myurr wrote:Okay so you finally actually quoted the rule. Which doesn't say what you think it says. Narain did let Vettel past at the first opportunity, he didn't even need the blue flags to tell him that he had to let him past. So he complied with that rule.
To let someone pass includes a full pass without a collision that you have to accept responsibility for. NK did not comply. You are again making things up.
You then utterly fail to quote any other rule to back up all your assertions as to who has to do what in these situations, suggesting that you couldn't find any rules to back up your opinion.
Please stop speculating about non existent rules. This is a straightforward case of applying §20.5 of the sporting rules and §16.1.d as the stewards did. Here is the relevant text for your convenience, since you still seem to be unaware of it:
16) INCIDENTS
16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any
action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the
stewards and subsequently investigated) which :
a) Necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41.
b) Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.
c) Caused a false start by one or more cars.
d) Caused a collision.
e) Forced a driver off the track.
f) Illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver.
g) Illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents
involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.
So you've found one rule that is particularly vague and just says a lapped car must let the lapping car through at the first opportunity, and then dictate to us all these other sub-rules that you believe it implies. It doesn't!
Paragraph 20.5 isn't vague at all but totally explicit. And I did not "find" it. It is there to be applied and it was obviously applied by the stewards. Stop disrespecting the regulations and making up your own rules. "must let pass asap" is very simple and easy understandable English language!
WhiteBlue wrote:My conclusion is that he simply made a mistake. He did not think that the next car was a leader but another car he was racing or he simply did not pay attention to his mirrors.
There you go, your full quote from page 78 where you say that you think NK just didn't look in his mirrors. So you did say that unlike you later claim.
Now we are talking. You may have noticed that I speculated and gave several options for NK not complying with the rules while you asserted that I made a direct claim, which would have been much stronger. I made you go back on that point just to reject your habit of paraphrasing and distorting what I wrote. Please stick to quoting me directly and this kind of distortions will not be a problem in the future. You should be aware that distorting someone's posts by paraphrasing is manipulative and very annoying. At least that is the perception from my side.
WhiteBlue wrote:I told you already that Vettel left enough lateral space. The whole notion of giving more respect to lapped cars is putting the rule on lapping upside down. The leading cars will always be wary of the back markers not seeing them or not being clearly identified vs a competing other back marker, but they need to keep their pace as we have seen Alonso or Hamilton doing before Vettel because they are racing each other. The whole point of §20.5 is that the back markers are not in the race with the leaders. This is why they have the duty to make space for the leaders in order to not destroy the racing experience for the audience. A minute audience cares whether NK comes home before PdlR or vice versa. But the global public wanted to see the world champion attack the other three leaders on a drying track. We have been denied of that spectacle because NK effed up.
.. But there was no need for Vettel to put himself into harms way. For the sake of giving NK another meter or two on a twenty meter wide circuit, he wouldn't have even lost a tenth and NK would have been able to follow the racing line without incident.
I reject that opinion. It is pure speculation. You have no idea how much time Vettel could have lost by safeguarding himself against the incompetence of a back marker.
In the past we've seen Vettel cut in front of other drivers just before the braking zone, including back markers, after making an overtake and being lucky that he didn't destabilise that car and have them slide into the back of him. It's been commented on in the past as being a bit risky. This time he's run another car unnecessarily close and has lost out because of it. Hopefully he'll learn and just give that extra safety margin next time.
But this entire passage reeks of the same sense of entitlement that Vettel obviously feels. NK has every right to be on that circuit, as does his team. They've created a car that complies with the rules, they've paid their bond.
More off topic!
That their car is a few percent slower than the Red Bull doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to run their own race as long as they don't hold up lapping cars too much. NK didn't block Vettel or hold him up!
Instead they had a 50/50 avoidable collision that both drivers could and should have avoided.
No further comment. This has been rejected many times as faulty application of the rules.
I seem to remember you defending Max Mosley's choice of teams when I criticised him for a poor choice and not giving the new teams enough time to prepare for their first season. You stuck up for Mosley, as you always seemed to, and welcomed these new teams. Ironic that you now slate them for their lack of support and lack of pace.
More off topic.
So Vettel didn't have better visibility despite being able to see NK the entire time throughout the manoeuvre? And he didn't have the option of giving an extra couple of metres space by moving slightly to the right? That option was right there in front of him and he chose not to do it, so my assertion is true. Doesn't matter about the rule book or duties of care, it's about safety margin when humans are involved and he chose not to move further right.
There was not enough lateral separation as they came together. Do you not think that with hindsight Vettel would have given another metre or two and made sure NK had the space he needed?
Giblet summed it all up far better than I did when he asked you a simple question which you didn't answer despite five paragraphs of text. Had Vettel given just a little bit more room then we wouldn't be having this discussion and you would have had your 'spectacle'.
I'm getting tired by having to comment on your faulty logic and faulty application of the rules another time. The whole sequence of events up to the point where NK and SV were side by side is is largely irrelevant to the incident because SV had the right to maximise his pace and optimise his racing line. All you do here is speculating. Second guessing a driver who got caught out by a rookie mistake from the armchair and making bold statement of how he should have done better isn't helpful IMHO.
In those paragraphs you show extreme arrogance by stating that all our dissenting opinions are faulty, and saying we're some sort of anti-Vettel brigade. You then go on to say NK does not belong in F1.
Stop paraphrasing and use quotations if you want me to take you serious. I'm not going for your bait. The anti-Vettel brigade was aimed at numerous off topic comments which have been reported by now.
Finally with regard to the stewards and their decision, do you actually know which rule he was penalised for? I've searched and can't find the official statement and have only found a couple of vague new stories. Do you think the 20 second penalty a fit and proper penalty for taking out a race leader through sub F1 standard driving, or a slap on the wrist for a technical infraction?
myurr, I'm getting tired of what appears to be laziness on your side. Do I have to re-quote myself on every point of the official documents and the regulations which I have already posted in this thread? If you can't be bothered to read your fellow forumer's previous posts on the issue you should stop making those uninformed comments and putting forward equally unsupported opinions.
1. I have quoted the full document of the stewards regarding the NK/SV accident including their reference to the violation (§16.1.d)
2. I have posted the relevant article for judging a collision between lapping and lapped drivers (§20.5).
3. I have pointed out the reason why the three corner rule is not applicable - because the duty to let pass ASAP is unconditional with regard to a collision. The three corner rule only applies to denying a legitimate pass, (§16.1.g&f) which wasn't the case here.
4. I have spelled out the § that covers the relevant circumstances of an incident, (§16.1.d).
I suggest that you reflect another time on all this and you will perhaps see the reason for applying the regulations as they have been. If not I cannot help you any further. I will simply give up preaching to deaf ears.
