The Official Formula One Thread!

[INC]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Hilarious wriggling. Crashtappen was behind and Hamilton took the apex. Mr Crashy should have backed out.

I think it's more or less pathetic if you try to show strength against an argument by trying to make fun of someone else's name. I think this shows a complete disrespect for others, and it says a lot about those who think that it's no longer Sir Hamilton who is racing, but the invulnerable and always innocent Saint Hamilton.

[HMHM]

Verstappen - great driver, SHITE ATTITUDE! I have always defended Max and supported him last year over Hamilton but not any longer. No sense of gratitude and just an a**hole right now. Charles has so much more maturity than Max, it’s a shame Ferrari can’t get their act together to support a proper challenge for the championship.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

I think it's more or less pathetic if you try to show strength against an argument by trying to make fun of someone else's name. I think this shows a complete disrespect for others, and it says a lot about those who think that it's no longer Sir Hamilton who is racing, but the invulnerable and always innocent Saint Hamilton.

He's been called Crashstappen for a very long time, and there's a very good reason for it! See interview below.

In this case, Lewis was the innocent party: he was ahead into that corner, and if Max had braked, there would have been no collision.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/amE4Z606Oxw

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by INC

and it was directly caused by Ham pulling the steering wheel on Ver

The accident was directly caused by Verstappen driving his car into Hamiltons car. The stewards have many more angles of view than you.

MV was assuming that by being aggressive, the other driver would back down, he never. MV should have backed off because he was behind.

RBR didn't try and defend against the decision of the stewards or appeal it. Doesn't that tell you something?

What a nasty person you are trying to defend.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQyJFs4G8xs

First time I have seen that. What a nasty piece of work Verstappen is.

[joli160]

The hatred starts again …

[INC]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Doesn't that tell you something?

For me this means that they have brains, and they realised that a complaint can't change what happened during the race.

What a nasty person you are trying to defend.

None of the pilots are my heroes. I simply want to enjoy a race.

Therefore, I don't even try to defend Max, mainly because he doesn't need my support, and I don't have time to waste for this either. I've seen what I've seen, and the stewards see the very same; both of the drivers were involved in the accident. It's also clear that these maneuvers began with aggressive - but not illegal - moves by Ver. However, the last thing that led to the accident was Ham closing the door knowing that Ver was not behind him, but next to him. This is exactly what I call a typical racing accident. So I don't understand Ver's 5 sec penalty as IMHO it was neither appropriate nor consistent.

And to be honest, Ver's first move was investigated only after the accident, and because of the accident, as it wasn't against the rules per se! It was only mentioned because it eventually(!) led to an accident. This means that Ham couldn't have known that Ver's move was questionable, meaning that when he didn't left enough space, he did so deliberately against the rules. If Ver's move is not considered questionable, then Ham would have been penelised, since then it would have been clear that he had deliberately knocked out his opponent again.

So in short, Ham's move was not classified as against the rules just because Ver was not innocent either in the accident. And exactly that's what I'm talking about: Ham couldn't have known that when he caused the accident! Ergo, he didn't care about anything, except that don't let Verstappen to overtake him again. And this, in my opinion, is not a correct behavior on the racetrack. However this doesn't mean at all that Ver could be an angel. Especially in a black-red car

But that's all.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by INC

For me this means that they have brains, and they realised that a complaint can't change what happened during the race.




And to be honest, Ver's first move was investigated only after the accident, and because of the accident, as it wasn't against the rules per se! It was only mentioned because it eventually(!) led to an accident. This means that Ham couldn't have known that Ver's move was questionable, meaning that when he didn't left enough space, he did so deliberately against the rules. If Ver's move is not considered questionable, then Ham would have been penelised, since then it would have been clear that he had deliberately knocked out his opponent again.

So in short, Ham's move was not classified as against the rules just because Ver was not innocent either in the accident. And exactly that's what I'm talking about: Ham couldn't have known that when he caused the accident! Ergo, he didn't care about anything, except that don't let Verstappen to overtake him again. And this, in my opinion, is not a correct behavior on the racetrack. However this doesn't mean at all that Ver could be an angel. Especially in a black-red car

But that's all.

I'm sorry mate, none of the above makes any sense, I won't be responding to you any further.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

I don't even try to defend Max, mainly because he doesn't need my support, and I don't have time to waste for this

<Three more paragraphs of defence removed>

But that's all.

