2017 United States Grand Prix - COTA, 20-22 October

[drunkf1fan]

but did they use those "hard" overtakes to defend against the penalties they received on other occasions?

I fully expect Max to crash into others that try "hard" overtakes on him, just to establish his personality, and it is not like that hasn't happened already

P.s. I criticize not the overtake he did on Bottas, but the fact that he used it to defend his position on having the right to cut the corner to get by Kimi

This simply sounds like you have a problem with Verstappen and are using anything to justify it, because that isn't what happened in the slightest.

Verstappen isn't using a hard overtake to justify his final move. Verstappen made a decent pass on Bottas, Bottas got back alongside Verstappen rather than giving up the place immediately by going wide and flooring it. That has nothing to do with Verstappen's part of the overtake at all, because he didn't leave the track and floor it. The Verstappen/Bottas move wasn't made directly at the end of the backstraight, it was made a corner or two later when Verstappen finally got fully ahead of Bottas. That only happened because Bottas went off track and floored it. He isn't using himself passing hard to justify the final move, he's using Bottas going off track and flooring it to justify himself doing the same thing.... and because Bottas wasn't the only guy to defend or attack by going off track throughout the afternoon there is absolute justification for someone to bring up why they were penalised for doing the same thing.

Instead of seeing that he's talking about what Bottas did, which is plain as day, you're basically purposefully misunderstanding what he's saying they questioning his personality based on a warped interpretation of what you think he said. But it's pretty clear you just dislike him and are warping your interpretation of what he's saying to suit your dislike of him.

[drunkf1fan]

It wasn’t weird (especially in hindsight) that they waited to pit Hamilton. He was on a one-stop while vet/ver were on two stops. It must have been marginal because with just a lap to go they made a safety stop for BOT who’s tires were just a few laps older.

I know, but one lap before would have been enough to give Lewis more room. There was no need to give Sebastian a chance to overtake again Lewis. Yes, he would have won because he was clearly faster but why to put him under a risky situation when there was no need?

Hamilton made the one stop strategy goood but Bottas had no pace so he should have tried a 2 stop strategy.

Realistically, lack of pace is lack of pace. How would it really have played out had he stopped say just after Vettel or Verstappen did. He'd likely have come out just ahead of Vettel.... but Kimi and Ricciardo were closing on him throughout the race at various stages, he was simply slower than these two guys, and Vettel and Max were faster than those two guys. So he'd have been 1-2 seconds ahead of Vettel had he pitted that second time, with two faster and better drivers behind him, he'd have been passed all the same, had better tires and pace than Kimi and closed the gap, he'd have followed Verstappen and honestly it would have played out exactly the same, he'd have ended up 5th just in a different order of overtaking. The only difference would be he wouldn't have pitted with 4 laps to go and no chance to be close-ish to Kimi at the end but he absolutely wouldn't have had the pace to catch them.

Bottas was slow on fresh tires, old tires and throughout the race, pitting again wouldn't have changed that and Vettel/Verstappen had the pace to pass him. It would have taken longer but as with Ricciardo and Kimi who both passed him with similar age tires, it would have happened anyway.

[jz11]

I also suspect that is the problem other drivers have with him - he isn't quite consistent when it comes to the rule book, just look at how HAM was tiptoeing with him when he made his overtake, it looked like he expected anything to happen there, and it is what happened with Bottas - he didn't leave any space at the exit, and he thought that was ok... because if he did, he would lose speed and that would allow Bottas to get him at the exit, so he managed to get the overtake done, his fans think of him as a hero, when in fact he simply disrespected the rule book yet again, because he knows that it would be judged and wrote off as a racing incident - because that is what the fans want to see, right, overtaking

My opinion is that other drivers don't expect him to behave properly, they know he will probably not leave the space for them, so they are extra cautious, and that works in his favor, and that in turn makes him look better than he really is, he is young, he is arrogant, he is fast, he is aggressive, but wait till you see him actually start to think championship wise, not just take any chance and hope that the other guy backs off.

Hamilton wasn't tiptoeing at all, Brundle said that because brundle is often idiotic. Hamilton moved far away from him on the corner after the backstraight because he wanted to cut under him and get a better exit to make the move... which is exactly what he did. If he didn't move over to the left and cut right under Verstappen he couldn't get better traction or the speed to beat him into the next corner. Brundle said instead that staying left was him being scared Max would do something stupid, utter and complete nonsense. Hamilton made an aggressive move to overtake there rather than wait for the next straight. Vettel wasn't remotely close enough to be a problem yet, Hamilton had plenty of time to follow to the straight then pass up the hill and instead he went very early on that very corner he was supposedly avoiding Max.

