20 stay out of it and give the drivers the benefit of the doubt. There are just as many passes gone wrong caused by the person being passed than the person doing the overtaking, that's just the nature of the sport, and in Canada, they were allowed to do just that, race.

Where do you draw the line? 75/25? 71/29? 69/31?

At giving the racers the benefit of the doubt. There will always be blown or arguable calls, but I'd much rather see one in ten be a questionable penalty than every incident leading to a penalty compounded by inconsistent enforcement.

What inconsistent enforcement? I think they have been far more consistent this year than in years past and none of the penalties I've seen have been very questionable. Or are you subscribing to the Ali G hypothesis that all in F1 are not considered equal?

[bud]

Yeah ali g hates on them juden huh

[darwin dali]

C'mon now guys - no racism! But you knew that already...

[What's Burning?]

Which is the point that I'd made previously that if something can be argued 50/50 or 60/40 type of incident, there shouldn't be a penalty issued. Jenson had a very uncharacteristically Lewis Hamilton type drive, and he won the race, and there isn't anyone here criticizing him for it, no criticism for being reckless of endangering other driver's lives, the consensus was, damn that was one great race we got to watch. Would the consensus have been the same had it been Lewis with the same performance? Lewis taking out Button, and then Lewis taking out Alonso?

Let them race, and unless something is clearly avoidable contact or a kamikaze move with no chance to succeed, something that we look at and say yeah 100% or 90/10 or 80/20 stay out of it and give the drivers the benefit of the doubt. There are just as many passes gone wrong caused by the person being passed than the person doing the overtaking, that's just the nature of the sport, and in Canada, they were allowed to do just that, race.

Where do you draw the line? 75/25? 71/29? 69/31?

At giving the racers the benefit of the doubt. There will always be blown or arguable calls, but I'd much rather see one in ten be a questionable penalty than every incident leading to a penalty compounded by inconsistent enforcement.

What inconsistent enforcement? I think they have been far more consistent this year than in years past and none of the penalties I've seen have been very questionable. Or are you subscribing to the Ali G hypothesis that all in F1 are not considered equal?

Not surprisingly we're seeing things differently, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

[Bye_Ya]

Just watched a replay of this race. What a fantastic Grand Prix.

[LewEngBridewell]

Just watched a replay of this race. What a fantastic Grand Prix.

Hell yes!!!