he's not defending, Hamilton had the line and was faster.
It was a silly attempt to try and get ahead, which paid of by luck not judgement.
Singapore Grand Prix 2010, Marina Bay Street Circuit - Race 15/19
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
he's not defending, Hamilton had the line and was faster.
It was a silly attempt to try and get ahead, which paid of by luck not judgement.
The difference is that at Monza Lewis was more than full car length behind Massa and put his front wheel in a dangerous position for no good reason, he was never going to get past Massa all he was doing is trying to gain ground.
Today he had the outside line and all he had to do was stay wide and he would have had the better exit speed out of the corner, but instead Lewis decided to cut across the apex even though he later admitted that he had no idea where Webber was, at no point was Lewis more than half a car length ahead. Lewis should have presumed that Webber was still on his inside and gone wide to avoid any possibility of a collision, if he had done he'd have finished in 3rd.
It makes me laugh when people claim drivers should yield when the two cars are still side by side, an overtaking manouvre isn't complete until they're more than a full car length ahead, today's incident was much the same as Vettel in Turkey where he cut across Webber only difference was it was in a corner. Also, the racing line doesn't give drivers a right of way it's simply the fastest route around a track, which is why Webber's exit speed would have been compromised had Lewis stayed on the outside.
Last edited:
That makes no difference.
Hamiltons ahead and on the line. That is what matters. The distance of how much he is ahead makes little difference. Unless it's literally side by side.
No ones saying that. I bet if Lewis survived and Webber DNF many peoples thoughts would be reversed. you yield when you are going to lose the place and only if you put yourself in danger of crashing out.
If I was a 3rd party reading your line of discussion, I would say you are arguing the case for Hamilton and shifting the blame onto Webber.
And you also believe its a racing incident
(racing incident being defined as no one to blame).
But if you firmly believe that one driver is at fault, then how can you also say its a racing incident? (I understand that racing incidents are not necessarily 50/50, but the way you are describing it, makes it sound like 80/20).
I'm surprised also, well done you lot
I have to admit, I taped the race due to work so had no idea what was going on, but on first view I was delighted Hamilton was out, but then thought "crap, Webber's going to get a penalty for that". Having seen it again, it's a bit of an iffy one really, but Hamilton should have left him much more room than he did. Great pass, stupid result. Now there, where's NathanE, I'd like to give him a AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA in return for Vettel's balls-ups earlier in the season
It makes the world of difference.
There is no comparison between someone throwing a car into a corner from way behind someone and defending a position from a car who has barely pulled halfway past you.
If you see someone who isn't even all the way past an opponent as having completely overtaken them then we're just fundamentally never going to agree on this, as I just do not, and never will see it that way.
No, racing incident means more than that. No need to punish, poor split second descion. but there can still be blame imo.
Lot's of crashes have blame but are still racing incidents as they don't warrant punishment and is just part of the sport.
If you started punishing people on who is to blame, there would be penaltys most weekends and today we would have seen many penalties.
There's no children, just lots of people with decades of F1 viewing behind them?
Webber was off the racing line, so far off it in fact he was on the marbles/dusty part of the track. Hamilton was on the normal racing line, the exact same racing line that Kubica used near the end of the race to overtake Sutil.
Webber knew Hamilton had passed him so just didn't bother to really slow down for that corner. Nerfed him, good and proper. But hey. Sometimes being a **** is what makes you a World Champion.
The background commentary of Senna is perfect. It is for Webber's nerfing move, not Hamilton's overtake.
you missed the part where I said yield if that gap is clearly goign to be cut of and that you put yourself in danger of crashing.
As we saw a few races ago with lewis vs button. Neither need to yield and fought for several corners as there was always room.
sometimes you have to except your not on the race line, your now behind and accept that to fight at the next corner or the rest of the race.
Last edited:
Hahaha always one that will never let it go
Incidents happen yeah? Webber was squeezed as tight to the kerb as he could go, is he supposed to go inside the kerb and risk getting a penalty for cutting the corner? No, he isn't. Hamilton did admittedly have a good half a car's length going into the bend but just left on room going out of it. It's happened so many times in the past, just let it drop.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26092010/58/hamilton-webber-incident-racing.html
Says it all really. Now we can move on
Says it all really. Now we can move on
Stupid argument, why don't you let it drop, so on and so forth.
If he can't make it you have three options, take the escape route and he would not get a penalty as he didn't gain an advantage, back off and drop behind, go in to deep and too fast which is what he did.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26092010/58/hamilton-webber-incident-racing.html
Says it all really. Now we can move on
we've been saying that since it happened.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,944
- Location
- Chengdu
This.
He chose to be ultra aggressive in an attempt to close off the line. It didn't work.
VERY good point. A la Alonso/Kubica.
That was just generally to everyone. Some people on here are not saying that though (I know you and I are though!)
Hahaha always one that will never let it go
Incidents happen yeah? Webber was squeezed as tight to the kerb as he could go, is he supposed to go inside the kerb and risk getting a penalty for cutting the corner? No, he isn't. Hamilton did admittedly have a good half a car's length going into the bend but just left on room going out of it. It's happened so many times in the past, just let it drop.
"Always one"?
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=136228
Only 13% of the Autosport forum believe it was Hamilton's fault.
29% believe it was Webber's fault. And 56% believe it was a racing incident (well duh!)
Because it's boring to see the obvious names sticking up for him. I've had my one post on the matter, and that'll do for me. It's ridiculous trying to argue a case when there just simply isn't one is my point. Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but it's a shame to see such a lengthy discussion on one incident when there's really no case for either driver imo.
Things like this used to happen more frequently than they do now:
Irvine vs Fisichella, Spain '98:
Schumacher vs Coulthard, Argentina '98:
Just a few examples.
I love winding you up mate
- and I don't frequent Autosport's forums, might have a gander at that. I'm not saying it's LH's fault at all, but it was perhaps a tad easier for him to avoid MW than vice versa, in hindsight.
Last edited: