It's in the semantics which are subtle.
Hamilton got the penalty imo for "having an avoidable accident"
Mass should have got a penalty imo for "causing an avoidable accident"
It was a close call with Hamilton and people will remain divided.
Last edited by Squelch, .
Reason : Changed emphasis
Ok it was late and I should have qualified that remark. I meant flatshifting on road cars gave an advantage before the clutch overheating model. Race spec cars have never been in question.
Because an exploit is available to everyone does not make it right. Autoclutch and automatic shift take a finite time to do, and I believe Scawen modelled them this way for a reason. Bypassing the clutch timing via a macro or script is exploiting an oversight he made, and makes a mockery of the "prefect environment" that is supposed to be in place for fair hotlapping.
There is a method that would enable the "perfect hotlap", but this would simply be the ultimate cheat, and I won't even bother to try and expand on it for fear that someone might actually try it. This method is also available to all, and really does go against the spirit of what hotlapping is all about.
I agree with you on a more complex model import, but we have what we have, and we all rely on Scawen to refine it.
My understanding of hotlapping is to compare human against human. I'm always exploring different setups and driving styles to gain those tenths in the knowledge it is my failings that make me slow. To find out that those tenths, or any number thereof, have been gained through exploits does mean it's unfair, and could make someone question if they should even bother trying. Does that make me and others lazy or stupid because we refuse to use cheats? I think you are now just being rude
I've read back and don't see anyone defending Hamilton over that incident. He took a chance that Massa was going to stay wide, and could have backed out of it. I'll repeat my conclusion for fear of being tarred with the "all you Hamilton guys" brush.
Hamilton deserved that penalty - "having an avoidable accident"
However. It does seem unanimous that Massa did take a strange line, did turn in much earlier. If any defence can be offered to Hamilton is this.
Any driver seeing the situation unfold as it it did in front of them, could have been mistaken that Massa was going to stay wide. Webber took a late apex, and that gap was always going to close. What driver in their right mind would enter the corner at that angle, that speed, and with limited steering lock to attempt a pass on someone making a late apex? If Massa had been alongside Webber, Webber would have been obliged to stay wide - as many other drivers did throughout the race - but he was quite some way back. It simply boils down to this. Massa either made a very stupid move to overtake Webber and would probably have hit him anyway, or he ran into Hamilton while Lewis had got alongside.
Massa was the cause of that whole incident, and Hamilton could have avoided it, but decided to try and take advantage of it, and got the penalty where Massa got off scot free.
Last edited by Squelch, .
Reason : Grammar
Was that Schumacher retaking Barrichello at 0:20? He passed under waved yellows and let him back through. Fair shout. Somehow I missed that on the Beeb.
Hamilton's penalty was right imo, but Massa and his complaints to Autosport afterwards about more penalties simply don't wash. That camera angle shows he really was likely to have hit Webber anyway.
Edit: Ironically it was Alonso who was the only driver to hit the nose debris too.
Last edited by Squelch, .
Reason : Changed external link position - added alonso info
I for one would think less, and its not fair to believe that everyone else wouldn't be bothered either. Using your logic means that the 2-3 seconds I'm off a world record is not only because I'm slower, but I'm not using any cheats too. Frankly I'm surprised and shocked that you condone what amounts to cheating. Before we had a clutch temp/wear, it was possible to gain an unfair speed increase by letting the engine over rev between shifts. Was this ok too?
The subject was brought up here because there are concerns about it, and this was the first opportunity to talk about it without accusing anyone else directly.
The subject was brought up here because there are concerns about it, and this was the first opportunity to talk about it without accusing anyone else directly.
My how it's changed.
Graham Hill describes the circuit with on board circa 1968.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vjzp4Dd2nk
Just look at how the chicane used to be back then.
Jackie Stewart describes an on board lap in 1973
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjy1kWTes78
Graham Hill describes the circuit with on board circa 1968.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vjzp4Dd2nk
Just look at how the chicane used to be back then.
Jackie Stewart describes an on board lap in 1973
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjy1kWTes78
Hi pjuniorbra,
I'll try to help if I may.