I wasn't quoting Brundle, I have my own eyes and brain and am perfectly capable of drawing conclusions from what I see just by myself.

Regarding the overtake, if you do something where your opponent expects you to, then it makes things that much harder for yourself, and he maintained a lot of distance during that episode to still be able to act, and not just react, he left options for himself, thus he was safe, which is basically the definition of tiptoeing.
On the other hand, Max had not much to gain by fighting that battle, he would lose it either way and lose more time fighting it, so it made no sense for him to defend it harder, which made it look this easy and controlled too.

[jz11]

but did they use those "hard" overtakes to defend against the penalties they received on other occasions?

I fully expect Max to crash into others that try "hard" overtakes on him, just to establish his personality, and it is not like that hasn't happened already

P.s. I criticize not the overtake he did on Bottas, but the fact that he used it to defend his position on having the right to cut the corner to get by Kimi

This simply sounds like you have a problem with Verstappen and are using anything to justify it, because that isn't what happened in the slightest.

Verstappen isn't using a hard overtake to justify his final move. Verstappen made a decent pass on Bottas, Bottas got back alongside Verstappen rather than giving up the place immediately by going wide and flooring it. That has nothing to do with Verstappen's part of the overtake at all, because he didn't leave the track and floor it. The Verstappen/Bottas move wasn't made directly at the end of the backstraight, it was made a corner or two later when Verstappen finally got fully ahead of Bottas. That only happened because Bottas went off track and floored it. He isn't using himself passing hard to justify the final move, he's using Bottas going off track and flooring it to justify himself doing the same thing.... and because Bottas wasn't the only guy to defend or attack by going off track throughout the afternoon there is absolute justification for someone to bring up why they were penalised for doing the same thing.

Instead of seeing that he's talking about what Bottas did, which is plain as day, you're basically purposefully misunderstanding what he's saying they questioning his personality based on a warped interpretation of what you think he said. But it's pretty clear you just dislike him and are warping your interpretation of what he's saying to suit your dislike of him.

I do have a problem with him and I explained why I have problem with him exactly, I'm not denying that, no one is supposed to like the guy unconditionally.

and things that I said did happen, and from what you're writing here, I'm guessing you didn't hear his post race interview, so I suggest you go and look at it, and keep in mind that the guy has won couple races, hasn't had even a chance on getting the championship trophy, yet he thinks it is ok to call stewarding decisions stupid and bad for the sport.

[drunkf1fan]

Leaving options for yourself is not the definition of tiptoeing, again you're just fitting whatever you want for your own argument. He went into the corner with max, not hanging back, not tiptoeing. He swung wide so he could cut back against Verstappen into a very short straight with a corner close, it's an extremely aggressive move 95% of drivers would never try there. He had the MUCH faster car due to both car and tire advantage and could extremely easily pass on the next straight. This is simple, if he was tiptoeing he wouldn't try an aggressive move against a car he was supposedly scared of in that corner, he would wait for the straight. He didn't do this, he tried an extremely aggressive move much earlier than he needed to, that is the exact opposite of tiptoeing.

[Jolle]

but did they use those "hard" overtakes to defend against the penalties they received on other occasions?

I fully expect Max to crash into others that try "hard" overtakes on him, just to establish his personality, and it is not like that hasn't happened already

P.s. I criticize not the overtake he did on Bottas, but the fact that he used it to defend his position on having the right to cut the corner to get by Kimi

And again, with all this overtaking his crash ratio is quite low. Could it be that he knows when and how much risk to take?

Max? His crash ratio is rather high. Still, yesterdays penalty was harsh and uncalled for.

This year once (by his own doing, hungary), last year in monaco and a mixup at spa and the year before at monaco. maybe one I forgot.

But compare that to Rosberg (Spa, Spain, Austria) or Vettel (Russia, Austria, Malaysia, Baku and Singapore) or the many times over the past few seasons Kimi needed new bodywork. Even steady Bottas.... or his former rival Ocon with his teammate Perez who are made of magnets.

[Manoah2u]

All i can say is that penalty was inappropriate, and this exact steward needs to get booted. it's not the only incident, he's been out of the book before.

apart from that, nice race, Hamilton drove fantastic.

but WHOA, i never ever noticed, just HOW TALL USAIN BOLT is. whaaaat! i expected a smaller guy, such a huge basketball-sized guy is 8-time olympic winner!

[marvin78]

You could see it on the track. It always looked like he was digitaly badly blend in to the 100m races.

[GrandAxe]

How high? Nonsense discussion, there was no crash.

Mika Salo's video shows kimi moving towards the apex. Kimi in fact stated he didn't know that he was there. Point is, before he "cut" the track, he was alongside. All other drivers are backing him up, even Wurz. Who cares about any damn lines, if he didn't cross them they would both be out.

Its very simple math to add up the number of times Max has crashed per race. It is the easiest thing to prove that Max crashes far more than average; that is a totally different point from whether he deserved the penalty or not though. Learn to separate your arguments.

This is becoming rather silly, sorry guys. Give me some numbers. Do the math and you'll see it's nothing special. If you feel it is in any way relevant to this discussion. And for your information, I am separating my arguments. I don't know why we are talking about crashing cars since there were none, therefore I am dismissing it.

Arguing against the obvious takes us away from the theme - the quality (or otherwise) of race stewarding, particularly as it applies to the decision on Max.
My position has been that the inconsistency of penalties is not good for F1, especially in a place like the US where F1 understanding, followership and culture are still quite young.

Give you numbers? Nah, do the math yourself - add up numbers of crashes per race, put drivers in bands (4 bands should do) - its not so hard. If I give you numbers, the argument would most likely next drift into the semantics of what constitutes a crash etc, you know the direction exchanges about little nothings generally takes.

[Jolle]

All i can say is that penalty was inappropriate, and this exact steward needs to get booted. it's not the only incident, he's been out of the book before.

apart from that, nice race, Hamilton drove fantastic.

but WHOA, i never ever noticed, just HOW TALL USAIN BOLT is. whaaaat! i expected a smaller guy, such a huge basketball-sized guy is 8-time olympic winner!

don't forget, racing drivers are quite short

I'm 6'11" myself (Bolt is 6'5") and I've met a few drivers and drivers of the past... they are tiny!!! Even my wife is way taller then most of them (only Webber and Wurz might challenge her in lenght)

[TwanV]

Its very simple math to add up the number of times Max has crashed per race. It is the easiest thing to prove that Max crashes far more than average; that is a totally different point from whether he deserved the penalty or not though. Learn to separate your arguments.

This is becoming rather silly, sorry guys. Give me some numbers. Do the math and you'll see it's nothing special. If you feel it is in any way relevant to this discussion. And for your information, I am separating my arguments. I don't know why we are talking about crashing cars since there were none, therefore I am dismissing it.

Arguing against the obvious takes us away from the theme - the quality (or otherwise) of race stewarding, particularly as it applies to the decision on Max.
My position has been that the inconsistency of penalties is not good for F1, especially in a place like the US where F1 understanding, followership and culture are still quite young.

Give you numbers? Nah, do the math yourself - add up numbers of crashes per race, put drivers in bands (4 bands should do) - its not so hard. If I give you numbers, the argument would most likely next drift into the semantics of what constitutes a crash etc, you know the direction exchanges about little nothings generally take.

I don't need to prove anything GrandAxe. You are the one who's making claims about the "obvious". I am just challenging you for making a remark that is a) false and b) has nothing to do with this thread.

[GrandAxe]

F1 really needs to lift the quality of stewarding so we don't get sorry headlines the morning after a terrific race (samples below). Perhaps, there should be a fixed set of stewards and a proper, idiot-proof arbitration procedure. The Race Director role should be rotated too.

Max on "idiot decisions":
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13257 ... killing-f1

Nikki Lauda on the "worst decision ever":
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13257 ... ver--lauda

This thing will linger until Mexico and maybe, after.

[marvin78]

That's not because of the decisions. That's because the people cannot have a decent neutral look on these things and go on. But perhaps there is no problem and they do everything for the show..?!

[santos]

Think if it was Vettel passing Hamilton with that kind of maneuver.... robbing points on the title fight. Would you think the steward made a idiotic decision?

[Sieper]

jz11, it is clear (what your standpoint is).

And I am guessing you are a big time Hamilton supporter? I like him very much too, one of the great.

Next year the signs are that the RBR might be in the mix, but guess what, the Merc engine will still be superior so even if Max will have a chance for WDC he will have to pass Lewis on track more then 50% of the races. A big ask don't you think. You will have plenty of chance to downplay his actions on track next year as well!