Maybe write in to the race stewards? It is obvious that Max caused the crash, was justly punished, and then whined about it afterwards on the team radio like a spoilt child. Diving down the inside, when there's no room on the inside, is not a great plan.

[INC]

Let it be done for you according to your faith :)

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

Let it be done for you according to your faith :)

Seriously?

[SDGT3]

Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing and didn't want to give the racing room because he has nothing to lose. It's a shame because we were robbed of what might have been great battles between the 2 of them for the race.

[INC]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Seriously?

Is this really a problem for you?

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

Is this really a problem for you?

I think it's pretty rude of you to suggest that the reason I think it's Max's fault is because of "faith". There's video of the incident from plenty of different angles, and we have the stewards' ruling as well. All of the commentary I've seen says it's either mostly or entirely Max at fault.

On top of that, Max has a well-documented history of making over-aggressive lunges on the track and being involved in many collisions, which is why he's known as "Crashtappen". But if you prefer to think of it as Lewis' fault, I suppose that's entirely up to you.

[bibbi]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

I think it's pretty rude of you to suggest that the reason I think it's Max's fault is because of "faith". There's video of the incident from plenty of different angles, and we have the stewards' ruling as well. All of the commentary I've seen says it's either mostly or entirely Max at fault.

On top of that, Max has a well-documented history of making over-aggressive lunges on the track and being involved in many collisions, which is why he's known as "Crashtappen". But if you prefer to think of it as Lewis' fault, I suppose that's entirely up to you.

Ver is short-sighted. He can only see the top of his nose. Nothing more. If anyone dares not to accept his aggressive (=stupid) attack here or there, that one is to blame. Look at his decision of not giving back the position to Per. What did he risk apart from loosing his honor (well, right, does he have any?)? You can do nothing about such arrogant personalities.

[INC]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

I think it's pretty rude of you to suggest that the reason I think it's Max's fault is because of "faith".

Look, I simply wanted to exit from this debate. But OK, let's play.

So, just for fun: Lets take your comment serious about "crashstappen". OK, lets accept this as a part of the common knowledge base. So everybody knows this, everybody treat him like this. OK, its fine for me.

But in this it follows, that HAM should have been clearly and surely knew that MAX won't slow down in any circumstances but will increase his speed as long as he will not overtake him. But this means in the same time, that if we accept your thought, that VER's driving was an against the rules from the very beginning, then HAM should been have known, that MAX CAN'T OVERTAKE HIM LEGALLY, so even if he does this, he should have give back the position for him almost immediately. This rule is so strict and clear, that HAM must be dead sure that it doesn't worth to try to stop MAX like this. Not just because of the "crashtappen" doctrine, but because of his own race's sake!

In short it follows, that HAM didn't think about a millisecond that this movement could be against the rules. In contrary he thought it was according to the rules and therefore he stopped MAX this way. A 7 times WC should have been known the above things without any kind of hesitation - and complaining -, so with a minimal self control he should simply let MAX go, and wait just some seconds until he should give back his postion.

But it wasn't come in his mind.

This means, if he very-well knew the "chrastappen"'s strategy and mentality, then he was sure that his movement will cause an accident, but this wasn't bothered him at all. He wanted to stop MAX with any possible way, even with a phisical contact. And this kind of mentality, this kind of "teaching" is totally unacceptable for me. This was a revenge on MAX. And exactly this is the behaviour what nobody can't see in any angle or any camera.

However as I told, it's my thinking. I don't want anyone to accept it, or even to take it seriously. So if you believe that something else happaned, HAM was totally innocent, a victim, let it be your faith, as it doesn't bother me at all :) I don't want to convince anyone of my truth, because it's a negligable personal opinion only.

I simply wrote this down as it's an on topic thought but that's really all

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by INC

Look, I simply wanted to exit from this debate. But OK, let's play.

So, just for fun: Lets take your comment serious about "crashstappen". OK, lets accept this as a part of the common knowledge base. So everybody knows this, everybody treat him like this. OK, its fine for me.

But in this it follows, that HAM should have been clearly and surely knew that MAX won't slow down in any circumstances but will increase his speed as long as he will not overtake him. But this means in the same time, that if we accept your thought, that VER's driving was an against the rules from the very beginning, then HAM should been have known, that MAX CAN'T OVERTAKE HIM LEGALLY, so even if he does this, he should have give back the position for him almost immediately. This rule is so strict and clear, that HAM must be dead sure that it doesn't worth to try to stop MAX like this. Not just because of the "crashtappen" doctrine, but because of his own race's sake!

