The rule on weaving
CatharticF1
<quote>
CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
out on either the right or the left.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
</quote>
Now my presumption is that the one move doesn't include resuming your line
into the next corner which is a little grey (but not for the case currently
in question).
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
Jo Bellinger
CatharticF1
They can, but I didn't think anyone disagreed with this. Until this
happened.
Paul Giverin
CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com> writes
>From the FIA Document, 2010 APPENDIX L TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE
>
><quote>
>
>CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>
>2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>out on either the right or the left.
>However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>more than one change of direction to defend a position,
>deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
>any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
>Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
>be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
>
></quote>
>
If it turns out that Lewis Hamilton was not reported to the stewards,
would you then admit that rule 2b) was not broken?
--
Paul Giverin
My Photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee
zvoni
it really say, and apply it to the driver you obvously dislike (gross
understatement on my part!) In order to defend something you first have to
be attacked, ins't it? Where is the rule that says driver in front should
passivelly let driver behind to use the slipstream in order to prepare
attack at the end of the strait? Petrov was clearly following Hamilton's
trail. You can see that from the recording as many times as you wish. It
happend once or twice in the previous two races this season with other
drivers involved. How come noone reacted? Moment of attack would have
occured if Petrov at one point decided not to follow Hamilton and push for
the turn by himself. That's the decisive point when Hamilton would not be
allowed to make more then one move.
And, BTW, have FIA (stewarts on the track included) ever refrained from
punishing Hamilton if they felt they had a case?! Their oversensitivity
regarding Hamilton is actually proved by the warning issued to him although
there was no reason and ground for that. They warned him just like that,
from the top of the hat, but if he was really in breech of any rule do not
thin for a moment there wouldn't be a penalty!
What you are looking for is repetition of Spa! Punish Hamilton and only then
create the rule that would substantiate the punishment! I wonder how all you
people are not fed up with this, and don't see that he is probably one of
the very few real assets for the F1 world today! But I am fully aware that
all of this is absolutelly irrelevant to the people like you.
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D518217F139Br...@203.26.24.228...
AC
Yeah, funny that.
Look, what happened is a brand *new* defense for weaving suddenly got
invented, "its OK if you are trying to break a tow". Never, ever hard that
before Sunday. And I don't see "breaking a tow" in any of the rules any one
has posted here or anywhere else.
Its invented bullshit.
Personally as a Hamilton fan (with small "f"), a Brundle fan (much bigger
"f"), who I think first said it, and a Brit, I find this entire argument and
attempt to clear Hamilton of weaving embarrassing. YES, it was great and
exciting to watch. I'm glad he kept his place and didn't get penalized. But
if moving across the track numerous times, back and forth with a driver
right behind him is not weaving in contravention of the rules, then I
frankly give up on the rules, commentators and fans. Reading and hearing
normally smart people twisting the rules and frankly making them up can only
be chalked up to Easter madness or booze.
FFS, if that had been Alonso against Lewis or even way back, Schumacher
against Hill, it would have been the most blatant weaving in the known
universe, tow or no tow. Aliens would have landed wondering WTF was going
on. The out cry would have created a tear in time and space. Suddenly that
changes. Why? Cos its bloody Lewis. The idea that any Brit would have
suddenly accepted that defence in any other circumstance is at best a
blatent lie. I know damn well that had that been Alonso against Lewis in the
McLaren season, I would have been calling it weaving and so would every one
else.
Fine, it was fun to watch and we all want on track action. Could not agree
more. OK then, get rid of the weaving rules. I'd support that. Dont think it
would work and I would expect half a ton of whining, but hey, go for it. But
this stupid fantasy tow breaking defence is a ridiclous. Even through my
red, white and blue glasses, its ridiclous.
I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover those
double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
AC
peter
>>>> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>>>
>>>> 2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>>> out on either the right or the left.
>>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate
>>>> crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal
>>>> change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears
>>>> guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the stewards
>>>> of the meeting.
>I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover those
>double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>
OK well as a fan of Hamilton's driving (if only we 23 more of them on
the grid what a season we would have) but not really of the person I
think you are being overly harsh.
Two questions...if Hamilton had weaved down the straight with no one
behind him, would that have been against the rules?...AFAIK thats a No.
Did Hamilton hinder Petrov with his weaving?
And a No for this one from me. As long as Hamilton is moving away from
Petrov and Petrov is behind then Hamilton is not hindering him.
However the rules needing clarifying if Formula Ford style weaving to
break the tow is not to be allowed.
--
"This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
Alister
Could not say it better.
I glad Lewis got lucky with the Stewards (makes a pleasant change)
but it was weaving no doubt
--
One Bell System - it works.
ric zito
<applause>
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
AC
"peter" <sco...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:WfPMJdAm...@ntlworld.com...
> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> writes
>>>>> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>>>> out on either the right or the left.
>>>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate
>>>>> crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal
>>>>> change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears
>>>>> guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the stewards
>>>>> of the meeting.
>
>>I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover those
>>double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>>
> OK well as a fan of Hamilton's driving (if only we 23 more of them on the
> grid what a season we would have) but not really of the person I think you
> are being overly harsh.
Apologies, but I have to be to get heard over the sheer weight of
inconsistency on this silly issue.
> Two questions...if Hamilton had weaved down the straight with no one
> behind him, would that have been against the rules?...AFAIK thats a No.
Obviously. But there is no *racing* reason to weave alone on the track. As
far as I know, driver would only do that to heat the tires or if he felt he
had a car problem or some sort. Not the case here, unless we count a threat
from Petrov as a car problem.
> Did Hamilton hinder Petrov with his weaving?
> And a No for this one from me.
If Hamilton felt he suddenly needed to break the tow, then clearly he felt
under threat. So clearly he was hindering an attack. Which is clearly
against the rules, or that other made up nonsense, "spirit of the rules".
>As long as Hamilton is moving away from Petrov and Petrov is behind then
>Hamilton is not hindering him.
If Hamilton was moving away there would have been no need to break the tow.
You have to be catching the car in front to actually get in the tow. The tow
then gives you a boost to make the pass, or at least try. It makes a car
slightly faster than the car in front faster still. A slower car cant get in
the tow in the first place. For Petrov to be in the tow, he had to be a bit
quicker, so yes weaving to break a tow is hindering the guy behind. It has
to be.
> However the rules needing clarifying if Formula Ford style weaving to
> break the tow is not to be allowed.
I don't care about Formula Ford, I was watching a F1 race. As far as I know,
both have a different set of rules. FF has nothing what so ever to do with
it. Neither does NASCAR, karting or supermarket trolley races.
And what of the recurring fan bleat about the lack of overtaking? What with
the aero issues, DDD, and all that, all that is left is the tow. If F1
allows drivers to frustrate that then what's left? Again, another
contradiction. The reason for the anti weaving rules was to promote over
taking.
