But it also doesn't mean Vettel is not allowed to attack it. It's generally accepted you have to leave some space between you and the track edge if an opponent get significantly alongside. I think NathanOlder feels Max went too far on that; I personally think Verstappen cut it right to the edge of what is allowed, but that doesn't make Vettel's attempt any less valid. Vettel was alongside and therefore is allowed to determine his speed within reason and within the confines of the space Verstappen allowed. However, Verstappen did cut it really right on the edge of what is allowed. I can't blame Vettel for what is actually a light touch with bigger consequences. While I don't agree Max pushed it too far to be blamed, I don't blame Vettel either for not being able to navigate such a tight squeeze without light contact. I think few would have been able to get out of the situation without that contact. The amount of contact however was quite light, which is a good indication that speeds were reasonable. The issue afterwards was that both their wheels straightened due the contact and the big wheels at the rear coming into contact with eachother because of that, basically cascading a small tab into a spin and some floor damage.
Unfortunately, neither Max nor Vettel have much in lieu of race craft, therefore proper methods of defending against a dive-bomb will unlikely occur to either. So, they crashed.turbof1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:56 pmAgain, he was able to slow down to the same speed as Verstappen. He was going to able to navigate the corner, but was squeezed heavily on the inside. There was no excessive speed involved. My definition of a dive bomb is the 2016 spanish gp Ricciardo vs Vettel. Ricciardo carried so much speed he ended up off the track on the outside of the corner. If you are not in a position anymore to navigate the corner and will end up off the track due that excessive speed, you are dive bombing. Ricciardo 2016 was a clear example, Hamilton 2007 Monza was right on the edge of that. Vettel making contact with Verstappen on the very inside of the corner is not a dive bomb.GrandAxe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:51 pmIts when the attacking car carries such speed that they cannot go through the corner without either crashing into their quarry or going off track.NathanOlder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:46 pm
But when does it become great speed ? You have to be going faster at some point to overtake so when does it become great speed
Btw, this is how you defend from a divebomb or close to a divebomb: https://youtu.be/PJvlNqKi1Uk?t=50
Early apex, let the opponent go weide and dive underneath. Verstappen choose to defend instead, which indicates he also felt Vettel being able to slow down enough.
Yes, Max might have left more room. However, he did absolutely nothing wrong as he got to the apex first and Vettel got there very late. If Vettel had executed the maneuver correctly, he would have been reliant on the rules to validate him, rather than on Max's goodwill to give him room.turbof1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:21 pmBut it also doesn't mean Vettel is not allowed to attack it. It's generally accepted you have to leave some space between you and the track edge if an opponent get significantly alongside. I think TAG feels Max went too far on that; I personally think Verstappen cut it right to the edge of what is allowed, but that doesn't make Vettel's attempt any less valid.
Yes and no. Yes, you need to leave room, but there's a difference between where the moment of contact takes place. Does it take place at
In this case, it's very easy to see that Max did not give Vettel a car's width. Vettel was already off track, even with their wheels were interlocked.GrandAxe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:58 pmThat's a whole different ball game to the attacking driver carrying too much speed. Two very separate things.NathanOlder wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:54 pmSo what happens when the car on the outside doesnt give the car on the inside enough room ?
Vettel already has his front wing alongside as they are passing the last braking board. I don't see how you can call this a 'dive bomb' and not invalidate every pass made involving taking the inside line into a corner.
It was definitely risky, but let's not kid ourselves that driving up the inside (or outside) of another car and having that car push us off track is always the fault of the overtaker. The normal racing line generally involves using the limits of the track, often at entry, apex and exit. If we're saying that putting enough of your car alongside someone that your front wheel is right behind his is not 'far enough alongside' then how do you suggest you overtake someone? If you try up the inside, I'll squeeze you off the track at the apex. If you try the outside, I'll block you at corner entry and then push you off at corner exit. If we touch, it will prove that your move 'wasn't going to make it' and thus it's on you.Phil wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:53 pmThe issue with Vettel's move is that he attempted a pass in a place where the chances of success were slim to begin with. Max's line into spoon wasn't extraordinary. He was on pretty much the normal racing line into the corner. E.g. he knew he was aiming for a gap that was going to close. Max didn't jinx, he didn't dart to the apex. He moved there entirely predictable.
I think most of us arguing against Vettel is that he moved into a spot that was closing. If he had gotten fully alongside, perhaps even slightly ahead of Max before that space ran out - fair game. But he didn't. He didn't make it. He tried and failed. This demonstrated quite irrefutably that the move wasn't going to cut it. Just because someone from behind decides it's smart racing to stick the nose into a closing gap doesn't automatically mean it's the responsibility of the guy in front to "leave space" and give up his position. That's not the way it works. If it were, one could suggest that waving people through is on. It isn't. It's racing. And to some part, the onus is on the driver overtaking, not the other way around.
Windsor commented that Vettel normally took a tighter line through here than Max and Lewis. Also, even assuming Vettel was carrying more speed (and he was barely travelling faster than Verstappen at the point of initial impact, as the lightness of the hit will attest, cars can brake.
I don't know why you keep on telling that Spoon is not a spot to overtake. Like turbof1 told, every place is a potential overtaking possibility.Phil wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:53 pmThe issue with Vettel's move is that he attempted a pass in a place where the chances of success were slim to begin with. Max's line into spoon wasn't extraordinary. He was on pretty much the normal racing line into the corner. E.g. he knew he was aiming for a gap that was going to close. Max didn't jinx, he didn't dart to the apex. He moved there entirely predictable.
