2021 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 10 - 12

[langedweil]

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.

No, it only suited Verstappen. It didn’t suit Hamilton-being ahead in the race and behind in the championship and at the time on course for a three, seven or ten point gain- in the slightest.

Well, that's just being conveniently short-sighted; if Lewis would have given the space desired by Max, Max would/could be ahead, and Lewis would therefore lose even more points (besides the 2 of the sprint). The one guy leading the other one after that corner would have (most likely) gained points, so yes there really was an incentive for both; not just Max. And that is what's making Toto's reasoning of foul play ridiculous at the very least

They were battling for 3th and 4th btw, so it would have been only 3pts; but still 3pts. There was no chance either one of them would take down the McL's ..

[dans79]

But the fact that T1 & T2 are considered one just feels weird; a corner is a corner, two corners in a different direction ought to be just that: 2 corners. We can make up stuff like you need to be sufficiently aside at the start of the corner (or before the breaking zone or anything else, for whatever 'sufficiently aside' is defined to be), but imho that just feels artificial.

Monza is unique because if the preceding long strait. Turns 13 and 14 in Mexico are much the same, they are just located in a part of the track that makes it very hard to get a run on another car.

Plus the fact that late breaking (whilst making the corner with ease) is apparently now considered somewhat cheeky, and almost punishable in itself, makes proper racing almost impossible. Being the latest of the late breakers will with that line of thinking no longer be a plus, and with that Sunday's race becomes almost irrelevant as the order is mainly set in Q1/2/3.

Being late on the brakes has always had benefits and always will. However how far back you can be is limited by the turn and if you are going down the inside, or around the outside.

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside, And turn 1 in monza is a bad place to try it imo. Turn 1 in china,and Japan, are more likely places to pull it off, but in general is much rarer than up the inside because the risks of being pushed of the track are much higher.

As said by many for weeks: stop the desire to always having to put down blame

The problem is the masses scream for blood every time something doesn't go the way they think it should!

And it's prominent throughout society now. For example when I was in school, young kiddles got paddled for fighting. For older kids punishment was some amount of detention or a short suspension if it was especially brutal. Now they default to expelling kids regardless of age!

[langedweil]

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside, And turn 1 in monza is a bad place to try it imo.

But how is a 'dive bomb' around the outside a thing really? If you were over-enthousiastic you'll end up in the gravel/runoff not making the corner, and solely hurting yourself.
If you do make the corner however, you are either more brave/skilled or your car is apparently better in braking; so you can brake later than the other guy.
If however you f*** it up, you're the only one paying for that mistake. And that is why that rule is insane in my humble opinion; do as you like, break a leg .. no issues for someone else.

As said by many for weeks: stop the desire to always having to put down blame

The problem is the masses scream for blood every time something doesn't go the way they think it should!

And it's prominent throughout society now. For example when I was in school, young kiddles got paddled for fighting. For older kids punishment was some amount of detention or a short suspension if it was especially brutal. Now they default to expelling kids regardless of age!

Absolutely true .. these times are worrying in that aspect. Seems as if kids cannot be kids any longer than age 5/6, and everyone else is looking at everyone else to see if someone gets out of line just to shout and report as soon as it happens. A bit of the good old DDR mentality. Good for me there weren't mobile phones around with 4k in every pocket when I was cruising through adolesensce

[Ryar]

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside,

That's what Lewis did in Imola, Silverstone and Monza.

[NathanOlder]

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside,

That's what Lewis did in Imola, Silverstone and Monza.

You really seem to struggle to understand whay you're seeing.

Imola and Monza the car on the outside was completely level in to the braking zone, then when the gap was closing, he left the circuit completely to avoid a race ending collision.

Silverstone, I assume you are talking about Brooklands. Again in that case the car on the outside was actually well ahead going in to the corner but the car on the inside still started closing the gap and the car on the outside this time backed off earlier as he knew the gap was closing and going off track would cost far more than doing so at a chicane.

A dive bomb (inside or outside) is when a car comes from further back in the braking zone and usually relies on the other car seeing it coming and to take avoiding action. A fair few of Ricciardo moves over the years have been exactly this. When he pulls them off, they are great. If they fail it will always be the dive bomber who will be penalised.

How can you call what Lewis did in Imola, Monza and Silverstone a dive bomb, please explain. I have taken the time to explain to you my side ot this, so do the decent thing and explain your side. Or are you just trying to cause arguments?

[Tvetovnato]

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside, And turn 1 in monza is a bad place to try it imo.