Have you installed the additional files found here?
http://www.vehicle-analyser.com/download.html#VB6
I too have Win7 64bit and the program runs properly.
I'll try to help if I may.
Have you installed the additional files found here?
http://www.vehicle-analyser.com/download.html#VB6
I too have Win7 64bit and the program runs properly.
Thanks.
Round 3 is a difficult call.
Druids is notorious for incidents under braking, but Rydell does seem to keep pushing.
Rydell's car bobbles and loses momentum coming from Surtees to McLaren curve, and Cleland barely touches him.
I feel a neither or both vote is in order here. I can't remember the atmosphere at the time, but I recall it was rather tense between several drivers back then, and may have influenced the application of the endorsements.
Track reference:
Brands Hatch
What was the voting outcome for round 2?
Resurfacing the road to remove the hump would be a huge civil engineering task. The road is built into the bedrock, and the end of the tunnel would need modification too. I'm not sure the Monégasques would stand for such upheaval.
Ah I see.
It still doesn't solve the problem of the hump. That is a huge braking zone, and drivers will push the limit (which naturally we want to see) but the loss of traction is a hidden hazard that catches even the best. By making the entrance to the chicane effectively narrower, it would force a slower entry speed, and still retain the slower exit speed for Tabac. There have been some horrific crashes there in the past, and was why the chicane was made tighter I believe. The fast line through the chicane means a driver must be on the right at entry, so the combined braking, turning right towards the barrier, and the hump, seem to have been the reason for the crashes. Forcing straight line braking continuing the line that Sergio seemed to have before his first visit with the barrier, would mean the loads would be more balanced, and the tighter turn into the chicane would effectively slow that complex down. The escape road and crane could be retained too.
It still doesn't solve the problem of the hump. That is a huge braking zone, and drivers will push the limit (which naturally we want to see) but the loss of traction is a hidden hazard that catches even the best. By making the entrance to the chicane effectively narrower, it would force a slower entry speed, and still retain the slower exit speed for Tabac. There have been some horrific crashes there in the past, and was why the chicane was made tighter I believe. The fast line through the chicane means a driver must be on the right at entry, so the combined braking, turning right towards the barrier, and the hump, seem to have been the reason for the crashes. Forcing straight line braking continuing the line that Sergio seemed to have before his first visit with the barrier, would mean the loads would be more balanced, and the tighter turn into the chicane would effectively slow that complex down. The escape road and crane could be retained too.
That makes eminent sense, but it takes that iconic corner away from Monaco. That's progress I suppose.
I read somewhere that track changes are being looked into following the crashes at the weekend. The chicane at the end of the tunnel has always been a blackspot, and it has been suggested that the crane is removed from the chicane and the run off area is extended.
This will present two problems I believe.
Firstly where would the crane be positioned? There is very little space in that area, and even with increased run off, cars will still need recovery.
The second, and more important issue to me, is even with an extended run off area, damaged cars skidding along on their floors will not be retarded even with extended tarmac, so the problem wouldn't really be solved.
We have seen so many cars leave the tunnel with less than the full compliment of working wheels over the years, and the hump that catches even the most experienced of drivers needs to be looked at properly. As this seems to be the biggest cause of incidents, would an earlier chicane be of benefit here?
If a small chicane placed at the point of the hump was used it would force drivers closer to the left hand barrier where the hump is not so severe. This would mean braking would be more effective, and also mean the entry into the existing chicane would be slower. It would even mean drivers would have to be slower through the tunnel. A further possibility might even mean the existing chicane could be made less severe and go back to the kink it used to be.
Just floating some thoughts, and putting on my fireproof underwear.
This will present two problems I believe.
Firstly where would the crane be positioned? There is very little space in that area, and even with increased run off, cars will still need recovery.
The second, and more important issue to me, is even with an extended run off area, damaged cars skidding along on their floors will not be retarded even with extended tarmac, so the problem wouldn't really be solved.
