2021 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 10 - 12

[Gillian]

Exactly. That damn curb made it a freak accident. Without it they would not have crashed as hard.

I also blame neither. They both could have avoided it but I understand why they chose not to.

[Wouter]

Oh c'mon ... you know what you did (even if unintentionally), there's enough people who don't click on linked articles, hell some don't even read past headlines.

Yes, it was indeed unintentionally!
Enough people who don't click on links? Really? Why is everybody always asking for a link when someone posts something?

The "opposing team" thing is about fans of opposing teams - you are a fan of RBR, are you not?
Wolff is the principal of the opposing team to the one you support.

NO, I am absolutely not a RBR fan!
I don't have a preference for a team, never did. I am a Senna and Alonso fan and a huge fan of Honda, always was.

And to be very blunt, what purpose would posting that selective quote from a 2.5 day old article even serve five days after the race?
Why would it be of any relevance whether Wolff should hypothetically feel ashamed for things he might or might not have said?

I just saw the article today. May/can I only post here an article that is from today? I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

I stated that I didn't know if the article was reliable, and if he did say that Max did it intentionally, he should be ashamed of himself, because I don't think Max would ever do such a thing intentionally.
Anyway, I understand that you can only post positive things about Mercedes here. I'll think about it from now on.
Fortunately I only read positive things about Honda and the two teams that they provide with a PU and Alonso .....
oh wait a minute.

.
Don't be disingenuous, asking for for a source link is very different to selective quotes who
most will believe to be a summary or even the sole content of the article from the link.

.
A bit naive, don't you think?! Do you think the people here are stupid?!

And to be blunt again

Doesn't matter, because I don't know you any other way.

- if you really just wanted to know if the quotes were real and if he really accused Max of doing it on purpose you could have just done that "Are those quotes real? Did he really accuse Max of deliberately ramming Lewis ?" and then you would get an answer (which is "no").
The way you wrote it reeked of indignation.

It's hard, isn't it, to read what it really says?!

I don't want to know and asking anything!!
I have said "If it is correct, what is in the article, then ...."

By this, you are now on my ignore list. I hate people who don't read things properly, then misinterpret them
and then falsely accuse you of everything.

[maxxer]

Yes, it was indeed unintentionally!
Enough people who don't click on links? Really? Why is everybody always asking for a link when someone posts something?




NO, I am absolutely not a RBR fan!
I don't have a preference for a team, never did. I am a Senna and Alonso fan and a huge fan of Honda, always was.




I just saw the article today. May/can I only post here an article that is from today? I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

I stated that I didn't know if the article was reliable, and if he did say that Max did it intentionally, he should be ashamed of himself, because I don't think Max would ever do such a thing intentionally.
Anyway, I understand that you can only post positive things about Mercedes here. I'll think about it from now on.
Fortunately I only read positive things about Honda and the two teams that they provide with a PU and Alonso .....
oh wait a minute.

.
Don't be disingenuous, asking for for a source link is very different to selective quotes who
most will believe to be a summary or even the sole content of the article from the link.

.
A bit naive, don't you think?! Do you think the people here are stupid?!

And to be blunt again

Doesn't matter, because I don't know you any other way.

- if you really just wanted to know if the quotes were real and if he really accused Max of doing it on purpose you could have just done that "Are those quotes real? Did he really accuse Max of deliberately ramming Lewis ?" and then you would get an answer (which is "no").
The way you wrote it reeked of indignation.

It's hard, isn't it, to read what it really says?!

I don't want to know and asking anything!!
I have said "If it is correct, what is in the article, then ...."

By this, you are now on my ignore list. I hate people who don't read things properly, then misinterpret them
and then falsely accuse you of everything.

Its just a forum to start saying you "hate" people is a bit much i think.
Cant imaging working with someone like you in real life

[dans79]

Nice animation, showing how car #44 is leaving a space to car #33

All that shows comments the person that made the animation doesn't know anything about cars or racing.

Lewis and Lando started out on completely different lines.

[the EDGE]

Nice animation, showing how car #44 is leaving a space to car #33

All that shows comments the person that made the animation doesn't know anything about cars or racing.

Lewis and Lando started out on completely different lines.

The stewards decision was that Lewis didn’t need to leave room for Max, Max was not alongside in the run-up to the corner

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.

[RZS10]

The animation in itself is fine, it's on page 103 in it's entirety - it was cut, taken out of context and reposted on one social media platform (with added music?) and then that version was reposted on another social media platform with added commentary only to make it's way here in order to...prove something?

A bit naive, don't you think?! Do you think the people here are stupid?!
I don't want to know and asking anything[sic]!!
By this, you are now on my ignore list.

Yes, some. But it has nothing to do with stupidity since you got several replies from people who did not read the full article and took your cherrypicked quote at face value.

"Does Toto accuse Max of intentionally knocking Lewis out?"
"I don't know if this article is true."
"I didn't know if the article was reliable."
Sounds like (potential) questions to me.

Anyways ... huge loss : ((( ... i do rate the performative anger a solid 8/10 tho.

p.s.: short reminder that you do the very same thing you wrote in the last sentence, so please, don't be too hard on yourself, ya know ... with the hate and all :-*

[dans79]

Nice animation, showing how car #44 is leaving a space to car #33

All that shows comments the person that made the animation doesn't know anything about cars or racing.

Lewis and Lando started out on completely different lines.

The stewards decision was that Lewis didn’t need to leave room for Max, Max was not alongside in the run-up to the corner

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.

I'm aware, I think I was the first person to actually post the stewards decision on the race thread!

What that video is trying to do is "prove thats Lewis ran Max out of road" by comparing his trajectory to that of Lando. What the creator seemingly doesn't understand is that Lando and Lewis started at completely different places, and had different tire conditions. In other words, it's a completely faulty argument!

[the EDGE]

I'm aware, I think I was the first person to actually post the stewards decision on the race thread!

What that video is trying to do is "prove thats Lewis ran Max out of road" by comparing his trajectory to that of Lando. What the creator seemingly doesn't understand is that Lando and Lewis started at completely different places, and had different tire conditions. In other words, it's a completely faulty argument!

Sorry I wasn’t arguing with you, just pointing out that it’s irrelevant whether Lewis ran max off the road or not. Stewards ruled he didn’t have to leave cars width

Personally I’ve tried hard to stay out of this argument (until now), but if people are going to argue, they should at least do it over something that is relevent

[f1jcw]

No that's your opinion and that's fine. My opinion is it was a racing incident which both could have avoided. Your response is literally what Andres talks about so you are just proving his point anyway.

It is not opinion. It is cold hard facts, supported by the stewards.

[f1jcw]

Oh c'mon ... you know what you did (even if unintentionally), there's enough people who don't click on linked articles, hell some don't even read past headlines.

Yes, it was indeed unintentionally!
Enough people who don't click on links? Really? Why is everybody always asking for a link when someone posts something?

The "opposing team" thing is about fans of opposing teams - you are a fan of RBR, are you not?
Wolff is the principal of the opposing team to the one you support.

NO, I am absolutely not a RBR fan!
I don't have a preference for a team, never did. I am a Senna and Alonso fan and a huge fan of Honda, always was.

And to be very blunt, what purpose would posting that selective quote from a 2.5 day old article even serve five days after the race?
Why would it be of any relevance whether Wolff should hypothetically feel ashamed for things he might or might not have said?

I just saw the article today. May/can I only post here an article that is from today? I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

I stated that I didn't know if the article was reliable, and if he did say that Max did it intentionally, he should be ashamed of himself, because I don't think Max would ever do such a thing intentionally.
Anyway, I understand that you can only post positive things about Mercedes here. I'll think about it from now on.
Fortunately I only read positive things about Honda and the two teams that they provide with a PU and Alonso .....
oh wait a minute.

Don't be disingenuous, asking for for a source link is very different to selective quotes who most will believe to be a summary or even the sole content of the article from the link.
Sorry that i mistook you jumping into threads to defend RBR/Max feverlishly as being a fan of either of them. Even then, since you're a huge Honda fan Merc is still the opposing team to RBR-Honda.
The comments were discussed the day they were made and a few more times afterwards in this very thread - there's a search function afterall ("tactical" is a perfect keyword to start with).
And the remaining stuff about only being allowed to post positive things about Merc here is of course complete horsesh.t.

And to be, once again, blunt - if you really just wanted to know whether the quotes were real and whether he really accused Max of doing it on purpose you could have done just that "Are those quotes real? Did he really accuse Max of ramming Lewis intentionally?" and then you'd get an answer (which is "nah").
The way you wrote it reeked of outrage bait.

Why would we click on the link, when it is quoted.
You usually assume the quote is the full and relevant part.

The addition of a link is to show that is a article snippet, not written by yourself, a bibliography if you’d like to the creditor.

It doesn’t mean usually, I’ve only posted a bit, go read the rest.

[dans79]

Yes, it was indeed unintentionally!
Enough people who don't click on links? Really? Why is everybody always asking for a link when someone posts something?




NO, I am absolutely not a RBR fan!
I don't have a preference for a team, never did. I am a Senna and Alonso fan and a huge fan of Honda, always was.




I just saw the article today. May/can I only post here an article that is from today? I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

I stated that I didn't know if the article was reliable, and if he did say that Max did it intentionally, he should be ashamed of himself, because I don't think Max would ever do such a thing intentionally.
Anyway, I understand that you can only post positive things about Mercedes here. I'll think about it from now on.
Fortunately I only read positive things about Honda and the two teams that they provide with a PU and Alonso .....
oh wait a minute.

Don't be disingenuous, asking for for a source link is very different to selective quotes who most will believe to be a summary or even the sole content of the article from the link.
Sorry that i mistook you jumping into threads to defend RBR/Max feverlishly as being a fan of either of them. Even then, since you're a huge Honda fan Merc is still the opposing team to RBR-Honda.
The comments were discussed the day they were made and a few more times afterwards in this very thread - there's a search function afterall ("tactical" is a perfect keyword to start with).
And the remaining stuff about only being allowed to post positive things about Merc here is of course complete horsesh.t.