In short it follows, that HAM didn't think about a millisecond that this movement could be against the rules. In contrary he thought it was according to the rules and therefore he stopped MAX this way. A 7 times WC should have been known the above things without any kind of hesitation - and complaining -, so with a minimal self control he should simply let MAX go, and wait just some seconds until he should give back his postion.

But it wasn't come in his mind.

This means, if he very-well knew the "chrastappen"'s strategy and mentality, then he was sure that his movement will cause an accident, but this wasn't bothered him at all. He wanted to stop MAX with any possible way, even with a phisical contact. And this kind of mentality, this kind of "teaching" is totally unacceptable for me. This was a revenge on MAX. And exactly this is the behaviour what nobody can't see in any angle or any camera.

However as I told, it's my thinking. I don't want anyone to accept it, or even to take it seriously. So if you believe that something else happaned, HAM was totally innocent, a victim, let it be your faith, as it doesn't bother me at all :) I don't want to convince anyone of my truth, because it's a negligable personal opinion only.

I simply wrote this down as it's an on topic thought but that's really all

Why did the stewards give Verstappen a penalty? What reason did they give?

[SDGT3]

I don't know. They both could have gone through there side by side as many other did throughout the weekend and lived to race. Both Mercs had the sheer speed this weekend to win and by not giving space, LH basically took himself out of contention for the race win.

Don't know who is happier about how the weekend went, George Russell or NetFlix?

[rolexpatek363]

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

His post race reaction is hilarious, also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LSgS1bBGA

[bibbi]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

His post race reaction is hilarious, also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LSgS1bBGA

Arrogant redneck. For some - champ.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

Look, I simply wanted to exit from this debate. But OK, let's play.

So, just for fun: Lets take your comment serious about "crashstappen". OK, lets accept this as a part of the common knowledge base. So everybody knows this, everybody treat him like this. OK, its fine for me.

But in this it follows, that HAM should have been clearly and surely knew that MAX won't slow down in any circumstances but will increase his speed as long as he will not overtake him. But this means in the same time, that if we accept your thought, that VER's driving was an against the rules from the very beginning, then HAM should been have known, that MAX CAN'T OVERTAKE HIM LEGALLY, so even if he does this, he should have give back the position for him almost immediately. This rule is so strict and clear, that HAM must be dead sure that it doesn't worth to try to stop MAX like this. Not just because of the "crashtappen" doctrine, but because of his own race's sake!

In short it follows, that HAM didn't think about a millisecond that this movement could be against the rules. In contrary he thought it was according to the rules and therefore he stopped MAX this way. A 7 times WC should have been known the above things without any kind of hesitation - and complaining -, so with a minimal self control he should simply let MAX go, and wait just some seconds until he should give back his postion.

But it wasn't come in his mind.

This means, if he very-well knew the "chrastappen"'s strategy and mentality, then he was sure that his movement will cause an accident, but this wasn't bothered him at all. He wanted to stop MAX with any possible way, even with a phisical contact. And this kind of mentality, this kind of "teaching" is totally unacceptable for me. This was a revenge on MAX. And exactly this is the behaviour what nobody can't see in any angle or any camera.

However as I told, it's my thinking. I don't want anyone to accept it, or even to take it seriously. So if you believe that something else happaned, HAM was totally innocent, a victim, let it be your faith, as it doesn't bother me at all :) I don't want to convince anyone of my truth, because it's a negligable personal opinion only.

I simply wrote this down as it's an on topic thought but that's really all

Max's driving has been dangerous for many, many years. I'd be surprised if he makes it to 30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nak1YwdPJM

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

His post race reaction is hilarious, also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LSgS1bBGA

That's rich. I'm not a big F1 but watch a few races a year. Seems like Max is a very talented driver and tough to beat once he's got the lead, especially this year. However he's aggressive when coming from behind and often plays chicken. If he makes the pass he's rewarded and is almost impossible to overtake again. If he fails, he moans and groans and plays the victim. And as illustrated above, he doesn't seem to be okay with other drivers playing by his rules. That's just too bad, cry me a river.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

His post race reaction is hilarious, also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LSgS1bBGA

You failed to provide context. In 2018, Max was leading the race at that point and Ocon was trying to unlap himself by trying to go down the inside of T2. IF Ocon had pure pace on the race leader, he should have waited for the upcoming straight after the Senna esses. As a result, Max lost the race because of Ocon's clumsy attempt. Certainly not the same as a race restart yesterday.

