Huh? If you quote only that selection out and got not clue about the Scuderia's history at all... you might think that yes. It is quite news worthy as it may evolvo till some big changes within such companies.
But when thinking that, skip replying on such messages next time if not interested in what seems to go on there.
Haha, good one. Look, Hamilton's conduct, both on and off the track, is a terrible parody of Senna. Senna is Hamilton's idol and has been for a long time. He thinks that if he plays psychological games (e.g. 'I wish you could see Rosberg's data [from Monaco qualifying], 'Rosberg isn't really German', 'Rosberg lacks hunger'), ignores team orders (e.g. using an engine mode he wasn't supposed to in order to try and gain an unfair advantage over Rosberg) and drives too aggressively, in particular at the Bahrain GP (where he over-stepped the line at least once and probably two or three times). Rosberg has to try and show that he's not going to stand for being pushed off the track again. It just so happened that this time the contact cut Hamilton's tyre, but that's the luck of the draw. As mentioned above, how many times have we seen similar sort of contact this year without any real impact?
He wasn't pushed off the track. He put his car in a really stupid place that it was inevitable he'd (lightly) hit Hamilton car. That's being stupid. He wasn't 'pushed' off. He was being thick, retarded, stupid... pick any of them.
I've seen drivers do it all the time and it's the most lame limp wristed way to stand up for yourself. Actually, he wasn't really standing up for himself... he was being lame, a pussy, a wimp... whatever you want to call it.
If you're gonna do it.... DO IT. Schumacher? He'd put you in the wall. Senna? He'd literally drive you off the circuit hard. Rosberg? oh, limply try and drive round the outside and take of his own wing and pretend he got pushed off.
There was nothing 'hard' about Rosberg's move. There's nothing to suggest that Rosberg is now a hard racer in that move. It still suggests he's a bit limp.
He was in Bahrain and if he hadn't stood his ground at Spa he probably would have been later in the season. Despite what you think I reckon Hamilton will now think twice before taking it for granted that Rosberg will back out.
he didn't stand his ground in Spa because Hamilton wasn't asking any questions of him. Rosberg didn't 'back out' of anything because he was never IN with a chance of the pass. It's like standing your ground... but you're actually on water. there was no ****ing soil beneath his feet. It wasn't like Hamilton was being aggressive or even mildy testing.
What actually happened was "I'll show him, oh no this is, oh bugger I've cocked up here... errmmm.. woops". he just got VERY lucky he didn't ruin his own race.
Bahrain is irrelevant. And Hamilton still won't think twice about putting a move on Rosberg because all Rosberg has done is prove he is a wimp. He hasn't got he balls to do a proper move.
Rosberg might have gained ground on Hamilton, but like the idiot he is he doesn't realise he is losing ground to Ricciardo, and has lost the team.
What part of the move says "ballsy driver"? Nothing. He went for some weird silly move around the outside that only a retard would ever think was possible, half backed out, then lost his front wing. Nothing ballsy, just stupid and weak.
I do not think so.
Even if Hamilton had left room there was never a pass possible...for that left or the next right...or even the right after.
To me it was just daft for Rosberg to leave his nose in there, especially so early in the race, all he had to do was hop the kerb and press on (as in the Schuie vid earlier).
I do not think Rosberg has achieved anything positive by doing that, it is not like Hamilton has been taught a lesson or something....no more than doing the same to any other aggressive driver would.
Rosberg is a different type of driver compared to Hamilton and they both know it, clearly Rosberg is not quite so adept at the Hamilton style and vice versa....stick to what you do best is what I would say to Rosberg....plonker.
Oh and the place I was born has not affected my opinion, I do not support/favour any driver and I am not patriotic.
Seriously what the **** is wrong with all of you? This is Rosberg's fault? I mean are they not supposed to race side by side? He had sufficient overlap up to the sidepod of the other car, and Hamilton just went through the chicane as if he wasn't there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aYnB5Y4MIs
I rarely agree with anything a Kingsbury posts, but I've always subscribed to the view that if you've got any overlap on the car ahead, it's up to that guy not to run over you. But that's probably because I'm an American and I grew up watching NASCAR/ovals in general, where that's the standard operating procedure. (Also, you know, logic. It's racing—you go for any gap you can get to.)
Yes, it's not quite that simple in the wider world of motorsport. The basic principle is, if your front wheel isn't at least halfway alongside the flank of my car, then you have no business being there at all. For me it makes perfect sense from a competitive and safety standpoint.
If you start demanding that the lead driver has the judgment of overlap that the spotter up a tower at a Nascar event has, then you'll be scaring people out of the way rather than properly overtaking.
Would people question Rosbergs racing brain? Yes I think so. He lost a piece of his front wing and would have lost valuable points to Hamilton. Obviously it wouldn't have been as big a drama fest as it has been though.
This could become a far more interesting area to consider. Take out specific drivers and incidents, of course. At least for the time being.
The "amount of overlap" is an arbitrary point, chosen by a degree of consensus over time. We could equally say that "if any part of the following car is not ahead of the leading edge of the rear wheels" then they have no business being there. Or it could be sidepod. Or it could be CoG. Or it could be the trailing edge of the front wheels.
In some forms of racing (let's say NASCAR, although I don't watch it enough to be able to say for sure) then ANY overlap is sufficient overlap to stake a claim to that corner. In banger racing (perhaps) you might need 100% overlap to stake that same claim (on the basis that it doesn't matter much if contact is made anyway).