And to be, once again, blunt - if you really just wanted to know whether the quotes were real and whether he really accused Max of doing it on purpose you could have done just that "Are those quotes real? Did he really accuse Max of ramming Lewis intentionally?" and then you'd get an answer (which is "nah").
The way you wrote it reeked of outrage bait.

Why would we click on the link, when it is quoted.
You usually assume the quote is the full and relevant part.

The addition of a link is to show that is a article snippet, not written by yourself, a bibliography if you’d like to the creditor.

It doesn’t mean usually, I’ve only posted a bit, go read the rest.

Generally speaking, you should read the link, specially if you are going to respond. It's semi unethical to post an entire article.

Not to mention most people only post the parts they feel are relevant, thus some amount of personal bias will always creep in!

[RZS10]

Ofc you _should_ but these days many don't do it, simply because those so called articles on sites such as racefans often don't contain more than a single relevant quote or because people trust the others here to mention the relevant parts or in many cases because they agree with the sentiment and don't care whether it's factually correct ... let's not pretend for a moment though that that was anything but feigned outrage just for the sake of it about something someone did not even really say ... lol

[langedweil]

I'm aware, I think I was the first person to actually post the stewards decision on the race thread!

What that video is trying to do is "prove thats Lewis ran Max out of road" by comparing his trajectory to that of Lando. What the creator seemingly doesn't understand is that Lando and Lewis started at completely different places, and had different tire conditions. In other words, it's a completely faulty argument!

I don't understand (really, not adding fuel) why the position of a car by the end of the breaking zone in T1 is relevant to an accident in T2, where we can say 33 is sufficiently next to 44 (as the rear wheels touched and caused a freak accident.
I understand T1 and T2 are pretty close to one and another, but still .. 33 was sufficiently alongside for T2.
I cannot follow the reason of thought by the stewards to be honest.

As for Wolff's tactical foul remark; I highly doubt these two guys would crash on purpose. If however one of then was making an However, both being off and adding zero points deficit by DNF suited both drivers equally. Motive was there for both.

Well, I guess it can't really be answered

[dans79]

I don't understand (really, not adding fuel) why the position of a car by the end of the breaking zone in T1 is relevant to an accident in T2, where we can say 33 is sufficiently next to 44 (as the rear wheels touched and caused a freak accident.
I understand T1 and T2 are pretty close to one and another, but still .. 33 was sufficiently alongside for T2.
I cannot follow the reason of thought by the stewards to be honest.

A couple things are at play here.

In the offical video you will see Max was well into the braking zone (downshifted 4 times) before he had any overlap with Lewis. This is why the stewards decision had this in it.

In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”.

To be entitled to space you have to have overlap before the braking zone, or right as you enter it. The stewards will allow some leeway depending on the corner/track.

If you get overlap deep into the braking zone, or after turn in, then you are at the mercy of the other driver, because it's "his corner" or one of the many other phrases you will hear people use. It will remain his corner all the way to corner exit with 2 common exceptions. If the lead car takes a line that's is obviously designed to prevent the other car from making the corner, then they can be considered the one at fault if their is a collision. Hamilton/rosberg Austria 2016 is a good example of this.

The other exception is if the lead driver significantly alters his line mid corner, what's normally referred to as opening the steering angle.


Lewis was cleared of both of these exceptions with this comment from the stewards.

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb.

As you noted, T1 and T2 in Monza are a special case because they are so close together. On most lines the exit of turn 1 and the entry of turn 2 pretty much don't exist. It's a continuous sequence of movements and the stewards will generally treat it as if it was 1 turn. By that I mean If Max had overlap entering the braking zone for turn 1, he's be entitled to it all the way through the exit of turn 2 in the eyes of the stewards.


It's very nuanced, and personally I blame the commentators for a lot of peoples misunderstandings. They try and dumb everything down and make it sound black and white.

It's not though, it's very grey, and very situational. If Lewis goes to deep into the corner before turning, or opens up his steering he will be at fault. If he runs wide himself, or loose control of the car in the slightest way, he will be at fault. If he does anything that looks intentional he will be at fault, etc etc.

The video:

[Tvetovnato]

To strengthen the argument further, if a driver is 100 metres behind the the driver in front when reaching the braking point and decides to brake way too late, he of course will be up alongside the driver in front right before hitting the apex at some point. But then a crash is enivitable, and that clearly is not the fault the driver in front trying to take the corner, since it’s his corner. It’s basically a dive bomb situation. A dive bomb being successful ALWAYS depends on the driver in front moving out of the way, not because he is required to by racing etiquette/rules, but because he expects a crash to happen, which might compromise his own race. But you can only do that to a certain extent. Sooner or later a line must be drawn, and the dive bomber needs to realize that it’s not his right to force himself ahead at all times, but rather knowing when to concede since the racing room is not yours to take in that situation.