Nah, not my intention. It is only "diversion for the really devious".
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Despite an unusual race, and finishing just 9th, Lewis Hamilton ended the title fight by sealing his fourth F1 World Championship at Mexico on Sunday. With his third title at Mercedes, the Briton joins Alain Prost and Sebastian Vettel in the club-of-four.
I'm genuinely not sure why you quoted my post. Most of what you say had nothing to do with what I posted. I didn't mention Baku. Why bring such an irrelevance up? I didn't mention Vettel's motivation. Why bring it up? Your post is also inaccurate. Schumacher didn't lose the title by trying to ram Villeneuve (he was ahead in the championship), he lost the title when he missed. The penalty was an irrelevance. Earlier he won a title by ramming Hill.TAG wrote: ↑02 Nov 2017, 17:36Um, in Baku Vettel deliberately rammed someone because he was angry, not to win a title he then didn't even have the balls to own up to it, denying what he did. If he did ram into Hamilton here it was out of desperation, the title was already lost, so it would have been spite. Schumacher lost a title because he deliberately rammed someone, he was penalized for it. Senna rammed someone because the FiA was not listening to the issue and clearly he'd already lost a title because of it. It's laughable to paint those events with the same lauded predecessor brush.Wynters wrote: ↑02 Nov 2017, 17:25Did it though? Look at the great drivers of recent times. Senna? Deliberately rammed someone to guarantee he won the title. Prost? Deliberately rammed someone to guarantee he won the title. Schumacher? Deliberately rammed someone (and tried to ram another) to guarantee he won the title. Even if Vettel did do it deliberately (and I don't think he did) then all he is doing is following in the footsteps of his highly respected and lauded predecessors.
'WDC competitor rams rival' is not disreputable, it's business as usual.
It wasn't to a high a price to pay as he had nothing to lose. Only a Hamilton DNF would effectively keep the championship alive. Vettel could have taken the lead and lapped the entire field but still lost the championship on the day. Last year Hamilon won the last race of the season but lost the WDC to Rosberg in a similar set of circumstances to this year going into the race. When the WDC is statistically out of your hands then you need to influence the results of your competitiors. Hamilton tried last year by backing the field up.turbof1 wrote: ↑02 Nov 2017, 21:55Ohh, I'll play along!... Some diversion for the really devious.
Except Vettel did not got back onto at least 2d place after having to limp around the track with that broken front wing. So ultimately him using his front wing to any degree of damage, even completely taking out Hamilton would actually have been too high a price to pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_British_Grand_PrixWynters wrote: ↑03 Nov 2017, 05:09I'm genuinely not sure why you quoted my post. Most of what you say had nothing to do with what I posted. I didn't mention Baku. Why bring such an irrelevance up? I didn't mention Vettel's motivation. Why bring it up? Your post is also inaccurate. Schumacher didn't lose the title by trying to ram Villeneuve (he was ahead in the championship), he lost the title when he missed. The penalty was an irrelevance. Earlier he won a title by ramming Hill.TAG wrote: ↑02 Nov 2017, 17:36Um, in Baku Vettel deliberately rammed someone because he was angry, not to win a title he then didn't even have the balls to own up to it, denying what he did. If he did ram into Hamilton here it was out of desperation, the title was already lost, so it would have been spite. Schumacher lost a title because he deliberately rammed someone, he was penalized for it. Senna rammed someone because the FiA was not listening to the issue and clearly he'd already lost a title because of it. It's laughable to paint those events with the same lauded predecessor brush.Wynters wrote: ↑02 Nov 2017, 17:25Did it though? Look at the great drivers of recent times. Senna? Deliberately rammed someone to guarantee he won the title. Prost? Deliberately rammed someone to guarantee he won the title. Schumacher? Deliberately rammed someone (and tried to ram another) to guarantee he won the title. Even if Vettel did do it deliberately (and I don't think he did) then all he is doing is following in the footsteps of his highly respected and lauded predecessors.
'WDC competitor rams rival' is not disreputable, it's business as usual.
If you just want to bash Vettel (or any driver), please leave me out of it.
Sorry to dredge this up, but I watched this race again yesterday.turbof1 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2017, 18:24For the record, Vettel intentionally turning left into Hamilton already got debunked. Look for youtube channel driver61, an actual race driver, and load up the youtube video. He explained perfectly, with the video footage, that Vettel drove over the very bumpy part of the corner 3 kerb, causing a lot of oversteer. Infact, a mere moment before him counter steering into Hamilton, he already had to countersteer once.
It is obvious Vettel was fighting with the car. Another excellent point made by driver61: if Vettel was consciously thinking about driving into Hamilton, he would not have done so with the front wing. Chances are much higher you'll wreck your front wing and the defender gets away scot free. Infact, I very much believe Hamilton would have gone scot free if Vettel did not already hit Verstappen's tyre and created sharp edges. And please, do come up with something better than "oh but that was his master plan al along!".
This is what you get when people go blind in the red mist. I can certainly understand it as an initial reaction, but when we are having this discussion 2 days after, it is expected people examine the footage attentively instead of still having their emotions speak for themselves.