Whatever our position on this, clarification is undoubtedly needed.
However, if there were to be a tow clause, then I can see weaving happening
with the tow clause being used every time as a defense. More arguing. More
bullshit. So for me we either have weaving or we don't. For "show" reasons I
would support removing the rule, but I can also see why others would say no.
I don't really care which as long as its applied well.
Its the usual problem IMHO: consistency and clarity, or lack there of.
AC
Advanced Kitty
simply slipstreaming.
And slipstreaming most definitely ISN'T overtaking.
Hamilton didn't block an overtaking maneouvre because Petrov never broke out
of the slipstream to initiate an overtaking maneouvre.
It was wholly apparent that whenever the Hamster changed direction, Petrov
did everything he could to stay in his wake.
IOW, at no stage did Petrov make any attempt to initiate an overtaking
maneouvre by breaking out.
Ergo, none of Hamilton's weaving constituted an overtake block because no
overtake was initiated.
Cut and dried.
I would censure the stewards for warning him, as it should have been obvious
to those of even the meanest intelligence, that there was only determined
slipstreaming going on .... and at no stage, any kind of initiation of an
overake.
Sir Tim
wrote:
>From the FIA Document, 2010 APPENDIX L TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE
>
><quote>
>
>CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>
>2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>out on either the right or the left.
>However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>more than one change of direction to defend a position,
>deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
>any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
>Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
>be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
>
Thank you Brendan. AT LAST somebody has quoted the actual rule! (or.
more precisely Code of Conduct - but I assume that counts as a rule).
Hamiltons changes of direction were, arguably, "to defend a position"
(i.e. by breaking the tow). They were certainly "abnormal" and as such
contravened the code, so the stewards were right to reprimand him.
Their decision not to penalize him with a drive-through (which would
have ruined a spectacular drive) seems to me to show a degree of
common sense that has been sadly lacking from stewards decisions in
recent years.
But - he'd damned well better not do it again ;)
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
Sir Tim
Just in case the apostrophe police (i.e. Chris) are on the beat that
should read:
"Hamilton's changes of direction"
:)
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
Frank Adam
wrote:
Are you saying the team lied to Lewis ? :-o
--
Regards, Frank
zvoni
With the logic like that there is nothing you can't prove!
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:wHjun.14280$pV1....@newsfe21.ams2...
Sir Tim
wrote:
>>If it turns out that Lewis Hamilton was not reported to the stewards,
>>would you then admit that rule 2b) was not broken?
>>
>Are you saying the team lied to Lewis ? :-o
Seems laughable but somewhere in one of the long threads on this
subject somebody suggested just that!
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
Paul Giverin
<fa...@optushome.com> writes
It has been reported elsewhere that it was the clerk of course who
issued the warning and that he wasn't actually "reported to the
stewards", as per the regs. If it turns out that this is not the case
then I stand corrected.
I've got a recording of the race. I'll have a listen in a while to hear
what was actually said to Lewis.
peter
>Until the pursuing driver has broken out of the quarry's slipstream, he's
>simply slipstreaming.
>And slipstreaming most definitely ISN'T overtaking.
>Hamilton didn't block an overtaking maneouvre because Petrov never broke
>out
>of the slipstream to initiate an overtaking maneouvre.
>It was wholly apparent that whenever the Hamster changed direction, Petrov
>did everything he could to stay in his wake.
>IOW, at no stage did Petrov make any attempt to initiate an overtaking
>maneouvre by breaking out.
>Ergo, none of Hamilton's weaving constituted an overtake block because no
>overtake was initiated.
>
their apparent vendetta against McLaren and Hamilton with some spurious
penalty...there is hope for F1 after all.
AC
"zvoni" <zmah...@open.hr> wrote in message
news:hpcitf$6mh$1...@gregory.bnet.hr...
> How sweet! Enlist to certain comrade Vishinsky or holly mother
> inquisition. With the logic like that there is nothing you can't prove!
Please explain. You might have a great point.
AC
AC
"Advanced Kitty" <nokia....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:81tvk5...@mid.individual.net...
> Until the pursuing driver has broken out of the quarry's slipstream, he's
> simply slipstreaming.
> And slipstreaming most definitely ISN'T overtaking.
>
No spot on. It is however covered by the phrase below.
>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>> more than one change of direction to defend a position,
>> deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
>> any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
>> Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
>> be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
AC
mower man
> Just in case the apostrophe police (i.e. Chris) are on the beat that
> should read:
>
> "Hamilton's changes of direction"
>
> :)
Do you know, I didn't spot that one! :-)
--
Chris
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Ian Dalziel
Schumacher *was* penalised for weaving in front of Hill. On the
straight. To break the tow.
Between Stavelot and Blanchimont - 1995 I think.
--
Ian D
AC
"Sir Tim" <ben...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9hjr5po8l6qikfcf...@4ax.com...
I'd actually forgotten that Lewis did get a warning. Yes, a stop and go
would have ruined his race, which would have been bad. I do think a warning
is a bit wet though. I would suggest that grid drop for the next race would
have been appropriate.
Even so, fact he got a warning do pretty much prove he did break the rule.
A thought for the future. As far as I remember, Lewis was the first in
recent history to move around the track in that way, and this is the first
time the tow breaking idea has been floated in F1. So, how about having the
ability to issue a driver in this situation a suspended sentence that then
applies to every other driver? So, the message would be; Lewis broke the
rule but does possibly have a reasonable previously unthought-of defense. We
will not mess up his season, but we would like to tell every other driver
that we don't want this to happen again, if they do this they will get a ban
or grid drop, Lewis included.
AC
Advanced Kitty
> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:81tvk5...@mid.individual.net...
>> Until the pursuing driver has broken out of the quarry's slipstream,
>> he's simply slipstreaming.
>> And slipstreaming most definitely ISN'T overtaking.
>>
>
> No spot on. It is however covered by the phrase below.
>
>
>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position,
But the position was never attacked.
>>> deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track
Never arose.
or
>>> any other abnormal change of direction,
Only where it's done to block an overtaking maneouvre.
"... abnormal change of direction" applied willy-nilly, could be applied to
any car with another one behind it.
Such an application of this catch-all could mean that anyone who visibly
deviates from the racing line is liable to penalisation : - clearly an
absurdity that needs amendment.
Ian Dalziel
>How sweet! Enlist to certain comrade Vishinsky or holly mother inquisition.
>With the logic like that there is nothing you can't prove!
>
Logic won't do it for you, then?
Let's try "Sod off you top-posting moron!"
Is that better?
Since you carry on with the ad hominem, just for the record I've
admired Hamilton's driving since he was in karts, went to see him
drive in Renaults and was telling people who'd never heard of him he
was the next British World Champion back then. That makes me *really*
biased against him, doesn't it? I'm glad he didn't get penalised, but
he certainly might have been.
--
Ian D
News
Or not. Time will tell.
News
> AC wrote...
> tv. You've no idea what's happening with the other 20 drivers on the
> track.
> Massa did much the same to Webber in Australia. Was anything said - was
> it fuck.
>
>
>> and this is the first
>> time the tow breaking idea has been floated in F1.
>
>
>
>> So, how about having the
>> ability to issue a driver in this situation a suspended sentence that then
>> applies to every other driver? So, the message would be; Lewis broke the
>> rule but does possibly have a reasonable previously unthought-of defense. We
>> will not mess up his season, but we would like to tell every other driver
>> that we don't want this to happen again, if they do this they will get a ban
>> or grid drop, Lewis included.
>>
>> AC
>
>
>
>
A group stoning would be more appropriate to F1, don't you agree?
Ian Dalziel
You mean, sort of like giving him a warning?
;-)
--
Ian D
zvoni
And it is so common to so many of those who can't stand Hamilton and his
driving. BTW are you posting here covered behind two nicknames???
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:7qmjr5p4beb023ccd...@4ax.com...
Ian Dalziel
>Now, that's what I call the argument!
>
>And it is so common to so many of those who can't stand Hamilton and his
>driving. BTW are you posting here covered behind two nicknames???
No. Are you posting here without a brain? What have I said that might
suggest I can't stand Lewis Hamilton?
You're big on calling "logic", it seems. Either post some yourself or
fuck off.
--
Ian D
zvoni
put his nose left or right, even drove more or less paralel with Schumacher,
and was forced couple of times very wide, almost to the gravel in the high
speed corners. IIRC this was actually the reason why he was penalized. How
this is the same as Hamilton-Petrov case is beyond my imagination and
understanding!
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:g8mjr5tlf297a6ep9...@4ax.com...
zvoni
them again if you wish and save your nerves for bigger issues then F1
racing.
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:09pjr5psi85rkek16...@4ax.com...
Ian Dalziel
>Your own last few posts clearly show who started ad hominem attacks! Read
>them again if you wish and save your nerves for bigger issues then F1
>racing.
>
You don't even know what "ad hominem" means, do you?
Calling you a top-posting cunt is not ad hominem because I am not
using it to negate your argument.
Actually, I couldn't since you don't appear to have one.
I repeat - either post something yourself or fuck off.
--
Ian D
Ian Dalziel
I didn't see that, but I'll take your word for it - I don't think I've
seen it on TV. I was standing at Stavelot, and what he did up the hill
to Blanchimont was exactly what Hamilton did yesterday.
--
Ian D
zvoni
the most important subject in the whole high school agenda. But since you
like to hear no I don't know and I certainly need someone like you to
explain it ito me!
Enjoy your greatness in tranquility! Don't get yourself bothered by
arguments, logic, evidence, video footage...anything that doesn't suit your
predetermined truth!
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:adqjr5pfunkra5aio...@4ax.com...
News
> News wrote...
>
>
>
>
>
>
Or start, your point, with which I agree, being that an attitude change
is needed.
Ian Dalziel
>Agree! Certainly I don't know, thanks to my Latin teacher who made it almost
>the most important subject in the whole high school agenda. But since you
>like to hear no I don't know and I certainly need someone like you to
>explain it ito me!
>
I think what you needed was a Logic teacher. Don't believe me - look
it up. It's a logic term.
>Enjoy your greatness in tranquility! Don't get yourself bothered by
>arguments, logic, evidence, video footage...anything that doesn't suit your
>predetermined truth!
What predetermined truth? You respond to my posts saying I'm a biased
Hamilton hater who denies logic, then that I'm a sockpuppet - what
response were you hoping for other than "fuck off"?
I post under my real name - it's easy enough to verify. I have never
posted under any other name.
--
Ian D
zvoni
7000 metres long track, looking to the other part of the track several
hundred meters away at least partially covered by trees with the cars
running away from your position, saw few seconds of the battle lasting for
two or so laps or four or so minutes, made your conclusion and used that
conclusion as an argument in a debate! Well, noone could make a valid
judgement and comparison in these circumstances. You are forgiven for
everything!
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:ksqjr5ptuo75upgj7...@4ax.com...
Alister
Yes but no women allowed
--
All's well that ends.
Alessandro D. Petaccia
>Agree! Certainly I don't know, thanks to my Latin teacher who made it almost
>the most important subject in the whole high school agenda.
Hold on - your latin teacher made "ad hominem" the most important
subject? Oh sorry, "almost" the most important. So uh... does it mean
he insulted you when you messed up some declination? What?
>Enjoy your greatness in tranquility! Don't get yourself bothered by
>arguments, logic, evidence, video footage...anything that doesn't suit your
>predetermined truth!
Yes! OK! But you haven't posted any of the above yet! Exclamation
mark!
ADP.
Richard Miller
writes
>Well, it didn't happen! Only you would have to be willing to read what
>does it really say, and apply it to the driver you obvously dislike
>(gross understatement on my part!) In order to defend something you
>first have to be attacked, ins't it? Where is the rule that says driver
>in front should passivelly let driver behind to use the slipstream in
>order to prepare attack at the end of the strait? Petrov was clearly
>following Hamilton's trail. You can see that from the recording as many
>times as you wish. It happend once or twice in the previous two races
>this season with other drivers involved. How come noone reacted? Moment
>of attack would have occured if Petrov at one point decided not to
>follow Hamilton and push for the turn by himself. That's the decisive
>point when Hamilton would not be allowed to make more then one move.
>
>And, BTW, have FIA (stewarts on the track included) ever refrained from
>punishing Hamilton if they felt they had a case?! Their oversensitivity
>regarding Hamilton is actually proved by the warning issued to him
>although there was no reason and ground for that. They warned him just
>like that, from the top of the hat, but if he was really in breech of
>any rule do not thin for a moment there wouldn't be a penalty!
>
>What you are looking for is repetition of Spa! Punish Hamilton and only
>then create the rule that would substantiate the punishment! I wonder
>how all you people are not fed up with this, and don't see that he is
>probably one of the very few real assets for the F1 world today! But I
>am fully aware that all of this is absolutelly irrelevant to the people
>like you.
Clearly you are one of the Britpack, and therefore you are not an
objective observer.
(For the sake of clarity, that was sarcasm, and it is good to see a
non-Brit who also recognises Lewis's talent.)
--
Richard Miller
zvoni
Now we have Alessandro D. Pettacia feeling obliged to defend Ian
Dalziel...so what and who comes next?! Ring of greatness, I'd say!
FYI Alessandro D. Pettacia ad hominem was first mentioned in Ian Dalziel's
message. As for ad hominem please feel free to find everything you need to
know here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Oh yes, please clean your spark plugs and maybe, just maybe you'll be able
to see I offered more arguments in this thread then I was presented with,
including you in your sole post with no argument at all.
