Did Hamilton cause the Webber - Vettel crash?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

Ray wrote:Where exactly does it say that? Does it say that on the tickets you buy? Are photographs not allowed? And who allowed that to happen? That's bullsh*t if you ask me.
On every ticket to every filmed and broadcast sporting event you can attend on the planet earth.

Why would TV stations pay for broadcast rights if they could just buy a couple of tickets and pay some people to film it for them for 1/100,000th of the cost?

Rob W

laidback
0
Joined: 04 Oct 2007, 23:37

Post

Ray wrote:Did you bother to read what the rest of that said? Or are you taking that as the sole part of my response you want to take in consideration?
It's called 'selective editing' ask Michael Moore ;)

What if Hamilton had a real problem and was pulling up? Is that a good enough reason for Vettel to be charged with 'undue care and attention' ?
Last edited by laidback on 05 Oct 2007, 01:15, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Rob W wrote:
Ray wrote:Where exactly does it say that? Does it say that on the tickets you buy? Are photographs not allowed? And who allowed that to happen? That's bullsh*t if you ask me.
On every ticket to every filmed and broadcast sporting event you can attend on the planet earth.

Why would TV stations pay for broadcast rights if they could just buy a couple of tickets and pay some people to film it for them for 1/100,000th of the cost?

Rob W
Because they have better cameras, better cameramen, better views and camera locations, reporters, commentators. Not to mention slo-mo, onboard views, pit lane views, instant replay. Need I go on?

Let me ask you this. How come NASCAR, MLB, and the NFL aren't going apeshit about broadcasts being on youtube? ou can film whatever the hell you want at a baseball game, or at a NASCAR race. Those are just the examples I know of, not a means of direct comparison.

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

laidback wrote:
Ray wrote:Did you bother to read what the rest of that said? Or are you taking that as the sole part of my response you want to take in consideration?
It's called 'selective editing' ask Michael Moore ;)

What if Hamilton had a real problem and was pulling up? Is that a good enough reason for Vettel to be charged with 'undue care and attention' ?
Well, that is a very valid point. I would say, if it were me behind him, I would suspect he was just acting like he had previously. For a while there he was doing the exact same moves. If he did in fact have a problem, can you blame Webber for slowing up as well? I sure would have, it would be avoiding a possible penalty.

I wouldn't talk to Michael Moore if you paid me a million dollars. :D

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

Ray wrote:Because they have better cameras, better cameramen, better views and camera locations, reporters, commentators. Not to mention slo-mo, onboard views, pit lane views, instant replay...

Let me ask you this. How come NASCAR, MLB, and the NFL aren't going apeshit about broadcasts being on youtube? ou can film whatever the hell you want at a baseball game, or at a NASCAR race. Those are just the examples I know of, not a means of direct comparison.
Trust me, if stations could get sport basically for free by turning up with a camera the cost saving would far outweigh the pleasure of having all the extras like in-car footage etc.

Sporting events and concerts turn a blind eye to people filming stuff and putting bits online - they know it is often good PR for them - but they still retain the ultimate rights to it. It is a simple legal concept - by entering their sporting event you have agreed to their terms.

Try filming a whole FA Cup soccer match or Nascar race and putting it online and see how long before you are served with a legal notice. F1 races even get shared only by torrents - which is basically the domain of sharing copy-written content.

Legally the FIA have every right to ask for the video to be removed. But common sense prevails with it has spread too much. It ceases to be worth the effort to get lawyers to write to the hundreds of sites in multiple languages/countries at some point.

Rob W
Last edited by Rob W on 05 Oct 2007, 01:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Rob W wrote:Trust me, if stations could get sport basically for free by turning up with a camera the cost saving would far outweigh the pleasure of having all the extras like in-car footage etc.

Sporting events and concerts turn a blind eye to people filming stuff and putting bits online - they know it is often good PR for them - but they still retain the ultimate rights to it. It is a simple legal concept - by entering their sporting event you have agreed to their terms.

Try filming a whole FA Cup soccer match and putting it online and see how long before you are served with a legal notice. F1 even gets shared only by torrents - which is pretty much the domain of illegal file/content sharing.

Rob W
I just don't know why they have to be such assholes about it. It's not a sponsor issue, the more people see it on TV or online, the more money they can possibly make. Do you know why they are so protective of it? I sure don't.

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

Ray wrote:I just don't know why they have to be such assholes about it. It's not a sponsor issue, the more people see it on TV or online, the more money they can possibly make. Do you know why they are so protective of it? I sure don't.
They're protecting the trust of the TV networks worldwide who fund F1 almost in it's entirety. Their contracts with them, like any commercial supply agreement, will entail that they will make efforts to prevent 'bootlegging' wherever possible/practical.

A 15 second clip might be harmless but then what about a 30 second clip? Or a 3 minutes? What about 15 minutes?.. It starts somewhere, so the FIA are in the habit of taking action no matter how short the clip.

Rob W

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

I just think it's a shame that really great moments of F! will be erased forever for later generations of fans to see.

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

Heres something that caught my attention, someone mentioned the on-board footage, the safety car had an onboard camera that weekend looking backwards, couldn't the FIA tell anything from that? They could exam several laps of Hamilton and the following pack and descide exactly how dangerous he was being.

And ffs Ray, avatar images are supposed to be 100x100, Crowe is an ugly bugger at the best of times but in that particular pose he' srely at his worst.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

Tom wrote:and ffs Ray, avatar images are supposed to be 100x100, Crowe is an ugly bugger at the best of times but in that particular pose he' srely at his worst.
That ain't Crow.. it's Gerard Butler from 300.

Don't you know your gay soft-porn films Tom? :P

R

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

There Tom. Happy now? I even changed the picture as well as making it the right size.

modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Post

Ray wrote:There Tom. Happy now? I even changed the picture as well as making it the right size.
this one is lovely :lol:

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Rob W wrote:
Tom wrote:and ffs Ray, avatar images are supposed to be 100x100, Crowe is an ugly bugger at the best of times but in that particular pose he' srely at his worst.
That ain't Crow.. it's Gerard Butler from 300.

Don't you know your gay soft-porn films Tom? :P

R
This coming from a guy with an avatar of a dog humping the Pink Panther! :lol: :lol:


I wanted this one, I laughed my ass off when I found it. But it looks funny when it's small. The effect just isn't the same when it's small.

[IMG:350:306]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h173/groganre/242.gif[/img]

User avatar
Spencifer_Murphy
0
Joined: 11 Apr 2004, 23:29
Location: London, England, UK

Post

Ray wrote: Webber was doing what any good race driver would, stay as close to the leader as possible for a chance to pass him.
I'm sorry but I disagree, as far as I'm concerened if Mark thought Lewis driving was eratic he should have done what any normal road user would have done and stayed back. There was no need for Mark to be so close to Lewis if he really thought Lewis' driving behind the safety car was eratic. When the safety car is about to enter the pits, it turns its lights off with about a quarter of the lap still to go, more than enought time for somebody in Mark's position to catch up with Lewis if he'd backed off.

The safety cars lights were still on, suggesting that it would remain out for a little while longer, hence there being no need for Webber to be anywhere near Lewis at that point in time.

My point being that Webber has been critical of Lewis' driving behind the safety car, now if he really thought that at the time, with there being no benifit what-so-ever for Mark not to back off a little bit, why didn't he?

What I'm sugessting is that at the time Mark saw nothing wrong with lewis driving and after the accident sought somebpdy to blame (obviously he'd upset Mr. Mateschitz if he blamed the sister car of Vettel).

OR

Mark didn't like Lewis' driving behind the safety car, in which case he should have back off and preserved his only chance this season of a podium place. If mark didn't like lewis driving behind the safety car, by not backing off he is equally guilty of causing an accident, by not taking action which could have avoided an accident after (saying so himself) witnessing on track behaviour which could have contributed to causing an accident upon himself. (if you get what I mean - sorry but thats the best way i could phrase it).

Obviously its ludicrous to punish Mark for it, its an accident, and these things happen, but I still believe that if Mark thought Lewis driving was dangerous, he had it in his power to take evasive action, and he did not - thus he is just as guilty by not attempting to prevent an accident. i.e Mark doesn't deserve a punishment, so neither does Lewis.
So I guess you just STAB the brakes, come almost to a complete halt, and then not bother to accelerate again? Get real my friend. It wasn't a mistake. A man of his talent doesn't 'mistakenly' slam on his brakes, cause Webber to almost overshoot him, then NOT accelerate back up to the safety cars' pace once you have deemed that you aren't going to plow into the back of it.
Stabbing the brakes is a little bit of an egaggeration dont you think? I mean Lewis definately slowed, but an F1 car can deccelerate from 100mph to a standstill in about say 2-3seconds, that's what happens when you "slam" on the brakes in an F1...this was nearly nowhere near the case at the incident concerned. Lewis backe of the throttle, and quite possibly used the brakes, but frankly, Mark Webber was able to very easily see this and brake in time...so why didn't Vettel?

End of the day Vettel made the mistake. I do agree with you ray though that people are being a bit overkly harsh on Vettel. (One minute he's the next chumacher, next he cant drive). Vettel made a mistake, Big deal! people make mistakes, Fernando lost control of the car and spun off into a barrier, the FIA forgot to send Ferrari an email about the tyre situation (if you really believe that), Ferrari chose to start on inters regardless of emails or not, Mark didn't slow down behind Lewis and open up a safety gap, F1 was racing at Fuji insted of Suzuka :P

LOTS of mistakes were made that weekend. But Vettel has got the stick of it, just because he was unfortunate enough to take out a car run by his team owner's other team. Had he have hit say...i dunno, a Williams nobody would have batted an eyelid (relitively speaking) and if it was say...Nick Hiedfeld doing the "erratic driving" behind the safety car, again nobody would be complaining. It's just because it's the upstart rookie who's re-writing the history books, who also happens to be leading the championship in a car run by a team that has been stripped of its const. points that's why people are looking to work any angle to belittle Lewis, his driving, his persona, and of course work an advantage to help lever their way back into the championship hunt (or in RBR / STR - get some sort of compensation for some lost points).
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.

User avatar
Spencifer_Murphy
0
Joined: 11 Apr 2004, 23:29
Location: London, England, UK

Post

Lewis Speaks Out:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40948
Lewis Hamilton wrote:"He's [Mark Webber's] allowed five car lengths behind me, I don't know why he was so close."
My point exactly.
Mark Webber wrote:“Away from today’s events, I would just like to make it clear that, although I criticised Hamilton’s driving in yesterday’s FIA press conference, at no time have I made any official complaint about anyone’s driving following Sunday’s Japanese Grand Prix,”
So if the man who lost the most through this escapade doesn't deem it nessecary to lodge a formal complaint, therefore we can assume he didn't like Lewis driving but does not believe there are sufficient grounds to argue that Lewis was directly involved in his retirement from the race - why is there an investigation going on at all?!
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.