There would be just as much as drama. You, know this is where things get funny: people always think the opposing side are noise makers and their side would remain calm, composed and classy in the same situation. Let me tell you, there would be as many people be screaming as loud "oh the injustice, the injustice!" if it was Hamilton being punished, regardless whether the penalty was correct or wrong.
That has been explained by Whiting already. And it's the same deal: Vettel was not punished because he did not breach the rules. The 2 moves were considered as 1 move with a hesitation inbetween. Whiting afterwards send out a clarification where it would be considered 2 moves from that point on, but the rules were correctly applied in that case.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:39Ideally, Vettel should have got penalty for this incident too, which he got away as Hamilton could pass him immediately. While defending, Vettel made two moves, forcing Hamilton to break and take evasive action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFkFBSZpABs
it turned out that was untrue, just Niki telling it as a joke on a TV show, about how Lewis would have to pay for the damage, but it was just told as fiction but then, with it being about Lewis, of course it was picked up and turned into the crime of the century. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laud ... -758pmqcmr
tho after Niki blamed Lewis for the crash without checking so he didn't know about Rosberg's mode error, i think there was a bit of a rowThe Mercedes statement read: “Following his appearance on a television discussion show on Servus TV recorded prior to last weekend’s Austrian Grand Prix, Niki Lauda would like to set the record straight and state the following: Lewis Hamilton did not in any way damage a hotel room or his private driver room at the circuit during the race weekend in Baku and Lewis Hamilton did not lie about his relationship with team-mate Nico Rosberg.
“Niki regrets any misunderstanding caused by comments that have been blown wildly out of proportion compared with the casual context in which they were made.”
Sorry, here are a couple of screenshots from earlier laps (Lap 35). Look at where the racing line was and Hamilton was taking exactly the same line, even when he got messed on the chicane when Ric tried the move.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:27That space might actually have existed in the dry. Remember, Hamilton was unable to navigate corner 11 in any normal way. He had little else choice than to navigate the car like that.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:16People are conveniently forgetting that, the space appeared for Ricciardo in Monaco, because there was puddle of water and no driver was taking that line. Lewis avoided that puddle, which Ricciardo chose to take on his own risk. Once his car was on the puddle, his car got handful and he had no choice but to back off, despite there being a car's width. If it was a dry track, that space wouldn't have existed. Simple common sense, but people do not want to apply.TAG wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 13:33
No it was fact. See that's the difference, opinions can be argued about. Facts? No so much, doing so tends to lead people into delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haqpopZyvwc
That outside the point. I'd still argue Hamilton's defending was morally on the edge, but not regulatory-wise.
You are ignoring where I said Hamilton had his turn 11 entry compromised and the hypothetical case it was dry. He was very slow out of turn 11, so that's not the same as those earlier laps. Ricciardo made a brilliant move in the wet when Hamilton made that mistake; he was afraid to keep it in there, but he was in control of the car. In the dry he would have had more grip and more confidence.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:49Sorry, here are a couple of screenshots from earlier laps. Look at where the racing line was and Hamilton was taking exactly the same line, even when he got messed on the chicane when Ric tried the move.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:27That space might actually have existed in the dry. Remember, Hamilton was unable to navigate corner 11 in any normal way. He had little else choice than to navigate the car like that.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:16People are conveniently forgetting that, the space appeared for Ricciardo in Monaco, because there was puddle of water and no driver was taking that line. Lewis avoided that puddle, which Ricciardo chose to take on his own risk. Once his car was on the puddle, his car got handful and he had no choice but to back off, despite there being a car's width. If it was a dry track, that space wouldn't have existed. Simple common sense, but people do not want to apply.
That outside the point. I'd still argue Hamilton's defending was morally on the edge, but not regulatory-wise.
https://i.screenshot.net/3k0ymud
https://i.screenshot.net/358j1tv
The point I am making is, if it was dry, Lewis would have certainly moved right even further, even though he got compromised on entry to turn 11. Just like he kept the dry line on Lap 35 and Lap 37 despite the hiccup on turn 11.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:51You are ignoring where I said Hamilton had his turn 11 entry compromised and the hypothetical case it was dry. He was very slow out of turn 11, so that's not the same as those earlier laps.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:49Sorry, here are a couple of screenshots from earlier laps. Look at where the racing line was and Hamilton was taking exactly the same line, even when he got messed on the chicane when Ric tried the move.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:27
That space might actually have existed in the dry. Remember, Hamilton was unable to navigate corner 11 in any normal way. He had little else choice than to navigate the car like that.
