[Official] Brazilian Grand Prix: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 20 of 21

[Greem]

As an aside, I'm reading a really interesting book about cognitive dissonance at the moment.

I should write to the author and point them at this thread.

[GingerPixel]

Will both of you stop before I die of vicarious embarassment?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Greem

As an aside, I'm reading a really interesting book about cognitive dissonance at the moment.

I should write to the author and point them at this thread.

pahahaha that made me giggle :-)

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

Will both of you stop before I die of vicarious embarassment?

2? can you not count man :-p theres a few involved in this one :-)

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Greem

As an aside, I'm reading a really interesting book about cognitive dissonance at the moment.

I should write to the author and point them at this thread.

Please do, especially point them towards the people who can only support their opinions with fallacies

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Please do, especially point them towards the people who can only support their opinions with fallacies

Thanks for volunteering :-)

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Ok, thanks for that completely irrelevant post once again. But for the sake of argument: there was no thunderstorm nor metal clubs in this scenario.

I'm not the one that brought the lightning analogy into the thread.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

It's like blaming someone for getting hit by lightning for not moving out of the way in time.

But for clarity - I was referring to the fact that people watching the Ocon / Verstappen incident unfold could see that Ocon was challenging for track position, except Verstappen decided to challenge back. So a risky situation was developing (Thunderstorm), but Verstappen chose to put himself in that risk (Lightning Strike).

Ocon may have been found responsible for the collision, and whether you agree with that or not, Verstappen could have avoided the risk. This is exactly what Hamilton was referring to when he counselled Verstappen in the cooling-down room: 'You had more to lose'.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not the one that brought the lightning analogy into the thread.



But for clarity - I was referring to the fact that people watching the Ocon / Verstappen incident unfold could see that Ocon was challenging for track position, except Verstappen decided to challenge back. So a risky situation was developing (Thunderstorm), but Verstappen chose to put himself in that risk (Lightning Strike).

Ocon may have been found responsible for the collision, and whether you agree with that or not, Verstappen could have avoided the risk. This is exactly what Hamilton was referring to when he counselled Verstappen in the cooling-down room: 'You had more to lose'.

think youre fighting a losing battle with Sprinkles....don't think he understands accepting someone elses point of view...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But for clarity - I was referring to the fact that people watching the Ocon / Verstappen incident unfold could see that Ocon was challenging for track position, except Verstappen decided to challenge back.

Ah but this is the part where it goes wrong, he did not actually challenge. Ocon challenged once, lost, and then challenged again from a completely unjustifiable position. Hence the steward's report, severe penalty and clarification by Charlie that nobody ever should expect a backmarker to actually fight the leader. I would also point out again that people only in hindsight would ever claim a dangerous situation was brewing. Had they not touched, nobody would have batted an eye which is my main point.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not the one that brought the lightning analogy into the thread.



But for clarity - I was referring to the fact that people watching the Ocon / Verstappen incident unfold could see that Ocon was challenging for track position, except Verstappen decided to challenge back. So a risky situation was developing (Thunderstorm), but Verstappen chose to put himself in that risk (Lightning Strike).

Ocon may have been found responsible for the collision, and whether you agree with that or not, Verstappen could have avoided the risk. This is exactly what Hamilton was referring to when he counselled Verstappen in the cooling-down room: 'You had more to lose'.

You're right. This has been posted in various wordings by many of us. Here begins another cycle

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Ah but this is the part where it goes wrong, he did not actually challenge. Ocon challenged once, lost, and then challenged again from a completely unjustifiable position. I would also point out again that people only in hindsight would ever claim a dangerous situation was brewing. Had they not touched, nobody would have batted an eye which is my main point.

He didn't challenge...he challenged, lost and challenged again? So, he did challenge? Twice?

Had they not touched, it would've been through Max reading the situation and executing excellent race craft and avoiding the Ocon stupidity. Sadly, this did not happen.

Thread of the year.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

He didn't challenge...he challenged, lost and challenged again? So, he did challenge? Twice?

Had they not touched, it would've been through Max reading the situation and executing excellent race craft and avoiding the Ocon stupidity. Sadly, this did not happen.

Thread of the year.

indeed....im not even sure Sprinkles knows the facts anymore. as entertaining as this is, im out....no point in banging your head against the wall with someone who cant accept an opposing view

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

He didn't challenge...he challenged, lost and challenged again? So, he did challenge? Twice?

Please try to read properly.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Hamilton should have given Kimi more room here then, according to the oh so wise people here, and the man himself


https://youtu.be/_HkmYvKVx58?t=84

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I would also point out again that people only in hindsight would ever claim a dangerous situation was brewing.

