Is Hamilton desperate or what?

[Miguel]

Anyone saying Tiger Woods came out of nowhere must have missed the three US Amateur he won in a row. Or the multimillion contract Nike offered him to skip college and go directly to professional golf. It is something similar to Lewis. Lewis won comfortably everything before F1. The shocking outcome would have been him not being a very good driver. He has, however, exceeded most expectations at F1.

[ringo]

Sure Webber could see and Hamilton not, but that's something Hamilton had to account for and Webber hold his line. My guess is that Hamilton really thought he had passes Webber. It could be as well overconfidence or a gamble. He didn't knew if he had space or not and took a gamble.

What does webber have to account for then?
Or webber can brake anywhere, close his eyes, and slide off and it's lewis job to dodge him.
Seeing as though Webber has the best seat in the house and he can see all the possible outcomes, are you saying he has less to account for, when he has more information at his disposal.

Webber simply out braked himself as usual; austrailia, valencia. He partially admitted to doing it too.

"This can happen sometimes in open-wheel racing because we brake completely on the limit, and for sure it was incredibly tight,"

Honestly speaking, this is the first case i have ever seen when the leading driver is responsible for the actions of the follower.

for every dispute this year, turkey Webber Vettel, australia Webber hamilton, Monza Massa Hamilton, Spa Button Vettel, among many others, it is consistent that the follower is more responsible. This is natural since he has more control of the situation.
Webber simply lost control of his car, by braking too late, so he had no way of controlling the situation like Sutil in the Kubica entanglement. Sutil was moving at a slow enough speed appropriate to take control of a situation in that turn.

I'll stick with martin whitmarsh on this one:
http://planet-f1.com/news/3213/6403486/ ... This-Time-

[segedunum]

Webber simply out braked himself as usual; austrailia, valencia. He partially admitted to doing it too.

Continue to see this the way you want to Ringo, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Webber outbraked himself. He got the car into the apex of the corner and in no way was he going straight on as you like to claim. It was nothing like Valencia, as much as I've criticised Webber when overtaking.

Hamilton turned into the apex and found Webber rightfully there. Had he went wide as he sometimes does in these moves then he would have ended up with momentum and then passed. That's all there is to it.

[PlatinumZealot]

Webber was attacking. He was already overtaken. You don't push your car into a space that does not exist. He should have yielded.

[Giblet]

Trying to land blame for a racing incident where two people are at fault on some level is pointless at best.

[FW17]

The Third Grand Prix result that was "manipulated: by the FIA" this season to keep Alonso out of the championship.

1) Valencia - Hamilton given a penalty that had no effect on the race order
2) Silverstone - Alonso given a penalty after the other driver retires
3) Singapore - Webber not penalized for collusion so that Alonso does not lead the championship

Why the heck is Charlie Whiting still there after years and years of questionable/biased judgments????????????????????

[Gerhard Berger]

Webber was attacking. He was already overtaken. You don't push your car into a space that does not exist. He should have yielded.

Webber was still defending. Hamilton never showed him a clean pair of heels, so to speak.

[Giblet]

The Third Grand Prix result that was "manipulated: by the FIA" this season to keep Alonso out of the championship.

1) Valencia - Hamilton given a penalty that had no effect on the race order
2) Silverstone - Alonso given a penalty after the other driver retires
3) Singapore - Webber not penalized for collusion so that Alonso does not lead the championship

Why the heck is Charlie Whiting still there after years and years of questionable/biased judgments????????????????????

I have seen no evidence of bias. Alonso's penalty has been discussed at length and Charlie doesn't hand out penalties the stewards do. He is the race director, not a steward.

[timorous]

Webber was attacking. He was already overtaken. You don't push your car into a space that does not exist. He should have yielded.

I agree with this. It is still a racing incident and Webber was entitled to try and regain his position but it was his tight line and late braking that caused the collision and not Hamilton. It keeps being said that you do not stick your nose into a closing gap but this is what Webber did yet somehow in this instance it is not his fault.

