Korean Grand Prix 2010, Korean International Circuit - Race 17/19

[Cavallino]

Just read this one Planet F1 -



Didn't even think of the worst case scenario for them. Ouch! Quite the decision they have to make then.

I actually said exactly this a few races ago. I cant remember which race, but basically I said that Alonso should think about taking the hit now rather than later.

But tbh, I have no idea who has used what engines and the mileage etc. For all we know, the RB could be in the same situation as the Ferraris. We need more stats and facts about the engines!

 

[Pete19s]

The crash was happening at low speed (for a F1 car), so the risk of hurting himself at that speed was low.

Are you on drugs? Serious question btw. Regardless of how fast he was going, Rosberg, Hamilton and Alonso were not exactly hanging around. Webber may have made some questionable moves during the season but he is not stupid enough to risk having a following car slam straight into his cockpit. Why would he risk a rival not scoring afew points but potentially himself taking no more points due to injury? Also given that he had just crashed into the wall at that point, does he really want to be stepping out of the car (if he braked and stayed in the wall) only to be collected by another driver doing exactly the same thing?

Would be interesting to hear why Rosberg decided to drive straight into the area Mark was rolling and not where he was. Alonso managed just fine to change his line.

 

[Cavallino]

Would be interesting to hear why Rosberg decided to drive straight into the area Mark was rolling and not where he was. Alonso managed just fine to change his line.

Two trains of thought.

1. When Alonso came round, Webber was heading into the barrier on the left side (looking down the tarmac). Alonso had to shift RIGHT.

2. At the moment of impact Rosberg came round, and he too took the right side, since he probably thought that Webbers car was going to stay left as a result of the nature of the collision i.e. the car hit side onto the barrier.

But of course it didnt, which is why Rosberg had to go off track to avoid Webber. Furthermore, Rosberg didnt want to go around Webber on the left side since there was debris which would have undoubtedly damaged his car.

 

[sunama]

Are you on drugs? Serious question btw. Regardless of how fast he was going, Rosberg, Hamilton and Alonso were not exactly hanging around. Webber may have made some questionable moves during the season but he is not stupid enough to risk having a following car slam straight into his cockpit. Why would he risk a rival not scoring afew points but potentially himself taking no more points due to injury? Also given that he had just crashed into the wall at that point, does he really want to be stepping out of the car (if he braked and stayed in the wall) only to be collected by another driver doing exactly the same thing?

Would be interesting to hear why Rosberg decided to drive straight into the area Mark was rolling and not where he was. Alonso managed just fine to change his line.

Nope. Not on any drugs.

I thought I explained the theory of risk and what drivers have done in the past? Another great example is Piquet Jr, who risked life and limb in order to assist his team-mate. Wrongly or rightly, he did it. Senna, Hill, MSc (and others) have all disregarded safety and have given their championship hopes/beliefs priority over their own safety and that of other drivers.

I think Lauda summed it up nicely, in that when you go through a crash, a million things go through your mind. It isn't a calculated decision, but something which happens (and is decided) in the spur of the moment. MSc has been guilty of this sort of behaviour throughout his career.

There are far too many examples of rash (on-track) decisions, to say that Webber would not do something as reckless as crashing into someone by being reckless, once he realised his race was finished.

In fact, with Webber, we did see him ram into the back of a Lotus earlier this year, which IMO is a good example of reckless abandon. I don't feel he'd have been as reckless, has he been leading the race.

Add this to the fact that F1 cars are VERY safe in 2010, which means that a driver can walk away unscathed after a high speed crash. When you have this confidence in your car, the element of risk decreases.

 

[sunama]

Just read this one Planet F1 -

Didn't even think of the worst case scenario for them. Ouch! Quite the decision they have to make then.

If it was me, I would take the new engine and take the grid drop in a controlled way. However, Ferrari obviously have masses of data on their engines and they will know if their engines can realistically make the distance.

 

[Pete19s]

Two trains of thought.

1. When Alonso came round, Webber was heading into the barrier on the left side (looking down the tarmac). Alonso had to shift RIGHT.

2. At the moment of impact Rosberg came round, and he too took the right side, since he probably thought that Webbers car was going to stay left as a result of the nature of the collision i.e. the car hit side onto the barrier.