We have seen so many cars leave the tunnel with less than the full compliment of working wheels over the years, and the hump that catches even the most experienced of drivers needs to be looked at properly. As this seems to be the biggest cause of incidents, would an earlier chicane be of benefit here?
If a small chicane placed at the point of the hump was used it would force drivers closer to the left hand barrier where the hump is not so severe. This would mean braking would be more effective, and also mean the entry into the existing chicane would be slower. It would even mean drivers would have to be slower through the tunnel. A further possibility might even mean the existing chicane could be made less severe and go back to the kink it used to be.
Just floating some thoughts, and putting on my fireproof underwear.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if cars is set ALL and then limited via InSim /cars, the ingame host list will also become misleading. This will mean drivers wishing to join an apparently open marque server, will find themselves frustrated by having no reliable information about the server type.
It is up to the server admin not to abuse the system, but history has shown that cannot always be relied on. I welcome the new addition, but it could cause further issues.
It is up to the server admin not to abuse the system, but history has shown that cannot always be relied on. I welcome the new addition, but it could cause further issues.
That is something we will never know due to the stupid reset.
That is true, but Alonso was quite ragged trying to put pressure on Vettel. Alonso almost lost it when Button caught them at Neuvoux chicane (sp). Alonso's tyres were old, Vettel's tyres were older. Either one could have fallen off the cliff, or even taken each other out. Button may well have taken the race to either one of them, but we were robbed of that outcome. Buttons strategy was spoiled by the safety car, and was a gamble that failed.
I believe he just hung back to keep out of trouble. The race was effectively over, so making it to the end with max possible points in the circumstances was the only thing to do. Alonso didn't really put any more pressure on either.
The Williams isn't as good under braking, and this season is a bit off form which is a great shame. If Shumacher had defended his line, his poorly performing tyres wouldn't have been a factor, he lost the initiative, and conceded the corner, which was the right thing to do for his race.
That is a rather selective truth. I strongly believe he was going to hit Webber anyway, so blaming Hamilton is just poor sportsmanship. He got very poor drive going into the tunnel, and then ran onto the marbles, which was entirely his own making.
I haven't agreed with your points up until now, but credit where credit is due, I actually agree with you. Button drove a clever race, he's not balls out, but plays the tortoise and the hare game. Why risk an overtake when you can pressure your opponent into mistakes, or simply let them ruin their tyres while looking after your own. I find this just as exciting as banzai overtaking.
I've looked at the damage Massa received, and there is no way the rub on the sidepod caused his accident. There is a large chunk out of his nose, and possibly some front wing damage, but that came from hitting Webber which he was going to do anyhow.
Edit:
Twice in fact. Once on Hamilton, and once on Rosberg.
Edit:
Twice in fact. Once on Hamilton, and once on Rosberg.
Last edited by Squelch, .
That was how I understood it, and why I linked to the subject. Those packets would only be available for the new patches I think, so therefore are not backward compatible perhaps?
I think the most important part is the intent. I've seen many good drivers feign a chop across someone's nose to scare them off the track, but when it actually involves contact, then it is most definitely wrong. Take for example the move Schumacher made on Barrichello. He not only feigned a chop, but kept pushing. This was wrong and he was brought to account.
Because a driver takes to the grass by being frightened, is different to actually being pushed.
Because a driver takes to the grass by being frightened, is different to actually being pushed.
Ah but there is room for two cars in both places. Look up Schumacher vs Hamilton - Loews, Schumacher vs Rosberg - Loews, Hamilton vs Schumacher - Ste devote.
All of them show that two cars can get through. Even a race start means there a several cars side by side at Ste Devote.
Its worth noting that Schumacher drove an exemplary race. He defended where possible, took chances where they presented themselves, but conceded the corner where he left a gap. Even against Barrichello he didn't try to close the door. Maybe its because he's being scrutinised by everyone right now, but he certainly drove fairly.
All of them show that two cars can get through. Even a race start means there a several cars side by side at Ste Devote.
