Is Hamilton desperate or what?

[andrew]

/facepalm

Can someone please explain what a "/faceplam" is as I have no idea? Is this a new fangled term that the young blades are using these days?

[kalinka]

I'm a Hamilton fan, and I don't blame MW for it, but , he must have been penalised. If you brake a rule, it doesn't matter if you are intended to do it, or it's just your misjudgement. I think it was MW's misjudgement, but he should be penalised for it,because it's not an excuse.
I just saw an interview with an open-wheel formula driver ( i can't remember his name, he is not a famous one ). He was asked about these collision situations in F1...etc..His point was about this ( not word to word ) : If you were in this situation ( collision with other driver, and you hit the other driver out of the race ), you go up at the stewards after the race, and they ask you : Ok, you say you are not to blame for this, you couldn't break in time, so you take out your oppponent, you couldn't do anything ? The driver says ( of course ) yes. And then the stewards ask ( or should aks ! ) : Ok, but if there were a concrete wall there , and not your opponent's car, would you be able to break properly, or you hit the wall ? And he said, that for a honest driver there is no further arguments against this question. If he think about it, he always came up with a result that indeed, he would not hit the wall. MW indeed has the opportunity to break harder, because he was not locking up his tires. If he were in panic situation thinking "oh my god, I'm about to hit him", then he surely hit he brakes as hard as he can, locking the tires...but he wasn't. So it's my opinion. Hit me

[Giblet]

...

@kalinka I can totally see where you are coming from, but in Webber's defense, walls don't try to pass you on the outside, they are static and generally very predictable in their track position.

[andrew]

...

As for the Webber v Hamilton debacle, there are faults on both parts but I think Hamilton was naive to expect Webber to not be there when he turned in. They were not far off being level going into the corner so contact was bound to happen. The stewards made the correct call in saying it was a racing accident.

[vall]

I'm a Hamilton fan, and I don't blame MW for it, but , he must have been penalised. If you brake a rule, it doesn't matter if you are intended to do it, or it's just your misjudgement. I think it was MW's misjudgement, but he should be penalised for it,because it's not an excuse.

The same why you may say it was misjudgment from LH side. He admitted that he did not know MW was still there and that's why he turned in!!! He assumed MW conceded the place. But, F1 is not a guess game You have to see where your opponents are on the track

[komninosm]

...

....

As for the Webber v Hamilton debacle, there are faults on both parts but I think Hamilton was naive to expect Webber to not be there when he turned in. They were not far off being level going into the corner so contact was bound to happen. The stewards made the correct call in saying it was a racing accident.

...

We already know your flawed opinion about Webber crashing into Hamilton. No need to repeat it unless you can add new arguments or facts and evidence or interpretations of them. Otherwise you're just spamming.

[komninosm]

I'm a Hamilton fan, and I don't blame MW for it, but , he must have been penalised. If you brake a rule, it doesn't matter if you are intended to do it, or it's just your misjudgement. I think it was MW's misjudgement, but he should be penalised for it,because it's not an excuse.

The same why you may say it was misjudgment from LH side. He admitted that he did not know MW was still there and that's why he turned in!!! He assumed MW conceded the place. But, F1 is not a guess game You have to see where your opponents are on the track

Webber didn't even go as far right as he could before the turn to get a better line. He stayed to the left and out of Hamilton's view/mirrors. It was 100% Webber's responsibility not to make contact and 100% Webber's fault for the crash and he should have been penalized for taking another car out. End of story. Webber is turning into the new Shoemaker with his nonsense puntings out of the car of the driver following you in the championship points that just passed you.
Go watch how Sutil did it. Then again Sutil was ahead...

[andrew]

...
There is nothing flawed at all in my reasoning for the Hamilton/Webber smash as it is factual, but I'll leave you to be happy in your thoughts and you obsession to place blame as you clearly dispute the existence of racing incidents.

[jwielage]

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.

I'm not sure he's suggesting that MW had nothing to lose. Of course he had something to lose. 2 of the possible 4 outcomes from this move include Webber's car not finishing the race. That said, I think beating Lewis, not scoring maximum points was his objective here.

Look at the joint probabilities of a successful outcome for Webber when "action is taken" vs the same probability if he yields to Hamilton. If each of the 4 possible outcomes is equally probable than by taking "action" there is a 75% chance of success (to varying degrees of course) vs. a 25% chance of failure. On the other hand by yielding to Hamilton, Webber has virtually no chance of a "successful" outcome in this race (assuming Hamilton sails off into the distance, Webber was on those tires nearly the entire race).

This is all assuming that Mark was only thinking about his points relative to Lewis while making this move. I personally think that Webber was desperate for a physiological victory against LH, and didn’t care if it meant taking both of them out. Furthermore I think MW knows that he is more likely to have to defend his position on track to Hamilton than Alonso. Here's why I say this: So far this season when Alonso wins he usually qualifies on the front row and puts on a near flawless weekend. If FA continues this streak I think he will win without having to pass MW on track. Lewis on the other hand, is driving a McLaren that is slower than RB or Ferrari. As a result LH usually does more slicing through the field. IMO Mark thinks Lewis is going to challenge him on track again, and wanted to send him a message in preparation for that.

It was a close call on whether to issue a penalty or not. However it you could penalize intentions, vs. actual on track events then I’d say Webber most likely deserved a penalty. Obviously they don’t have a sports psychologist or someone versed in game theory on the steward’s panel, and as a result are bound by objectivity. With this in mind I think they got it right, but feel a little cheated none the less.

[ringo]

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

never in my life ...what?!

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.

Uhh, yes he did.

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.

No, that's the room Hamilton left for him if he had braked properly.

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.

you're grasping for straws. All those sentences to answer a simple question shows that you are equivocating.
Webber admitted he out-braked himself.

[*]Webber on the dirty side, yet brake later than the guy on rubbered part of the track.
[*] webber brakes less than 100m on the dirty side.
[*]Apex of the turn is not on the inside, but around the corner,impossible to see it or make it.
[*]Webber overshot turn under locked wheels; he has no control over car.

One driver cannot be responsible for another driver's irresponsibility.
just admit that you are making things up as you go.

This is straight forward and consistent reasoning. Same as Monza, Webber himself admits.
Attacking to defend, that's called causing a shunt.

[ringo]

I'm a Hamilton fan, and I don't blame MW for it, but , he must have been penalised. If you brake a rule, it doesn't matter if you are intended to do it, or it's just your misjudgement. I think it was MW's misjudgement, but he should be penalised for it,because it's not an excuse.

The same why you may say it was misjudgment from LH side. He admitted that he did not know MW was still there and that's why he turned in!!! He assumed MW conceded the place. But, F1 is not a guess game You have to see where your opponents are on the track

Webber didn't even go as far right as he could before the turn to get a better line. He stayed to the left and out of Hamilton's view/mirrors. It was 100% Webber's responsibility not to make contact and 100% Webber's fault for the crash and he should have been penalized for taking another car out. End of story. Webber is turning into the new Shoemaker with his nonsense puntings out of the car of the driver following you in the championship points that just passed you.
Go watch how Sutil did it. Then again Sutil was ahead...

No shumacher is better than that, don't put him to Webber's level. At least Micheal is in control and level headed when he does such things.

[aral]

But what has all this to do with the topic?

[komninosm]

...
There is nothing flawed at all in my reasoning for the Hamilton/Webber smash as it is factual, but I'll leave you to be happy in your thoughts and you obsession to place blame as you clearly dispute the existence of racing incidents.

...

...
Then you commit a straw-man (again). I never disputed the existence of racing incidents. I even said at first this was one, and certainly others. Even if this one crash wasn't a racing incident imo, that still doesn't mean logically that I don't believe any racing incidents exist at all.
So to recap, not only is your obsession making you have a biased flawed opinion in this matter, it is also screwing up your logic circuits and making you commit ad hom and straw-men fallacies. [-X

EDIT
...

[komninosm]

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.

I'm not sure he's suggesting that MW had nothing to lose. Of course he had something to lose. 2 of the possible 4 outcomes from this move include Webber's car not finishing the race. That said, I think beating Lewis, not scoring maximum points was his objective here.

Look at the joint probabilities of a successful outcome for Webber when "action is taken" vs the same probability if he yields to Hamilton. If each of the 4 possible outcomes is equally probable than by taking "action" there is a 75% chance of success (to varying degrees of course) vs. a 25% chance of failure. On the other hand by yielding to Hamilton, Webber has virtually no chance of a "successful" outcome in this race (assuming Hamilton sails off into the distance, Webber was on those tires nearly the entire race).

This is all assuming that Mark was only thinking about his points relative to Lewis while making this move. I personally think that Webber was desperate for a physiological victory against LH, and didn’t care if it meant taking both of them out. Furthermore I think MW knows that he is more likely to have to defend his position on track to Hamilton than Alonso. Here's why I say this: So far this season when Alonso wins he usually qualifies on the front row and puts on a near flawless weekend. If FA continues this streak I think he will win without having to pass MW on track. Lewis on the other hand, is driving a McLaren that is slower than RB or Ferrari. As a result LH usually does more slicing through the field. IMO Mark thinks Lewis is going to challenge him on track again, and wanted to send him a message in preparation for that.

It was a close call on whether to issue a penalty or not. However it you could penalize intentions, vs. actual on track events then I’d say Webber most likely deserved a penalty. Obviously they don’t have a sports psychologist or someone versed in game theory on the steward’s panel, and as a result are bound by objectivity. With this in mind I think they got it right, but feel a little cheated none the less.

There are 2 basic faults in your analysis.
First you assume that when vall said "he had nothing to loose" he meant something else.
Then you assume that all outcomes have nearly equal probability, which is not true. Mark was damn lucky to get a most improbable outcome. You also forget one possible outcome. Getting penalized.
In the end Mark was probably not thinking straight, red mist and all, and is 100% to blame for causing an accident. Should be penalized, but he's groomed it seems for champion this year, after Vettel screwed it up with his childish antics and reckless driving.
The end.

Also, Webber was still faster than the McLarens at that point (especially without the damage he took), he could have gotten in good position to push for a pass on next turn (or laps). Or you know, keep the 4th place, not bad, still ahead in championship. What he did was foolish and damn lucky. Not a good choice as some here have tried to pass it as.

[komninosm]

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

never in my life ...what?!

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.

Uhh, yes he did.

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.

No, that's the room Hamilton left for him if he had braked properly.

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.

you're grasping for straws. All those sentences to answer a simple question shows that you are equivocating.
Webber admitted he out-braked himself.

[*]Webber on the dirty side, yet brake later than the guy on rubbered part of the track.
[*] webber brakes less than 100m on the dirty side.
[*]Apex of the turn is not on the inside, but around the corner,impossible to see it or make it.
[*]Webber overshot turn under locked wheels; he has no control over car.

One driver cannot be responsible for another driver's irresponsibility.
just admit that you are making things up as you go.

This is straight forward and consistent reasoning. Same as Monza, Webber himself admits.
Attacking to defend, that's called causing a shunt.

=D>
If Hamilton had taken Massa out in Monza and not himself, would people be saying Massa was at fault for not giving room or that Hamilton should get a penalty? What about the stewards? [-X
Hell even Vettel got penalties for similar things.
Webber and Schumacher should be penalized for Singapore.