kimi v perez abyss

[iotar__]

I'm pleasantly surprised Raikkonen-Perez is argued as fifty -fifty incident. I was expecting anti Perez bandawagon. Very fair and accurate approach, apart from unhealthy "what if" pixel dissecting.

Watch and learn Perez. Not all you can win but my god Webber and Hamilton are professionals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H73kgM-EaQ

Like hell they are, watch and learn Singapore 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxynNbw9WO4[/youtube]
Compared to all of their overtakes in their careers this is like a fart in space..

Look at Korea 2011, Malaysia 2009, Bahrain 2013 etc etc etc. They are much safer drivers then guys like Perez/Maldonado etc.

India 2012 another good example. Put Perez in that situation and he would have taken out the whole group at the start.

Last post on this OT subject:
Not true, Hamilton (and to the lesser extend Webber) has a long history of crashes, collisions, penalties and dirty driving. I can give you more examples than farts in space. This Monaco move is no proof of anything when it comes to their "professionalism", it's just an attempt to paint Perez as some sort of F1 villain. This Perez "would have" part is just a speculation with the same purpose. Moves were different anyway. Yes his 2012 was horrible if you count mistakes and penalties but it should not matter when judging Monaco collision.

To me the Perez overtaking situation is very simple and the ones who analyse it to the very last millimeter clearly don't have anything better to do than to prove they are right.
1) The move on Button was good, that was a good Monaco move in which he speculated Jenson's lack of attention (Jenson himself said that he was not really paying attention and it was a good move on him)
2) The Alonso and Kimi (especially the 2nd one) were moves from the "get the f**k away if you don't want to crash because I don't care" category - he probably made them because he saw that it worked with Button and then that Alonso had to give him the position. And Perez sometimes has a slight tendency to lose his mind and think he is the best in the world when he manages to get right 2-3 overtaking maneuvers (this coming from someone who raced with him in some junior competitions).

I would mostly agree with that until the last sentences. Yes, starting from the Button one his attempts were progressively worse and based on "crash or concede" approach but you should blame stewards for that. As I said Raikkonen collision happened because they gave OK to the first one by telling Alonso to give up a position. Why wouldn't Perez try it again, he's not the one setting the rules. Alonso cut the chicane to avoid a collision and Raikkonen knowing where Perez was cut across and should be partly responsible. More blame on Perez (55-45) because he initiated the situation.

The last sentences are generalization to (again in this thread) paint Perez in a certain way to prove the point and have nothing to do with the incident itself. He may have had his share of problems in the past but it doesn't matter now, this season he's no worse than Alonso or Raikkonen when it comes to losing minds. Examples: Raikkonen against Perez x2, Alonso against Vettel, Alonso against Perez x2 including Monaco. And let's be clear, Alonso used those kind of bully, risky moves many times in his career, maybe less risky than Monaco one but still - Valencia 2012 on Webber and Grosjean. As for Raikkonen he looked less than stellar this season in many races in wheel to wheel situations (Hulkenberg, Malaysia and those mentioned). All the shouting on the radio and calling others idiots won't change that.

OT: F1 drivers are no saints and gladly will jump on any bandwagon against other driver to make it easier for themselves and avoid responsibility. They shout about standards and then make the same moves.

[SectorOne]

I can give you more examples than farts in space.

I´m all ears. Match the ones i showed at least.

[yugin]

I found this forum recently and am in the process of reading through 60+ pages of F138 discussion. I planned on creating an account after I was done with that so that I could participate in the discussion, until last Sunday's race. I wanted some constructive discussion on the Perez v Raikkonen incident so I came here and haven't been disappointed. I do, however, have something to weigh in with; I'm on Kimi's side on this one and here's why.



I went on YouTube and found three onboard videos: Perez during the incident, Sutil a lap before passing Alonso, and Rosberg's pole position lap. In each of the videos, I paused at precisely the moment when they started braking.

