You mean the Williams racing team is made up of fools to have actually put the same set of rules in their racing book? Haha!Godius wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:44 amGrandAxe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:49 amNo, it means both had equal right to the corner. See C. Attacker approximately half-way alongside. The relevant extract is below:
https://f1metrics.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =640&h=480
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... of-racing/In this case, the attacker’s front axle is ahead of the defender’s rear axle and the two cars are approximately halfway alongside. Both drivers have a reasonable claim to the apex. If contact occurs, blame will have to be shared. It is in this zone that racing incidents can occur. Ayrton Senna was famous for creating situations just like this, as both attacker and defender, where the other driver would have to decide whether or not to yield to avoid a collision.
Note that this is a not a new or controversial set of guidelines. For example, here is essentially the same set of rules presented in The Williams-Renault Formula 1 Motor Racing Book, published back in 1994.
Max played chicken with Ocon and lost.
As two other fools here have found out this regulation does not exist in the fia formula 1 sporting regulations anymore. And if it still would have existed it would not count because the place where the incident happened 'Senna s' is not on a straight and not a braking area.
One thing I've learnt is that fools are quick to label others as fools; its some sort of law of nature.
In any event, the illustration in my post is not on a straight and does not mention braking zones either, so you are making up your owns targets outside what was posted - your arguments really do not attack the subject, a total miss really.