Its worth noting that Schumacher drove an exemplary race. He defended where possible, took chances where they presented themselves, but conceded the corner where he left a gap. Even against Barrichello he didn't try to close the door. Maybe its because he's being scrutinised by everyone right now, but he certainly drove fairly.
There is a fine line between stuffing it up the inside and maintaining control, and a cynical banzai lunge and relying on the car in front as a cornering aide. It gets difficult to distinguish however, when the car in front turns in mid corner to block the move, or turn so early as to run the passing driver off the road. It really is both drivers responsibilities to keep it clean, and while I'm no football (soccer) fan, an analogy can be made to professional fouls and diving on the edge of the box, both of which are poor sportsmanship.
Maldonado defended poorly before the corner, and must have known firstly that Hamilton was there and all over him, and secondly, that turning in would have resulted in himself being pushed wide. I simply don't think he considered this and it was a rookie mistake that neither driver deserved punishment for, and if anything, Pastor should have had a warning.
The really difficult decision for me, is the Hamilton Massa incident. Massa looked like he was going to try to pass Webber, but his angle and speed would have probably resulted in contact with Webber anyhow. Whether or not he saw Hamilton will remain unknown, but he did move across early, and could have quite easily have been trying to run Hamilton into the barrier. Hamilton on the other hand could have possibly backed off, I'm not sure he had anywhere to go if the pass had pulled off, and it was for this reason he got the penalty. Massa was not the innocent party by any means, and if was able to carry on, it would have been interesting to see if he too was penalised for what was a dirty move either way.
I can fully understand Hamilton feeling hard done by, but his outbursts haven't done him any favours. I'm no fan, but unfortunately there are some people that simply hate him no matter what, and I suspect some of those are within the FIA. His Ali G comment I believe was a poor taste joke I suspect, but there may be an element of truth behind it. The situation is made worse by the inconsistent application of penalties. Kamui - another exciting driver - hit Sutil while passing, and while a racing incident too, was not penalised even though it was a very similar incident. Given these types of scenarios, its no wonder Lewis feels singled out.
Good racing will always be controversial with regard to incidents on the track, but I feel that sometimes off track politics are influencing the "fair" application of rulings, and where huge amounts of money are involved, need to be independently arbitrated. Any other business would have to answer for its actions if questioned after all.
Maldonado defended poorly before the corner, and must have known firstly that Hamilton was there and all over him, and secondly, that turning in would have resulted in himself being pushed wide. I simply don't think he considered this and it was a rookie mistake that neither driver deserved punishment for, and if anything, Pastor should have had a warning.
The really difficult decision for me, is the Hamilton Massa incident. Massa looked like he was going to try to pass Webber, but his angle and speed would have probably resulted in contact with Webber anyhow. Whether or not he saw Hamilton will remain unknown, but he did move across early, and could have quite easily have been trying to run Hamilton into the barrier. Hamilton on the other hand could have possibly backed off, I'm not sure he had anywhere to go if the pass had pulled off, and it was for this reason he got the penalty. Massa was not the innocent party by any means, and if was able to carry on, it would have been interesting to see if he too was penalised for what was a dirty move either way.
I can fully understand Hamilton feeling hard done by, but his outbursts haven't done him any favours. I'm no fan, but unfortunately there are some people that simply hate him no matter what, and I suspect some of those are within the FIA. His Ali G comment I believe was a poor taste joke I suspect, but there may be an element of truth behind it. The situation is made worse by the inconsistent application of penalties. Kamui - another exciting driver - hit Sutil while passing, and while a racing incident too, was not penalised even though it was a very similar incident. Given these types of scenarios, its no wonder Lewis feels singled out.
Good racing will always be controversial with regard to incidents on the track, but I feel that sometimes off track politics are influencing the "fair" application of rulings, and where huge amounts of money are involved, need to be independently arbitrated. Any other business would have to answer for its actions if questioned after all.
And how to pass and be passed at Loews Hairpin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEq7tJVcFfU
Hmm - spot the difference?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEq7tJVcFfU
Hmm - spot the difference?
I fully support those sentiments, and also believe this needs revisiting at a later date.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG