2018 Brazilian Grand Prix - Interlagos, 9-11 November

[GrandAxe]

This is so simple. From where Max got hit you can tell he had a large overlap on Ocon. That means he had the right to the line he chooses and that Ocon must yield. That is why Ocon got penalized.

No, it means both had equal right to the corner. See C. Attacker approximately half-way alongside. The relevant extract is below:

https://f1metrics.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =640&h=480

In this case, the attacker’s front axle is ahead of the defender’s rear axle and the two cars are approximately halfway alongside. Both drivers have a reasonable claim to the apex. If contact occurs, blame will have to be shared. It is in this zone that racing incidents can occur. Ayrton Senna was famous for creating situations just like this, as both attacker and defender, where the other driver would have to decide whether or not to yield to avoid a collision.

Note that this is a not a new or controversial set of guidelines. For example, here is essentially the same set of rules presented in The Williams-Renault Formula 1 Motor Racing Book, published back in 1994.

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... of-racing/

Max played chicken with Ocon and lost.

As two other fools here have found out this regulation does not exist in the fia formula 1 sporting regulations anymore. And if it still would have existed it would not count because the place where the incident happened 'Senna s' is not on a straight and not a braking area.

You mean the Williams racing team is made up of fools to have actually put the same set of rules in their racing book? Haha!
One thing I've learnt is that fools are quick to label others as fools; its some sort of law of nature.

In any event, the illustration in my post is not on a straight and does not mention braking zones either, so you are making up your owns targets outside what was posted - your arguments really do not attack the subject, a total miss really.

[Godius]

No, it means both had equal right to the corner. See C. Attacker approximately half-way alongside. The relevant extract is below:

https://f1metrics.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =640&h=480

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... of-racing/

Max played chicken with Ocon and lost.

As two other fools here have found out this regulation does not exist in the fia formula 1 sporting regulations anymore. And if it still would have existed it would not count because the place where the incident happened 'Senna s' is not on a straight and not a braking area.

You mean the Williams racing team is made up of fools to have actually put the same set of rules in their racing book? Haha!
One thing I've learnt is that fools are quick to label others as fools; its some sort of law of nature.

In any event, the illustration in my post is not on a straight and does not mention braking zones either, so you are making up your owns targets outside what was posted - your arguments really do not attack the subject, a total miss really.

The regulation you brought up is not in effect for years anymore. When is still had effect back in the day it counted on straights and braking zones. Please keep up to date with the rules. It was 27.7 of the sporting regulations btw: Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

[TwanV]

This would mean what Schumacher did to Hill in 1994 was Hill's fault !?! Hill should have got a penalty and Schumacher was punted out the race!

Total nonsense, Hill didn't see Schumacher crash so he assumed that was his chance. It was a pretty desperate move by any account. Sadly, he is my hero, but he should've waited, if he only knew.

My point was, Hill had every right to be there and it was Schumacher who was in the wrong , he turned in to Hill. You cant just take the racing line when a car is on your inside and has a large portion alongside your car. Schumacher tunring in on Hill was very similar to Max turning in on Ocon. Schumacher could almost be excused a little as he didnt have Hill alongside him for 200 meters like Max did with Ocon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91JoW4mSiZo

My god how glorious those cars.. anyway, I suspect Schumacher did this on purpose but then again, Hill gave him the opportunity to do so. A justifiable racing incident, not at all like Jerez '97, that was just too obvious. But not really relevant as these were battles for the lead

[GrandAxe]

As two other fools here have found out this regulation does not exist in the fia formula 1 sporting regulations anymore. And if it still would have existed it would not count because the place where the incident happened 'Senna s' is not on a straight and not a braking area.

You mean the Williams racing team is made up of fools to have actually put the same set of rules in their racing book? Haha!
One thing I've learnt is that fools are quick to label others as fools; its some sort of law of nature.

In any event, the illustration in my post is not on a straight and does not mention braking zones either, so you are making up your owns targets outside what was posted - your arguments really do not attack the subject, a total miss really.

The regulation you brought up is not in effect for years anymore. When is still had effect back in the day it counted on straights and braking zones. Please keep up to date with the rules. It was 27.7 of the sporting regulations btw: Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

Enh?! The rule you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted or anything on the preceding pages either.

Please stop making things up and going off point to defend weak arguments. Not a good thing, brother. Also don't call others fools when you are the one making things up like some sort of factory, the Universe might not like it.

I have better things to do. Bye.

[toraabe]

Well Maybee if they revamped the old layout, overtaking would have been more easy..
Actually i wonder how fast they would have been through the bankings


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVRqYZmEjb4

[bill shoe]

I wonder how Renault reacted to Sainz's little tap on Hulk? Not ideal for team mates.

Yea, it was an unnecessary & intentional tap between turns at a time when Hulk was giving him consistent racing room on every corner. I think Hulk and Sainz are perfect teammates to each other because they're both similar quick and therefore focused/motivated by each other. Hulk will have a great "motivator" teammate in Riccardo next year, but I don't know if Sainz will have the same standard in Norris.

[Wynters]

I wonder how Renault reacted to Sainz's little tap on Hulk? Not ideal for team mates.

Yea, it was an unnecessary & intentional tap between turns at a time when Hulk was giving him consistent racing room on every corner. I think Hulk and Sainz are perfect teammates to each other because they're both similar quick and therefore focused/motivated by each other. Hulk will have a great "motivator" teammate in Riccardo next year, but I don't know if Sainz will have the same standard in Norris.

It should work well for Sainz as he'll finally be a team leader so should be a bit more relaxed. However, if Norris out performs him I expect that his days are numbered. I'm very much looking forward to Hulk vs Ricciardo, although Hulk will have the upper hand of familiarity for much of the year I think Daniel is the slightly better driver so it should be nip-and-tuck. Also, as neither of them have shown the desperate need to ram a team mate if they get overtaken it should mean a decent haul of points for Renault and a close season with the other midfield runners.

On a different note (and apologies if I've missed it) does anyone know what Ferrari were hoping to achieve with pitting Vettel first? Also, why didn't they bring either Vettel or Kimi in early and sandwich Bottas?

[Fulcrum]

So you think Toto ordered Ocon to crash in to Max?

Oh look, here comes Flavio after all. Hi Flavio!

No I didn't say that. You challenge me with this tin foil hat stuff. I said that he would be told to leave Hamilton alone. Lets hope it stays with that, because anything else is foul play. But let's be clear: What this says is that Mercedes doesn't give a damn about anyone, they want to win at all cost, regardless of the show or some sense of fair play.

Hamilton would have been told by Mercedes that Ocon was approaching at speed, and to be careful.

Red Bull are just as culpable as anyone in this situation for not giving Max proper, relevant information.

[Juzh]

Red Bull are just as culpable as anyone in this situation for not giving Max proper, relevant information.

Verstappen to pit 1 lap before crash: There's a force india behind me pushing?
Pit to verstappen: Understood, yeah, he's out on fresh supers.

What more is there to say?

[Just_a_fan]

At the point that Max heard the FI was on new supersofts, he should have thought "Ah, he'll be all over me like a rash and very annoying, I'll let him go and get on with own race" rather than "How dare he, who does he think he is? He shall not pass!".

[GrandAxe]

Red Bull are just as culpable as anyone in this situation for not giving Max proper, relevant information.

Verstappen to pit 1 lap before crash: There's a force india behind me pushing?
Pit to verstappen: Understood, yeah, he's out on fresh supers.

What more is there to say?

The team should know Max enough by now. Just agreeing that Ocon was rapidly closing in on fresh tyres was not enough.

Max should have been advised not to defend against the backmarker who posed no threat to his race win; just as he was repeatedly advised to slow down while in the lead (because he had no threat from the Mercs and Ferrari's).

Every young man needs some guidance; the older, wiser heads at Red Bull should be providing that for Max.

[santos]

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2018/ ... oViATvY2fI

Full video before the crash. RedBull and Max knew that Ocon was much more faster then them.

[DutchDopey]

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2018/ ... oViATvY2fI

Full video before the crash. RedBull and Max knew that Ocon was much more faster then them.

So at the beginning of the video, why did Ocon's pitstop actually took so long? I can't see something go wrong?

[dans79]

The comment section is pure gold, it makes it blatantly obvious just how stupid your average fan is in regards to the rules.

So the FIA is wrong in their ruling?

The FIA didn't make a ruling the stewards did and I said before they are generally a bunch of buffoons.

[dans79]

As usual with a case where we aren't floating towards a concensus, it's best to call it a day, agree to disagree and move on. There are enough other events to talk about.

But but the contortions, twisted justifications, and strait up incorrect reading of the rules by those in orange is hilarious to read!