That outside the point. I'd still argue Hamilton's defending was morally on the edge, but not regulatory-wise.
https://i.screenshot.net/3k0ymud
https://i.screenshot.net/358j1tv
If he moved even further right, he potentially would have left the left side open for Ricciardo to dive into.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:55The point I am making is, if it was dry, Lewis would have certainly moved right even further, even though he got compromised on entry to turn 11. Just like he kept the dry line on Lap 35 and Lap 37 despite the hiccup on turn 11.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:51You are ignoring where I said Hamilton had his turn 11 entry compromised and the hypothetical case it was dry. He was very slow out of turn 11, so that's not the same as those earlier laps.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:49Sorry, here are a couple of screenshots from earlier laps. Look at where the racing line was and Hamilton was taking exactly the same line, even when he got messed on the chicane when Ric tried the move.
https://i.screenshot.net/3k0ymud
https://i.screenshot.net/358j1tv
Just see what happened last year between Max and Sainz at 2m49seconds. Despite having compromised entry, Max managed to stay on the racing line towards the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lj6Q9gN4RQ
But in dry, the right most is the faster line! Just like Max, Hamilton could have gotten back earlier, IF it was dry!!!turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:04If he moved even further right, he potentially would have left the left side open for Ricciardo to dive into.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:55The point I am making is, if it was dry, Lewis would have certainly moved right even further, even though he got compromised on entry to turn 11. Just like he kept the dry line on Lap 35 and Lap 37 despite the hiccup on turn 11.
Just see what happened last year between Max and Sainz at 2m49seconds. Despite having compromised entry, Max managed to stay on the racing line towards the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lj6Q9gN4RQ
I can't really compare this to the Sainz-Verstappen incident. Verstappen was able to get back on track a lot earlier before turn 11, giving him more more space to navigate that corner. Where Hamilton resurfaced on track, he was a lot closer to the turn and therefore had way less options to navigate it.
Yes, but you are speaking about ordinary racing conditions. This is not that. This is one driver rejoining the track and being unable to navigate the following corner on normal racing speed. The driver behind isn't looking to take the corner the fastest way, he is looking for a way past the driver in front. Ricciardo would always exit that corner faster, he just needs to find where the opening is to dive into.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:05But in dry, the right most is the faster line! Just like Max, Hamilton could have gotten back earlier, IF it was dry!!!turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:04If he moved even further right, he potentially would have left the left side open for Ricciardo to dive into.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:55The point I am making is, if it was dry, Lewis would have certainly moved right even further, even though he got compromised on entry to turn 11. Just like he kept the dry line on Lap 35 and Lap 37 despite the hiccup on turn 11.
Just see what happened last year between Max and Sainz at 2m49seconds. Despite having compromised entry, Max managed to stay on the racing line towards the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lj6Q9gN4RQ
I can't really compare this to the Sainz-Verstappen incident. Verstappen was able to get back on track a lot earlier before turn 11, giving him more more space to navigate that corner. Where Hamilton resurfaced on track, he was a lot closer to the turn and therefore had way less options to navigate it.
He couldn't do it as it was wet and you don't get good traction! He could have definitely navigate it faster in dry. In the wet, the following driver could only go on the puddle and then had to back out. In dry, the following driver wouldn't get that space. That is my original point. Ric took the risk of going where a car can't go in wet as Lewis took the correct line in wet.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:08Yes, but you are speaking about ordinary racing conditions. This is not that. This is one driver rejoining the track and being unable to navigate the following corner on normal racing speed. The driver behind isn't looking to take the corner the fastest way, he is looking for a way past the driver in front. Ricciardo would always exit that corner faster, he just needs to find where the opening is to dive into.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:05But in dry, the right most is the faster line! Just like Max, Hamilton could have gotten back earlier, IF it was dry!!!turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:04
If he moved even further right, he potentially would have left the left side open for Ricciardo to dive into.
I can't really compare this to the Sainz-Verstappen incident. Verstappen was able to get back on track a lot earlier before turn 11, giving him more more space to navigate that corner. Where Hamilton resurfaced on track, he was a lot closer to the turn and therefore had way less options to navigate it.
If the same happened in the dry, so the same point of rejoining the track that close to turn 11, then Ricciardo would have been in the same position. I'm assuming you assume Hamilton would have gotten a much better rejoining the track in the dry. Would he even have gone off the track if it was dry? At this point we are discussing how many permutations we are going to bring to the original event, and that's basically an endless and very off topic discussion.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:14He couldn't do it as it was wet! He could have definitely navigate it faster in dry. In the wet, the following driver could only go on the puddle and then had to back out. In dry, the following driver wouldn't get that space. That is my original point. Ric took the risk of going where a car can't go in wet as Lewis took the correct line in wet.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:08Yes, but you are speaking about ordinary racing conditions. This is not that. This is one driver rejoining the track and being unable to navigate the following corner on normal racing speed. The driver behind isn't looking to take the corner the fastest way, he is looking for a way past the driver in front. Ricciardo would always exit that corner faster, he just needs to find where the opening is to dive into.
So a driver can have the luxury making a mistake in wet conditions, rejoin the track slowing down the driver behind and use the dry racing line as the other driver won’t have a realistic chance fighting on the wet side of the track anyway.GPR -A wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:14He couldn't do it as it was wet and you don't get good traction! He could have definitely navigate it faster in dry. In the wet, the following driver could only go on the puddle and then had to back out. In dry, the following driver wouldn't get that space. That is my original point. Ric took the risk of going where a car can't go in wet as Lewis took the correct line in wet.turbof1 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 15:08Yes, but you are speaking about ordinary racing conditions. This is not that. This is one driver rejoining the track and being unable to navigate the following corner on normal racing speed. The driver behind isn't looking to take the corner the fastest way, he is looking for a way past the driver in front. Ricciardo would always exit that corner faster, he just needs to find where the opening is to dive into.