Malaysian GP 2012 - Sepang International Circuit

[raymondu999]

lets not forget him driving into the Back of Webber in Japan while behind the saftey car

Why are we even discussing this event? Remember Vettel was cleared of fault afterwards as the stewards deemed that the collision occured because Lewis weaved in some particular way (though I forget what they meant) and caused Webber to need to brake urgently, and Vettel being a rookie just couldn't react in time.

[djos]

lets not forget him driving into the Back of Webber in Japan while behind the saftey car

Why are we even discussing this event? Remember Vettel was cleared of fault afterwards as the stewards deemed that the collision occured because Lewis weaved in some particular way (though I forget what they meant) and caused Webber to need to brake urgently, and Vettel being a rookie just couldn't react in time.

The point is he needs to pay more attention to what other cars are doing!

[Mysticf1]

You have it all wrong djos, Vettel can do no wrong, its never his fault for any incident. He is the divine F1 driver. Isn't that right WB?

Sometimes fault doesn't matter at all, if there is something you could do to avoid situations coming about, its in your own interest, fair not fair doesnt matter either. F1 cars are driven by human beings, mistakes are made if you want to win/finish races you should take the responsibility of your welfare out of others hands as much as you can.

[bhall]

I just got a bit more respect for Vettel. RB and Vettel have pretty much stopped pretending there was a radio problem in Vettel's car.

This means Vettel ignored RB orders to do one of those fake mechanical DNF's a few laps from the end so the team could do a free gearbox change before the next race. Vettel simply said he believed every driver should try to get to the finish. Good for him.

Notice Vettel stood up for what he thought was right even though it didn't gain him anything. This is a big contrast with Massa who followed orders to give way to Alonso FOR A WIN!

Vettel was not being mean or ruthless here, but I think he showed a bit of the self confidence and determination that is necessary to be a World Champion.

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... an-vettel/

It was obvious during the race that this was what the team had in mind. I even laughed after the "EMERGENCY!! STOP NOW!!" radio transmission, because it translated to me as, "If you drive one more meter, we're going to be classified no matter what."

It was foolish for a driver with legitimate aspirations for the World Championship to finish the race in 11th. The F1 season is long and dynamic, and it will punish those who leave advantages unused.

I think Vettel may have been spoiled by his recent success, because he doesn't appear to know just how difficult it is to win in this game. In that regard, I have a feeling that this season is going to be a learning experience for Boy Wonder.

[myurr]

I just got a bit more respect for Vettel. RB and Vettel have pretty much stopped pretending there was a radio problem in Vettel's car.

This means Vettel ignored RB orders to do one of those fake mechanical DNF's a few laps from the end so the team could do a free gearbox change before the next race. Vettel simply said he believed every driver should try to get to the finish. Good for him.

Notice Vettel stood up for what he thought was right even though it didn't gain him anything. This is a big contrast with Massa who followed orders to give way to Alonso FOR A WIN!

Vettel was not being mean or ruthless here, but I think he showed a bit of the self confidence and determination that is necessary to be a World Champion.

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... an-vettel/

While that certainly does win Vettel some brownie points, doesn't it also highlight how Red Bull's first instinct in any given situation is to lie and paint the picture they want the world to see.

[myurr]

It was obvious during the race that this was what the team had in mind. I even laughed after the "EMERGENCY!! STOP NOW!!" radio transmission, because it translated to me as, "If you drive one more meter, we're going to be classified no matter what."

It was foolish for a driver with legitimate aspirations for the World Championship to finish the race in 11th. The F1 season is long and dynamic, and it will punish those who leave advantages unused.

I think Vettel may have been spoiled by his recent success, because he doesn't appear to know just how difficult it is to win in this game. In that regard, I have a feeling that this season is going to be a learning experience for Boy Wonder.

To be fair had there been another tangle or retirement up front then he would have been in the points and that could have been very important this year. Had he retired it and that happened then we'd all be on here calling him stupid again, but such is life.

[bhall]

Funny that we had two entirely different reactions on that.

EDIT: I didn't see that you've written more.

Indeed, such is life. Nothing is guaranteed, and it's easy to make judgments from the cheap seats.

[GrizzleBoy]

I just got a bit more respect for Vettel. RB and Vettel have pretty much stopped pretending there was a radio problem in Vettel's car.

This means Vettel ignored RB orders to do one of those fake mechanical DNF's a few laps from the end so the team could do a free gearbox change before the next race. Vettel simply said he believed every driver should try to get to the finish. Good for him.

Notice Vettel stood up for what he thought was right even though it didn't gain him anything. This is a big contrast with VETTEL who followed orders to give way to WEBBER FOR A WIN in Brazil 2011!

Vettel was not being mean or ruthless here, but I think he showed a bit of the self confidence and determination that is necessary to be a World Champion.

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... an-vettel/

See what I did there?

[myurr]

WhiteBlue - I wasn't too lazy to read your posts, you just hadn't quoted an actual rule before merely stated your opinion as to what the rules imply.

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.

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.

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!

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.

NK probably hadn't even seen a replay of the incident at the time he was quoted, it was straight after the race after all. We often see drivers being hazy about events because they either genuinely don't remember or aren't 100% sure of the facts and don't want to be proven wrong by the replays. Maybe he did somehow see Vettel in his mirrors, even if I can't see how that is physically possible, it doesn't change the fact that Vettel could have handled the overtake in a better way.

