Belgian Grand Prix 2014, Spa-Francorchamps - Race 12/19

dannyjo22 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:22

I haven't changed my tune, just because something is a racing incident doesn't mean there is no blame. Rosberg was to blame. Still just a racing incident and I'm glad we don't punish every thing all the time. At no point have I said it was hamiltons fault. It wasn't.

No idea why people still think the debate is whose fault it was.

dannyjo22 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:24

cu3ed said:
Your not seeing it from anyone cause its mostly streaming from you.

.

Show me the Hamilton hate. I bet you can't.

Mr Men · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:27

Lauda and Toto's interviews yesterday were more of a car crash than what happened on the track

Jono8 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:27

dannyjo22 said:
I haven't changed my tune, just because something is a racing incident doesn't mean there is no blame. Rosberg was to blame. Still just a racing incident and I'm glad we don't punish every thing all the time. At no point have I said it was hamiltons fault. It wasn't.

No idea why people still think the debate is whose fault it was.

It was Rosberg's fault. No debate to be had.

JBeck · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:28

Duke said:
This and this.

I disagree.

englishpremier said:
So it seems Rosberg didn't deliberately cause an accident. He just didn't avoid one (to prove a point). The difference is huge. I'm not sure the FIA can do anything, it's a racing incident.

That doesn't mean he's guilty of anything other than being a bit of a muppet for not following team instructions and for not taking action to avoid an incident.

A 'racing incident' is where two cars come together depite the best actions of the drivers to avoid collision. Rosberg made no such attempt to avoid the collision, he didn't care. Therefore by very definition, this is more than a racing incident.

Being a bit of a muppet doesn't really wash, he made a choice to not try and avoid a collision, if he had tried that would have made him a muppet. He did not try.

MooMoo444 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:28

dannyjo22 said:
I haven't changed my tune, just because something is a racing incident doesn't mean there is no blame. Rosberg was to blame. Still just a racing incident and I'm glad we don't punish every thing all the time. At no point have I said it was hamiltons fault. It wasn't.

No idea why people still think the debate is whose fault it was.

It was more than just a racing incident. How do you not see that?

Cavallino · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:29

dannyjo22 said:
IStill just a racing incident and I'm glad we don't punish every thing all the time.

The problem is it needs to be punished since Rosberg said (words to the effect of).

I saw what happened. I can see a collision was imminent, I chose NOT to take avoiding action, and the effect of which is to cause an accident.

This sets a dangerous precident for Formula 1 if went unpunished because it basically means drivers can now cause collisions if they think they have half a chance of overtaking the car infront....

Incidentally one thing which everyone seems to have missed....

Ask yourselves this question, replace Rosberg with another car (whilst all other aspects of this event is the same), especially say a rookie, does anyone here honestly believe that there wouldn't have been any penalty or firmer backlash from the media/fans?

m4rk84 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:29

dannyjo22 said:
No idea why people still think the debate is whose fault it was.

Where is anyone debating that? The debate is whether it was intentional, which it clearly was. It wasn't a racing incident at all. The fact Mercedes are looking to punish Rosberg is clear admission it wasn't a racing incident.

Your quote was saying if the roles were reversed we would all be saying Rosberg should have moved over which is absolute rubbish. If the roles were reversed it would be Hamilton's fault and it still wouldn't be a racing incident.

Mr Men · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:30

MooMoo444 said:
It was more than just a racing incident. How do you not see that?

It really was not, if Lewis was not involved then it would be a nothing incident.

What about Alonso hitting Seb?

MooMoo444 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:32

Mr Men said:
It really was not, if Lewis was not involved then it would be a nothing incident.

What about Alonso hitting Seb?

Alonso did not destroy someone elses race, which is typically what the penalty is given for.

Mr Men · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:33

MooMoo444 said:
Alonso did not destroy someone elses race, which is typically what the penalty is given for.

No the penalty is given for causing a collision. Nothing to do with the outcome of the collision.

Cavallino · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:34

MooMoo444 said:
Alonso did not destroy someone elses race, which is typically what the penalty is given for.

Not to mention Alonso didn't soonafter go to the media and say he chose to not avoid the collision.

Mr Men · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:35

Cavallino said:
Not to mention Alonso didn't soonafter go to the media and say he chose to not avoid the collision.

Neither did Nico.

m4rk84 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:35

Mr Men said:
No the penalty is given for causing a collision. Nothing to do with the outcome of the collision.

Right after the incident:

Mr Men said:
Well done Nico

You guys who are saying the Hamilton hate is all in our heads make it pretty easy to prove that wrong.

dannyjo22 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:36

m4rk84 said:
Your quote was saying if the roles were reversed we would all be saying Rosberg should have moved over which is absolute rubbish. If the roles were reversed it would be Hamilton's fault and it still wouldn't be a racing incident.

Remind me of the races where Hamilton has moved into a gap that was always going to close if the driver stayed on the racing line and I will prove to you this forum thought otherwise

Mr Men · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:37

But if we believe Nico meant this then surely he is the best driver in the world, to judge the line to the mm so that his front wing would puncture the tyre of Lewis and only cost him some minor wing damage that can easily be fixed, what a genius he is.....

JBeck · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:41

Mr Men said:
No the penalty is given for causing a collision. Nothing to do with the outcome of the collision.

Ok so if Rosberg had done that to Hamilton on turn 1 and had caused half the field to pile up, you're saying Rosberg would not have been penalised? Yeah right

JBeck · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:42

dannyjo22 said:
Remind me of the races where Hamilton has moved into a gap that was always going to close if the driver stayed on the racing line and I will prove to you this forum thought otherwise

The proof is in the sauce, let's see it.

EddScott · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:42

Only saw the incident this morning. Looks like Nico does more than just hold his line. Looks like he turns in on Lewis slightly. Like the comment above about Lauda and Wolff, F1 in car crash TV shocker. Can't say I've ever been that fussed on Lewis but he didn't deserve that. I think Nico would have had him eventually so a bit of a silly move. So, another German becomes the villain of the piece.

MooMoo444 · 25 Aug 2014 at 10:43

Still, they should learn from this and reinforce the side walls of the tyres. They seem very prone to punctures in this manner, maybe disallow sharp edges on the wings too.