Regardless of the chosen arbitrary point of overlap that makes a move "good enough" to warrant the other car reacting to it, surely the point in most forms of racing is to beat everyone else to the finish line, without a) causing undue risk to others and b) without causing undue risk to yourself.
Therefore, regardless of the chosen overlap, each driver (and fan/enthusiast/pundit) has to consider each move based on the moment that they occur. And unlike us, the drivers can't stop to think very long, can't debate it first, and can't watch replays (perhaps of a dissimilar move at the same corner in different conditions with different cars at some point in the past).
So the lead driver, regardless of the overlap point, has to think "will this (or is it reasonable to suggest that it could) negatively effect my chances of winning?". And the following driver, inspired by the need to overtake to beat someone else (you can't beat them without overtaking them first, if they are ahead) has to decide whether the risk of damage/penalty warrants taking a risk. And all overtakes are inherently risky.
Returning, for a moment (but please don't dwell on this aspect for a debate of my logic leading to this result), to the Rosberg/Hamilton incident - regardless of the "allowed" or "accepted" overlap point, Hamilton had a duty of care to himself and his team to think "will taking the racing line here result in a collision that might likely reduce my chances of winning?". Yet he chose to, despite presumably knowing that Rosberg was there. Rosberg, meanwhile, probably weighed up (in an instant) whether putting his nose there was likely to end his race or result in an effective race ending penalty. And the final outcome turned out to be that Hamilton was out from that moment, and Rosberg merely lost some points compared to the win. It may not have been technically correct, but there was insufficient evidence to convict him of guilt at the time (maybe he was - maybe it was premeditated to some degree), but Hamilton came out worse. Could Rosberg have avoided the collision? Of course. Could Hamilton? Absolutely. Maybe Hamilton should have, regardless of "his rights to the corner", because he'd have more points now. Being "right" isn't always enough.
Another example, this from my own experience at club level where nothing really matters, nobody else really cares, and the amounts of money/fame/glory are a whole lot less etc. When Alice Powell tried to overtake me at Snetterton in July 2013, I had the opportunity at any point on that straight to back out. Alice had the opportunity to give me room at the apex. I didn't believe, going in, that she would ever consider turning in without seeing that she was ahead and clear. Likewise, she probably didn't consider a world where I didn't lift off at the 200m board. In our [club] world, because of the costs, we do generally give room and/or back down. I've overtake in an F3 car around the outside and inside of the some of the greatest corners in the UK and the world, and I have been overtaken in the same way. I like to think I know when to give space and when to fight my corner. But one of us (Alice or me, or both) got it wrong that day and we both had to pay real money for it (although I suspect finding that money was a LOT harder for me than for her). I got the official repremand for not backing down but doing everything I could to avoid contact once I knew it was likely. She didn't get any reprimand (other than damage) for turning in when I was still there and not giving one extra inch when (if) she realised. Being "right" counts for nothing in some cases.
F1 drivers don't have that consequence problem. They don't pay for the repairs. They are paid to do the best they can for themselves and the team. In most cases the selfish part (what's likely to be good for them) comes foremost, with the team result almost always secondary. The teams know that to be the case - nobody has ever fast-tracked a young driver to F1 because they are good team players that are selfless. They get the fastest guy they can if possible. Max Verstappen isn't hailed as a setup genius or a team-player. He's being hailed because he's apparently got car control skills and a calmness whilst racing that are beyond those of his recent peers.
Rosberg was not wrong to go for the move - he had to at some point, and drivers do not see a decent opportunity and not go for it. They might not see it in the first place of course (Raikkonen at Malyasia 2013?). But I would have tried the same move that Rosberg did (although as I have to pay for damage, I'd likely back out earlier, or run out of talent). Hamilton was not wrong to stick to his line even though that meant chopping across Rosberg - he was sufficiently far ahead via the arbitrarily chosen "acceptable amount" for F1, and we are told the lead driver can do what he likes. Maybe that's the end of it. Except that Hamilton came out worse, and perhaps had more opportunity to avoid it in the microseconds before contact than Rosberg did.
Another point - when referring to overtaking "off the track" we sometimes hear the line that "if there was a concrete wall there, they wouldn't have tried the move that meant they strayed off the track in the first place" to put down a driver that aborted a move but came away with no penalty. In the case Rosberg DID drive as though there was a concrete wall. He obeyed track limits, and those that have used the concrete wall argument must surely agree that the options Rosberg had suddenly reduced by one. He couldn't turn left (that would be cheating), he couldn't turn right (Hamilton was there), and he couldn't suddenly accelerate. Hamilton could have taken a tighter line to the right, or braked.
In my opinion, neither driver is to blame, but both are to blame. Both knew the move could and would happen after they got to the 50m board. Both knew that if it went wrong it could ruin their race. Both chose to go with it even though both could have avoided contact (possibly for psychological reasons). And one ended up with more damage than the other. Neither to blame for getting into the situation, both to blame for coming out the other side with damaged cars each.
I'd lover to hear your critical examination of my logic (preferrably without using example crashes that are 100% different in every possible way please), preferably without too much bias. I think I've been pretty unbiased (although it might just be that I think I'm being unbiased - I have no way to know if I'm being absolutely unbiased without alternative logic viewpoints).
But look how Pastor backs off with intelligence at the start of the video.
People need to understand that you don't risk a race when you are in lap 2, Rosberg could easily avoid the incident and preserve his race, but he didnt.