Ciao Petrarca!
"Alessandro D. Petaccia" <ale...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ks1kr51j8e7vfn8s0...@4ax.com...
zvoni
surprised...he,he! But please be warned. I expect some troll would come out
now and ask you abot declination of the word sarcasm! If you are not sure
what I meant check the posts below, actually it is very funny!
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BhZ+i0Am...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
Ian Dalziel
>Oh not again, please! First we had Ian Dalziel feeling obliged to defend AC.
>Now we have Alessandro D. Pettacia feeling obliged to defend Ian
>Dalziel...so what and who comes next?! Ring of greatness, I'd say!
>
>FYI Alessandro D. Pettacia ad hominem was first mentioned in Ian Dalziel's
>message. As for ad hominem please feel free to find everything you need to
>know here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
Did you bother to read that before posting the link?
Ad hominem is not abuse - it's trying to refute an argument by
commenting on the person proposing the argument.
You are a top-posting moron.
That isn't ad hominem.
You are talking rubbish because you are a top-posting moron.
That would be ad hominem. And probably invalid - I don't know why you
are talking rubbish.
>Oh yes, please clean your spark plugs and maybe, just maybe you'll be able
>to see I offered more arguments in this thread then I was presented with,
>including you in your sole post with no argument at all.
>
Your one and only argument, as far as I can see, was that an overtake
was not prevented because no overtake took place.
Now, expand that by citing something which was prevented but did take
place?
--
Ian D
Sir Tim
wrote:
>>> Fuck it - why not just hang him?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A group stoning would be more appropriate to F1, don't you agree?
>
>Yes but no women allowed
>
Jehovah! Jehovah!
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
Richard Miller
writes
>You have to be catching the car in front to actually get in the tow.
OK, just had to pick you up on this one.
Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
Good tactics by Petrov. But don't claim he was catching Lewis.
--
Richard Miller
Alan LeHun
ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk says...
> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>
A point totally missed by everyone. Doh!
And it does change the picture. LH's weaving was not done in order to
prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
maneuver.
--
Alan LeHun
ric zito
Rubbish. Petrov had already outbraked and overtaken Lewis once at the
end of the straight. Lewis weaved to prevent him from doing it again.
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
GS
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:1diun.111883$E66....@newsfe22.ams2...
> Look, what happened is a brand *new* defense for weaving suddenly got
> invented, "its OK if you are trying to break a tow". Never, ever hard that
> before Sunday. And I don't see "breaking a tow" in any of the rules any
> one has posted here or anywhere else.
>
> Its invented bullshit.
>
> Personally as a Hamilton fan (with small "f"), a Brundle fan (much bigger
> "f"), who I think first said it, and a Brit, I find this entire argument
> and attempt to clear Hamilton of weaving embarrassing. YES, it was great
> and exciting to watch. I'm glad he kept his place and didn't get
> penalized. But if moving across the track numerous times, back and forth
> with a driver right behind him is not weaving in contravention of the
> rules, then I frankly give up on the rules, commentators and fans. Reading
> and hearing normally smart people twisting the rules and frankly making
> them up can only be chalked up to Easter madness or booze.
>
> FFS, if that had been Alonso against Lewis or even way back, Schumacher
> against Hill, it would have been the most blatant weaving in the known
> universe, tow or no tow. Aliens would have landed wondering WTF was going
> on. The out cry would have created a tear in time and space. Suddenly that
> changes. Why? Cos its bloody Lewis. The idea that any Brit would have
> suddenly accepted that defence in any other circumstance is at best a
> blatent lie. I know damn well that had that been Alonso against Lewis in
> every one else.
>
> Fine, it was fun to watch and we all want on track action. Could not agree
> more. OK then, get rid of the weaving rules. I'd support that. Dont think
> it would work and I would expect half a ton of whining, but hey, go for
> it. But this stupid fantasy tow breaking defence is a ridiclous. Even
> through my red, white and blue glasses, its ridiclous.
>
> I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover those
> double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've enjoyed watchin Hamilton
since he first stepped into a F1 car*, but I don't think his weave was
called for.
*I find his attitude out of the car can seriously let him down at times.
zvoni
suspected and you cared to confess.
I did not start that ad hominem story but you and your defenders. People are
mostly doing that when they fail to provide arguments so it is convenient
way to change the path of conversation, insisting all the time there is
nothing wrong with that. Well there is! Everything is wrong with that! This
is exactly what you are doing at the same time asking for more proofs and
arguments while providing nothing in return. It is always much easier to
start attacking someone with different opinion than to make a step back and
accept you might be wrong. How convenient you and your henchmen, not to say
divided personalities, always stoped replying on my posts in other parts of
this thread when loosing arguments.Your last two sentences prove you don't
understand and don't want to understand anything from previous exchange. Go
take a stand at Stavelot and judge the whole world from that tiny place
obscured with trees and landscape according to your needs and prejudices.
And you can always have the argument with your image in the mirror. I do not
have slightest doubt you would be successful in that too.
I am looking forward to meet someone from the opposite side one day who
would be able to explain to me calmly and with clear arguments what Hamilton
have done to all of you to be so hated and dispised by all of you, even
those who claim to be his fans! I would be willing to pay good money to find
what were the resaons for that, appart of those clearly irrational ones.
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:2t3kr5prpgrbjt11v...@4ax.com...
GS
"Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.262448925...@news.x-privat.org...
> In article <K9g81mDA...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
> ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk says...
>> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
>> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
They were fairly well matched for straight line speed, which is why LH took
so long getting past Petrov, I imagine LH imagined Petrov would be trying
his luck to grab the place back if he's been confident of Petrov staying
behind him he'd not have weaved down the straight.
> A point totally missed by everyone. Doh!
>
> And it does change the picture. LH's weaving was not done in order to
> prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
> maneuver.
Is this a serious comment? LH weaved down the straight as part of an
overtaking move?
GS
"Noj" <F...@nomail.afraid.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2623fa8a6...@eu.news.astraweb.com...
> Some of the posters need to stop getting stoned.
Have you tried posting sober yet?
Alan LeHun
> >> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
> >> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>
> They were fairly well matched for straight line speed, which is why LH took
> so long getting past Petrov, I imagine LH imagined Petrov would be trying
> his luck to grab the place back if he's been confident of Petrov staying
> behind him he'd not have weaved down the straight.
Yes, that's how I understand it. I confess to not fully seeing what went
on due to work commitments. I only really saw the weave (probably as a
result of increased volume from the commentators) and didn't really see
what came before.
I also completely missed laps 26-51. :(
>
> > A point totally missed by everyone. Doh!
> >
> > And it does change the picture. LH's weaving was not done in order to
> > prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
> > maneuver.
>
> Is this a serious comment? LH weaved down the straight as part of an
> overtaking move?
>
Yes, but I shall rephrase it. LH weaved in order to consolidate an
overtaking maneuver.
However, that all depends on Richard's interpretation of what happened,
as opposed to ric's
--
Alan LeHun
GS
> In article <hpde05$o61$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, G...@nospam.con
> says...
>> >> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis,
>> >> but
>> >> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>>
>> They were fairly well matched for straight line speed, which is why LH
>> took
>> so long getting past Petrov, I imagine LH imagined Petrov would be trying
>> his luck to grab the place back if he's been confident of Petrov staying
>> behind him he'd not have weaved down the straight.
>
> Yes, that's how I understand it. I confess to not fully seeing what went
> on due to work commitments. I only really saw the weave (probably as a
> result of increased volume from the commentators) and didn't really see
> what came before.
Petrov drove well, he wasn't the rookie walkover many probably expected him
to be and I can see him up at the front of the pack fairly soon.
Alan LeHun
says...
> > Yes, that's how I understand it. I confess to not fully seeing what went
> > on due to work commitments. I only really saw the weave (probably as a
> > result of increased volume from the commentators) and didn't really see
> > what came before.
>
> Petrov drove well, he wasn't the rookie walkover many probably expected him
> to be and I can see him up at the front of the pack fairly soon.
>
Yes. I saw enough of the first few laps to be quite impressed with some
of the newbies.
Reverse grids for 2012 anyone?
--
Alan LeHun
Ian Dalziel
>I guess this post shows you have more problems with yourself then I
>suspected and you cared to confess.
>
>I did not start that ad hominem story but you and your defenders. People are
>mostly doing that when they fail to provide arguments so it is convenient
>way to change the path of conversation, insisting all the time there is
>nothing wrong with that. Well there is! Everything is wrong with that! This
>is exactly what you are doing at the same time asking for more proofs and
>arguments while providing nothing in return. It is always much easier to
>start attacking someone with different opinion than to make a step back and
>accept you might be wrong. How convenient you and your henchmen, not to say
>divided personalities, always stoped replying on my posts in other parts of
>this thread when loosing arguments.Your last two sentences prove you don't
>understand and don't want to understand anything from previous exchange. Go
>take a stand at Stavelot and judge the whole world from that tiny place
>obscured with trees and landscape according to your needs and prejudices.
>And you can always have the argument with your image in the mirror. I do not
>have slightest doubt you would be successful in that too.
>
>I am looking forward to meet someone from the opposite side one day who
>would be able to explain to me calmly and with clear arguments what Hamilton
>have done to all of you to be so hated and dispised by all of you, even
>those who claim to be his fans! I would be willing to pay good money to find
>what were the resaons for that, appart of those clearly irrational ones.
>
I think it's time to go back in your rubber bedroom, mate. I haven't
"loosed" any arguments that I'm aware of - and it most certainly was
you who startedwith the ad hominems.
I repeat. I am a long-time fan of Lewis Hamilton, and I am not a
sock-puppet.
You are either delusional or a liar.
And FORFUCKSAKE stop top-posting.
--
Ian D
Ian Dalziel
Don't be silly. It would have been re-overtaking, sure - is that
somehow not overtaking?
--
Ian D
Alessandro D. Petaccia
>Oh not again, please!
What!
>First we had Ian Dalziel feeling obliged to defend AC.
>Now we have Alessandro D. Pettacia feeling obliged to defend Ian
>Dalziel...
Er... Was I defending Ian Dalziel? That's funny, I thought I was
asking you a simple question about something you posted.
>FYI Alessandro D. Pettacia ad hominem was first mentioned in Ian Dalziel's
>message.
That's extremely interesting. And..?
>As for ad hominem please feel free to find everything you need to
>know here:
Ah, wikipedia. Yes, I do believe I've heard about it before - but you
see, I also happen to know what "ad hominem" means; so thank you for
the link but, well, you know, that wasn't *exactly* what I asked
you...
>Oh yes, please clean your spark plugs and maybe, just maybe you'll be able
>to see I offered more arguments in this thread then I was presented with,
>including you in your sole post with no argument at all.
Uh, I didn't have an argument: I just asked you a question. If you
don't know the answer hey, just say so, it wasn't so important after
all.
ADP.
Alan LeHun
ianda...@lineone.net says...
> >And it does change the picture. LH's weaving was not done in order to
> >prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
> >maneuver.
>
> Don't be silly. It would have been re-overtaking, sure - is that
> somehow not overtaking?
>
Yes I know, some of the best moments in F1 have been the battles where
position changes on a corner by corner basis.
I'm not so sure that it works between corners though. If a faster car is
being held back by a slower one, I think the racing is detracted from if
after finally getting past, the status quo can simply be immediately
restored.
tbh, it's not that important a point. There are very few straights in
the F1 circuit that allow that sort of racing in the modern F1 world.
--
Alan LeHun
Richard Miller
<t...@reply.to> writes
>In article <K9g81mDA...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
>ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk says...
>> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
>> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>>
>
>A point totally missed by everyone. Doh!
It does seem to have been completely overlooked by most of those making
the "blocking" argument.
>
>And it does change the picture.
Completely.
>LH's weaving was not done in order to
>prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
>maneuver.
I wouldn't go that far, but it was done to try to shake him off, not to
block him.
--
Richard Miller
leeanderson
Brad
Stone Him!!
--
Brad
Brad
> AC wrote:
>>
>> "zvoni" <zmah...@open.hr> wrote in message
>> news:hpcitf$6mh$1...@gregory.bnet.hr...
>>> How sweet! Enlist to certain comrade Vishinsky or holly mother
>>> inquisition. With the logic like that there is nothing you can't
>>> prove!
>>
>> Please explain. You might have a great point.
>>
>> AC
>
>
> Or not. Time will tell.
Not.
--
Brad
News
DING DING DING
Time's up, apparently.
CatharticF1
> Well, it didn't happen! Only you would have to be willing to read what
> does it really say, and apply it to the driver you obvously dislike
> (gross understatement on my part!) In order to defend something you
> first have to be attacked, ins't it? Where is the rule that says
> driver in front should passivelly let driver behind to use the
> slipstream in order to prepare attack at the end of the strait? Petrov
> was clearly following Hamilton's trail. You can see that from the
> recording as many times as you wish. It happend once or twice in the
> previous two races this season with other drivers involved. How come
> noone reacted? Moment of attack would have occured if Petrov at one
> point decided not to follow Hamilton and push for the turn by himself.
> That's the decisive point when Hamilton would not be allowed to make
> more then one move.
You are wrong, it's not even subjective.
You can put all of the justification around it you like, it just doesn't
matter. This is why Hamilton gets so much attention. And it's not even his
fault: It's posters like you who in a very clear breach where he's let off
with a warning suddenly see no wrong done, and in fact quite the reverse.
