Only 9 laps into the race, the Malaysian GP was stopped due to the rainy conditions, only to be restarted one hour later. It wasn't however any less interesting, with Alonso eventually winning the race after withstanding intense pressure from Sergio Pérez. Lewis Hamilton finished third after an unspectacular performance.
Your opinion not fact.WhiteBlue wrote:This case is rather clear cut. And yes you can do it because of the particular circumstances.
Pot meet kettle.WhiteBlue wrote:You are the one who applies rhetorics here.....
Conjecture. You don't know what he told the stewards, only the media immediately after the event and probably before he'd even seen the incident again on video. For someone who throws his weight around accusing others of inventing facts, you sure are good at it yourself.WhiteBlue wrote:The question or better the excuse of "I did not see him" is already eliminated from this case. NK did not make that excuse. He must have seen Vettel's approach or he would have used that excuse. If he did not see him and did not tell the stewards and the press about it I have even more doubts about his mental state than his driving.
Can you indicate at which point you think NK was able to see SV? You seem to think it's logical that he could see him and that it's false to state otherwise, you state this as absolute certain fact but really it's just your opinion. Show why we should believe you.WhiteBlue wrote:You are making an assumption that is not logical (NK did not see SV before) and then you construct a theory based on false assumptions that seemingly uses physical calculations for pseudo exactness. I'm not going to follow that flawed theory.
Again your opinion that you do nothing at all to back up. You show otherwise.WhiteBlue wrote:Vettel was by no means on a collision course. That is your invention.
Steady now you're in danger of losing it completely. You spout more opinion as fact but fail to show any evidence to back up your thinking. Either stop posturing and put your cards on the table, or stop telling others they are wrong and your opinion is infallible.WhiteBlue wrote:Giblet's manipulated image shows nothing if you ask me. Everybody can photoshop images from different cameras, points in time, angles and make any number of claims. I do not consider that proper evidence. I'm not buying the theory that they were on lines that would be crossing each other before Vettel's car would completely pass NK's car. There is no evidence for this theory at all. A helicam video could perhaps provide or not provide such evidence or NK's roll hoop cam, but we don't have such evidence. The steward's might have had it because they can call it in.
More opinion presented as fact without showing anything. The stewards didn't punish Webber for the Turkey 2010 incident and yet you still hold him responsible. Do you now accept that Webber was not responsible on that day?WhiteBlue wrote:I totally reject that. It is ridiculous. NK made a steering move towards the right when SV was passing him. SV could not see that because he was already committed to the pass and held his course. The stewards clearly ruled that NK and not SV caused the collision.
Prove it. That's your opinion again. 20.5 says absolutely nothing about a driver having to avoid an overtaking driver because they can't get their line right. You've taken a rule and invented a whole load of implications.WhiteBlue wrote:Once again you are in error. §20.5 applies to the whole passing move until the passing driver is clear of the car that he is lapping. I'm not going to entertain your speculations and theories based on a flawed understanding of the rules.
Yet you don't think SV has any responsibility to the overtaken car.WhiteBlue wrote:Naturally §16.1 covers more than lapping. Everybody is aware of that.
No he didn't, he followed the racing line. Vettel chose a collision course. We've shown you that this is the case, it's up to you to show that what you keep stating as fact is actually true.WhiteBlue wrote:And what is that supposed to prove? The two paragraphs will always be applied in the way they fit the situation. In this situation NK was punished because he steered towards the right side into Vettel's car.
We have provided you with video evidence that you dismissed out of hand but failed to offer anything of your own. Time for you to pony up instead of just dismissing everyone else.WhiteBlue wrote:I totally disagree. You can speculate about trajectories all the time you like, but you have no evidence for that speculation. Apparently the stewards had none of this either.
That's your view but you only have a stewards verdict as evidence. And we all know how reliable and consistent they are.WhiteBlue wrote:This is your opinion of the accident to which you are entitled. Let me tell you simply that in my view it is not a proper reflection of what happened in reality.
I have been asked to stop this argument. The mods reckon that everything has been said and I agree with regard to the question of who was at fault. I just want to add one point for clarification.myurr wrote: I've heard plenty about your opinion, time to back it up with some hard facts. But I guess that yet again you'll hide behind the stewards report as some kind of infallible truth, pretending there is no politics in F1 and that the stewards are 100% reliable just because in this instance they agree with you.
You're thinking too far. They just poured water into the pitwall radio electronics.GrizzleBoy wrote:Everyone knows you dont just get one bribe
How do you think Red Bulls radios got destroyed?
Haven't you seen Domenicali hanging around with Thor recently? He obviously bribed Thor to fry their comms.
As simple as it can get Ray!! =D>raymondu999 wrote: You're thinking too far. They just poured water into the pitwall radio electronics.
Hard to imagine how that lateral wobbling could be intentional/beneficial. Perhaps an unwanted side-effect of using non-rigid wing supports that can flex forwards/backwards a bit under heavy aero load in straights?Goran2812 wrote:...saubers front and rear wings... why do they wobble like that? compare it to ferrari that's infront. is that good or bad?
