Spoiler: Penalties

[Alan]

I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a penalty
for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to see the data...

...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?

No way.

My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen very
obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that would tell
you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an INVESTIGATION!

And the weaving black and white warning was well deserved.

It's one thing to break the tow when the driver is a little farther
back. It's quite a different one when he's that close behind and clearly
going faster than you are.

[XYXPDQ]

It's called racing; which even F1 sometimes allows.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-14 3:07 p.m., XYXPDQ wrote:
> It's called racing; which even F1 sometimes allows.
>

Opening your hands and putting your opponent of the track isn't racing
by the rules.

I watched the trajectory.

He was turning in, and then suddenly went straight.

That just doesn't happen in that order unless he opens the steering.

[geoff]

On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a penalty
> for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to see the
> data...
>
> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>
> No way.
>
> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen very
> obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that would tell
> you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an INVESTIGATION!

A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
and significant deviation.

>
> And the weaving black and white warning was well deserved.

Yes. They couldn't obfuscate that one.

geoff

[geoff]

On 15/11/2021 12:07 pm, XYXPDQ wrote:
> It's called racing; which even F1 sometimes allows.
>

Yeah, but it's not stock-cars demolition-derby.

geoff

[Alan]

On 2021-11-14 5:01 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
>> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a
>> penalty for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to
>> see the data...
>>
>> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>>
>> No way.
>>
>> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen
>> very obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that
>> would tell you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an
>> INVESTIGATION!
>
> A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
> and significant deviation.

That is precisely what you get when you open the steering wheel while
cornering.

[Matt Larkin]

I was just impressed Hamilton managed to react to avoid contact.

Maybe, maybe Verstappen opened the steering because he'd braked too
late on the dusty side and needed to straighten up to avoid losing front
traction and sliding into Hamilton. Maybe.

Whatever, in the end it is a moot point as Hamilton got past.

It did feel like an odd decision not to investigate though, given how other
things do get investigated.

Horner's radio to Masi sounded very like a team boss defending the
indefensible because he had to with very little real evidence to support
his case.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-15 12:55 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 06:59:47 UTC, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 5:01 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a
>>>> penalty for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to
>>>> see the data...
>>>>
>>>> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>>>>
>>>> No way.
>>>>
>>>> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen
>>>> very obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that
>>>> would tell you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an
>>>> INVESTIGATION!
>>>
>>> A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
>>> and significant deviation.
>> That is precisely what you get when you open the steering wheel while
>> cornering.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the weaving black and white warning was well deserved.
>>>
>>> Yes. They couldn't obfuscate that one.
>>>
>>> geoff
> I was just impressed Hamilton managed to react to avoid contact.
>
> Maybe, maybe Verstappen opened the steering because he'd braked too
> late on the dusty side and needed to straighten up to avoid losing front
> traction and sliding into Hamilton. Maybe.

Nope; and on two counts.

1. Cars regularly ran that line when attempting to overtake. It's pretty
much the standard way of attempting to get by, so the line wouldn't have
been dusty.

2. When you open the steering to regain traction, you do so only slightly.

>
> Whatever, in the end it is a moot point as Hamilton got past.

Enforcing the rules of the game is never wrong.

>
> It did feel like an odd decision not to investigate though, given how other
> things do get investigated.

Yup.

[~misfit~]

On 15/11/2021 9:55 pm, Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 06:59:47 UTC, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 5:01 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a
>>>> penalty for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to
>>>> see the data...
>>>>
>>>> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>>>>
>>>> No way.
>>>>
>>>> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen
>>>> very obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that
>>>> would tell you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an
>>>> INVESTIGATION!
>>>
>>> A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
>>> and significant deviation.
>> That is precisely what you get when you open the steering wheel while
>> cornering.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the weaving black and white warning was well deserved.
>>>
>>> Yes. They couldn't obfuscate that one.
>>>
>>> geoff
> I was just impressed Hamilton managed to react to avoid contact.
>
> Maybe, maybe Verstappen opened the steering because he'd braked too
> late on the dusty side and needed to straighten up to avoid losing front
> traction and sliding into Hamilton. Maybe.

If he'd gone in that hard, so that he had to run several car widths OFF track himself then it was
nothing short of dangerous driving.

> Whatever, in the end it is a moot point as Hamilton got past.

Even though I think Max should have been penalised I'm pleased he wasn't and Hamilton beat him with
a show of class that he should learn from.

> It did feel like an odd decision not to investigate though, given how other
> things do get investigated.

Yep, like Hamilton being penalised for doing far less (even though on that occasion Verstappen
crashed).

> Horner's radio to Masi sounded very like a team boss defending the
> indefensible because he had to with very little real evidence to support
> his case.

I really don't like the ethics (or lack thereof) of RBR. I think that's part of the reason I didn't
warm to Vettel while he was there and why I'm not keen on Verstappen, despite his obvious talent. I
think that if you coddle young drivers and reward them for being brats then they've got no
incentive to NOT be brats.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[Matt Larkin]

I don't disagree with what you've written. Just thinking about how a driver
might argue. Max could argue the grip he "felt", even if you and I could agree
that that side of the track should be less dusty than he might sugggest.

And he could argue that the degree of opening of the steering was what he
felt was necessary "based on judgement", or as a precuationary move.

Not saying he'd be right (I tend towards your view completely), just suggesting
that there might be some grey area in the middle that he could use to defend.

All irrelevant of course because Masi decided not to investigate. I wonder if
the lack of contact was the deciding factor there.

[geoff]

On 15/11/2021 7:59 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-11-14 5:01 p.m., geoff wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
>>> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a
>>> penalty for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to
>>> see the data...
>>>
>>> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>>>
>>> No way.
>>>
>>> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen
>>> very obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that
>>> would tell you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an
>>> INVESTIGATION!
>>
>> A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
>> and significant deviation.
>
> That is precisely what you get when you open the steering wheel while
> cornering.

And as a result of that deliberate action he would never have made the
corner (without running off-track) without losing his rear-end.

geoff

[geoff]

On 15/11/2021 9:55 pm, Matt Larkin wrote:

> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 06:59:47 UTC, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 5:01 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2021 10:52 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> I don't know for certain that Verstappen should have received a
>>>> penalty for driving Hamilton off the track at turn 4--I don't get to
>>>> see the data...
>>>>
>>>> ...but no INVESTIGATION necessary?
>>>>
>>>> No way.
>>>>
>>>> My initial reaction to seeing the overhead shot was that Verstappen
>>>> very obviously opened the steering wheel, but the actual data that
>>>> would tell you that is the sort of thing you'd only discover in an
>>>> INVESTIGATION!
>>>
>>> A 'little' more than just opened tyhe steering wheel. It was a sudden
>>> and significant deviation.
>> That is precisely what you get when you open the steering wheel while
>> cornering.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the weaving black and white warning was well deserved.
>>>
>>> Yes. They couldn't obfuscate that one.
>>>
>>> geoff
> I was just impressed Hamilton managed to react to avoid contact.
>
> Maybe, maybe Verstappen opened the steering because he'd braked too
> late on the dusty side and needed to straighten up to avoid losing front
> traction and sliding into Hamilton. Maybe.

I think it was a deliberate, maybe instinctive (to be kind), twitch at
HAM. Unlike similar-but-different incidents between them in the past
when contact has been made during genuine attempts at making the corner
and passing.

>
> Whatever, in the end it is a moot point as Hamilton got past.
>
> It did feel like an odd decision not to investigate though, given how other
> things do get investigated.
>
> Horner's radio to Masi sounded very like a team boss defending the
> indefensible because he had to with very little real evidence to support
> his case.

And apparently didn't need to have made it ...

geoff

[Matt Larkin]

The video is online now at https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.watch-all-the-angles-of-hamilton-and-verstappens-lap-48-battle-in-brazil.3ghMXVIaYdjY6WDID1QFte.html

My amateur reading of Max's steering inputs is that he never aimed at the apex at all,
but neither did he open the wheel to drift out - he was just never going to make
the corner having braked as late as he did (catching hamilton under braking).

Am I wrong? And does that make Max's actions right?

[Alan]

Well, I'll be damned.

I've watched that a bunch of times now, and...

...Verstappen doesn't open his hands to make the car go straighter for
that moment you can see in the overhead shot.

What it looks like to me is that he chooses what he thinks will be a
trajectory that will leave Hamilton with no room at the exit of the
corner (which would still have been an infraction, because Hamilton had
clearly earned himself the rights to room on the track)...

...but then his car picks up some understeer--probably caused by the
turbulence from Hamilton's car, and his chosen line becomes one that
puts him right off track as well.

So to me, this is just like Hamilton's attempted pass on Verstappen at
Copse:

Verstappen(Hamilton) picked a line and a speed that he(he) felt he(he)
needed to take to use the inside line to stay ahead(pass)
Hamilton(Verstappen), but the car understeered wider than that line. But
he(he) could have backed off a little to have left Hamilton(Verstappen)
to room to which Hamilton(Verstappen) was entitled to and perhaps the
manoeuvre wouldn't have succeed, but that's racing.

So same penalty for both in my book. Maybe a little more serious for
Hamilton because of the much higher speed at Copse than at turn 4 at
Interlagos ("Descida do Lago").

[Alan]

It's moot now. The now-available in-car video shows it was choice of
line, speed and understeer that he didn't expect to get that made what
he'd clearly chosen as a line to squeeze Hamilton off the limit (while
leaving himself on track, and still illegal based on the requirement to
leave an overtaking driver room on the track if he establishes himself
there early enough) into a line that carried himself of the track as well.

[geoff]

I think at all times he could have made the corner cleanly, if he wanted
to. He chose that action.

geoff

[geoff]

I disagree in that Copse was an error of judgement, and this was deliberate.

geoff

[Bigbird]

He simply didn't really try very hard to turn in, did he.

The full story only really becomes obvious from side by side laps
video/telemetry but it looks to me that he chose not to steer in. It is
not obvious that he couldn't.

[Alan]

You're quite wrong.

You can see the moment when despite not opening the steering, the car
starts to understeer.

[Alan]

Copse was a deliberate attempt to crowd Verstappen past the edge of the
track at the exit (or have him drop back)...

...and this was precisely the same.

[Alan]

He tried what he thought would be just enough to leave him room on the
track and Hamilton having to either fall back or go off.

What advantage would there be for Verstappen to choosing a trajectory
which takes them both off, when the opportunity was clearly there for
him to be able to stay on the track with only Hamilton going off (and
thus help get back some gap)?

>
> The full story only really becomes obvious from side by side laps
> video/telemetry but it looks to me that he chose not to steer in. It is
> not obvious that he couldn't.

It's obvious he was steering in sufficiently to let him stay on track
until he picked up a large dose of understeer.

Watch the video from 7s to 8s at half speed. At about 7.5s, Verstappen's
nose is still pointed into the (admittedly early, but that's what an
inside manoeuvre does) apex, and then without him release any steering
wheel angle at all the car just washes wide, and he actually starts
adding steering wheel angle. Long before he gets to the track edge, he's
got nearly 90 degrees of steering wheel.

[geoff]

What benefit would he have got from weaving ?

geoff

[Alan]

Keeping Hamilton behind him.

And before you say it, leaving Hamilton with no space at the exit of
turn 4 but keeping himself on the track (which I still agree would have
been illegal) would have done that "keeping behind" part as well, while
creating more gap if he doesn't go off the track himself.

[geoff]

Yes, illegally.

geoff

[Alan]

I agree. I think it was on the edge, but Hamilton was too close
certainly at the last of the weaving for it to be allowed under merely
trying to break the tow of the car behind.

But in the turn 4 incident, Verstappen gains more from running Hamilton
wide (onto dirty track) while staying on track himself than he does from
running them both off the track. And he's risking the same penalty
either way.

[texas gate]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:32:59 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Nope

shove your nope up your cunt
you fucking idiot

[texas gate]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You're quite wrong.

and you are quite the fucking idiot

[texas gate]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:21:45 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I agree.

fuck off

[texas gate]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:47:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> And before you say it,

fuck are you gay

[Bigbird]

I refer you to my previous response.

I don't see that your guesses add anything.

[Alan]

They're not guesses.

[Bigbird]

I have no reason to consider them any more than your previous premature
and incorrect guesses.

I do not see any purpose for your response. Max did not attempt to turn
in sufficiently in time to make the corner without punting Lewis off
the track. The fact that when he did turn in it was so late that he had
to run miles off track is almost incidental to the intent, or lack of.

[Alan]

I agree. And I've stated that I think it would have been illegal even if
he himself had stayed on the racing surface.

> The fact that when he did turn in it was so late that he had
> to run miles off track is almost incidental to the intent, or lack of.

When he chose his turn in, he chose it believing he would stay on the
track. There is no advantage to him going off the track himself and in
fact, there's a disadvantage in that staying on the track while forcing
Hamilton off

Hamilton off and him on means he can start accelerating sooner AND he
would keep his tires clean while Hamilton would suffer for the next
little bit of the lap while his tires had dust and dirt on them.

Not that I think it's legal—it's clearly not, but that's the only
logical way for Verstappen to play this.

Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly see a
trajectory that is going to stay on the track.

But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different because
they're F1 cars.

[texas gate]

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> I do not see any purpose for your response.

How about trolling?

[texas gate]

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:15:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I've been in a racing car

Wholly fucking broken record.
Give it a rest, stupid.

[Alan]

And you're angry he's on your turf?

[Matt Larkin]

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 22:15:41 UTC, Alan wrote:

> Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly see a
> trajectory that is going to stay on the track.
>
> But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
> trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different because
> they're F1 cars.

That's the only bit I struggle with (and I'm no racing driver); but Max is overtaking
Hamilton off the normal line, into a tighter apex, so he's going faster that Lewis
has judged is "correct" for that corner and yet is still on a trajectory to make the
turn? Are you factoring in speed to that evaluation? The trajectory might have been
good but the pace might have been excessive to achieve the turn (perhaps that's what
you're alluding do in terms of the understeer?

[Alan]

I've seen a video that compares the incident to another lap on pretty
close to the same line.

This video shows Hamilton and Verstappen with telemetry:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVqHI3m9JM>

And this one shows Verstappen on two different laps, but both on the
tighter inside line.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3eLfA9RTko>


The second video doesn't have the synch between the two laps done very
well, but you can basically see that at the same point in the corner,
Verstappen was at pretty close to the same speed (about

Only in the cleaner air of lap 58, he doesn't get masses of understeer
and starts to accelerate normally. On lap 48, the speeds start very
similarly, but when he gets the understeer, he continues to slow to try
to keep the car on the track.

[Bigbird]

Why do you feel the need to make such obvious guesses or repeat them?

Do you not realise you put people off reading any further.

You clearly have nothing to add to what we can see on the video but
your guesses which appear rather uneducated.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-11-19 1:12 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 22:15:41 UTC, Alan wrote:
> >
> > > Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly
> > > see a trajectory that is going to stay on the track.
> > >
> > > But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
> > > trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different
> > > because they're F1 cars.
> >
> > That's the only bit I struggle with (and I'm no racing driver); but
> > Max is overtaking Hamilton off the normal line, into a tighter
> > apex, so he's going faster that Lewis has judged is "correct" for
> > that corner and yet is still on a trajectory to make the turn? Are
> > you factoring in speed to that evaluation? The trajectory might
> > have been good but the pace might have been excessive to achieve
> > the turn (perhaps that's what you're alluding do in terms of the
> > understeer?
> >
>
> I've seen a video that compares the incident to another lap on pretty
> close to the same line.
>

You will have noted the steering angles then.

