[Official] Round 10: German Grand Prix

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I thought that was the flag to indicate unsportsmanlike conduct?

Black/White flag (not the checkered) indicates a punishment for a selected driver/car.
Running out of the track to gain an advantage is also unsportsmanlike conduct. Any illegal driving maneuvers is unsportsmanlike conduct .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_...k.2Fwhite_flag

[Charlex]

Wonder why nobody is discussing Hamilton move today over Vettel. I agree with Vettel on this one, there was no sense at all, only to make Vettel slow, for the benefit of Hamilton's coequiper. This is no acceptable in my opinion, for some reason there are the blue flags, if Hamilton was that fast, he should have accelerated when he saw Alonso in his mirrors. This just show his "ethics" (or lack off) and also McLaren's.

About Vettel punishment, is fair with the rules. Also it was the pass that Hamilton made on Rosberg in Bahrain, and I can't remember anybody complaining about it in this forum.

Alonso didn't pass Rosberg in Bahrain from the outside, because he said it was against the rules. I am no fan of him, but in this subject he proved to be more sportman than Hamilton and Vettel.

[ljakse]

Originally Posted by Charlex

Wonder why nobody is discussing Hamilton move today over Vettel. I agree with Vettel on this one, there was no sense at all, only to make Vettel slow, for the benefit of Hamilton's coequiper. This is no acceptable in my opinion, for some reason there are the blue flags, if Hamilton was that fast, he should have accelerated when he saw Alonso in his mirrors. This just show his "ethics" (or lack off) and also McLaren's.

About Vettel punishment, is fair with the rules. Also it was the pass that Hamilton made on Rosberg in Bahrain, and I can't remember anybody complaining about it in this forum.

Alonso didn't pass Rosberg in Bahrain from the outside, because he said it was against the rules. I am no fan of him, but in this subject he proved to be more sportman than Hamilton and Vettel.

Have we been watching the same race? At what point was Alonso in Hamilton's mirrors??

[The Snout]

Originally Posted by Charlex

Wonder why nobody is discussing Hamilton move today over Vettel. I agree with Vettel on this one, there was no sense at all, only to make Vettel slow, for the benefit of Hamilton's coequiper. This is no acceptable in my opinion, for some reason there are the blue flags, if Hamilton was that fast, he should have accelerated when he saw Alonso in his mirrors. This just show his "ethics" (or lack off) and also McLaren's.

About Vettel punishment, is fair with the rules. Also it was the pass that Hamilton made on Rosberg in Bahrain, and I can't remember anybody complaining about it in this forum.

Alonso didn't pass Rosberg in Bahrain from the outside, because he said it was against the rules. I am no fan of him, but in this subject he proved to be more sportman than Hamilton and Vettel.

I wouldn't worry about Hamilton. He's showing more and more why McLaren kept the wrong driver. Radio - "We should retire", indeed. P*ss poor attitude from a team leader.

Originally Posted by Charlex

Also it was the pass that Hamilton made on Rosberg in Bahrain, and I can't remember anybody complaining about it in this forum.

He had all four wheels off the track if I remember. Good point. Where's the consistency.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Charlex

Also it was the pass that Hamilton made on Rosberg in Bahrain, and I can't remember anybody complaining about it in this forum.

People did complain about it here. They might have been right that Hamilton should have taken a penalty, although we entered into a 'do two wrongs make a right?' grey area given that Rosberg basically shoved him right fractions after Hamilton had begun to make the move.

Originally Posted by Charlex

Wonder why nobody is discussing Hamilton move today over Vettel. This just show his "ethics" (or lack off) and also McLaren's.

I'm not. It's probably because it wasn't against the rules. If you can show me the regulation which says you cannot unlap yourself to demonstrate his lack of efforts, that'd be a welcome addition.

[Paradise City]

I've no problem with Hamilton overtaking lead lap cars. Hamilton advancing his position is as legitimate as Vettel advancing his. I'm very much an anti-blue flag type of person. The requirement to preserve the car to prevent a penalty also incentivises parking it when things do go wrong. So I don't really blame him for that either.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by CTD

Black/White flag (not the checkered) indicates a punishment for a selected driver/car.
Running out of the track to gain an advantage is also unsportsmanlike conduct. Any illegal driving maneuvers is unsportsmanlike conduct .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_...k.2Fwhite_flag

So is getting free Champagne.

[Charlex]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

People did complain about it here. They might have been right that Hamilton should have taken a penalty, although we entered into a 'do two wrongs make a right?' grey area given that Rosberg basically shoved him right fractions after Hamilton had begun to make the move.

Not at all, I don't think that if somebody does something wrong, then it's all right to do it. What I am saying is that people who wanted Vettel to be punished for passing off the track, should ask for the same punishment in every situation, independent of who the driver is or what other thing happened. It just being consistent. Whoever, in my opinion, doesn't behave like this, is just subjective... or a fanatic who deforms the reality to his likening.

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I'm not. It's probably because it wasn't against the rules. If you can show me the regulation which says you cannot unlap yourself to demonstrate his lack of efforts, that'd be a welcome addition.

He did unlap, to then go slower to slow Vettel (Button got benefits from this). The proof of that, before Vettel was unlapped, he was on Alonso's mirrors. Hamilton passed Vettel, but then he was no near to make a move on Alonso. Besides, is not that they unlapped Hamilton coming out of the pits, they reached him on the track, so if he was that faster, he should have accelerated before the three cars reached him. Otherwise, it was an unfair team trick.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Charlex

Not at all, I don't think that if somebody does something wrong, then it's all right to do it. What I am saying is that people who wanted Vettel to be punished for passing off the track, should ask for the same punishment in every situation, independent of who the driver is or what other thing happened. It just being consistent. Whoever, in my opinion, doesn't behave like this, is just subjective... or a fanatic who deforms the reality to his likening.




He did unlap, to then go slower to slow Vettel (Button got benefits from this). The proof of that, before Vettel was unlapped, he was on Alonso's mirrors. Hamilton passed Vettel, but then he was no near to make a move on Alonso. Besides, is not that they unlapped Hamilton coming out of the pits, they reached him on the track, so if he was that faster, he should have accelerated before the three cars reached him. Otherwise, it was an unfair team trick.

After Hamilton ovetook Vettel, he was no where near Vettel, Hamilton quickly charged up to Alonso and did actually try a manuaver or two before Alonso pitted. And about Hamiltons performance compared to the three leaders, he was on new tires when he unlapped himself, and they where on old. When the Trio pitted they where on new, where as Hamilton where on the old tires. Therefor there was a clear performance difference.

[Charlex]

I guess I will have to watch it again, because in the tv didn t show Hamilton pitted. I just found it.

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by CTD

Vettel went off with all 4 wheels several time through the race! - He should be punished.

Tom Kristensen who has been the driver steward twice, assess that Vettel will get a 20sec punishment for the overtaking.
He is of course not Steward for this race so it's his personal opinion and cannot be held responsible for his statement.

Derek Warwick was the driver Steward...he was right to give a penalty, although I thought it was too harsh! I would have been fairer to drop him back to 3rd position and give him a big fat fine!

Which lead me to thinking maybe Racing Drivers should get Points on their license like naughty road drivers do...and when they accumulate the max, the team has to replace them with their Reserve drivers?...I'm bored with same old drivers year after year...it's 'Formula One' not 'Celebrity Driver' Racing...or is it???

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Rennen

Derek Warwick was the driver Steward...he was right to give a penalty, although I thought it was too harsh! I would have been fairer to drop him back to 3rd position and give him a big fat fine!

Which lead me to thinking maybe Racing Drivers should get Points on their license like naughty road drivers do...and when they accumulate the max, the team has to replace them with their Reserve drivers?...I'm bored with same old drivers year after year...it's 'Formula One' not 'Celebrity Driver' Racing...or is it???

4th might have had more of a psychological affect, not as harsh as 5th but still denying him a podium.

[sparkione]

[QUOTE=The Snout;3110040]I wouldn't worry about Hamilton. He's showing more and more why McLaren kept the wrong driver. Radio - "We should retire", indeed. P*ss poor attitude from a team leader.

He's not the team leader...

[Peter Mallett]

I expect the reason Hamilton was suggesting retirement was because he knew that his gearbox was stuffed and he didn't know whether it would get to the end thereby needing a change an incurring a penalty. So stopping obviated that penalty.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I expect the reason Hamilton was suggesting retirement was because he knew that his gearbox was stuffed and he didn't know whether it would get to the end thereby needing a change an incurring a penalty. So stopping obviated that penalty.

Sounds like a good call to me.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I expect the reason Hamilton was suggesting retirement was because he knew that his gearbox was stuffed and he didn't know whether it would get to the end thereby needing a change an incurring a penalty. So stopping obviated that penalty.

So Hamilton is going to take a 5 place penalty for a gearbox change in Hungary?

[Peter Mallett]

No because he retired the car. That was the reason he was suggesting retirement. At least that's my thinking.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by Charlex

Not at all, I don't think that if somebody does something wrong, then it's all right to do it. What I am saying is that people who wanted Vettel to be punished for passing off the track, should ask for the same punishment in every situation, independent of who the driver is or what other thing happened. It just being consistent. Whoever, in my opinion, doesn't behave like this, is just subjective... or a fanatic who deforms the reality to his likening.




