Grand Prix thread Not606 2016 Austrian Grand Prix Chat and Predictions

To be fair Senna would never do that without a good reason, like they were really getting on his nerves or they were beneath him and should have got out of his way.

 

Or he just felt like it.

 

Yes, you see, there's a good example. If Mansell had just got out of the way that could have been avoided.

 

I'd love to contribute further but confess I'm finding it difficult.
I'm writing this, not knowing where my words will take me and whether I'll actually click the 'Post Reply' button if it starts to look like I've finished. My concern is that what I want to say may further exacerbate the ongoing discussion and be perceived as taking sides. I'm also conscious that what I write may be misunderstood. Please, if reading this gives that impression, I ask that one tries to overlook it in order to see what I'm really trying to say – which, as I write, I don't yet fully understand!


Being objective is not easy with emotive issues but I firmly believe it is important to try. I'll be the first to confess this can be exceedingly difficult – if not downright impossible – since all perspectives are ultimately the result of one's own 'now' and whatever personal histories necessarily underpin it. Nevertheless, it helps focus and really can provide a solid foundation for better understanding. In my experience, one of the simplest routes to increased objectivity about any particular incident is to focus on it – at the exclusion of all else as far as is humanly possible*; in particular, deliberately trying to block out previous incident, since doing so becomes an energy sapping diversion more likely to polarise the original subject matter and lead to increased prejudices than resolve them. Once again, I say this may be very difficult, especially since it may be at odds with the instinctive process of learning which underpins the very notion of 'opinion'.

Of course, like anyone, I have an opinion, which I've already made known; but the way I see it, differences of opinion can be a healthy thing and are not a fundamental problem to any debate. I just think it might be helpful to make an effort to stick to individual incident rather than invoke all manner of 'historic' argument which may or may not be seen as spurious – but definitely tends toward prejudicing opinion of the present, thus detracting from objectivity.

Apologies to anyone who doesn't like what I've said. It's just my opinion on how we might stick to the real arguments about any INDIVIDUAL incident.

How about we all agree on something: when one team is dominant, we are fortunate to find that its drivers are allowed to compete. We are fortunate that with one team still being the one to beat, we still have the prospect of an exciting season.

- - -o0o- - -​

*I'd like to say more about rules of conduct and their interpretation and how decisions are arrived at but to do so risks detracting from the main point I've tried to make in this rambling and hopeful post. (Suffice to say that it is in line with the first asterisk, above – even if it doesn't always look like it).

[Edited (again!) in the pursuance of clarity and punctuation]

 

Neither this nor that is about being great though is it.

Senna is thought of as great because of some staggering performances, when he made everyone else look stupid and heroic because of his fight against what at the time, I understand, seemed to be a very French partisan governing body. His most famous incidents were an extension of that.

Schumacher's greatness came from how he learned to maximise every single thing about his racing. His ultra competitiveness in this regard led to him pushing the boundaries (and sometimes beyond) on the track as well.

Rosberg isn't going to start being considered a great, just because he won't let Hamilton turn in to a corner.

 

To say my comment was tongue in cheek would be an understatement

We could all argue this way or that but I think on average we'd agree that since the 80's the top two drivers in the sport have been Senna and Schumacher, and I'm talking overall, not in some specific way. Both drivers were renowned for ramming drivers off track with limited subtlety, yet for both drivers large swaths of fans gloss over this, or argue it away.

It happens for all drivers and their fans, but obviously the bigger/better/more controversial the driver the louder these arguments will be. It's been brought up and it's true. everyones a hypocrite, even the ones shouting it. Simply put, there's no excuse for ramming someone off track. Yet everyone, and I mean everyone, seems to have drivers where it's ok. Or other drivers where if they are even in the line of sight of the incident it's their fault.

No ones impartial, yet most will claim they are. As I've said many times F1 is a sport, a sport to be watched for enjoyment. Then again enjoyment is different for all people, some people like to be wound up and over the top. Just look at the Daily Mail

 

Are you saying Mansell drove in to Senna in that video?

 

Can we agree that Mercedes are a total bunch of Nancystuff talking about suspending drivers

 

I'd understood the humour, but I was taking issue with correlating hitting people to greatness, otherwise your first sentence would have been that the top three drivers included Maldonado!