But how is a 'dive bomb' around the outside a thing really? If you were over-enthousiastic you'll end up in the gravel/runoff not making the corner, and solely hurting yourself.
If you do make the corner however, you are either more brave/skilled or your car is apparently better in braking; so you can brake later than the other guy.
If however you f*** it up, you're the only one paying for that mistake. And that is why that rule is insane in my humble opinion; do as you like, break a leg .. no issues for someone else.

As said by many for weeks: stop the desire to always having to put down blame

The problem is the masses scream for blood every time something doesn't go the way they think it should!

And it's prominent throughout society now. For example when I was in school, young kiddles got paddled for fighting. For older kids punishment was some amount of detention or a short suspension if it was especially brutal. Now they default to expelling kids regardless of age!

Absolutely true .. these times are worrying in that aspect. Seems as if kids cannot be kids any longer than age 5/6, and everyone else is looking at everyone else to see if someone gets out of line just to shout and report as soon as it happens. A bit of the good old DDR mentality. Good for me there weren't mobile phones around with 4k in every pocket when I was cruising through adolesensce

A dive bomb around the outside IS a thing. The dive bomber needs to be ready to abort the dive by taking evading action, if the driver in front decides to take a wider line, since the driver in front has the right to do what he wants at that time. If he leaves space for the dive bomber, that’s lucky for the dive bomber, but if he decides to not give the space, it’s on the dive bomber to save the situation.

[Starkblood80]

For lack of a better term what Max did was basically a dive bomb around the outside,

That's what Lewis did in Imola, Silverstone and Monza.

You really seem to struggle to understand whay you're seeing.

Imola and Monza the car on the outside was completely level in to the braking zone, then when the gap was closing, he left the circuit completely to avoid a race ending collision.

Silverstone, I assume you are talking about Brooklands. Again in that case the car on the outside was actually well ahead going in to the corner but the car on the inside still started closing the gap and the car on the outside this time backed off earlier as he knew the gap was closing and going off track would cost far more than doing so at a chicane.

A dive bomb (inside or outside) is when a car comes from further back in the braking zone and usually relies on the other car seeing it coming and to take avoiding action. A fair few of Ricciardo moves over the years have been exactly this. When he pulls them off, they are great. If they fail it will always be the dive bomber who will be penalised.

How can you call what Lewis did in Imola, Monza and Silverstone a dive bomb, please explain. I have taken the time to explain to you my side ot this, so do the decent thing and explain your side. Or are you just trying to cause arguments?

You’re wasting your time asking for a well thought out coherent answer from him, it’s obvious from his previous posts he’s nothing more than an antagonist and I’d be highly surprised if even he believes diatribe he writes.

[langedweil]

A dive bomb around the outside IS a thing. The dive bomber needs to be ready to abort the dive by taking evading action, if the driver in front decides to take a wider line, since the driver in front has the right to do what he wants at that time. If he leaves space for the dive bomber, that’s lucky for the dive bomber, but if he decides to not give the space, it’s on the dive bomber to save the situation.

What a nonsense ...

[dans79]

But how is a 'dive bomb' around the outside a thing really? If you were over-enthousiastic you'll end up in the gravel/runoff not making the corner, and solely hurting yourself.
If you do make the corner however, you are either more brave/skilled or your car is apparently better in braking; so you can brake later than the other guy.
If however you f*** it up, you're the only one paying for that mistake. And that is why that rule is insane in my humble opinion; do as you like, break a leg .. no issues for someone else.

You need to seperate what the car and driver can do on their own, form what the car and driver can do when another car is close by.

A dive bomb is called what it is, because just like the military tactic that it was named after (and isn't used anymore), it's very risky because of external factors. Diving a plane at a steep angle itself isn't dangerous. Doing it in close proximity to the ground while people are shooting at you is. If anything didn't go as the pilot planed it usually ended in a crash.

In terms of the incident, I'm sure Max makes the turn just fine if Lewis isn't there. He knows what he is doing and he knows what the car is cable of. But Lewis is the external factor, thats max can't completely account for. That's why people say the car doing it is at the mercy of the car in front. The driver behind simply can't predict and account for everything the leading driver might do, because there isn't enough time or space to do so.

Imo, that's one of the reasons why Lewis positioned his car the way he did. If Lewis had gone all the way left when he cleared pit exit, then Max would have just gone up the inside. By putting his car close to the middle of the track, Lewis is forcing Max to choose an avenue of attack, and to commit to it. Forcing Max to commit, gives Lewis more options.

