myurr wrote:WhiteBlue - so you only want to consider a 1 second period of time from when Vettel draws alongside to the moment of impact, and consider everything else to be circumstantial or irrelevant?
This case is rather clear cut. And yes you can do it because of the particular circumstances.
Frankly I find that a bit of a joke, although I do love the way you hide behind pseudo lawyer speak, but
You are the one who applies rhetorics here.....
.. let's consider that 1 second period. That one second figure, by the way, is based on there being at least a 16 mph speed differential which given then speed at which Vettel closes is probably very conservative. NK wouldn't have even been able to see SV throughout that entire time period.
The question or better the excuse of "I did not see him" is already eliminated from this case. NK did not make that excuse. He must have seen Vettel's approach or he would have used that excuse. If he did not see him and did not tell the stewards and the press about it I have even more doubts about his mental state than his driving.
I would postulate that the cars would have to be level before NK could have seen enough of SV's car with enough accuracy to be able to determine both position and trajectory. With a 16 mph speed differential this would have given NK just 0.5 seconds to react and change path.
The human visual response time is roughly 0.15 seconds but on average it takes 0.45 seconds to actually act upon that visual stimulus. So with just a 16 mph speed differential NK would have had just 0.05 seconds during which his actions could affect the positioning of his car. At 20mph he wouldn't have had time to react at all.
You are making an assumption that is not logical (NK did not see SV before) and then you construct a theory based on false assumptions that seemingly uses physical calculations for pseudo exactness. I'm not going to follow that flawed theory.
Contrast this with SV who had complete visibility of NK throughout the entire first part of the incident and therefore had all the visual clues to know he was on a collision course.
Vettel was by no means on a collision course. That is your invention.
As shown on Giblet's image which has been corrected to eliminate camera movement, during that period you wish to consider both cars held a constant line. NK was following the racing line, SV chose an overtaking line that crossed that line. SV knew this throughout the entire incident and yet didn't change course.
Giblet's manipulated image shows nothing if you ask me. Everybody can photoshop images from different cameras, points in time, angles and make any number of claims. I do not consider that proper evidence. I'm not buying the theory that they were on lines that would be crossing each other before Vettel's car would completely pass NK's car. There is no evidence for this theory at all. A helicam video could perhaps provide or not provide such evidence or NK's roll hoop cam, but we don't have such evidence. The steward's might have had it because they can call it in.
Based on all the above SV caused an avoidable accident by setting his car on a path that crossed NK's path despite having full visibility of this.
I totally reject that. It is ridiculous. NK made a steering move towards the right when SV was passing him. SV could not see that because he was already committed to the pass and held his course. The stewards clearly ruled that NK and not SV caused the collision.
Rule 20.5 does not apply as during this period NK has complied with letting SV past. There is at least 15 metres of track available to SV and SV has a large speed differential meaning he can make the overtake. NK has not changed line to block SV, and has therefore let SV make the overtake unimpeded.
Once again you are in error. §20.5 applies to the whole passing move until the passing driver is clear of the car that he is lapping. I'm not going to entertain your speculations and theories based on a flawed understanding of the rules.
Rule 16.1 can be applied to both drivers,..
Naturally §16.1 covers more than lapping. Everybody is aware of that.
nowhere do the rules state that 20.5 means that 16.1 does not apply to the overtaker despite your assertions and claims about a duty of care.
And what is that supposed to prove? The two paragraphs will always be applied in the way they fit the situation. In this situation NK was punished because he steered towards the right side into Vettel's car.
SV can be shown to have caused a collision by choosing a trajectory that crosses NK's path.
I totally disagree. You can speculate about trajectories all the time you like, but you have no evidence for that speculation. Apparently the stewards had none of this either.
But all the above is irrelevant at the end of the day. You can hide behind the rulebook all you like, spouting the unquestionable truth as judge and jury, and can cling to the non-punishment handed down by the stewards as justification for SV's behaviour. The simple truth is that SV chose a line that required NK to react and change course, something that didn't happen. That was SV's choice, his risk to take, and it went wrong.
This is your opinion of the accident to which you are entitled. Let me tell you simply that in my view it is not a proper reflection of what happened in reality.
If he wants to be world champion again he either needs to pray for a dominant car, or he needs to stop taking unnecessary risks whilst passing back markers.
Another piece of opinion that I don't share. Red Bull and Sebastian Vettel were beaten well below their value in a wet race that had many aspects of a lottery and in which the true dry pace of the cars never played a role. They will fight back and Vettel is well capable to win races and a championship with a car that has roughly the same pace on balance of qualifying and race. I'm not going to second guess Seb about the risks he needs to take. That is is job and not for Monday arm chair experts to decide.
