2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
NL_Fer
NL_Fer
76
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

WaikeCU wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:40 pm
Both are stubborn drivers. One just dived into a corner where overtaking isn’t really possible and hopes that the other gives him space. The other doesn’t give space, because he believes he’s ahead, so he determines which line to take. Both drivers compromises their race, because of this.
You are right, they both decided on their instinct (to race) in that corner. Verstappen has his right on the racing line and to defend, but it could have ended for him also in the 2nd lap.

They both need to learn to keep their heads clear and take most clever decision.

Problem is, both moves did take the kid to the podium.

And also stirred up a tornado of ---.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
473
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

timbo wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:28 pm
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:59 pm
However we can clearly see that Vettel's car was behind Verstappen's and Vettel does not deserve the space and should have yielded.
Well, look at this article, part 5 https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... of-racing/

It is not written in the sporting code, but usually, if an attacking driver is more than half a car length in (not ahead), defending one has to leave enough space.
As a Hamilton /Alonso supporter I know that code.. Max was already in the corner before those dynmamics apply. You can't kust dive bomb into the corner and expect space to be made for you, you have to be there from the start.

User avatar
GPR-A
98
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

GrandAxe wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:31 pm
Alonso is 37.
The answer can be found in a simple way. Hire Alonso and if LeClerc manages to beat him in 2019, drop Alonso. If Not, keep Alonso until LeClerc manages to beat him! Alternatively, If Leclerc doesn't beat Alonso in two seasons, by which time Alonso would be 39, then dump Leclerc. Fair I guess!

User avatar
iotar__
7
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:31 am

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:07 am
As a Hamilton /Alonso supporter I know that code.. Max was already in the corner before those dynmamics apply. You can't kust dive bomb into the corner and expect space to be made for you, you have to be there from the start.
It's not even about dive bombing, it's about car control, about chances of success after late braking at this stage into the corner of such radius. There was nothing even close to legitimate attempt in this move. "Was already in the corner" - that's not the point, so was Vettel in Monza, it's about speed and line you can pull off passing the other car. Hamilton managed it.

Example and question to Whiting, is this "...tried to get up the inside, and it was a reasonable move,"
Image
?

Unlike Verstappen or Vettel Maldonado turned the car, tried to make a corner and "tried to avoid the other car" (until some point). If only Gutierrez had "left more space" it would have been a fine overtaking attempt. Quotes cover two wrong calls from Suzuka. In Bahrain it was stop and go (10s?) plus additional (!) 5 places grid vs no action for Vettel and laughable 5 s for MV.

Refereeing in F1 is at its lowest, chaos, head in the sand (Magnussen -Leclerc, Whiting is nowhere to be seen, he'd be everywhere if it was RB vs Merc), openly helping certain teams and drivers, attacking the others.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

I don't get this discussion around "Spoon curve is not an overtaking corner". Since when does a part of a circuit require such a label to make it "overtaking-approved"? Overtaking happens when the car behind is faster, irrespective of the position on the track. If circumstances happen so that you are in a position to overtake, you overtake! You are not going to think about "wait is this corner or part of the circuit overtaking-approved? Let me quickly check the manual... oh damn, there goes the opportunity.". You pounce at the opportunity, that's what you do.

This is independent from the discussion if Vettel was in a position or not to overtake. But please, let's stay away from labelling parts of the circuit as overtaking friendly/unfriendly. There are of course parts of the circuit where you can overtake easier; that doesn't mean you cannot or are not allowed to overtake on the parts of the circuit that usually yield less chance to do so. In my eyes, overtaking in F1 is difficult as it is now, so you should try to capitalize on every percepted opportunity.
Phil wrote:I feel we are more or less in agreement, then. This paragraph is indeed a question I'd have asked - and in my opinion, is the conclusion on that this was an opportunistic move that never would have worked.
No we aren't in agreement. I do like to agree to disagree, just that I reject the notion "it could never have worked". The attempt and collision were all dependent on the small margins to succeed or fail. For me, it was a reasonable attempt from Vettel. Again, Vettel in the situation where he was, was not going to get the overtaking done, but if he was able to shoot ahead of Verstappen, something you can't know before doing that move, he would have been able to dictate the line and then we would have a different scenario. I think the point of debate around here is hindsight; obviously if Vettel knew where he would end up in the apex of the corner, being so tightly squeezed by Verstappen, he would not have committed to it. But committing to an overtake means you do not know what happens after the commitment. Based on what Vettel knew at the point of commitment, the decision is reasonable. People are staring blindly at what happened at the apex, instead of thinking "right, when he choose to do this, was it reasonable? Was he going to be able to get the car in and able to slow the car down sufficiently instead of torpedoing the other car?". For me he was going to get the car in significantly, without taking away Verstappen was still ahead, and he was able to slow the car down enough while having to compromise on the exit. Whether the overtake was going to succeed or not, he had a good claim to go for it. After that you have one driver very committed to the overtake attempt and an other driver very committed to prevent that happening at all cost. You can't expect either of them to roll over, so a collision happened. In a racing incident where neither driver did anything unreasonable. People have a hard time grasping that, and usually have to see one as the person to blame and the other as the victim, while there are cases like these where you have to accept neither are predominantly at fault and the accident just happened and move on.

Here is a somewhat similar move from 2007, Hamilton vs Raikkonen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFDvZhntvQ
In my eyes the move Hamilton made there, was more extreme than Vettel's. Hamilton carried a lot more overspeed into that corner and barely managed to stay within track limits. But guess what: he did manage to pull it off. Partly because he caught Raikkonen napping. Verstappen was obviously very aware of the situation he was in and squeezed a lot more, but you aren't going to be able to predict that before doing the move. Nobody ever condemned Hamilton for making that move, which to be honest was very risky as Raikkonen could have covered off the inside and than we'd have to see if Hamilton was going to able to slow down the car, much more risky than what Vettel did. So, why are we condemning Vettel then? Because Spoon curve is not overtaking-approved?
#AeroFrodo

Jolle
Jolle
197
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:00 am
I don't get this discussion around "Spoon curve is not an overtaking corner". Since when does a part of a circuit require such a label to make it "overtaking-approved"? Overtaking happens when the car behind is faster, irrespective of the position on the track. If circumstances happen so that you are in a position to overtake, you overtake! You are not going to think about "wait is this corner or part of the circuit overtaking-approved? Let me quickly check the manual... oh damn, there goes the opportunity.". You pounce at the opportunity, that's what you do.

This is independent from the discussion if Vettel was in a position or not to overtake. But please, let's stay away from labelling parts of the circuit as overtaking friendly/unfriendly. There are of course parts of the circuit where you can overtake easier; that doesn't mean you cannot or are not allowed to overtake on the parts of the circuit that usually yield less chance to do so. In my eyes, overtaking in F1 is difficult as it is now, so you should try to capitalize on every percepted opportunity.
Phil wrote:I feel we are more or less in agreement, then. This paragraph is indeed a question I'd have asked - and in my opinion, is the conclusion on that this was an opportunistic move that never would have worked.
No we aren't in agreement. I do like to agree to disagree, just that I reject the notion "it could never have worked". The attempt and collision were all dependent on the small margins to succeed or fail. For me, it was a reasonable attempt from Vettel. Again, Vettel in the situation where he was, was not going to get the overtaking done, but if he was able to shoot ahead of Verstappen, something you can't know before doing that move, he would have been able to dictate the line and then we would have a different scenario. I think the point of debate around here is hindsight; obviously if Vettel knew where he would end up in the apex of the corner, being so tightly squeezed by Verstappen, he would not have committed to it. But committing to an overtake means you do not know what happens after the commitment. Based on what Vettel knew at the point of commitment, the decision is reasonable. People are staring blindly at what happened at the apex, instead of thinking "right, when he choose to do this, was it reasonable? Was he going to be able to get the car in and able to slow the car down sufficiently instead of torpedoing the other car?". For me he was going to get the car in significantly, without taking away Verstappen was still ahead, and he was able to slow the car down enough while having to compromise on the exit. Whether the overtake was going to succeed or not, he had a good claim to go for it. After that you have one driver very committed to the overtake attempt and an other driver very committed to prevent that happening at all cost. You can't expect either of them to roll over, so a collision happened. In a racing incident where neither driver did anything unreasonable. People have a hard time grasping that, and usually have to see one as the person to blame and the other as the victim, while there are cases like these where you have to accept neither are predominantly at fault and the accident just happened and move on.

