Driver Time for Webber to face the ban hamster (third time lucky)

ensign14 · 27 Oct 2010, 21:41 (Ref:2781351)

OK. I've gone through in the past the occasions where Webber has recklessly or negligently taken out his opposition, yet has never adequately been punished.

I was going to let the Korea incident slide. Difficult conditions, honest mistake, bounce off wall, into path of fellow driver.

Thing is, Nico Rosberg thought Webber slid back into him deliberately. Well, he has a vested interest. Discount him.

But so does Gerhard Berger. Well, he's a mate of Mateschitz. So he will be toeing the line that supports Vettel over Webber. Discount him.

But now it's emerged that even Christian Horner, the racing manager and generally seen as more on Webber's side than most, has come out in support of some rather interesting driving. Whilst calling the Rosberg allegations absurd, he said:

Quote:

Horner says his driver's only consideration was to try and spin-turn and rejoin, as he had not immediately realised that his car was too damaged to continue. "As with every incident in Formula 1, opinions will always be made without all the facts," Horner told the Daily Telegraph.
"Just to be absolutely clear - Mark's intention was not to take out another driver after his crash in the Korean Grand Prix and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
"After Mark's impact with the wall, it was clear on the TV and from the data that his car was badly damaged. However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going.
"In the atrocious conditions, Mark made the snap decision to continue as every driver would in that situation - it's absurd to suggest that Mark would ever deliberately take out another driver.
"Mark accepted immediate blame for this incident, which in itself deserves credit."

So he tried a spin-turn, in the wet, with a damaged car, on a circuit with no run-off, in front of almost the entire field.

Incidentally having told the race director pre-race that there's a risk of a driver doing exactly that and causing a pile-up.

That might be considered an incredibly dangerous bit of driving.

On top of Webber's past record, the time has come for Mr Ban Hamster to come down.

Naturally it won't, because of the championship consequences. But I wonder just how badly a driver has to behave before being banned. We have Buemi and Sutil penalized for the next race...for doing no worse than Webber has done all season.

On the other hand, maybe there's a defence to such activities.

Jamesy-18 · 27 Oct 2010, 21:53 (Ref:2781357)

Surely not Crashgate II: Revenge of the sith?

ensign14 · 27 Oct 2010, 21:58 (Ref:2781363)

Let's put it this way - crashing was a bad Korea move.

rustyinsthoz · 27 Oct 2010, 22:01 (Ref:2781366)

Your anti Webber rants are becoming rather tiresome. So Webber should just stop the car in the middle of the circuit waiting to be hit and injured. He did what any smart driver would have done and let the momentum of the car get him out of harms way. But your hatred of Webber would not allow you to even consider this possibility.

Wims · 27 Oct 2010, 22:19 (Ref:2781377)

Yeah, I'm sure Webber deliberately tried to put his broken car in the way of cars doing 200kmh++

phoenix · 27 Oct 2010, 22:28 (Ref:2781381)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

So he tried a spin-turn, in the wet, with a damaged car, on a circuit with no run-off, in front of almost the entire field.

Absolutely no evidence of that - you'll have to find something else to rant about....

AUSRSR · 27 Oct 2010, 23:16 (Ref:2781398)

Ridiculous. I suppose you think he drove into Hamilton deliberately in Singapore, and drove Vettel off the track in Turkey? I mean come on...

hgmonaro · 27 Oct 2010, 23:43 (Ref:2781408)

so just what is a "ban hamster"? someone asked in the previous thread and was not answered. Can you explain this terminology to those not "in the know"?

sime1070 · 28 Oct 2010, 01:26 (Ref:2781426)

Gee there are some awesome conspiracy theories out there... I suggest if you believe that Webber actually acted to take out a runner not in contention for the championship whilst placing himself at further risk you should also put the tinfoil hat back on your head to stop the government reading your thoughts!
Little bit clouded on the judgement there methinks...

Super Hans · 28 Oct 2010, 02:07 (Ref:2781431)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hgmonaro

so just what is a "ban hamster"? someone asked in the previous thread and was not answered. Can you explain this terminology to those not "in the know"?

I don't know either. I've always suspected that it's one of two things:

1) A mis-spelling of ban-hammer that has stuck, or:
2) A comment aimed at Lewis Hamilton aka The Hamster. ie - Webber needs the ban Lewis.

ptclaus98 · 28 Oct 2010, 02:57 (Ref:2781438)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

Let's put it this way - crashing was a bad Korea move.

Stop it.

Mr V · 28 Oct 2010, 03:40 (Ref:2781450)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

Let's put it this way - crashing was a bad Korea move.

priceless

ralf fan · 28 Oct 2010, 04:25 (Ref:2781458)

ensign.

E.B · 28 Oct 2010, 04:28 (Ref:2781460)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

Let's put it this way - crashing was a bad Korea move.

Especially the way he 'careered' across the track endangering others....

ensign14 · 28 Oct 2010, 06:44 (Ref:2781486)

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix

Absolutely no evidence of that - you'll have to find something else to rant about....

"In the atrocious conditions, Mark made the snap decision to continue as every driver would in that situation..."

That is evidence. Evidence that Webber tried to continue with a broken car through a dangerous manoeuvre in front of the field. Simples.

rustyinsthoz · 28 Oct 2010, 06:51 (Ref:2781488)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

"In the atrocious conditions, Mark made the snap decision to continue as every driver would in that situation..."

That is evidence. Evidence that Webber tried to continue with a broken car through a dangerous manoeuvre in front of the field. Simples.

Or maybe he was trying to get out the way of being hit by other cars.

ensign14 · 28 Oct 2010, 07:10 (Ref:2781491)

"However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going."

I could have sworn I put that in the first post. Oh, wait, I did.

Then again I suppose that's logical. Rolling slowly across the track in front of the field is not the generally accepted method of trying to get out of the way of being hit by other cars.

**Peter Mallett** · 28 Oct 2010, 07:44 (Ref:2781499)

Forgive me. Even if he may have instictively wanted to continue, Formula one diffs don't do anything when there's only one driveshaft to put the power through. So yes he was motivated to continue, but the car was not moving under power, it was actully rebounding off the wall backwards!

Horner was, IMO speaking in terms of psychology not physics.

Thread closed.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[Driver] Webber needs the ban hamster part 2	ensign14	Formula One	149	27 Sep 2010 09:53
[Driver] Hamster needs the ban hamster part 1	Chatters	Formula One	2	26 Sep 2010 13:42
[Driver] Webber needs the ban hamster	ensign14	Formula One	188	4 Apr 2010 02:10
One of those photos you were lucky to be in the right place at the right time threads	rhodopsin	Motorsport Art & Photography	79	28 Mar 2008 13:13
Third time lucky for JPM	Glen	Formula One	23	2 Apr 2003 11:06