He did unlap, to then go slower to slow Vettel (Button got benefits from this). The proof of that, before Vettel was unlapped, he was on Alonso's mirrors. Hamilton passed Vettel, but then he was no near to make a move on Alonso. Besides, is not that they unlapped Hamilton coming out of the pits, they reached him on the track, so if he was that faster, he should have accelerated before the three cars reached him. Otherwise, it was an unfair team trick.

What Lewis said on the radio about wanting to retire and what Whitmarsh said when asked about team play Re- Lewis overtaking Vettel does not really stack up. It went along the lines of "it was legal to race and Lewis wanted to" ... all with a wry smile. Whether he was sent out to interfere or not, it certainly looks like they had at least considered it.

Whitmarsh/Lewis/team play comment at the last 15 secs or so here-

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/4...elButton_pass/

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

No because he retired the car. That was the reason he was suggesting retirement. At least that's my thinking.

Do you not now have to have a good reason to retire your car? If it was because of a gearbox problem, that's fine.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Do you not now have to have a good reason to retire your car? If it was because of a gearbox problem, that's fine.

He seemed to be able to attack Vettel and drive off into the distance with the "gearbox problem" and the damage to the floor and aerodynamics of a modern F1 car ??!

[Peter Mallett]

So, he wasn't slowing Vettel then? Agreed, but the inherent problem may have been there anyway.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by wnut

He seemed to be able to attack Vettel and drive off into the distance with the "gearbox problem" and the damage to the floor and aerodynamics of a modern F1 car ??!

Yep,

1. Lewis initially said he thought he should retire..
2. Passed Vettel and went off chasing down Alonso.
3. Obviously pushing very hard beyond race pace he stated on the radio that there was no way his tyres were going to last at this pace.
4. had a couple of nibbles at Alonso before Alonso pulled away slightly then pitted.
5. Lewis then pitted as his tyres were again shot? and it was better to save the car and iirc Jenson had got past Vettel and therefore he really had no other reason to be out there anymore.
6. Whitmarsh stated in the interview that it was 'legal to race the leaders and Lewis wanted to go back out and race' Eh??.. Doesn't really tie with Leweis earlier radio comment does it?

Whether they actually interfered or not is up for debate but to me it looks like they had at least considered it. If I was being gracious I'd suggest he was sent back out to collect tyre data for 110% race pace, hmm...

[Peter Mallett]

There is nothing actually wrong with what Lewis did or indeed if he had impeded Vettel, it would be perfectly legal. Think back to 1985 and the Shell GP of Europe at Brands Hatch. Rosberg had a coming together with Piquet whilst battling for the lead and suffered a puncture. He got back to the pits but was a lap down so he waited until Senna was coming round and pulled out of the pits in front of him (Senna was leading at the time IIRC). Senna later complained that Rosberg impeded him in order for Mansell to catch up and pass him, which he did. It was Mansell's first win.

All perfectly legal.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

There is nothing actually wrong with what Lewis did or indeed if he had impeded Vettel, it would be perfectly legal. Think back to 1985 and the Shell GP of Europe at Brands Hatch. Rosberg had a coming together with Piquet whilst battling for the lead and suffered a puncture. He got back to the pits but was a lap down so he waited until Senna was coming round and pulled out of the pits in front of him (Senna was leading at the time IIRC). Senna later complained that Rosberg impeded him in order for Mansell to catch up and pass him, which he did. It was Mansell's first win.

All perfectly legal.

Legality is a beautiful thing. Because it's not always fair .

But your example is a bit extreme compared to the Hamilton vs. Vettel case, but a good comparison.
What amazes me a bit is how, i'm sorry, Vettel complained about it afterwards. In any other series, it happens without big problems.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

There is nothing actually wrong with what Lewis did or indeed if he had impeded Vettel, it would be perfectly legal. Think back to 1985 and the Shell GP of Europe at Brands Hatch. Rosberg had a coming together with Piquet whilst battling for the lead and suffered a puncture. He got back to the pits but was a lap down so he waited until Senna was coming round and pulled out of the pits in front of him (Senna was leading at the time IIRC). Senna later complained that Rosberg impeded him in order for Mansell to catch up and pass him, which he did. It was Mansell's first win.

All perfectly legal.

Absolutely...

It is unethical but perfectly legal and with the high stakes we have in F1 Im pretty sure every other team on the grid would also have considered it in the same circumstances.