I think most of us arguing against Vettel is that he moved into a spot that was closing. If he had gotten fully alongside, perhaps even slightly ahead of Max before that space ran out - fair game. But he didn't. He didn't make it. He tried and failed. This demonstrated quite irrefutably that the move wasn't going to cut it. Just because someone from behind decides it's smart racing to stick the nose into a closing gap doesn't automatically mean it's the responsibility of the guy in front to "leave space" and give up his position. That's not the way it works. If it were, one could suggest that waving people through is on. It isn't. It's racing. And to some part, the onus is on the driver overtaking, not the other way around.
Some corners are better suited for overtakes. Some aren't. Spoon is extremely challenging because of the speed and how the racing line goes through the corner, meaning that any gap that is there, is always likely to close. If a move is on or not, depends on if the person you are racing is extremely forthcoming and pretty much waves you through or is prepared to stick to the line. It also depends if the driver even sees you in time to react and to what degree he is already committed to the corner. It also depends on the speed difference between the cars. I think Vettel overtook Grosjean a lap or two earlier into spoon which worked, but that was an entirely different car of a different caliber. It probably lured him into believing he could make it stick against Max too. In the end, he didn't get fully alongside or ahead and was a miscalculation.
And judging by the radio at the very end where Vettel says something to the team along the lines of "there was a gap there and if he didn't go for it, he might as well stay home" or to that effect, makes me rather believe he knew too that it was just a bit too ambitious.
Well pretty obvious that he brakes at the moment he know's he's gonna crash.. thats why he was barely traveling faster as you say.Wynters wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:33 pmWindsor commented that Vettel normally took a tighter line through here than Max and Lewis. Also, even assuming Vettel was carrying more speed (and he was barely travelling faster than Verstappen at the point of initial impact, as the lightness of the hit will attest, cars can brake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N3SItwAvKU
Watch this on the highest slow-mo from 22 seconds to 24 seconds. Vettel is not travelling significantly faster than Max
Because, obviously, there are certain limits to what a defending driver can or can't do. On a straight you have the '1 defensive-move'. You either block the inside and force a driver attacking your position onto the outside, or you defend the outside. Either way, swerving is not allowed, neither are blocking moves, e.g. reacting to what a driver is doing behind you. This is usually the etiquette on straights. Obviously going into corners, there's the racing line to take into account.Wynters wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:29 pmIt was definitely risky, but let's not kid ourselves that driving up the inside (or outside) of another car and having that car push us off track is always the fault of the overtaker. The normal racing line generally involves using the limits of the track, often at entry, apex and exit. If we're saying that putting enough of your car alongside someone that your front wheel is right behind his is not 'far enough alongside' then how do you suggest you overtake someone?
I did actually. I even drew a nice picture using google-maps to illustrate the respective lines both took into spoon. The normal racing line (Verstappen) and Seb who was on an extremely tight line due to his attempted overtake. Given he was faster than Max and at the point of impact the same speed, but at a much tighter entry into spoon, yes, I too question if he indeed would have made the corner. Certainly he would have had to decelerate even further to not leave the track and that would have put him behind Max (if he had left more space and they had not collided).
And I drew my picture. You are convinced Vettel was going to shoot straight to the outside edge of the circuit, I wasn't. I will put them both up next to eachother. People should decide for themselves:I did actually. I even drew a nice picture using google-maps to illustrate the respective lines both took into spoon. The normal racing line (Verstappen) and Seb who was on an extremely tight line due to his attempted overtake. Given he was faster than Max and at the point of impact the same speed, but at a much tighter entry into spoon, yes, I too question if he indeed would have made the corner. Certainly he would have had to decelerate even further to not leave the track and that would have put him behind Max (if he had left more space and they had not collided).
I'm not putting sole responsibility on Verstappen, you are moving the goal posts. You are putting sole responsibility on Vettel and that's what I'm contesting. You say that the fact they crashed showed that Vettel's move was impossible. I say that if Max had left him racing room, they wouldn't have crashed. You say that if you try to overtake into Spoon any contact is definitively your fault. I'm saying that's not the case.Phil wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:08 pmConsidering all these aspects, I think it's logical to some degree that a driver might have a very limited view of what is unfolding behind him. If an overtaker sticks his nose alongside your rear tires, do you honestly think he'll be aware of that and leave 'appropriate room'? Is it logical to put the sole responsibility in the driver with the limited view to what is happening behind him or to put it in the driver who has the perfect view ahead and hold him responsible to undertake a move that is somewhat feasible?
I'll just let that stand there. If you look at the frames, at best, Vettel's nose was at Verstappen's head position. That was at the point they collided. Up until there, he was pretty much in his blindspot as he was darting for the closing gap.
It's no easier to see behind you on a straight (such as the straight Vettel used to place a significant portion of his car alongside Verstappen's) so, apparently, any impact caused by the lead driver swerving about is 'solely' the fault of the driver behind?Phil wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:08 pmBecause, obviously, there are certain limits to what a defending driver can or can't do. On a straight you have the '1 defensive-move'. You either block the inside and force a driver attacking your position onto the outside, or you defend the outside. Either way, swerving is not allowed, neither are blocking moves, e.g. reacting to what a driver is doing behind you. This is usually the etiquette on straights. Obviously going into corners, there's the racing line to take into account.
Or, perhaps, neither driver bears sole responsibility in some instances?Phil wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:08 pmConsidering all these aspects, I think it's logical to some degree that a driver might have a very limited view of what is unfolding behind him. If an overtaker sticks his nose alongside your rear tires, do you honestly think he'll be aware of that and leave 'appropriate room'? Is it logical to put the sole responsibility in the driver with the limited view to what is happening behind him or to put it in the driver who has the perfect view ahead and hold him responsible to undertake a move that is somewhat feasible?