To be fair, Schuey did take two bites of that particular cherry. One of the absolute finest racers of all time, but same as all the greats, he had his flaws.
I accept your point, EMSC. However… – you've referred to Schumacher's tactics yourself! I refer you to your earlier comment: We've used different words to say essentially the same thing, and I think we are both correct in doing so, since other precedents were also mentioned.
I was referring to the fact that Vettel was similar to Michael today, in no way did I refer to it as a moment that trumps them all. He tapped Lewis's car not wipe him clean off the track at 100mph.
I was going to discuss this after the dust had settled. For me (and I have raised this for 3 or 4 seasons now) the stewards and the direction of Charlie cause more problems with the inconsistent interpretation and potentially fixed decision making.
Ha! Very true. I remember him from early days before F1, where he was – arguably – even more of a liability!
The question was the rule on cars distance behind Saftey car. The rules I have shown show that there is a 10 car rule, superceeded when the Saftey car is coming in by the dictation of the lead car as per the next rule. The only relevant points I could find were in the rules I showed - it was not a reference to fault it liability. I highlighted the bold as a point of interpretation but I'm sure you have noted I have not passed comment. Was there a point to your statement, or have I just misinterpreted?
First thoughts as always, I'd like to see the proof. Goes against the official line. Until there's evidence it's a hypothetical discussion.
What about the 'over-take' under the SC? It looked like Vettel went ahead, all be it very briefly and marginally, potentially a 2nd thing they can do him for if they decide the 10 second penalty wasn't enough, though they showed last race they're quite willing to give 2 penalties for the same infraction.
he didn't brake, he lifted, but not 'completely' which is a bit ambiguous. He was definitely dropping speed though. I take anything posted on social media with a pinch of salt, they could be 2 separate laps.
I doubt they'll want to interfere in the championship tbh. It's too good of a battle to really start messing about with by adding additional penalties. It could have deserved a black flag, but that didn't happen so move on. Could be wrong though. You never can tell with F1.
My point is that Bando – in referring to the car behind – appears to be questioning Vettel's driving. Whilst I believe the sub-articles you've quoted are correct, they focus upon the lead driver and do not reflect the responsibilities of following drivers.
"I agree though Hamilton should have been penalised for the break testing. I thought there was a rule on cars distance behind safety car?" I read that to be the lead car, because every car behind the lead car is dictated by the lead car? I quoted the only rule I could find that the lead car had to abide by in relation "cars distance behind Saftey car", which I can see no evidence of Lewis breaching? The quotes are lifted straight off the FIA F1 Saftey car rule section, so yes correct. I can't find anything rule relating or referencing to the 2nd place car not arse ending the 1st place car! That may come under "causing a collision" whereby 39.13 would have to be considered in the investigation.
When this all happened the pack was only a few seconds behind the safety car. Given the pace differential and the huge straight at the end of this lap it was always going to be a bit clumsy once the driver in P1 could drop back from the safety car.