Here is a somewhat similar move from 2007, Hamilton vs Raikkonen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFDvZhntvQ
In my eyes the move Hamilton made there, was more extreme than Vettel's. Hamilton carried a lot more overspeed into that corner and barely managed to stay within track limits. But guess what: he did manage to pull it off. Partly because he caught Raikkonen napping. Verstappen was obviously very aware of the situation he was in and squeezed a lot more, but you aren't going to be able to predict that before doing the move. Nobody ever condemned Hamilton for making that move, which to be honest was very risky as Raikkonen could have covered off the inside and than we'd have to see if Hamilton was going to able to slow down the car, much more risky than what Vettel did. So, why are we condemning Vettel then? Because Spoon curve is not overtaking-approved?
Hmmm, that Monza Räikkönen - Hamilton overtake is into a chicane, with a big braking zone where Hamilton was ahead of Räikkönen before even turning in. Perfect move. Hamilton prevented Räikkönen to turn in. The move was done before the corner.

GrandAxe
GrandAxe
19
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

GPR -A wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:18 am
GrandAxe wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:31 pm
Alonso is 37.
The answer can be found in a simple way. Hire Alonso and if LeClerc manages to beat him in 2019, drop Alonso. If Not, keep Alonso until LeClerc manages to beat him! Alternatively, If Leclerc doesn't beat Alonso in two seasons, by which time Alonso would be 39, then dump Leclerc. Fair I guess!
It is about the long term projections of the team and building toward those long term goals, not if Leclerc can beat Alonso (doubtful). There are many arguments against Alonso. Ferrari might consider some of the following points.

Not many years are left in Alonso, he is rolling into the twilight of his career.

Ferrari says Leclerc is a long term investment, so where would a 37 year old fit in? Especially when that 37 year olds particular "needs" are so special they have alienated him from the team principals of top teams. How would those needs help with building Leclerc into a sharp weapon for the future?

Vettel at 31, is six years younger than Alonso (many more years in the toolbox), a four time WDC and being currently under contract, is a known quantity that should ensure continuity rather a sharp rocking of the boat.

Leclerc at 20, is a whopping 17 years younger than Alonso! He already possesses an impressive race craft repertoire which would need honing, rather than the disruption that being forced to become a clear number two will bring as a consequence of an Alonso gale wind.

Further, Vettel is arguably a faster single lap driver than Alonso. In turn the following drivers are potentially faster qualifiers than Vettel; Lewis, Max, Ricciardo (proven) and perhaps, Gasly and Leclerc himself. Therefore, there is little for Leclerc to learn from Alonso concerning pole shootouts.

GrandAxe
GrandAxe
19
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

What Vettel did was a dive-bomb. That is what makes it so wrong, he should have arrived the corner side by side with Max.
Dive bombing is against the rules.

User avatar
jjn9128
384
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

It would be great for fans of certain drivers to take this advice as well.
Lewis Hamilton: 'Media need to show Sebastian Vettel more respect'

On the Vettel/Verstappen clash - my 2p worth - Vettel created an opportunity by saving his electrical energy, he could not afford to finish 4th after Ferrari's cock-up in qualifying so he had to try and move forwards. After all, he needed to finish ahead of Hamilton at every remaining event to have any chance of the championship, so no point being stuck behind Verstappen for 10-15 laps until the pit stops only to have an unassailable gap to the Mercedes'. Vettel managed to slow the car and get it turned in - he was not understeering until he made contact with Verstappen at which point he opened the steering to try and avoid the spin. If he got in that position but didn't try there would be people complaining he doesn't have any fighting spirit, if he made it stick it would have gone down as one of the moves of the year.