The rest of us wonder out loud how you can be both so biassed and ignorant
of such a clear rule.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
CatharticF1
news:WfPMJdAm...@ntlworld.com:
> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> writes
>>>>> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>>>> out on either the right or the left.
>>>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate
>>>>> crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other
>>>>> abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver
>>>>> who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported
>>>>> to the stewards of the meeting.
>
>>I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover
>>those double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>>
> OK well as a fan of Hamilton's driving (if only we 23 more of them on
> the grid what a season we would have) but not really of the person I
> think you are being overly harsh.
> Two questions...if Hamilton had weaved down the straight with no one
> behind him, would that have been against the rules?...AFAIK thats a
> No. Did Hamilton hinder Petrov with his weaving?
> And a No for this one from me. As long as Hamilton is moving away from
> Petrov and Petrov is behind then Hamilton is not hindering him.
> However the rules needing clarifying if Formula Ford style weaving to
> break the tow is not to be allowed.
No Peter they don't. They are already quite clear.
CatharticF1
<snip>
> I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover
> those double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
Spot on.
I'm really mystified on this one, and if anything this will rile the anti
Hamilton crowd because it's completely unjustifiable. Then suddenly there
will be the chorus of "Why does Lewis seem to get so much attention".
CatharticF1
news:81tvk5...@mid.individual.net:
> Until the pursuing driver has broken out of the quarry's slipstream,
> he's simply slipstreaming.
> And slipstreaming most definitely ISN'T overtaking.
>
> Hamilton didn't block an overtaking maneouvre because Petrov never
> broke out of the slipstream to initiate an overtaking maneouvre.
>
> It was wholly apparent that whenever the Hamster changed direction,
> Petrov did everything he could to stay in his wake.
> IOW, at no stage did Petrov make any attempt to initiate an overtaking
> maneouvre by breaking out.
> Ergo, none of Hamilton's weaving constituted an overtake block because
> no overtake was initiated.
>
> Cut and dried.
> I would censure the stewards for warning him, as it should have been
> obvious to those of even the meanest intelligence, that there was only
> determined slipstreaming going on .... and at no stage, any kind of
> initiation of an overake.
Your entire argument is based on the incorrect premise that Petrov has to
be in the act of overtaking. It isn't the test case.
Hamilton can't move more than once to defend his position.
CatharticF1
news:c9hjr5po8l6qikfcf...@4ax.com:
> On 5 Apr 2010 10:38:25 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>From the FIA Document, 2010 APPENDIX L TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING
>>CODE
>>
>><quote>
>>
>>CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>
>>2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>out on either the right or the left.
>>However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>more than one change of direction to defend a position,
>>deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
>>any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
>>Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
>>be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
>>
> Thank you Brendan. AT LAST somebody has quoted the actual rule! (or.
> more precisely Code of Conduct - but I assume that counts as a rule).
>
> Hamiltons changes of direction were, arguably, "to defend a position"
> (i.e. by breaking the tow). They were certainly "abnormal" and as such
> contravened the code, so the stewards were right to reprimand him.
>
> Their decision not to penalize him with a drive-through (which would
> have ruined a spectacular drive) seems to me to show a degree of
> common sense that has been sadly lacking from stewards decisions in
> recent years.
>
> But - he'd damned well better not do it again ;)
I agree Tim and with the penalty, though only just! I didn't expect it
to explode into a questionable issue like this!
I can understand Renault being upset and had it been McLaren, Ferrari or
Red Bull on the wrong end I think the Stewards may have acted.
Zeppo Marx
>
> "peter" <sco...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:WfPMJdAm...@ntlworld.com...
>> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> writes
>>>>>> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>>>>> out on either the right or the left.
>>>>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>>>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate
>>>>>> crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal
>>>>>> change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears
>>>>>> guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the stewards
>>>>>> of the meeting.
>>
>>> those
>>> double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>>>
>> the grid what a season we would have) but not really of the person I
>> think you are being overly harsh.
>
> inconsistency on this silly issue.
>
>> Two questions...if Hamilton had weaved down the straight with no one
>> behind him, would that have been against the rules?...AFAIK thats a No.
>
> As far as I know, driver would only do that to heat the tires or if he
> felt he had a car problem or some sort. Not the case here, unless we
> count a threat from Petrov as a car problem.
>
>> Did Hamilton hinder Petrov with his weaving?
>> And a No for this one from me.
>
> felt under threat. So clearly he was hindering an attack. Which is
> clearly against the rules, or that other made up nonsense, "spirit of
> the rules".
Well, in my world "hindering of attack" is called racing.
What did you expect? Petrov pops up in LH's rear mirror and LH retires
the race?
>
>> As long as Hamilton is moving away from Petrov and Petrov is behind
>> then Hamilton is not hindering him.
>
> If Hamilton was moving away there would have been no need to break the
> tow. You have to be catching the car in front to actually get in the
> tow. The tow then gives you a boost to make the pass, or at least try.
> It makes a car slightly faster than the car in front faster still. A
> slower car cant get in the tow in the first place. For Petrov to be in
> the tow, he had to be a bit quicker, so yes weaving to break a tow is
> hindering the guy behind. It has to be.
>
>> However the rules needing clarifying if Formula Ford style weaving to
>> break the tow is not to be allowed.
>
> I don't care about Formula Ford, I was watching a F1 race. As far as I
> know, both have a different set of rules. FF has nothing what so ever to
> do with it. Neither does NASCAR, karting or supermarket trolley races.
>
> And what of the recurring fan bleat about the lack of overtaking? What
> with the aero issues, DDD, and all that, all that is left is the tow. If
> F1 allows drivers to frustrate that then what's left? Again, another
> contradiction. The reason for the anti weaving rules was to promote over
> taking.
>
> Whatever our position on this, clarification is undoubtedly needed.
>
> However, if there were to be a tow clause, then I can see weaving
> happening with the tow clause being used every time as a defense. More
> arguing. More bullshit. So for me we either have weaving or we don't.
> For "show" reasons I would support removing the rule, but I can also see
> why others would say no. I don't really care which as long as its
> applied well.
>
> Its the usual problem IMHO: consistency and clarity, or lack there of.
>
> AC
Zeppo Marx
I am the first one willing to confess that I was wrong.
I thought he is the 15 millions brought into the team.
I never thought he would do anything worth of mentioning here.
I was wrong.
Really wrong.
CatharticF1
news:MPG.262483a6...@eu.news.astraweb.com:
> CatharticF1 wrote...
>
>>
>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in
>> news:1diun.111883$E66....@newsfe22.ams2:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to
>> > cover those double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>>
>>
>> Spot on.
>>
>> I'm really mystified on this one, and if anything this will rile the
>> anti Hamilton crowd because it's completely unjustifiable. Then
>> suddenly there will be the chorus of "Why does Lewis seem to get so
>> much attention".
>
>
> What attention? There's fuck all about this *dreadful crime* on any
> of the websites. The only people making a fuss are the usual suspects
> here and on the forums.
>
> It's a non event - get used to it.
I agree - it would hardly have received any attention had so many people
not stood up and complained about a rule they suddenly professed
ignorance of.
AC
"Zeppo Marx" <Zeppo...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:hpdse2$pve$3...@ss408.t-com.hr...
Not my rule.
> What did you expect? Petrov pops up in LH's rear mirror and LH retires the
> race?
>
Dont be stupid. There is clearly a difference between weaving and the allows
one move.
AC
Advanced Kitty
Keyword : DEFEND his position.
This is only possible WHEN it's under attack and NOT BEFORE.
Slipstreaming is not part of overtaking.
Overtaking consists of moving out of a slipstream in order to initiate a
passing maneouvre.
AC
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K9g81mDA...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <wHjun.14280$pV1....@newsfe21.ams2>, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> writes
>
>>You have to be catching the car in front to actually get in the tow.
>
>
> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>
> --
> Richard Miller
Petrov must have been catching Lewis. Lewis goes past, Petrov ducks in and
picks up a tow, and there for must be catching Hamilton once in the tow. If
he wasn't, then the tow was not working and Hamilton would not have felt
under threat. So, yes, he was catching Lewis once in the tow, hence the
weaving we saw. Lewis was not weaving because the gap was getting bigger,
was he?
As you state it, it seems to me that Lewis has less excuse to weave like
that. Schumacher has had the same problem and actually got taken back, and
he didn't need to weave. He just over took again. Lewis should have taken
his one legal move and if that failed, then try to over take again. As I
understand it, what all that's legally permitted. Others manage that, I
don't see why Lewis gets a new set of rules.
As I have said before, I enjoyed watching it, but what ever way we cut it,
what Lewis did cant possibly been seen a legal. Indeed he got a slap for it.
So, regardless of how much people want to work out a way that Lewis is
cleared, he's not. Petrov had a chance to over take hindered by Lewis
weaving. And that's that. Yeah, I'm pleased he didn't have his race ruined
by a stop and go, and I enjoyed the action. Doesn't make it legal though.
AC
AC
>> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>>
>
>
> prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
> maneuver.
>
>
> Alan LeHun
It makes no difference.
AC
CatharticF1
He was - which is why he was weaving.
He wasn't actually being passed, but that's not relevant.
> Slipstreaming is not part of overtaking.
> Overtaking consists of moving out of a slipstream in order to initiate
> a passing maneouvre.
I'm not saying he was overtaking. Whether Petrov was or wasn't the issue
is the same. You're arguing 1+1=2 when the issue here is 2+2
Hamilton was weaving to *prevent* Petrov having the opportunity to pass,
and that's why this rule exists.
As Hamilton only did it when Petrov was on his tail it is clearly to
defend his position. A driver wants to break the tow when in front to
AC
> Oh not again, please! First we had Ian Dalziel feeling obliged to defend
> AC.
LOL, somehow I doubt it. No one in their right mind defends me.
Look, you posted something that I didn't understand. I was quite open and
honest about that, I have no problem with the notion that I don't know
everything. Well, I have asked you to explain it to me, but instead you
persist in smartarsary.
Fair enough, but don't get all prissy if people make the inevitable
conclusion that you are bit of a tit trying to pretend you are oh so clever.
And then tear you apart for it.
Or, you could just explain what you originally meant? Is that really so
beneath your educated highness?
AC
AC
> This is absurd and not true. Hill actually tried quite a few times to
> pass, put his nose left or right, even drove more or less paralel with
> Schumacher, and was forced couple of times very wide, almost to the gravel
> in the high speed corners. IIRC this was actually the reason why he was
> penalized. How this is the same as Hamilton-Petrov case is beyond my
> imagination and understanding!
Its not the same, but it is covered by the same rules. Rarely are incidents
the same.
AC
AC
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D525FB265AA4r...@203.26.24.228...
I'm finding the whole thing a bit weird.
See. I was watching the TV, got all excited at the racing action and loved
every second of it. Split second after it I thought, "Oh bugger, drive
through. Oh well, nice bit of action". So, it was great to watch, and that's
the sort of thing we like to see, but I also knew it was going too far as
far as the rules were concerned, so I fully expected some sort of
punishment. Once it was said he had gotten a mere warning, I though OK cool,
our boys gotten away with it, roll on the rest of the race.
AFAIAC, Lewis got away with it. I'm glad, as a fan should be. But it was a
lucky break. Not a justified move, but a naughty thing he got away with.
The only justification I can come up with is that he's had rough decisions
before and other have gotten away with suspect moves, so now its his turn
for a ruling to go his way. On that level, fair enough. But that's all.
AC
Advanced Kitty
Then how prior to the start of an overtaking maneouvre do you want to apply
the weaving rule : - slipstreaming ... within 10, 20, 100 metres ?
What happened to the guy behind outfoxing his quarry ?
It's not the overtaking in itself that makes for interesting racing, it's
HOW it's done.
If it's with guile and elegance, it's a joy to watch.
This IS a competiton, in case you forgotten.
If it's reached the stage that marshalls start waving blue flags whenever
there's the slightest prospect of a position overtake, you know something's
REALLY wrong.
And that would be the next logical step from what it might seem that you
would like to see.
Whether Petrov was or wasn't the
> issue is the same. You're arguing 1+1=2 when the issue here is 2+2
>
> Hamilton was weaving to *prevent* Petrov having the opportunity to
> pass, and that's why this rule exists.
>
> As Hamilton only did it when Petrov was on his tail it is clearly to
> defend his position.
The weaving rule ONLY applies when the following driver is IN A POSITION to
overtake, which is definitely not when he's in his quarry's slipstream.
Advanced Kitty
Immediately the overtaker has broken out of the slipstream, the weaving rule
applies.
But that never occurred in this case.
CatharticF1
>
> "CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D525FB265AA4r...@203.26.24.228...
>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in
>> news:1diun.111883$E66....@newsfe22.ams2:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I despair of the double standards and inventions attempting to cover
>>> those double standards up. Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>>
>>
>> Spot on.
>>
>> I'm really mystified on this one, and if anything this will rile the
>> anti Hamilton crowd because it's completely unjustifiable. Then
>> suddenly there will be the chorus of "Why does Lewis seem to get so
>> much attention".
>>
>> --
>> CatharticF1
>>
>> "What you thought was freedom is just greed."
>>
>
> I'm finding the whole thing a bit weird.
>
> See. I was watching the TV, got all excited at the racing action and
> loved every second of it. Split second after it I thought, "Oh bugger,
> drive through. Oh well, nice bit of action". So, it was great to
> watch, and that's the sort of thing we like to see, but I also knew it
> was going too far as far as the rules were concerned, so I fully
> expected some sort of punishment. Once it was said he had gotten a
> mere warning, I though OK cool, our boys gotten away with it, roll on
> the rest of the race.
