Worst thing is from what I remember Nico didn't even touch Max (who dinked left under braking). Inept and biased stewarding is only a small factor in this shambles of a sport.
The Great Overtaking & Stewarding Debate
- Thread starter EternalMSC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Why? I am pointing out a serious blunder by the stewards. Unless you agree with the penalty. Which you probably do.
I don't agree with the penalty, I sat on the fence as I could have gone either way. What I personally think went against Rosberg, was the incident at Austria with Hamilton.
Comparing it to the Hamilton incident from 2 years ago is questionable. The only 3 things similar from the incidents was it being at hockenheim, on the same corner that involved a Mercedes.
I actually think that was a deserved penalty. He dives in from quite far back and doesn't make the corner, forcing Verstappen off the road. It wasn't heinous, but five seconds seems fair. The issue really is that the stewards aren't consistent in punishing it.
Hamilton is doing his job somewhere in the range of competantly to sublimely. It's impossible to tell which because he such a ridiculous car advantage. 90% of the time he's driving well within his ability. Especially in a race like today where his only possible challenger isn't delivering.
Generally Rosberg was poor. Chokes again at the start to undo his good work on Saturday. Is then unable to make any impression other than one over agressive lunge that got penalised. After his penalty he just had no pace and didn't close at all on the Red Bulls. Easy choice for the worst driver of the day.
Hamilton is doing his job somewhere in the range of competantly to sublimely. It's impossible to tell which because he such a ridiculous car advantage. 90% of the time he's driving well within his ability. Especially in a race like today where his only possible challenger isn't delivering.
Generally Rosberg was poor. Chokes again at the start to undo his good work on Saturday. Is then unable to make any impression other than one over agressive lunge that got penalised. After his penalty he just had no pace and didn't close at all on the Red Bulls. Easy choice for the worst driver of the day.
Last edited:
That was never a penalty for Rosberg then the Mercedes team keep him in longer then 5secs for his penalty costing him 2nd or 3rd at worse.
I think it's difficult to enjoy sometimes when the race decisions are so inconsistent. For the drivers sake it needs to be consistent and fair.
Yeah... but it's not like we've EVER experienced a period like that in F1 to know what it feels like.
It was an incredibly deep effort again... and Verstappen left him a mile to turn in to. He could have maybe got the position without the penalty if he'd have got the car in a tad sooner.
I guess it's better trying than doing nothing though.
Just read the thread.
I was coming here to make a general comment but find myself side-tracked by the discussion over Rosberg's penalty for his peculiar overtaking technique. There seems to be some confusion about what is or is not acceptable with some overtaking (or indeed, defensive) moves…
EMSC (nice to see you again, matey; but please change your name back!) has posted a video of Hamilton's double overtake showing slightly misjudged braking but still turning in on entry to take a reasonably predictable line before the apex. I hope that anyone who looks at the video will see that despite locking up, Hamilton still manages to turn in – far earlier than in either of Rosberg's recent incidents, neither of which involved the instantaneous understeer associated with locking fronts (or for that matter, a third car).
Now, I'm not suggesting that locking up (deliberately or not) justifies an out-braking manoeuvre. In itself of course, it doesn't. I'm mentioning it as part of the comparison which appears to have been the motive for it being posted in this thread. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest Rosberg misjudged his braking on either occasion and the only reasonable conclusion is that preventing another driver from turning in – staying on track without risking a collision – was actually the plan! This should not be confused with events after the apex, where opening the steering is expected and a leading driver (one in the forward vision of a following driver) may take the normal line even if doing so dictates the following driver's options; either to lift (sensible option) or leave the track…
The differences may seem subtle but they very important. I'll concede it may be difficult to get a full appreciation as a spectator – although of course, many will. I'm also tempted to make a further (historic) comparison with Rosberg's racecraft but I hope I've already made my point. I'm going to bite my tongue…
I was coming here to make a general comment but find myself side-tracked by the discussion over Rosberg's penalty for his peculiar overtaking technique. There seems to be some confusion about what is or is not acceptable with some overtaking (or indeed, defensive) moves…
EMSC (nice to see you again, matey; but please change your name back!) has posted a video of Hamilton's double overtake showing slightly misjudged braking but still turning in on entry to take a reasonably predictable line before the apex. I hope that anyone who looks at the video will see that despite locking up, Hamilton still manages to turn in – far earlier than in either of Rosberg's recent incidents, neither of which involved the instantaneous understeer associated with locking fronts (or for that matter, a third car).
Now, I'm not suggesting that locking up (deliberately or not) justifies an out-braking manoeuvre. In itself of course, it doesn't. I'm mentioning it as part of the comparison which appears to have been the motive for it being posted in this thread. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest Rosberg misjudged his braking on either occasion and the only reasonable conclusion is that preventing another driver from turning in – staying on track without risking a collision – was actually the plan! This should not be confused with events after the apex, where opening the steering is expected and a leading driver (one in the forward vision of a following driver) may take the normal line even if doing so dictates the following driver's options; either to lift (sensible option) or leave the track…
The differences may seem subtle but they very important. I'll concede it may be difficult to get a full appreciation as a spectator – although of course, many will. I'm also tempted to make a further (historic) comparison with Rosberg's racecraft but I hope I've already made my point. I'm going to bite my tongue…
Last edited:
Just read the thread.