But of course it didnt, which is why Rosberg had to go off track to avoid Webber. Furthermore, Rosberg didnt want to go around Webber on the left side since there was debris which would have undoubtedly damaged his car.

Like I said, Alonso managed to change his line. If he followed the racing line he would have been where Webber crashed into the wall. Rosberg could have continued and took the normal racing line and avoided the collision. There was no debris to worry about, annoyingly the video sticks on the camera view with the cars coming towards you. However when it changes to another angle, where Webber collects the wall he leaves nothing on the track. For whatever reason he didn't, why? Well thats why I said it would be interesting to know.

 

[Cavallino]

Rosberg could have continued and took the normal racing line and avoided the collision.

Not in that split decision moment. Because Webber (at the point where Rosberg would have to make a decision) was on the left side, so instinctively you will go onto the right side.

Now here was the problem because as Webber bounces off the wall, his car rolls straight back out to the right. Rosberg will have no idea or cannot predict how the car will bounce off at that wall.
So at this point Rosberg has to make a decision.
Should he squeeze onto the right side, possibly going onto the grass which should be harmless.

Or go left where there could have been bits of carbon fibre body work due to the impact lying on the track (and even if there wasnt as you stated, Rosberg has to assume there would be).

The former sounds more enticing, but unfortunately for Rosberg, it didnt work out. I put it down to an error of judgement.

 

[Pete19s]

The former sounds more enticing, but unfortunately for Rosberg, it didnt work out. I put it down to an error of judgement.

Oh no doubt about that, was very bad luck. I certainly wouldn't want to come zipping round a fairly quick right hander to find a Mark Webber mid crash and have to make the same decision.

 

[dannyjo22]

I can see where you are coming from but becareful dj22. There is a stark contrast between what you are saying and what sunama is saying.

He didnt say in any shape or form that what previous protagonists did is allowed in the rules or justified. .

No what he said is he doesn't blame them for doing it. Re-read what he said. He said he didn't blame them for it, because of convincing themselves they were right.

I'd say there are plenty of criminals that can convince themselves what they are doing is right. Does that make them blameless, seems to in his eyes.

As for the bumming, I didn't say she was consenting

 

[Dutch Guy]

Maybe Webber thought that he would be more safer on the inside grass than coming to a stop on the track on the racing line with limited visibility?

 

[Cavallino]

No what he said is he doesn't blame them for doing it. Re-read what he said. He said he didn't blame them for it, because of convincing themselves they were right.

Yes I know he said this. Re-read what I wrote below.

What he is saying is that if you can try your luck and get away with it, then power to you.

"..then power to you" I.e. he believes if you can get away with it, then do it.
And I would agree with him. The key words are if you can get away with it. But that does NOT mean that the actions of the previous protagonists are legal/allowed.

I'd say there are plenty of criminals that can convince themselves what they are doing is right. Does that make them blameless, seems to in his eyes.

And that why we have rules to curb criminals to punish them from doing it in future. Sometimes criminals get away with it. Just as Webber has seemingly done so as well. Whereas MSc did not in 06. If you are prepared to take a risk and accept the consequences of your actions then so be it.


The reason why this hasnt been featured in the media heavily is because Webber didnt take out any of the championship leaders. I wonder what would have happened had he taken out Alonso or Hamilton. Im sure the media would have reacted a lot more aggresively.

As for the bumming, I didn't say she was consenting

So you're saying that the reality was she was an unwilling participant?

Maybe Webber thought that he would be more safer on the inside grass than coming to a stop on the track on the racing line with limited visibility?

Fair comment!

 

[sunama]

No what he said is he doesn't blame them for doing it. Re-read what he said. He said he didn't blame them for it, because of convincing themselves they were right.

I'd say there are plenty of criminals that can convince themselves what they are doing is right. Does that make them blameless, seems to in his eyes.

I have never said that what they are doing is right. What I said is that I can understand why they would something like that.

For example, Senna, MSc, Hill, etc. - they've all done questionable things. I can completely understand why they did this and had I been in the same position, I may have done the same. I'm not saying what they did is right or wrong.