First, compare Perez and Rosberg. Rosberg was on a hot lap, with minimal fuel and brand new super softs; i.e. the optimum conditions for going fast and braking late. That was also the pole position lap and we know the Mercedes has blistering outright pace, suggesting that that braking point is about as late as you're going to get. Perez on the other hand had super softs that were 13 laps old, with fuel for seven laps. According to data from James Allen's pre-race strategy report, that would have been over 10 kg worth of fuel, or around 0.3 seconds in lap time. In addition, Perez was in a McLaren, which is considerably slower than the Mercedes, and he was taking the inside line so he'd have to be going even slower to make the corner.

Adding up the above, the difference in pace between Rosberg and Perez on their respective laps would have been (1.3 in qualifying + 0.3 in fuel =) 1.6 seconds, plus tyre wear, plus the wrong line, plus the fact that he'd have to take a tighter line through the chicane to avoid hitting Raikkonen. Now look at the difference in braking points, using the crane (blue arrow) and white patch on barrier (red arrow) and reference points, and you can see why Raikkonen said that Perez was never going to make the corner.

(I also included a screenshot of Sutil though that's a lot harder to quantitatively judge, but the stark difference in braking points shows just how late Perez was braking.)

Now, given how the past 10+ pages of this thread have come to the conclusion that the whole car alongside/ not alongside thing was extremely marginal, Raikkonen was perfectly entitled to move across the track, because he'd never have expected Perez to try a move from so far back, simply because Perez wouldn't have made the corner if he did as proved by the calculations above.

[beelsebob]

Perez was nowhere near alongside Kimi when Kimi started closing the door. You went a long way to prove this with the frame by frame analysis. Look at the onboard again.

He doesn't need to be along side when kimi started moving, he needs to be along side at any point during the move. And as we covered above – the on board is highly deceptive, because you can't see where the front wing is – effectively it makes Checo's car look a meter shorter than it actually is.

The rough calculations above show that Checo was alongside fairly early on.

So, as much as Kimi could have braked more to allow Perez pass and then complain to the stewards if he didn't make the chicane, Perez could just as well have braked more to avoid contact and then complain to the stewards that he was squeezed.

There's a key difference here – Kimi did not need to break more, he needed to break for longer. Checo needed to break more – something that we well know is not possible when you're already breaking at the maximum the car allows for a corner.

[Vasconia]

In my opinion Perez did some great overtakes but he was too aggressive and he took a great risk when he tried to overtake Kimi the second time, in my opinion it was quite clear that there was no space when he began to overtake.

I also blame Mclaren because the team is supposed to give some advices to the driver and calm him.

Anyway, Perez and Sutil(what an astonishing race he did) saved the day, we know that Monaco is a terrible place to overtake but the conformism of the top drivers was shameful.

[beelsebob]

Now, given how the past 10+ pages of this thread have come to the conclusion that the whole car alongside/ not alongside thing was extremely marginal, Raikkonen was perfectly entitled to move across the track, because he'd never have expected Perez to try a move from so far back, simply because Perez wouldn't have made the corner if he did as proved by the calculations above.

I honestly can't understand this argument. Are you trying to assert that Kimi moved across the track because he felt like driving a slow line? No, the reason that Kimi moved across the track is simple – he knew that there was a move coming, and decided to defend against it.

[yugin]

Now, given how the past 10+ pages of this thread have come to the conclusion that the whole car alongside/ not alongside thing was extremely marginal, Raikkonen was perfectly entitled to move across the track, because he'd never have expected Perez to try a move from so far back, simply because Perez wouldn't have made the corner if he did as proved by the calculations above.

I honestly can't understand this argument. Are you trying to assert that Kimi moved across the track because he felt like driving a slow line? No, the reason that Kimi moved across the track is simple – he knew that there was a move coming, and decided to defend against it.

