• HAM @ Copse v. VER @ SP Turn 4

    From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Nov 17 10:43:16 2021
    HAM @ Silverstone/Copse 10-second penalty for accident resulting from
    poor judgement in a genuine attempt to overtake.

    VER ???-penalty for:

    1 - Poor judgement in line taken into corner after having effectively
    lost the place.

    ... or

    2 - Illegal line deliberately taken after losing a place.

    Surely either way it has to be a penalty, and in my mind it was #2, so
    greater than the equivalent of 10 seconds.

    And then there was the weaving, which if nothing else demonstrated VER's mindset.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Nov 16 13:58:42 2021
    On 2021-11-16 1:43 p.m., geoff wrote:
    HAM @ Silverstone/Copse 10-second penalty for accident resulting from
    poor judgement in a genuine attempt to overtake.

    VER ???-penalty for:

    1 - Poor judgement in line taken into corner after having effectively
    lost the place.

    ... or

    2 - Illegal line deliberately taken after losing a place.

    Surely either way it has to be a penalty, and in my mind it was #2, so greater than the equivalent of 10 seconds.

    I think that they were both essentially the same in motivation and
    execution:

    Picking a line that would work out if everything went perfectly and
    which would force the other driver to have to yield because you didn't
    leave him room he was entitled to...

    ...which turned into more when the car picked up a little understeer
    from the turbulence of the car you were having it on with.

    That the Copse incident took place at much higher speed makes it a
    little more serious in my mind, but in general, I'm against penalties
    that change with severity of the outcome. It's not as easy to say in motorsports, because there are clearly times when making a move that's
    over the line IS far more dangerous given the circumstances. But better
    to rewrite the rule to allow for greater penalties with those more
    dangerous circumstances than to start varying them with whether or not
    the other car crashed... ...at least to my thinking.


    And then there was the weaving, which if nothing else demonstrated VER's mindset.

    The weaving was very blatant, and while I think that you should be
    allowed to weave to break the tow, there is a point where the car behind
    is closing fast and weaving to break the tow becomes blocking.

    I'm find with the race officials giving Verstappen the warning that
    basically says "You were close to the line. Don't do it again."
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Nov 17 11:59:35 2021
    On 17/11/2021 10:58 am, Alan wrote:
    On 2021-11-16 1:43 p.m., geoff wrote:
    HAM @ Silverstone/Copse 10-second penalty for accident resulting from
    poor judgement in a genuine attempt to overtake.

    VER ???-penalty for:

    1 - Poor judgement in line taken into corner after having effectively
    lost the place.

    ... or

    2 - Illegal line deliberately taken after losing a place.

    Surely either way it has to be a penalty, and in my mind it was #2, so
    greater than the equivalent of 10 seconds.

    I think that they were both essentially the same in motivation and execution:

    Picking a line that would work out if everything went perfectly and
    which would force the other driver to have to yield because you didn't
    leave him room he was entitled to...

    ...which turned into more when the car picked up a little understeer
    from the turbulence of the car you were having it on with.

    That the Copse incident took place at much higher speed makes it a
    little more serious in my mind, but in general, I'm against penalties
    that change with severity of the outcome. It's not as easy to say in motorsports, because there are clearly times when making a move that's
    over the line IS far more dangerous given the circumstances. But better
    to rewrite the rule to allow for greater penalties with those more
    dangerous circumstances than to start varying them with whether or not
    the other car crashed... ...at least to my thinking.


    And then there was the weaving, which if nothing else demonstrated
    VER's mindset.

    The weaving was very blatant, and while I think that you should be
    allowed to weave to break the tow, there is a point where the car behind
    is closing fast and weaving to break the tow becomes blocking.

    I'm find with the race officials giving Verstappen the warning that basically says "You were close to the line. Don't do it again."

    Danger is one thing, and intent is another.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Nov 16 16:20:45 2021
    On 2021-11-16 2:59 p.m., geoff wrote:
    On 17/11/2021 10:58 am, Alan wrote:
    On 2021-11-16 1:43 p.m., geoff wrote:
    HAM @ Silverstone/Copse 10-second penalty for accident resulting from
    poor judgement in a genuine attempt to overtake.

    VER ???-penalty for:

    1 - Poor judgement in line taken into corner after having effectively
    lost the place.

    ... or

    2 - Illegal line deliberately taken after losing a place.

    Surely either way it has to be a penalty, and in my mind it was #2,
    so greater than the equivalent of 10 seconds.

    I think that they were both essentially the same in motivation and
    execution:

    Picking a line that would work out if everything went perfectly and
    which would force the other driver to have to yield because you didn't
    leave him room he was entitled to...

    ...which turned into more when the car picked up a little understeer
    from the turbulence of the car you were having it on with.

    That the Copse incident took place at much higher speed makes it a
    little more serious in my mind, but in general, I'm against penalties
    that change with severity of the outcome. It's not as easy to say in
    motorsports, because there are clearly times when making a move that's
    over the line IS far more dangerous given the circumstances. But
    better to rewrite the rule to allow for greater penalties with those
    more dangerous circumstances than to start varying them with whether
    or not the other car crashed... ...at least to my thinking.


    And then there was the weaving, which if nothing else demonstrated
    VER's mindset.

    The weaving was very blatant, and while I think that you should be
    allowed to weave to break the tow, there is a point where the car
    behind is closing fast and weaving to break the tow becomes blocking.

    I'm find with the race officials giving Verstappen the warning that
    basically says "You were close to the line. Don't do it again."

    Danger is one thing, and intent is another.

    Their intent was precisely the same.

    You saw Hamilton's intent when he later passed Leclerc in precisely the
    same manner, but Leclerc made the choice to let himself be run wide of
    the track.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Nov 16 20:34:52 2021
    On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:58:44 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    ...at least to my thinking.

    which doesnt mean fuck all
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)