You know I (as hardly a fan of his) thought much the same. It was good to
see the action and he and Petrov going at it but I expected he'd get in
trouble and then the persecution complex of some fans would kick in. I
didn't expect it to with the warning!
> AFAIAC, Lewis got away with it. I'm glad, as a fan should be. But it
> was a lucky break. Not a justified move, but a naughty thing he got
> away with.
Yeah - me too. Next time it happens then whoever does it: drive through.
But then the argument becomes "Lewis got a warning, why did I get a
penalty" - which is a danger.
> The only justification I can come up with is that he's had rough
> decisions before and other have gotten away with suspect moves, so now
> its his turn for a ruling to go his way. On that level, fair enough.
> But that's all.
I agree he's been hit hard on some occasions and lightly on others. After
this one though he might be about to be clobbered next time..
build
grateful the stewards arrived at a generous decision. Some blinkered
Hamilton fans will never see reality. They are not like a reasonable
fan like myself who understands that there is only one "great" driver
in F1 and you know who that is ;-)
I guess the difference is that my blinkers are rose coloured, not
opaque. Give it up or waste time ;-)
beers,
build
Frank Adam
>I am looking forward to meet someone from the opposite side one day who
>would be able to explain to me calmly and with clear arguments what Hamilton
>have done to all of you to be so hated and dispised by all of you, even
>those who claim to be his fans! I would be willing to pay good money to find
>what were the resaons for that, appart of those clearly irrational ones.
>
First you have to show us why you are so defensive about Hamilton. Are
you related, his mum perhaps ?
I don't know why you'd think that there is a hate club just because
some people(ie:YT) do not agree with Lewis' weaving action on the
track. Are you trying to stuff red herrings into a strawman ?
Here is a little hint, when your Dad told you off for skipping school,
he didn't really hate you, he merely pointed out that you did wrong.
See if you can work with that, before you go accusing others.
ps: Keep top posting and you'll find most people here will plant you
firmly in the bozo bin. Of course, if a quiet plant like existence is
what you want here, just disregard the above.
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
>In article <K9g81mDA...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>,
>ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk says...
>> Petrov was not catching Lewis. He had just been overtaken by Lewis, but
>> ducked into the slipstream and picked up the tow as Lewis went past.
>>
>
>A point totally missed by everyone. Doh!
>
>And it does change the picture. LH's weaving was not done in order to
>prevent an overtaking maneuver, it was done as part of an overtaking
>maneuver.
>
ROFL. Alan, didn't we agree that you'll stop drinking ? ;)
--
Regards, Frank
Bob Dubery
> This discussion could go on forever. Most Hamilton fans, like me are
> grateful the stewards arrived at a generous decision. Some blinkered
> Hamilton fans will never see reality. They are not like a reasonable
> fan like myself who understands that there is only one "great" driver
> in F1 and you know who that is ;-)
run close enough to the front to feature in many endless arguments. Do
try harder to live in the real world.
build
Hamilton is an exciting driver, great achievements and great
possibilities. He just needs to calm down, we can wait patiently for
that. But hell to say we hate him just because we recognise an error
in judgment is paranoia. Hamilton is good, enjoy his driving but do
not worship anyone who is fallible (so anyone).
beers,
build
Frank Adam
You're talking to Build. He meant Patrese.
Reckon we should tell him ? Nah.. ;)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
No - that's not the case.
It applies when a driver is defending his position - other qualifications
are yours.
> Immediately the overtaker has broken out of the slipstream, the
> weaving rule applies.
> But that never occurred in this case.
You've just made that up, or believe it to be the case - but it's not.
It really isn't..
build
LOL, you silly bastard, not Trulli but the "trully" great driver ;-)
beers,
build
build
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
>
Are trying to fuck with me boy?
Patrese was a great test driver and possibly the best number two in
history but ....
Wait till I get you on a Kart track boy, I'm gunna eat you up ;-)
Unless I fall over.
beers,
build
build
> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.acco...@ntlworld.com> wrote innews:81vj5t...@mid.individual.net:
> > Immediately the overtaker has broken out of the slipstream, the
> > weaving rule applies.
> > But that never occurred in this case.
When is it the case then?
Did you think about that?
Have you ever raced and been in that situation?
If you are in the slipstream, you are in a position to overtake, fact.
Weaving to bloke or break a slipstream is unacceptable. The majority
agree, the stewards agree, the rules agree.
beers,
build
Bigbird
> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
>
Oh dear, another Brendan in the making. Shame on you and your scatter
gun.
> <applause>
Obviously Ric sees it too. ;)
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
mower man
> Sir Tim<ben...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote in
> news:c9hjr5po8l6qikfcf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 5 Apr 2010 10:38:25 +1100, CatharticF1<rasf1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From the FIA Document, 2010 APPENDIX L TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING
>>> CODE
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>>>
>>> 2 b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
>>> out on either the right or the left.
>>> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
>>> more than one change of direction to defend a position,
>>> deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
>>> any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
>>> Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
>>> be reported to the stewards of the meeting.
>>>
>> more precisely Code of Conduct - but I assume that counts as a rule).
>>
>> Hamiltons changes of direction were, arguably, "to defend a position"
>> (i.e. by breaking the tow). They were certainly "abnormal" and as such
>> contravened the code, so the stewards were right to reprimand him.
>>
>> Their decision not to penalize him with a drive-through (which would
>> have ruined a spectacular drive) seems to me to show a degree of
>> common sense that has been sadly lacking from stewards decisions in
>> recent years.
>>
>> But - he'd damned well better not do it again ;)
>
> I agree Tim and with the penalty, though only just! I didn't expect it
> to explode into a questionable issue like this!
"Explode?" It hasn't, has it. This is the only place it's even remembered.
All it shows is that people on this ng are as deeply polarised as any
bloody football fan. It's a long way from "The Right Crowd and no
Crowding", isn't it?
Face it, it's a complete load of bollocks which happens to offer a way
for the fans of both sides (and sometimes there only appear to be two)
here to attack each other. Just hot air.
I now expect even more gush about time honoured this, long standing
that. Please don't bother. It has become the most boring of boring threads.
> I can understand Renault being upset and had it been McLaren, Ferrari or
> Red Bull on the wrong end I think the Stewards may have acted.
>
ric zito
> ric zito wrote:
>
> > AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > Shame on Lewis Hamilton fans.
> >
>
> Oh dear, another Brendan in the making. Shame on you and your scatter
> gun.
Why do you say that? I thought it was a refreshingly honest discourse. I
think it was pretty clear he was talking about the LH fans in this NG
who are going to great lengths to justify the weaving, and not all LH
fans - even if he didn't specifically say so.
> > <applause>
>
> Obviously Ric sees it too. ;)
Don't you?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com