What I'm trying to prove is that Kimi was correct in saying that Perez's move was stupid as he'd never had made the corner. Perez was therefore in the wrong for making a move that would've either caused him to smash into Raikkonen if Kimi had turned in, or both of them to massively overshoot the chicane if Kimi anticipated the move. You're right, my point doesn't prove anything about Kimi's on-track actions (and I shouldn't have made it seem like it did), but he's fully justified in his criticisms of Perez.

[beelsebob]

Now, given how the past 10+ pages of this thread have come to the conclusion that the whole car alongside/ not alongside thing was extremely marginal, Raikkonen was perfectly entitled to move across the track, because he'd never have expected Perez to try a move from so far back, simply because Perez wouldn't have made the corner if he did as proved by the calculations above.

I honestly can't understand this argument. Are you trying to assert that Kimi moved across the track because he felt like driving a slow line? No, the reason that Kimi moved across the track is simple – he knew that there was a move coming, and decided to defend against it.

What I'm trying to prove is that Kimi was correct in saying that Perez's move was stupid as he'd never had made the corner.

That's not for Kimi to decide. If Hamilton and Kimi had colided in Monza 2007 we would all be saying the same thing – Hamilton braked way later, there's no way he could have got it turned around.

Perez was therefore in the wrong for making a move that would've either caused him to smash into Raikkonen if Kimi had turned in, or both of them to massively overshoot the chicane if Kimi anticipated the move. You're right, my point doesn't prove anything about Kimi's on-track actions (and I shouldn't have made it seem like it did), but he's fully justified in his criticisms of Perez.

Not really – making a move that doesn't pay off is not worthy of being called an idiot, nor is it worthy of being driven into, nor is it worthy of "he needs a punch in the face".

[yugin]

What I'm trying to prove is that Kimi was correct in saying that Perez's move was stupid as he'd never had made the corner.

That's not for Kimi to decide. If Hamilton and Kimi had colided in Monza 2007 we would all be saying the same thing – Hamilton braked way later, there's no way he could have got it turned around.

Why not? Kimi was out on track at the same time as Perez, surely he'd have known whether Perez would've made the corner or not. Beside, I've proven with my video analysis that he was right.

Perez was therefore in the wrong for making a move that would've either caused him to smash into Raikkonen if Kimi had turned in, or both of them to massively overshoot the chicane if Kimi anticipated the move. You're right, my point doesn't prove anything about Kimi's on-track actions (and I shouldn't have made it seem like it did), but he's fully justified in his criticisms of Perez.

Not really – making a move that doesn't pay off is not worthy of being called an idiot, nor is it worthy of being driven into, nor is it worthy of "he needs a punch in the face".

A divebombing move that results in him shooting down the inside of another car and straightlining the chicane is more than just 'a move that doesn't pay off'.

[beelsebob]

What I'm trying to prove is that Kimi was correct in saying that Perez's move was stupid as he'd never had made the corner.

That's not for Kimi to decide. If Hamilton and Kimi had colided in Monza 2007 we would all be saying the same thing – Hamilton braked way later, there's no way he could have got it turned around.

Why not? Kimi was out on track at the same time as Perez, surely he'd have known whether Perez would've made the corner or not. Beside, I've proven with my video analysis that he was right.

Because Perez making the corner or not is none of his business. It's his job to make sure that there's room (as the rules state) for perez, once he's along side. If Perez had outbraked himself, he can simply tuck back underneath and make the corner, and then claim his position back. If Perez hadn't outbraked himself, then it's a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre.

Perez was therefore in the wrong for making a move that would've either caused him to smash into Raikkonen if Kimi had turned in, or both of them to massively overshoot the chicane if Kimi anticipated the move. You're right, my point doesn't prove anything about Kimi's on-track actions (and I shouldn't have made it seem like it did), but he's fully justified in his criticisms of Perez.

Not really – making a move that doesn't pay off is not worthy of being called an idiot, nor is it worthy of being driven into, nor is it worthy of "he needs a punch in the face".

A divebombing move that results in him shooting down the inside of another car and straightlining the chicane is more than just 'a move that doesn't pay off'.

