The F1 Thread

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Brightside said:

What are you on about? It was Ocon who just wandered over to the side of the track that Vettel was occupying, what is Vettel meant to do?
Stroll pushed Vettel wide at the Lesmos on lap 1 I think, which was just weird as he lost 3-4 places because of it.

I put a question mark because I couldn't remember which jobber midfield runner vettel was tangling with.

What is Vettel meant to do? Eat shit.

[doulikefish]

Just a few short years ago..Kimi can leave enough room for Hamilton

https://youtu.be/jjIhmqsOHrA

[scottsdad]

I think the penalty is a response to the images of the tyre on Hamilton's head and associated headlines "Hamilton Cheats Death" etc rather than from a cold analysis of the incident. 

[Funky Nosejob]

47 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I think the penalty is a response to the images of the tyre on Hamilton's head and associated headlines "Hamilton Cheats Death" etc rather than from a cold analysis of the incident. 

Yet the argument after Hamilton took out Verstappen at Silverstone was that the penalty had to reflect the actual infringement and not the outcome of the infringement.

Neither driver was blameless, and I suspect would have made a different decision had it been a different driver they were dealing with. For all the talk of it being a racing incident, I think it would have made them better reflect on their future choices had they both been given a 3 place grid penalty.

[Miguel Sanchez]

 

On 13/09/2021 at 08:12, die hard doonhamer said:

Because he'd never make the corner if he came straight at it, and there was plenty space for him to do it. Bizarre point from you here.

 

I don't like the penalty, it should be a racing incident under the current rules. I also don't like the current regs, though. If a driver goes in to a corner ahead then they should have the right to the apex, IMO. At no point was Max ahead (to use Mr Horner's established argument, although I'm sure he'll have seen this one differently), and so he should have backed out of it.

This video is identical to the weekend's incident in terms of where the two cars are relative to each other through the corner (0:54):

23 hours ago, doulikefish said:

Just a few short years ago..Kimi can leave enough room for Hamilton

https://youtu.be/jjIhmqsOHrA

Saying a driver wasn't ahead at any point and should have backed out is nonsense. He had more than half a car length alongside Hamilton. Not every overtakes needs you to completely clear the car you're passing in the braking zone.

[Mr. Brightside]

Sainz passed Kimi last year (I think) in a very similar situation as well.

[Boo Khaki]

9 hours ago, Funky Nosejob said:

Yet the argument after Hamilton took out Verstappen at Silverstone was that the penalty had to reflect the actual infringement and not the outcome of the infringement.

Neither driver was blameless, and I suspect would have made a different decision had it been a different driver they were dealing with. For all the talk of it being a racing incident, I think it would have made them better reflect on their future choices had they both been given a 3 place grid penalty.

This

Drivers are more and more utterly contemptuous of track limits, and that seems to have gone hand-in-hand with a disregard for the consequences of trying to barge your way through or hold your position in tight corners. Increased safety is undoubtedly a good thing, but I think it's also lead to situations where drivers are increasingly getting their elbows out and driving like arseholes because there's a lessened fear of the potential consequences.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[parsforlife]

9 hours ago, Funky Nosejob said:

 I think it would have made them better reflect on their future choices had they both been given a 3 place grid penalty.

Do we get incidents where both drivers get punished?  Seems they nearly always find that one driver was worse and the other gets nothing.   Surely not a particularly balanced way to view things. Most incidents are caused by the actions of both drivers, that doesn’t mean both should be punished equally but it might make drivers more cautious if they think an incident might occur.  Drivers have a natural instinct to think the other guy is at fault,  maybe if they were forced to consider if they themselves are taking every reasonable action they might be less brash.

[GordonS]

20 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Do we get incidents where both drivers get punished?  Seems they nearly always find that one driver was worse and the other gets nothing.   Surely not a particularly balanced way to view things. Most incidents are caused by the actions of both drivers, that doesn’t mean both should be punished equally but it might make drivers more cautious if they think an incident might occur.  Drivers have a natural instinct to think the other guy is at fault,  maybe if they were forced to consider if they themselves are taking every reasonable action they might be less brash.

Good point. While Verstappen was more technically at fault, Hamilton could have easily given him another metre and avoided the incident altogether. Same at Silverstone - Hamilton was at fault but Verstappen just had to open his hands a little. If the two of them want to go knock-for-knock all season then fine, but I think spectators and viewers want them both to stay on the track to the end. A little collective punishment might do them both good, though I can't see it happening. 

[MP_MFC]

Watched the Schumacher film on Netflix. It’s just such a depressing story they’re all talking like he’s dead when obviously he isn’t but what a horrible horrible situation.

Feel it was a bit scattergun in what it focussed on and skipped a LOT of stuff and really did treat his accident almost like an afterthought but it was good to see and hear some of the moments of the man in his prime as well as from some of his adversaries.

[scottsdad]

11 hours ago, MP_MFC said:

Watched the Schumacher film on Netflix. It’s just such a depressing story they’re all talking like he’s dead when obviously he isn’t but what a horrible horrible situation.

Feel it was a bit scattergun in what it focussed on and skipped a LOT of stuff and really did treat his accident almost like an afterthought but it was good to see and hear some of the moments of the man in his prime as well as from some of his adversaries.

I read a review of it that said pretty much this. Not sure I want to watch it truth be told.

[MP_MFC]

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t regret watching it but can’t help but feel it would have been better served if it was done as a mini series that could have been broken down better as they jumped big portions of his career and that would have also allowed them to focus more on his post career accident etc but I guess it’s all down to however his wife wants to handle it.

The whole situation with him is horrible.

[JamesP_81]

13 hours ago, MP_MFC said:

Watched the Schumacher film on Netflix. It’s just such a depressing story they’re all talking like he’s dead when obviously he isn’t but what a horrible horrible situation.

Feel it was a bit scattergun in what it focussed on and skipped a LOT of stuff and really did treat his accident almost like an afterthought but it was good to see and hear some of the moments of the man in his prime as well as from some of his adversaries.

I felt a little underwhelmed by it . Had been looking forward to it for ages but yeah as you say it didn't feel like it had a coherent thread running through it and for a near 2 hour film it was literally like flicking through his career and picking the odd page from here and there. 

 Was expecting far more in depth F1 footage and even noticed on quite a few of his races they were highlighting that the continuity was all over the place , really doesn't feel like it was made by someone who has a love for the sport.  

I was also hoping for a bit more of an update on how he is recovering , I mean I'm not wanting to see graphic footage of him slobbering baby food into a bib but I felt that they skirted around the issue when you would think that for a biographical film that would be a pretty major part of the content. I genuinely thought that they were going to use the film to reveal on their own terms that he is recovering well and would put an appearance in at the end but it kinda makes me more sure than ever now that he is pretty much gone just being kept alive clinically.  

End result , I'm genuinely baffled by the timing of this release . He hasn't died, he hasn't recovered, no light has been shone on anything since his accident and it hasn't shed any new light on anything that happened in his career. 

[scottsdad]

2 hours ago, JamesP_81 said:

I felt a little underwhelmed by it . Had been looking forward to it for ages but yeah as you say it didn't feel like it had a coherent thread running through it and for a near 2 hour film it was literally like flicking through his career and picking the odd page from here and there. 

 Was expecting far more in depth F1 footage and even noticed on quite a few of his races they were highlighting that the continuity was all over the place , really doesn't feel like it was made by someone who has a love for the sport.  

I was also hoping for a bit more of an update on how he is recovering , I mean I'm not wanting to see graphic footage of him slobbering baby food into a bib but I felt that they skirted around the issue when you would think that for a biographical film that would be a pretty major part of the content. I genuinely thought that they were going to use the film to reveal on their own terms that he is recovering well and would put an appearance in at the end but it kinda makes me more sure than ever now that he is pretty much gone just being kept alive clinically.  

End result , I'm genuinely baffled by the timing of this release . He hasn't died, he hasn't recovered, no light has been shone on anything since his accident and it hasn't shed any new light on anything that happened in his career. 

The documentary on him I'd like to see would be like Senna, which covered the racing career in a lot of depth.

[IrishBhoy]

Love seeing these old clips of the drivers in their karting days. Easy to forget just how long these guys have been competing against each other. 
 

Funnily enough Verstappen still saying the same sort of things to this day  

Edited September 17, 2021 by IrishBhoy

[scottsdad]

Finally watched Schumacher. It was quite odd. A lot of good stuff on the 90s battles he had. Then basically skipped from 1999 with "and then he won five titles in a row" to his accident. I feel like it was half a documentary, his peak years never even mentioned. Battles with Raikkonen and Alonso - which were epic - not mentioned at all. 

[Scorge]

On 15/09/2021 at 22:02, MP_MFC said:

Watched the Schumacher film on Netflix. It’s just such a depressing story they’re all talking like he’s dead when obviously he isn’t but what a horrible horrible situation.

Feel it was a bit scattergun in what it focussed on and skipped a LOT of stuff

I suspect Netflix are aiming for casual viewers as well as F1 nuts, so not totally surprised about some of the more in-depth narratives being glossed over (especially the stuff which paints him in a less favourable light - some of the 1994 shenanigans, Austria 2002, etc) to try and keep the running time sensible. Felt like a more sanitised watch than Senna, but still tragic how it finishes up.

[scottsdad]

The one nugget I found interesting in the documentary was Jean Todt saying that in 1999/2000 they Ferrari were asking themselves if Schumacher was the right guy for them, and if they should be looking at Mika Hakkinen. You often forget nowadays just how good Hakkinen really was - the only one to really take the fight to Schumacher. Would have loved to see more on their rivalry - the 2000 season  alone was such a see-saw of a year it deserved more.

[Sarto Mutiny]

The one nugget I found interesting in the documentary was Jean Todt saying that in 1999/2000 they Ferrari were asking themselves if Schumacher was the right guy for them, and if they should be looking at Mika Hakkinen. You often forget nowadays just how good Hakkinen really was - the only one to really take the fight to Schumacher. Would have loved to see more on their rivalry - the 2000 season  alone was such a see-saw of a year it deserved more.

Hakkinen was every bit as quick as Schumacher on his day, but he almost completely lost his motivation after his huge crash in Australia in 2001. Even in 1999, his brain was on holiday for half the season.

[scottsdad]

19 hours ago, Sarto Mutiny said:

21 hours ago, scottsdad said:

The one nugget I found interesting in the documentary was Jean Todt saying that in 1999/2000 they Ferrari were asking themselves if Schumacher was the right guy for them, and if they should be looking at Mika Hakkinen. You often forget nowadays just how good Hakkinen really was - the only one to really take the fight to Schumacher. Would have loved to see more on their rivalry - the 2000 season  alone was such a see-saw of a year it deserved more.

Hakkinen was every bit as quick as Schumacher on his day, but he almost completely lost his motivation after his huge crash in Australia in 2001. Even in 1999, his brain was on holiday for half the season.

I think you're mixing up Hakkinen with Villeneuve. Villeneuve was in that crash in 2001 and his wheel killed a marshal. He lost about a second a lap after that, and was never the same again. 

Hakkinen underwent a similar drop-off but in 2001, after his kid was born. He was fast in 98, 99 and 2000 then suddenly lost speed.  In 2000 Hakkinen got 5 pole positions, 9 fastest laps and 4 wins. He was ahead of Schumacher after Belgium (and that overtake...) and looked like he was on course to win a third title in a row. Then  Schumacher found something and won the last 4 races in a row, and took the title.  It remains one of my favourite seasons of all time due to the ding-dong nature of the title fight. 

Sadly the documentary glossed over the season and hardly mentioned the rest.