[PlatinumZealot]

A dive bomb around the outside IS a thing. The dive bomber needs to be ready to abort the dive by taking evading action, if the driver in front decides to take a wider line, since the driver in front has the right to do what he wants at that time. If he leaves space for the dive bomber, that’s lucky for the dive bomber, but if he decides to not give the space, it’s on the dive bomber to save the situation.

What a nonsense ...

If you haven't noticed it before this is normal for S-turns and Chicanes. Regular occurrence actually. I can't fathom how you say it is nonsense.

[Tvetovnato]

A dive bomb around the outside IS a thing. The dive bomber needs to be ready to abort the dive by taking evading action, if the driver in front decides to take a wider line, since the driver in front has the right to do what he wants at that time. If he leaves space for the dive bomber, that’s lucky for the dive bomber, but if he decides to not give the space, it’s on the dive bomber to save the situation.

What a nonsense ...

Lol, OK. Look at the stewards decision and get back again. I also urge you to go onboard with Lewis in Hungary when chasing Alonso and looking at turn two, where Alonso always runs Hamilton out of road when Hamilton is trying the outside move. Lewis has to abort at least a couple of times to avoid a crash. And he does it without whining about it, since it’s common sense for racing drivers with proper schooling.

[langedweil]

A dive bomb around the outside IS a thing. The dive bomber needs to be ready to abort the dive by taking evading action, if the driver in front decides to take a wider line, since the driver in front has the right to do what he wants at that time. If he leaves space for the dive bomber, that’s lucky for the dive bomber, but if he decides to not give the space, it’s on the dive bomber to save the situation.

What a nonsense ...

Lol, OK. Look at the stewards decision and get back again. I also urge you to go onboard with Lewis in Hungary when chasing Alonso and looking at turn two, where Alonso always runs Hamilton out of road when Hamilton is trying the outside move. Lewis has to abort at least a couple of times to avoid a crash. And he does it without whining about it, since it’s common sense for racing drivers with proper schooling.

Since you just need to be right, and apparently don't want to understand the discussion point: you're right, have a beer !

[langedweil]

Imo, that's one of the reasons why Lewis positioned his car the way he did. If Lewis had gone all the way left when he cleared pit exit, then Max would have just gone up the inside. By putting his car close to the middle of the track, Lewis is forcing Max to choose an avenue of attack, and to commit to it. Forcing Max to commit, gives Lewis more options.

I get that .. so he commits to the utter outside (the green), makes the corner with ease and is imho opinion sufficiently alongside for T2 to at least earn some space.
But apparently T1 and T2 now count as one according to the stewards ruling (opposed to Hungary's T2 & T3), and I sincerly think that line of thinking is wrong. It limits racing a step further and is again a step closer to DRS-only overtakes. In that case we might as well put the PU's on the dyno and the chassis in a windtunnel, and decide in March who will be WDC/WCC. Saves a lot of money and time lost as all weekends come back to us.

[NathanOlder]

Imo, that's one of the reasons why Lewis positioned his car the way he did. If Lewis had gone all the way left when he cleared pit exit, then Max would have just gone up the inside. By putting his car close to the middle of the track, Lewis is forcing Max to choose an avenue of attack, and to commit to it. Forcing Max to commit, gives Lewis more options.

I get that .. so he commits to the utter outside (the green), makes the corner with ease and is imho opinion sufficiently alongside for T2 to at least earn some space.
But apparently T1 and T2 now count as one according to the stewards ruling (opposed to Hungary's T2 & T3), and I sincerly think that line of thinking is wrong. It limits racing a step further and is again a step closer to DRS-only overtakes. In that case we might as well put the PU's on the dyno and the chassis in a windtunnel, and decide in March who will be WDC/WCC. Saves a lot of money and time lost as all weekends come back to us.

So you must believe Max should have been penalised for the incident at the della roggia chicane then?

[El Scorchio]

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.

No, it only suited Verstappen. It didn’t suit Hamilton-being ahead in the race and behind in the championship and at the time on course for a three, seven or ten point gain- in the slightest.

Well, that's just being conveniently short-sighted; if Lewis would have given the space desired by Max, Max would/could be ahead, and Lewis would therefore lose even more points (besides the 2 of the sprint). The one guy leading the other one after that corner would have (most likely) gained points, so yes there really was an incentive for both; not just Max. And that is what's making Toto's reasoning of foul play ridiculous at the very least

They were battling for 3th and 4th btw, so it would have been only 3pts; but still 3pts. There was no chance either one of them would take down the McL's ..

Not really being short sighted in the slightest. Hamilton was ahead going into the corner and would have continued to be ahead leaving the corner without a collision. He had absolutely nothing to gain from it. You’re just dealing in what ifs to suit your argument. Nothing more to say really.