In the past, I have heard radio talk to the effect of telling a driver that the backmarkers he is about to catch up with are battling for position - I would imagine this counts as seeing a dangerous situation brewing?

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

he did not actually challenge. Ocon challenged once, lost, and then challenged again from a completely unjustifiable position.

I'm sorry - this one has confused me.

He did not challenge, but did challenge twice?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the past, I have heard radio talk to the effect of telling a driver that the backmarkers he is about to catch up with are battling for position - I would imagine this counts as seeing a dangerous situation brewing?

Yes, as does hearing someone yell out that there's supposed to be large icebergs in the area!

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Hamilton should have given Kimi more room here then, according to the oh so wise people here, and the man himself


https://youtu.be/_HkmYvKVx58?t=84

Hamilton left a cars width, plenty of room but Kimi understeered into Lewis after locking up on cold tyres. an entirely different situation to Ocon and Max where Max didn't leave a cars width, closing the corner on a faster car on fresher tyres

[Greem]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Ah but this is the part where it goes wrong, he did not actually challenge. Ocon challenged once, lost, and then challenged again from a completely unjustifiable position. Hence the steward's report, severe penalty and clarification by Charlie that nobody ever should expect a backmarker to actually fight the leader. I would also point out again that people only in hindsight would ever claim a dangerous situation was brewing. Had they not touched, nobody would have batted an eye which is my main point.

I don't often requote myself, but for the avoidance of doubt I posted this during the race:

Originally Posted by Greem

That's some considerable floor damage on Max's car there.

Stupid move by Ocon, but why was Max defending so hard there?

Also - and I know you weren't in my living room at the time - when they entered the start/finish straight I said to my father-in-law and wife that "this will probably end in tears".

I could see the situation developing before it actually happened; not in hindsight, but before they got to turn 1.

I could see it.
I dare say a number of other drivers would have seen it, but I can't offer a percentage as that's a supposition rather than an assertion.

Why couldn't Max see it? Or, for that matter, Ocon?

Because they haven't yet matured into the superstar drivers they both could be. One of them is rapidly becoming the cartoon villain of F1, though

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Yes, as does hearing someone yell out that there's supposed to be large icebergs in the area!

Glad that you have finally agreed with an alternative view - and accept that it is possible to have foresight of a dangerous (or risky) situation on a racetrack developing.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Greem

I don't often requote myself, but for the avoidance of doubt I posted this during the race:

After the fact.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Glad that you have finally agreed with an alternative view - and accept that it is possible to have foresight of a dangerous (or risky) situation on a racetrack developing.

It certainly is, but not in this situation. Once again I refer to both the stewards and Charlie Whiting's comments, none of which you've addressed so far.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

He didn't challenge...he challenged, lost and challenged again? So, he did challenge? Twice?

Had they not touched, it would've been through Max reading the situation and executing excellent race craft and avoiding the Ocon stupidity. Sadly, this did not happen.

Thread of the year.

347 posts and 24 pages in, so far and a lot of going round in circles.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

It certainly is, but not in this situation. Once again I refer to both the stewards and Charlie Whiting's comments, none of which you've addressed so far.

The stewards and Charlie Whiting aren't infallible.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The stewards and Charlie Whiting aren't infallible.

Indeed they're not, and neither are the denizens of this board. In this case, the stewards and Mr. Whiting have by far the most convincing case.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Greem

Also - and I know you weren't in my living room at the time - when they entered the start/finish straight I said to my father-in-law and wife that "this will probably end in tears".

I could see the situation developing before it actually happened; not in hindsight, but before they got to turn 1.

I could see it.
I dare say a number of other drivers would have seen it, but I can't offer a percentage as that's a supposition rather than an assertion.

Why couldn't Max see it? Or, for that matter, Ocon?

Because they haven't yet matured into the superstar drivers they both could be. One of them is rapidly becoming the cartoon villain of F1, though

see, one of the reasons i like ocon is that he’s a properly raised and parented version of verstappen. the guy is a class act and always has been, but he’s firm on track and isn’t afraid to pull moves. he’s also not afraid *not* to. so when the other driver, be it perez or verstappen pulls their usual “everyone else should get out of my way or it’s their fault” nonsense, ocon is often the “but why?” party.

out of the two of them, ocon is the one who will mature. like hamilton did. i’m afraid from everything we’ve seen, verstappen never will. i really want him to come good, but i can’t see it happening this far into his f1 career.