I was coming here to make a general comment but find myself side-tracked by the discussion over Rosberg's penalty for his peculiar overtaking technique. There seems to be some confusion about what is or is not acceptable with some overtaking (or indeed, defensive) moves…
EMSC (nice to see you again, matey; but please change your name back!) has posted a video of Hamilton's double overtake showing slightly misjudged braking but still turning in on entry to take a reasonably predictable line before the apex. I hope that anyone who looks at the video will see that despite locking up, Hamilton still manages to turn in – far earlier than in either of Rosberg's recent incidents, neither of which involved the instantaneous understeer associated with locking fronts (or for that matter, a third car).
Now, I'm not suggesting that locking up (deliberately or not) justifies an out-braking manoeuvre. In itself of course, it doesn't. I'm mentioning it as part of the comparison which appears to have been the motive for it being posted in this thread. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest Rosberg misjudged his braking on either occasion and the only reasonable conclusion is that preventing another driver from turning in – staying on track without risking a collision – was actually the plan! This should not be confused with events after the apex, where opening the steering is expected and a leading driver (one in the forward vision of a following driver) may take the normal line even if doing so dictates the following driver's options; either to lift (sensible option) or leave the track…
The differences may seem subtle but they very important. I'll concede it may be difficult to get a full appreciation as a spectator – although of course, many will. I'm also tempted to make a further (historic) comparison with Rosberg's racecraft but I hope I've already made my point. I'm going to bite my tongue…
I was coming here to make a general comment but find myself side-tracked by the discussion over Rosberg's penalty for his peculiar overtaking technique. There seems to be some confusion about what is or is not acceptable with some overtaking (or indeed, defensive) moves…
EMSC (nice to see you again, matey; but please change your name back!) has posted a video of Hamilton's double overtake showing slightly misjudged braking but still turning in on entry to take a reasonably predictable line before the apex. I hope that anyone who looks at the video will see that despite locking up, Hamilton still manages to turn in – far earlier than in either of Rosberg's recent incidents, neither of which involved the instantaneous understeer associated with locking fronts (or for that matter, a third car).
Now, I'm not suggesting that locking up (deliberately or not) justifies an out-braking manoeuvre. In itself of course, it doesn't. I'm mentioning it as part of the comparison which appears to have been the motive for it being posted in this thread. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest Rosberg misjudged his braking on either occasion and the only reasonable conclusion is that preventing another driver from turning in – staying on track without risking a collision – was actually the plan! This should not be confused with events after the apex, where opening the steering is expected and a leading driver (one in the forward vision of a following driver) may take the normal line even if doing so dictates the following driver's options; either to lift (sensible option) or leave the track…
The differences may seem subtle but they very important. I'll concede it may be difficult to get a full appreciation as a spectator – although of course, many will. I'm also tempted to make a further (historic) comparison with Rosberg's racecraft but I hope I've already made my point. I'm going to bite my tongue…
Rosberg knew with the late dive that if he taken the corner normally, Max would have had tha drive on him going towards the next corner. He tried to negate that by blocking him off, nearly identical to the Hamilton incident, both times the competitor was going to have the better line through the corner so he tries to block them out.
Blocking an opponent during an overtake is perfectly legitimate, however it's generally only acceptable when done progressively or subtlety. Technically Rosberg ran Vestapen off on corner entry.
Usually drivers linger on the appex to stop the other driver getting a run out of the corner. Or they progressively run them wide on exit.
It's a matter of finesse really.
Usually drivers linger on the appex to stop the other driver getting a run out of the corner. Or they progressively run them wide on exit.
It's a matter of finesse really.
That's what I was leaning towards, just didn't explain it too well. He's too obvious in his attempts to block a competitor off the track. In the incident at Austria he knew he wouldn't have been able to do that with Hamilton as Lewis was ahead and on the better line. Nico could have easily interrupted Max on the corner exit, too eager maybe to make amends for the poor start?
Harsh but fair.
http://sniffpetrol.com/2016/08/01/new-car-handling-characteristic-identified/#.V58GvEsVxBV
New car handling characteristic identified
Posted in Motorsport, News by Sniff Petrol on Monday, August 1st, 2016
Nico Rosberg, yesterday
Alongside the familiar traits of understeer and oversteer, car dynamics experts have this week identified a new handling characteristic known as ‘Nicosteer’.
Nicosteer occurs when a car follows a wider than expected arc into a given corner as a result of the driver failing to turn the wheel enough and then pretending that he had a problem even though he didn’t.
‘In scientific terms, Nicosteer can be expressed as X = A + B ,’ explained car handling professor, Carl-Hans Dligprofeser. ‘Where X equals vehicle trajectory, A equals corner radius and B equals how much the driver is being a prick again.’
Road safety campaigners are urging motorists to be aware of situations that can cause Nicosteer, such as pissing away a commanding championship lead, being the kind of choker who gets caught out by wheelspin, and having too many passports.
‘I’ll certainly be looking out for the warning signs of Nicosteer,’ said F1 runner up Nico Rosberg. ‘And if it happens, I’ll be certain to lift off very slightly.’
http://sniffpetrol.com/2016/08/01/new-car-handling-characteristic-identified/#.V58GvEsVxBV
New car handling characteristic identified
Posted in Motorsport, News by Sniff Petrol on Monday, August 1st, 2016
You must log in or register to see images
Nico Rosberg, yesterday
Alongside the familiar traits of understeer and oversteer, car dynamics experts have this week identified a new handling characteristic known as ‘Nicosteer’.
Nicosteer occurs when a car follows a wider than expected arc into a given corner as a result of the driver failing to turn the wheel enough and then pretending that he had a problem even though he didn’t.
‘In scientific terms, Nicosteer can be expressed as X = A + B ,’ explained car handling professor, Carl-Hans Dligprofeser. ‘Where X equals vehicle trajectory, A equals corner radius and B equals how much the driver is being a prick again.’
Road safety campaigners are urging motorists to be aware of situations that can cause Nicosteer, such as pissing away a commanding championship lead, being the kind of choker who gets caught out by wheelspin, and having too many passports.
‘I’ll certainly be looking out for the warning signs of Nicosteer,’ said F1 runner up Nico Rosberg. ‘And if it happens, I’ll be certain to lift off very slightly.’
Just read the thread.
I was coming here to make a general comment but find myself side-tracked by the discussion over Rosberg's penalty for his peculiar overtaking technique. There seems to be some confusion about what is or is not acceptable with some overtaking (or indeed, defensive) moves…
EMSC (nice to see you again, matey; but please change your name back!) has posted a video of Hamilton's double overtake showing slightly misjudged braking but still turning in on entry to take a reasonably predictable line before the apex. I hope that anyone who looks at the video will see that despite locking up, Hamilton still manages to turn in – far earlier than in either of Rosberg's recent incidents, neither of which involved the instantaneous understeer associated with locking fronts (or for that matter, a third car).
Now, I'm not suggesting that locking up (deliberately or not) justifies an out-braking manoeuvre. In itself of course, it doesn't. I'm mentioning it as part of the comparison which appears to have been the motive for it being posted in this thread. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest Rosberg misjudged his braking on either occasion and the only reasonable conclusion is that preventing another driver from turning in – staying on track without risking a collision – was actually the plan! This should not be confused with events after the apex, where opening the steering is expected and a leading driver (one in the forward vision of a following driver) may take the normal line even if doing so dictates the following driver's options; either to lift (sensible option) or leave the track…
The differences may seem subtle but they very important. I'll concede it may be difficult to get a full appreciation as a spectator – although of course, many will. I'm also tempted to make a further (historic) comparison with Rosberg's racecraft but I hope I've already made my point. I'm going to bite my tongue…
I'm sorry Cosi but I totally disagree, the feedback from grass roots motorsport to top level is that this is becoming a joke - and a very one-sided one at that. Hamilton has made his name on late lunges forcing the other driver into making a decision, yet any other driver gets penalised or criticised - subtle or not. Lewis's move last year caused contact and he was ultimately out of control - that's not debatable that's a fact. His move on Kimi at Monza (2008 I think) into Turn 1 was hailed as one of the greatest, a four wheel locked up slide giving Kimi no alternative but to crash or yield.
The blatant bias was evident from Brundle live on commentary who felt the move by Nico this weekend was acceptable although borderline. In fact he went as far as to say that the driver on the "outside" got what is expected????? Yet there was no difference between this move and Nico's on Lewis (*) accept that Verstappen chose to avoid contact and Lewis chose not to. How about Riccardo from Hungry last year into turn 1 on Nico, out of control and leaves the circuit (which Nico didn't) resulting in Nico receiving a puncture when Riccardo re-joined the track?
Its seems the word on which these decisions hinge is "subtle". Lewis is the most accomplished "subtle" forcer off track driver there is, but again most of the grid are playing cricket and one or two are playing a mixture of Baseball and American Football. A block overtake is a block overtake, deliberate or not.
Whilst in the essence of humour, the Nicosteer piece was funny, maybe we should now find one for Lewis's Subtlesteer.
(*) I firmly believe that Nico intended to hit Lewis and should have been excluded, but the poxy and pointless 10 sec penalty has set the tone for more bullshit decisions. However the block move attempted is exactly the same, although the outcome different. That's the point, the outcome is different because the driver on the outside took a different decision.
Edit: This is not an attack on Lewis, but on the stewards and the rules.
Last edited:
Hamilton is today's golden goose, Verstappen is tomorrows which is why both have a separate rule book in which double moves and forcing people off track are acceptable, in this rule book you can also get fresh tyres if you **** up in qualifying, corner cut for the lead, exceed track limits whenever you feel like it, try to put people in the wall and pitlane penalties will only result in a team fine rather than the normal grid-drop.
As to your 'subtle difference' I'd suggest the real difference you see is the flag on the drivers car.
As to your 'subtle difference' I'd suggest the real difference you see is the flag on the drivers car.
A German flag was a very handy thing to have not so long ago on the side of a car ............