[77T]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

His post race reaction is hilarious, also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LSgS1bBGA

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is 10x. Yeah the incident you posted is very nearly the same. OCO penalty was much stronger - 10 sec. Stop & Go. Why? Well OCO was a lapped car trying to unlap himself.

Here is what was said by nearly the same Stewards in 2018 who also worked this year’s Brazil GP:
“The driver of Car 31 (Esteban Ocon) was a lapped car. The Stewards noted that he had new Super Soft tyres. Ocon attempted a pass on the leader, Car 33 (Max Verstappen) to un-lap himself at the outside of turn one. The Stewards determined that he failed to complete the pass at turn one, and as a lapped car, fought the leader for track position, causing the collision at turn 2 with the race leader.”

I already posted the reason VER got the 5 sec. penalty yesterday. Turn 2 isn’t the place to poke your nose in…

About this VER pass/no giveback. So much to unpack in this penultimate brouhaha of 2022. The ultimate brouhaha is due in a week’s time - wait for it, Mmmmm.

INHO - RBR is wholly responsible for framing this situation the way they did. VER’s issue was well-known for months. PER knew it, Horner knew it, both driver’s Engineers knew it, Hannah Schmitz knew it, and both driver’s reps knew it.

But let’s lay Paddock Politics aside to analyze this.

The only way PER could be helped in the 2nd place WDC (at the time PER told to let VER through) was for VER to overtake LEC. PER was unable to help himself with the pace he had. The alleged “VER to give back if unable” came from PER engineer.

VER was unable to overtake the 2 cars he needed to overtake - first ALO who was in P5, and LEC running P4. But he was also ahead of PER by almost 4sec. RBR issued the “giveback” disingenuously late - and full-well knew (mind you, in advance) that VER would never do it.

Now here is where honest fans can disagree - to radio that command, at the time it was done, first by VER’s engineer GP, and later by CH, was a stupid strategy update. And to what purpose at that time?

The pit walls knew Ferrari wasn’t taking a podium away from SAI despite LEC’s pleas. Even the announcers knew the two drivers vying for WCD P2 would be tied.

So VER was definitely pissed at being asked and he should have simply replied “unable” rather than the radio rant. Yes, he definitely needs radio etiquette coaching.

With earlier notice, VER could have dropped back 2 sec. on the penultimate lap and another 2 sec. + given the place back on last lap. VER pissed away a chance to be the bigger guy on the team.

Just an opinion. Not better than anyone else’s. Only sharing in the scope of RBR’s pit wall who knew better and didn’t handle it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

You failed to provide context. In 2018, Max was leading the race at that point and Ocon was trying to unlap himself by trying to go down the inside of T2. IF Ocon had pure pace on the race leader, he should have waited for the upcoming straight after the Senna esses. As a result, Max lost the race because of Ocon's clumsy attempt. Certainly not the same as a race restart yesterday.

Yep…we were typing at the same time.

That context affected the penalty but the breach itself was very much the same in T2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JoeJoeBobo]

Originally Posted by joli160

The hatred starts again …

I don’t think it actually ever went away!

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by 77T

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is 10x. Yeah the incident you posted is very nearly the same. OCO penalty was much stronger - 10 sec. Stop & Go. Why? Well OCO was a lapped car trying to unlap himself.

Here is what was said by nearly the same Stewards in 2018 who also worked this year’s Brazil GP:
“The driver of Car 31 (Esteban Ocon) was a lapped car. The Stewards noted that he had new Super Soft tyres. Ocon attempted a pass on the leader, Car 33 (Max Verstappen) to un-lap himself at the outside of turn one. The Stewards determined that he failed to complete the pass at turn one, and as a lapped car, fought the leader for track position, causing the collision at turn 2 with the race leader.”

I already posted the reason VER got the 5 sec. penalty yesterday. Turn 2 isn’t the place to poke your nose in…

About this VER pass/no giveback. So much to unpack in this penultimate brouhaha of 2022. The ultimate brouhaha is due in a week’s time - wait for it, Mmmmm.