Vettel could be described as being optimistic to try that move in that corner against that opponent - however many overtakes were completed there in this years race without contact (many by Vettel) so the uncommon denominator is Verstappen - and you could say he could have left more room, but there's so many 'coulds' in there that the right decision was made in describing it as a racing incident with no majority of blame for either driver.

On Verstappen though you just have to listen to his rationale for hitting Kimi when rejoining the circuit to understand his opinion of other drivers - he thinks he because he's won a couple of races he has the right to act as he likes - well even Maldonado lucked into a race win. I suppose that's the result of having sycophantic suck ups treating him like a god from the age of 17, he just hasn't grown up and has a bunch of 'yes men' at Red Bull validating every dangerous defensive move and subsequent petulant outburst. Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Raikkonen have all earned their kudos for winning races and titles all while managing to race wheel-to-wheel with respect for their opponents. Leclerc seems to be the only new generation driver who behaves that way (so far anyway).
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Sieper
109
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

This is getting into the twilight zone again. I cannot believe what I am reading.
Just a personal interest, a Family recreating a WW2 May 1940 Dutch warbird from scratch: https://www.facebook.com/FlyingFokkerD21/

GrandAxe
GrandAxe
19
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:29 am
It would be great for fans of certain drivers to take this advice as well.
Lewis Hamilton: 'Media need to show Sebastian Vettel more respect'

... If he got in that position but didn't try there would be people complaining he doesn't have any fighting spirit, if he made it stick it would have gone down as one of the moves of the year.

Vettel could be described as being optimistic to try that move in that corner against that opponent - however many overtakes were completed there in this years race without contact (many by Vettel) so the uncommon denominator is Verstappen - and you could say he could have left more room, but there's so many 'coulds' in there that the right decision was made in describing it as a racing incident with no majority of blame for either driver...
... But Vettel dive-bombed. This is at the crux of the matter.
Dive-bombing is against F1 rules, so he was very lucky to go unpunished.

User avatar
MtthsMlw
852
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

GrandAxe wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:48 am
jjn9128 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:29 am
It would be great for fans of certain drivers to take this advice as well.
Lewis Hamilton: 'Media need to show Sebastian Vettel more respect'

... If he got in that position but didn't try there would be people complaining he doesn't have any fighting spirit, if he made it stick it would have gone down as one of the moves of the year.

Vettel could be described as being optimistic to try that move in that corner against that opponent - however many overtakes were completed there in this years race without contact (many by Vettel) so the uncommon denominator is Verstappen - and you could say he could have left more room, but there's so many 'coulds' in there that the right decision was made in describing it as a racing incident with no majority of blame for either driver...
... But Vettel dive-bombed. This is at the crux of the matter.
Dive-bombing is against F1 rules, so he was very lucky to go unpunished.
It is not against the rules?

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

GrandAxe wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:48 am
jjn9128 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:29 am
It would be great for fans of certain drivers to take this advice as well.
Lewis Hamilton: 'Media need to show Sebastian Vettel more respect'

... If he got in that position but didn't try there would be people complaining he doesn't have any fighting spirit, if he made it stick it would have gone down as one of the moves of the year.

Vettel could be described as being optimistic to try that move in that corner against that opponent - however many overtakes were completed there in this years race without contact (many by Vettel) so the uncommon denominator is Verstappen - and you could say he could have left more room, but there's so many 'coulds' in there that the right decision was made in describing it as a racing incident with no majority of blame for either driver...
... But Vettel dive-bombed. This is at the crux of the matter.
Dive-bombing is against F1 rules, so he was very lucky to go unpunished.
I disagree. He did not divebomb him. Diving into someone's inside is not the same as divebombing.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
WaikeCU
71
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

turbof1 wrote: I disagree. He did not divebomb him. Diving into someone's inside is not the same as divebombing.
What’s divebombing? Trying to overtake someone on the inside and not making the corner, forcing the other driver off the track?

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2018 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, 5-7 October

Post

WaikeCU wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:12 pm
turbof1 wrote: I disagree. He did not divebomb him. Diving into someone's inside is not the same as divebombing.
What’s divebombing? Trying to overtake someone on the inside and not making the corner, forcing the other driver off the track?
Well did he? They collided on the inside of the corner, not the outside.
#AeroFrodo