But once again, we don't know if this would have been the result – if Kimi had rammed Hamilton in Monza 2007, there would be a large contingent claiming that he divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner.

[yugin]

That's not for Kimi to decide. If Hamilton and Kimi had colided in Monza 2007 we would all be saying the same thing – Hamilton braked way later, there's no way he could have got it turned around.

Why not? Kimi was out on track at the same time as Perez, surely he'd have known whether Perez would've made the corner or not. Beside, I've proven with my video analysis that he was right.

Because Perez making the corner or not is none of his business. It's his job to make sure that there's room (as the rules state) for perez, once he's along side. If Perez had outbraked himself, he can simply tuck back underneath and make the corner, and then claim his position back. If Perez hadn't outbraked himself, then it's a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre.

I would imagine that Raikkonen made the move simply as a precaution, for he knew that Perez would be getting close as he had done previously. Under normal circumstances Perez would never have gotten alongside Raikkonen and the whole leaving space argument is moot. We're only talking about it because Perez made a move that he simply couldn't.

Not really – making a move that doesn't pay off is not worthy of being called an idiot, nor is it worthy of being driven into, nor is it worthy of "he needs a punch in the face".

A divebombing move that results in him shooting down the inside of another car and straightlining the chicane is more than just 'a move that doesn't pay off'.

But once again, we don't know if this would have been the result – if Kimi had rammed Hamilton in Monza 2007, there would be a large contingent claiming that he divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner.

Which is exactly why I went to such lengths analysing the footage to prove that Perez in all likelihood wouldn't have made the corner no matter what.

[Sulman]

I also blame Mclaren because the team is supposed to give some advices to the driver and calm him.

McLaren's mismanagement of Perez would make Frank Williams proud. You cannot tell a talented but developing driver to be more assertive on track. The consequence for any competitive person is of course the conclusion they are perceived as soft. So, of course he gets a bee in his bonnet about it, and since then has been very robust, particularly toward his team mate.

Apropos, Jenson really needs to stop whining and start driving faster. I'm reminded why Ross Brawn took an unemotional hard line on him during the second half of 2009. He's a world champion, but my goodness, some weekends he just seems so very ordinary by F1 standards.

[Feint]

Can any of you Perez supporters explain to me how he would have made the chicane from that line without forcing Raikkonen off the track? If Raikkonen did not turn in there, he would have missed the chicane. By putting his car in the imaginary gap, Perez was essentially forcing Kimi off the track. If a driver forces another driver into a situation where his only options are crash or go off track, who are you going to blame?

[GrizzleBoy]

Can any of you Perez supporters explain to me how he would have made the chicane from that line without forcing Raikkonen off the track? If Raikkonen did not turn in there, he would have missed the chicane. By putting his car in the imaginary gap, Perez was essentially forcing Kimi off the track. If a driver forces another driver into a situation where his only options are crash or go off track, who are you going to blame?

No he would not.

Raikonnen took an abnormal line into the chicane.

The normal line is to brake on the right and swoop left, which is why Checo made previous overtakes. He put his car up the inside (left) while cars were braking on the right.

Kimi was drifting to the left before he even got to the turn, BUT he had the whole other half of the track to position himself if he needed to abort his move.

Perez on the other hand could only brake harder and lock up to try and abort his move as Kimi gave basically no room to even abort his move once he committed.

The fact of the matter is that BOTH drivers made aggressive moves. Kimi is not innocent in this.

Like I said earlier, if Grosjean was sitting in that Lotus, we'd right now be talking about his lack of spatial awareness and how Button/Alonso were able to defend without making contact and all he could do was drive someone into a wall (which is against the rules).

But it's Kimi, so meh.

[SectorOne]

Raikkonen can take whatever line he wants into a chicane assuming nobody is alongside him and he moves once.
Perez can´t claim space 20 meters ahead of him regardless of how late he brakes.