The same goes for drug taking in sports. People want to gain any advantage they can over their competitors. I can totally understand this. It doesn't make it right though.

If Webber declined to apply his brakes on purpose so he could take out his competitors, I could understand his point of view and in the heat of the moment I may have done the same.

...and I certainly didn't mention anything which relates to rape or having sex with old people. Perhaps you have a fetish for sex with old mothers or rape?

As for the bumming, I didn't say she was consenting

What worries me more is why a man who is in his 20s-30s (I'm assuming that you are in your 20s/30s), would even want to have sex with an old woman. I would say that there is a mental problem here, more than a criminal one.

 

[dannyjo22]

What worries me more is why a man who is in his 20s-30s (I'm assuming that you are in your 20s/30s), would even want to have sex with an old woman. I would say that there is a mental problem here, more than a criminal one.

Hehe no, I find strong willed women attractive. Your mum must have an iron will, she brought you up

I see what your both saying now but for me when you say you don't blame them for those stunts. I do blame them and don't understand it just because they have a will to win. I was confusing you saying not blaming them as some sort of consent for what they did.

I see what they did as weakness rather than a strength of will or character. They failed because they were weak and so tried to take someone down with them.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I believe he could have done more to avoid the collision with Rosberg.

If he was intentionally trying to get the car to the other side of the track after a collision, in limited visibility, on a bend then what does he expect? He should have at least attempted to turn left so he rolled back in to the barrier

 

[Cavallino]

I believe he could have done more to avoid the collision with Rosberg.

If he was intentionally trying to get the car to the other side of the track after a collision, in limited visibility, on a bend then what does he expect? He should have at least attempted to turn left so he rolled back in to the barrier

I too thought this.he could have driven parrallel down to the track on the left side against the barrier (but I suppose another train of thought would be that he'd be left on the racing line).

 

[sunama]

I see what your both saying now but for me when you say you don't blame them for those stunts.

I guess an analogy would be if a man is homeless, hungry/starving and desperate for food. He then goes to a supermarket, nicks some bread and eats it.

I'm not saying its right, but I understand where he is coming from and if I were in the same position, I would probably do the same.

In the same way, what MSc/Senna, etc did isnt necessarily right, but I understand where they are coming from and would probably do the same in their position.

What Hill did to MSc (Silverstone 1995) - I'd have done the same thing, especially when you consider that MSc took Hill out of the 1994 Australian GP. Payback would definitely have to be given. That's probably why MSc didn't grumble too much about it, after it happened. Once again, I'm not saying its right, but I understand why Hill did what he did.

 

[dannyjo22]

What Hill did to MSc (Silverstone 1995) - I'd have done the same thing, especially when you consider that MSc took Hill out of the 1994 Australian GP. Payback would definitely have to be given. That's probably why MSc didn't grumble too much about it, after it happened. Once again, I'm not saying its right, but I understand why Hill did what he did.

The thing is I don't think Hill did that on purpose, he did it because he was dog **** wheel to wheel. An excellent fast test driver, but not a race driver. I was there and it gave Herbert the win, so I went home happy

Just the same as when he got frustrated trying to pass a slower car in the arrows. A complete shambles. He gave up and just ran both cars off the road. Or when he begged on the radio to not let Ralf have a run at him at spa.

Hill never had that ruthless streak, the one time he went for the kill MS turned in on him

I was there and it gave Herbert the win, so I went home happy

 

[utajoker]

i remember hill overtaking schumacher in an arrows once.

 

[dannyjo22]

i remember hill overtaking schumacher in an arrows once.

With a massive tyre advantage. That was purely tyres. The good years fell apart at Hungary that year. A good drive by Hill and sad he didn't get the win but that pass was all about the Bridgestones holding up while MS's Goodyears destroyed themselves.

 

[Dave M]

Hill isn't one of the greats, he is perhaps more like a Button than a Prost/Senna/Schumacher/Mansell/Alonso.

But you have to give him that hungary race, the opportunity presented itself and he took full advantage, nobody else did. 30 seconds ahead of the dominant Williams of JV wasn't it?

And Eddie Jordan himself said Hill gave him two choices, order Ralf to stay back or he'd run him of the road when he tried to pass. Beg indeed.