INHO - RBR is wholly responsible for framing this situation the way they did. VER’s issue was well-known for months. PER knew it, Horner knew it, both driver’s Engineers knew it, Hannah Schmitz knew it, and both driver’s reps knew it.

But let’s lay Paddock Politics aside to analyze this.

The only way PER could be helped in the 2nd place WDC (at the time PER told to let VER through) was for VER to overtake LEC. PER was unable to help himself with the pace he had. The alleged “VER to give back if unable” came from PER engineer.

VER was unable to overtake the 2 cars he needed to overtake - first ALO who was in P5, and LEC running P4. But he was also ahead of PER by almost 4sec. RBR issued the “giveback” disingenuously late - and full-well knew (mind you, in advance) that VER would never do it.

Now here is where honest fans can disagree - to radio that command, at the time it was done, first by VER’s engineer GP, and later by CH, was a stupid strategy update. And to what purpose at that time?

The pit walls knew Ferrari wasn’t taking a podium away from SAI despite LEC’s pleas. Even the announcers knew the two drivers vying for WCD P2 would be tied.

So VER was definitely pissed at being asked and he should have simply replied “unable” rather than the radio rant. Yes, he definitely needs radio etiquette coaching.

With earlier notice, VER could have dropped back 2 sec. on the penultimate lap and another 2 sec. + given the place back on last lap. VER pissed away a chance to be the bigger guy on the team.

Just an opinion. Not better than anyone else’s. Only sharing in the scope of RBR’s pit wall who knew better and didn’t handle it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree with you Paul that the entire Red Bull team knew about the rift between the 2 drivers going back to Monaco and they knew payback was coming at some point - better it was yesterday when the stakes weren't so high. Let's be honest, the championship is already done and dusted, does it really matter to anyone who comes in 2nd besides Leclerc and Perez?

[INC]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Why did the stewards give Verstappen a penalty? What reason did they give?

May I remind you of the previous incident with Alonso? The stewards are not always right. They are human and not infallible and that's okay. So let me state that I am also human, so I can make mistakes However the main difference between us in this case, that I have no such strong feelings for the pilots. I don't like Hamilton, but I don't care about Max too.

I want to see good races, and therfore I think what we saw at this weekend was very far away from a fair race. And it was not depend on Max only. In some aspects this race reminded me a dirty game, and I'm still disappointed about it. Such good pilots, and they did this in a row. After the magnificent friday and saturday, sunday was shocking for me. Shame on them all except Russel. He was great, he was the exception at that day.

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Just for comparison, here's Max's reaction when the exact same thing happened to him, same circuit, same corner.

And does the stewards gave them the same penalty? If I remember well, that case was not an 5 sec penatly but something else. And not that was the only outrageous thing in the garage after the race. And yes, Ver was the one who was involved in that incident too. And no one could be proud about what he did

But what is the connection? I said too, the decision was not appropriate. If the stewards thought the two incident were the same, they should have decided exactly the same and should have referred to this as a precedent in the judgment. However, what they referred to is not correct in my opinion.

And to be honest, there have been so many overtakes of this kind in the past year that with this logic both of these drivers should have been banned from racing forever.

Anyhow, one of HAM's most professional move is to kick of the opponents out with a perfect PIT manuveure:



So the question still remain: Shall we let them race on their way or not?

If the stewards allowed them to race like this for a year, why are they surprised that one bastard slams the door on the other driver's nose? It was only a matter of time. And if they really want to avoid these two trying to kill each other in the future, it would be better if they finally punished both idiots and not just add oil to the fire.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by bibbi

Arrogant redneck. For some - champ.

Wait... No way! He's not from Florida OR Southern Georgia.

We take bein' Rednecks real serious-like 'round these here parts ya'll.

He was being a dbag, as expected. Why anyone is even remotely surprised... plus his only move seems to be 'to the inside' on T1/2/sequence at that track. Ok, maybe not, I mean only to the inside... he's still a dbag on that track.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by INC

But what is the connection?

The connection is (obviously) that when Max is the car in front taking the apex, and someone is diving up the inside, then Max is right, and the other guy is the "idiot". But when Max is the guy diving up the inside, and someone else is taking the apex, then Max is in the right.

Max is always the injured party, and everyone else is in the wrong.