As Webber said though you brake on the limit and he was just very slightly too late with his braking to take that tight a line and avoid contact.

[FW17]

The Third Grand Prix result that was "manipulated: by the FIA" this season to keep Alonso out of the championship.

1) Valencia - Hamilton given a penalty that had no effect on the race order
2) Silverstone - Alonso given a penalty after the other driver retires
3) Singapore - Webber not penalized for collusion so that Alonso does not lead the championship

Why the heck is Charlie Whiting still there after years and years of questionable/biased judgments????????????????????

I have seen no evidence of bias. Alonso's penalty has been discussed at length and Charlie doesn't hand out penalties the stewards do. He is the race director, not a steward.

The FIA race director and three race stewards make sure the race is safe, legal and on schedule. To do so, the race control unit make use of CCTV (closed circuit television system) and car onboard cameras to locate problems and take action quickly.

[FW17]

Webber was attacking. He was already overtaken. You don't push your car into a space that does not exist. He should have yielded.

Webber was still defending. Hamilton never showed him a clean pair of heels, so to speak.

Webber is the only driver who does not understand that "one does not defend by runnning into the side of another car"

[Rino]

To do so, the race control unit make use of CCTV (closed circuit television system) and car onboard cameras to locate problems and take action quickly.

Yep...that's why they're penalizing after the race...

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

What does webber have to account for then?
Or webber can brake anywhere, close his eyes, and slide off and it's lewis job to dodge him.
Seeing as though Webber has the best seat in the house and he can see all the possible outcomes, are you saying he has less to account for, when he has more information at his disposal.

All he had to account for is that while attacking to defend he didn't make any mistakes like going off the line, losing control or putting the car in an illegal position. He did none of those things and by the way the car was going into the curve he maybe didn't brake late at all. And if you see the Webber onboard you will see Hamilton was not closing the gap at the moment of his manoeuvre, so it's not like he was sticking his nose into something that was getting closed. The car hasn't slided to the front or to the side, that's what makes him ok this time even with his history of bad attempts. Hamilton's car that met Webber's and not the other way around.

And Whitmarsh is right. Hamilton did nothing wrong because of the blind spot thing, but nor he got it really right.

[komninosm]

I don't limit my racing experience to just F1.. In most categories of racing, a driver has not cleared another driver unless 100% of his car is in front. In here, that is not the case..The line you draw still shows Webber's front wing next to Lewis's car which means that if Lewis just swings across he will touch Webber.. This is why the entire car has to be cleared in order for a driver to make a sudden move without getting into an accident.
BTW.. Lewis already kind of admitted it was his mistake for not seeing where Webber was and assuming that the corner was 100% his.

Rubish, no driver can see that, but the one following. Stop making things up to justify a silly claim. No driver can know exactly where a following car is.

hamilton is ahead. Webber is attacking. Hypocrisy at it's best.
I'll end this arguement now. I just hope to see the the same thing with any other driver but Lewis, then come back to this arguement.

MW: Lewis was certainly a little bit ahead, yeah. As I said, it was probably similar to the last race with Felipe and Lewis. Felipe probably didn’t really even know he was there because there was contact,

Unfortunately we made contact, very similar to like he was with Felipe in Monza, just touching the front right on the inside of the back tyre. I was pretty much locked up - not locked up but I was trying to get the front away and I was very concerned that I had damage.

[komninosm]

Just pulling you're leg. Just an exaggeration to show the level of over scrutiny, and fabrications to prove a point.

Your accusation is baseless. Who told you he wasn't paying attention?
A blind spot is a blind spot. You cannot pay attention to what you cannot see.

Webber could see. Why wasn't he paying attention?

because he had nothing to loose! As somebody summed it up nicely earlier, in 3 of the 4 possible outcomes, Webber wins. So, had every right to defend hard.

/facepalm
Yes, he had something to lose. He could have (like Ham in Monza) broken his front axle/wheel which usually is less tough. It was just luck. Luck is not skill. Nor logical.