 

It could be argued that both Senna and Schumacher had above average aggression with regards to forcing others off track. So I suppose it could be argued that hitting people doesn't damage your greatness. It's just if you're good enough it seems you're given more slack on the matter.

 

As someone old enough to remember the Senna Prost moments...Japan in particular, the Schumacher stunts and Damon Hill's desperate attempt to overtake Schumacher resulting in an off for them both ( a late brake lunge as I recall from Damon)....these moments are remembered.

Net net, it was a good race, Merc didn't suffer particularly, the gap is small between them. Toto, leave them alone, you will get both crowns again this year. Merc allowing them to race are will get respect for Merc and all the team. Lewis won't, nor should he, accept team orders as the reigning champ, Vettel ignored Multi 21. Majority of opinion is clear.

 

I totally agree though....Mercedes was complaining that fans are not seeing their cars during the race....well now every camera will be pointing at them once their driver get close to each other in any race... I don't agree with crashing every other race but good wheel to wheel racing is good for Mercedes... I want Rosberg to play it tough, but fair..so far Hamilton has been driving within the rules. Team orders will kill Mercedes fan base and it isn't good for the sport. If Mercedes ever sanction that nonsense I hope they lose every race.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Without taking sides (deliberately), the stewards and virtually all the experts have agreed Rosberg was at fault in this particular incident.

Is Mercedes now to say that Hamilton can't overtake Rosberg in case it happens again?

Seems wrong to me... They gave to deal with the specifics not the generality.

 

Its motor racing, just let em race, if they take each other off, so what !!!

All the best memories I have, are of incidents just like Ham and Ros, Senna & Prost, Mansell & Piquet, Schumacher & Hill, I could go on !!! & on.

 

Just to start, I am not a fan of Hamilton (even though I an British) his driving can be great but his personality, while understandable (brought up to win at all costs), he is not a good role model.
To the motor racing fans you are right, to business that might cost them the constructors championship! Merc are paying the bills to get good publicity for their cars, so they want to maximise their return on investment.
As a fan I want all drivers to race each other hard but in a fair manner. i.e. rules that are clear and punishments for breaking rules are fair and consistent.
It has become 'acceptable' to take the 'racing line' and gradually run an opponent out of road on the exit to corners. In my opinion this goes against giving other drivers a cars width and not pushing them off the track but people are not getting punished for that so that must be considered 'acceptable'.
As others have said we need rules that allow drivers 'to race' each other and we need the rules to be consistently applied. Maybe a more transparent method for the stewards would be to publish some on the data (ideally all) that enabled them to come to the decision they did in the press release would be good.

 

That may be a good idea generally but in this case the video is conclusive.

 

At the moment squeezing on the exit of a corner is legal, as well as other practices that some consider distasteful like like using excessive kerbs or putting two wheels outside the white line to get an advantage. The thing is that as it stands these things are legal and as a driver you would be chivalrous but an idiot to hand the advantage to your opponent by not doing the maximum that is permissible. So don't blame drivers for doing what is within the law, blame the law and the administration of it.

What we saw from Rosberg the other day was not within the law, hence he was punished for it. It's not a demolition derby.

 

It seems my post has not come across the way I intended, sorry. I agree that squeezing on the exit is legal and is treated that way by the stewards as are the other practises you describe.
The point I was trying to make was that all drivers must abide by the rules and be treated the same when breaking the rules. It's the drivers job to gain any legal advantage they can, same as it's team job to gain any 'legal' advantage they can.
I do blame the rule makers and stewards but we need more transparency. A few graphs of brake pressures on previous laps, steering angle, wheel speed etc would help.
What Nico did was against the rules, I have no doubt about that. He made no effort to make the corner knowing that there was another driver on the outside. He caused the collision.

 

Yes, it's amazing that in a sport which can only be second to golf in the way that every tiny detail is so heavily codified so much of the handing out of penalties seems open to interpretation or not really readily able to be scrutinised. I can see why they decided on a system whereby there is an ex-driver as an expert steward at each grand prix, I wonder though if consistency would be helped by having a regular expert or panel of experts who cover every grand prix. And as you say full availability of the data they have used to make decisions would help,