Grand Prix thread 2015 Mexico GP

How does this incident draw similarities to Maldonado and Lewis in Valencia 2012?

Any thoughts?

I personally think Pastor had a full off track excursion before he made contact with Lewis. Whereas Bottas was riding just half of the kerb. Correct me if I am wrong. 2012 seems ages away and I can't be arsed watching it on youtube, so mind my memory.

 

Well my emotions certainly got the better of me again hahaha.

 

Again, it's not that I don't agree, but you have hit the nail on the head - "aggressive move" - differing drivers = different aggression levels and that's before a combination of different drivers are taken into consideration.

 

That's what I was getting at really, was Bottas realistically going to overtake in that situation? Even if Kimi had given him more room, Bottas's entry to the corner would have been so compromised that he would have run wider on exit, assuming he didn't just slide into Kimi.

It's almost as if the lead driver has to obey to the rule allowing the trailing driver an advantage to position the leading driver who then isn't entitled to the same benefit of the rule. For me the 1 move rule is all that is needed, but because of these grey areas we get drivers hedging their bets.

 

I forgot about this and can't remember the outcome.

For me Lewis defends safely and fairly and allows a full cars width on entry, he doesn't jink or squeeze. At no point is Maldanado ahead and I don't think Lewis has deviated from a natural racing line or as close to (unlike Austin). He didn't force Maldanado off because he didn't remain along side, he just continued of track and then squirted it to the next corner.

I'm unsure where Lewis is to go. Is there a similarity to Bottas, yes and no. Lewis had closed Maldanado off at the first corner unlike Kimi, but the next corner incident has very similar characteristics. Just my opinion. For me if a driver goes of track, he has no right to contest the next corner - although different I felt the same when Maldanado and Button clashed this year.

I just don't like this theory of someone sticking their nose in and expecting a driver taking a racing line to not be at the apex.

 

There are quite a few similarities there.

First, is whether or not you agree with the 'racing line' theory, in which case Hamilton may have been right or wrong to squeeze Maldonado out when he was a fair way alongside. If he had given Pastor a cars width on the exit then the collision could have been avoided. Like in Austin with Romberg, if there had been a barriers lining the track like Monaco and not a huge run off area, would Hamilton still have taken the racing line knowing he would be putting a competitor into the wall?

Second, as Pastor was off the track he should have yielded straight away and never have tried to take the apex for the left handed, but it would have massively compromised him and left him venerable to attack from behind as his exit would have been massively slower. Not many drivers would accept that.

So, what of Mexico? Who had the racing line? Was Bottas fully off the track before the second part of the corner? Etc etc.

Opinions will vary, the vagueness of the rule doesn't add much clarity either. It should be down to what is sensible and good driving, rather than relying on some vague clarification about what a driver can and can't do with the 'racing line'. Common sense should prevail and the drivers all keen to avoid a collision, rather than being taken out of the race. No point being in the right if Lee McKenzie is interviewing you about 'so tell us what happened out there?' before the race his over.

 

The atoms that made up Bottas's car were not going to disobey the laws of physics and share the same space as the ones that made up Kimi's. It's almost impossible that Kimi didn't know he was there, so to me it was stupid to leave no room, leave as little as possible, yes, but by leaving none Kimi was insuring a crash was inevitable.

 

As I said, if Kimi had closed of the left properly and effectively run Bottas out of track, then he would of either had to yield or crash like Pastor.

The Venezuelan was given a 20-second penalty, which drops him from 10th to 12th place and out of the points.

The race stewards decided he had "failed to rejoin the track in a safe manner".

My concern would be that if that had happened Bottas wouldn't have been penalised because Kimi forcing him off the track on entry would have been the get out - speculation I know but I just don't believe that situations would be treated the same 3 years on.

 

I think when we take a step back generally all of us are pretty level headed, and if sat round a table reviewing things we would probably discuss and come to a similar conclusion. My theory is that with all the data they dissect and then probably have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to avoid an appeal - the fault decision becomes more like an insurance claim in court.

It shouldn't be that way, it needs to be simplified. One move if policed properly is all you need because if you don't cover the inside a driver will stick it up the inside and assuming all the other ifs and buts rules aren't in play, the block overtake is done. If the lead driver pins it to the inside to prevent this they would be serverly disadvantaged on exit that they would in most cases lose position.

 

I've watched the Kimi/Bottas bump a couple of times and I still can't make my mind up on it.

From one angle it looks as though Kimi just drives over the top of Bottas, then from another angle it looks like Bottas is coming in too hot and didn't have much hope of completing the pass without spearing Kimi anyway.

Just seems like one of those things to me.

 

These are the most important points for me. Even if Kimi had left a car's width at the apex, the position Bottas was in he never could've threaded his way through that gap and avoided a collision. It was a get-out-of-the-way move, Kimi would had to have gone to serious lengths to avoid the collision if Bottas didn't back out, and would've lost a position he'd already successfully defended.

Disagree with the notion that it's Kimi's fault because he knew Bottas was there. You don't think Bottas could see Kimi?

 

The thing is as a TV spectator you could see it coming. So the driver behind must see it too so they must know they are taking a risk. Oddly most of the time the driver behind is the one who wins out.

 

But it wasn't Bottas who had the final choice. Bottas wasn't coming from 100 yards back, he was almost alongside, keeping the pressure up. Kimi chose to take the racing line as tight to the kerb as he could, and once he'd made that choice there was absolutely nothing Bottas could do to stop the accident.
Kimi has become the new Pastor and has put himself out. Again.

 

Lets see it again.

To me it looks like Bottas did all he could to avoid a collision once he realised Kimi was turning in regardless. Bottas was already there and so had not realistic way of disappearing off the apex.

 

It's a bit more clear cut with that footage.

 

Exactly.

As I've said before: Räikkönen knew he was there. This is a race. Do we not want drivers to challenge for position? Bottas made a move – and a good one at that – and had all but won the corner because the onus was now on Räikkönen to avoid the collision. Bottas had every right to be there because he had done so without endangering another driver. Having got alongside – in fact ahead momentarily before on approach to the left hander – Räikkönen knew he couldn't vanish into thin air, or slow sufficiently to avoid a collision if he (Räikkönen) chose to turn in.

Being judged a 'racing incident' was rather fortunate for Räikkönen…

 

yeah, there was absolutely nothing Bottas could do does seem to be the way the stewards go when the driver being 'foolish' puts himself out of the race, or needs a stop, and his victim escapes without damage. Not sure if I agree with them getting a penalty, but definitely he should be getting a point on the license.

And Raikkonen has deserved a few of those this season, enough to get a 1 race ban

 

Ok, so what's the difference here? I must reiterate, that my issues are with the rules not necessarily the decisions.

Did Lewis not know he was there? Should Lewis have afforded him more room? Or is it clearly Nico's fault.

The only difference that I can see is that Nico would have made the next corner when in reality Bottas was never going to make the next corner without opening his line. In which case Bottas would have had to have made contact himself because regardless of whether Kimi should have given him more space - he already occupied it. That's a tin top move, not an open wheel move.

The rules a wrong and have taken away the thrill and skill of real overtaking. Giving the benefit of doubt/advantage to a driver behind who is aiming at a point on track that will be occupied is crazy.

 

Nobody got a penalty for both situations, and they are similar but different. Rosberg wasn't at the apex and technically Hamilton is turning away whilst Rosberg comes into him.

Its hard as you want to encourage racing but at the same time avoid it getting messy.

Mexico proved a hard track to overtake on for well matched cars so you can see why Bottas made a dive, that said Kimi was the one that made the clumsy move at the end of the day in turning in to an apex on a normal line despite there being a car there.

 

Of course he should've, but prior to Spa Rosberg had always bottled it, it was the first time he'd actually said 'no' to Hamilton, which, unofficially, hasn't been allowed since the end of 2011. As it's Hamilton, and he went crying to everyone who would listen (learned a trick from whiney Webber, cry to the camera's before the other guy and you'll get all the sympathy) a different rule applies. There's also the fact that Mercedes publicly shat all over Rosberg afterwards for it.

AFAIC there was no need for either to move so aggressively to where someone else was.