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.

Just because you told me something doesn't make it true. Look at Red Bull in this race telling us about the radio communication problems and Vettel not knowing to retire the car despite it being shown that his pit board also told him!

I get that the leaders need to keep their pace up, I really do. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Vettel had the better visibility, the better control of the car, and far more room - he should have used that room to make the pass more safely but chose not to. Much of the blame has to lie at his feet because of that.

That is your view which I reject due to the discussed specifics. There was plenty enough lateral separation.

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'.

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.

I'm not even particularly anti-Vettel. I used to like him. But then watched as someone, be it Red Bull or himself or someone else, tried to mould him into a brand. We got the stupid finger waving, the dumb catch phrases over the radio, and all the fluffy PR stories about how he was such a nice guy to the extent that they started to feel forced. We then got to see more and more arrogance and sense of entitlement, plus I really don't like Christian Horner or Helmut Marko and hated the way they backed Vettel to Webber's detriment even when the latter was leading the championship. The reaction from all the above to Turkey 2010 was the biggest catalyst for me, and lost Vettel a huge amount of respect in my eyes. I also have a natural aversion to all the praise heaped upon him last year with all the "is this the beginning of the Vettel era" lines. He was just a very good driver in an exceptionally good car with tyres that perfectly suited him and hindered his closest rivals. He looked so good last year because he was under so little pressure. I always believed that he was good but not THAT good and that as soon as the going got a little tougher we'd see a return to all the mistakes in previous years. This incident fits that picture for me, perhaps leading to a little bias but I seem to be in the majority in believing Vettel should have handled the overtake and the aftermath differently.

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?

[bhall]

See what I did there?

Subtle.

[GrizzleBoy]

Again, well stated on all points myurr.

We keep hearing the "but the stewards must see it my way" argument, but since when has F1 been so black and white and since when have the stewards been consistent, let alone accurate in their actions?

At the end of the day, the penalty was arbitrary and was only to shut up the inevitable complaining/crying so noone can say Karthikeyan went "unpunished".

[raymondu999]

Re the radio - I think the issue with the mismatch of stories from separate sides is that (to me, anyways) it was clear that Vettel's transmitter was out; but not receiver. Or at least his mike was broken. He could hear; but not speak to, the team. The radio transmission back on Lap 12 or some such lap to Vettel was, "Sebastian, we cannot hear you; your radio is not working. Please use the tyre rotary and pit confirm button to talk to us."

I remember back in China 2011 (which I think was the last time Vettel had a radio malfunction) Vettel's mike was broken and so the team could hear static but not words from him. A theory back then was some of his drinks somehow managed to get to the mike. He was, after all, doing some DIY repairs on the grid to his drinks tube.

We keep hearing the "but the stewards must see it my way" argument, but since when has F1 been so black and white and since when have the stewards been consistent, let alone accurate in their actions?

God knows they're not consistent; and I've had my fair share of disappointments with them; such as that farce of a penalty in Spa 2008. Or the one in Monaco 2010 when they put Schumi back 20 seconds over an inconsistent ruling, and cited 20seconds as the slowest possible punishment they had; just 3 races before they handed a bunch of 5s penalties to a whole load of people (in Valencia 2010).

But for me personally I'm not exactly one to romanticise accuracy or consistency - I'm a results person; and we have to face the facts that no matter how happy or how unhappy we are with their final say; that it IS the final say.

[raymondu999]

Aha. So I was off the mark.

Even so, the radios in both our cars did not work properly for the rest of the race and we had to resort to the old-fashioned means of communication with pit-boards.

[...]

Eventually, I ended up ripping my radio connection out of my helmet because it was just getting too distracting.
That's quite a big call, because you know once you've done that you're never going to get it back again.

I had to do it, though. I was getting squawking and static in my ears, which changed depending on which corner I was in. It was really loud, too.

[GrizzleBoy]

We keep hearing the "but the stewards must see it my way" argument, but since when has F1 been so black and white and since when have the stewards been consistent, let alone accurate in their actions?

But for me personally I'm not exactly one to romanticise accuracy or consistency - I'm a results person; and we have to face the facts that no matter how happy or how unhappy we are with their final say; that it IS the final say.

Noone is saying that their say is not final. That's not what we're discussing or arguing. If course it is final, but that is not synonymous with being undebatable.

We're just saying that their say being final does not equate to it being unquestionably correct, consistant or un-politically charged to the point where any view that opposes their ruling makes your argument invalid as whiteblue has asserted.

i.e the stewards gave him a penalty, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

[raymondu999]

No one is saying that their say is not final. That's not what we're discussing or arguing. If course it is final, but that is not synonymous with being undebatable.

Agreed. 100%.

We're just saying that their say being final does not equate to it being unquestionably correct, consistant or un-politically charged to the point where any view that opposes their ruling makes your argument invalid as whiteblue has asserted.

Agreed again.

My point in bringing up that their decision is final was not saying "so we can't debate it." But it's that "so there's no point debating it." Debating it wouldn't yield anything. That's life. Sometimes you get a royal flush and sometimes you get a high-card. We just take it; minimize our losses and move on to the next hand.

Which is actually why I also don't go for arguments through the web - if the other guy has his mind set and finalised; then I'd just be wasting my time as the other guy won't budge anyways. Add in the fact I'd probably never meet the person in real life and I can't justify the wasted time and/or energy.