I saw some telemetry but it was not clear enough for me to be able to
distinguish throttle/brake position wrt to position.

You will acknowledge that they are as important for determining cause
of understeer.

> This video shows Hamilton and Verstappen with telemetry:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVqHI3m9JM>
>
> And this one shows Verstappen on two different laps, but both on the
> tighter inside line.
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3eLfA9RTko>
>
>
> The second video doesn't have the synch between the two laps done
> very well, but you can basically see that at the same point in the
> corner, Verstappen was at pretty close to the same speed (about
>

I haven't followed the link but usually they are in synch WRT time,
perfectly...

[Matt Larkin]

At about 22s in the video, when the black strip of tarmac appears just above
Max's rear wing (demonstrating reasonable sync between the videos) Max
appears to be about 20kph faster on the "controversial" lap 48 compared to
lap 58 (209kph vs 188kph).

Anyway, a moot point - the FIA have thrown out the request for review.

[Alan]

I'm rebutting the nonsense that Verstappen chose a line that was "never"

going to stay on the track.

>

> Do you not realise you put people off reading any further.
>
> You clearly have nothing to add to what we can see on the video but
> your guesses which appear rather uneducated.

LOL!

[Alan]

On 2021-11-19 4:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-19 1:12 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 22:15:41 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly
>>>> see a trajectory that is going to stay on the track.
>>>>
>>>> But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
>>>> trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different
>>>> because they're F1 cars.
>>>
>>> That's the only bit I struggle with (and I'm no racing driver); but
>>> Max is overtaking Hamilton off the normal line, into a tighter
>>> apex, so he's going faster that Lewis has judged is "correct" for
>>> that corner and yet is still on a trajectory to make the turn? Are
>>> you factoring in speed to that evaluation? The trajectory might
>>> have been good but the pace might have been excessive to achieve
>>> the turn (perhaps that's what you're alluding do in terms of the
>>> understeer?
>>>
>>
>> I've seen a video that compares the incident to another lap on pretty
>> close to the same line.
>>
>
> You will have noted the steering angles then.
>
> I saw some telemetry but it was not clear enough for me to be able to
> distinguish throttle/brake position wrt to position.

Then you should pay more attention.

Just run each video at 0.25 speed and you can stop each right when
Verstappen applies the brakes...

...in almost precisely the same spot at almost precisely the same speed.

>
> You will acknowledge that they are as important for determining cause
> of understeer.
>
>> This video shows Hamilton and Verstappen with telemetry:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVqHI3m9JM>
>>
>> And this one shows Verstappen on two different laps, but both on the
>> tighter inside line.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3eLfA9RTko>
>>
>>
>> The second video doesn't have the synch between the two laps done
>> very well, but you can basically see that at the same point in the
>> corner, Verstappen was at pretty close to the same speed (about
>>
>
> I haven't followed the link but usually they are in synch WRT time,
> perfectly...

And you know this, because?

And synched at what point?

But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost precisely the
same place from almost precisely the same speed.

[~misfit~]

Here's Jolyon's take on it (he says Max should have been penalised):
<https://youtu.be/mZquZxUHtC0>

What's interesting is this is an edited down version of the same video I watched on the official F1
site a couple of days ago that I can no longer find. The bit that's been edited out Jolyon said "It
was the right call for the sake of spectacle but the wrong call for the sake of sport" (or very
similar words). Seems he's been reeled in a bit.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[~misfit~]

On 20/11/2021 5:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 10:12 pm, Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 22:15:41 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly see a
>>> trajectory that is going to stay on the track.
>>>
>>> But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
>>> trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different because
>>> they're F1 cars.
>>
>> That's the only bit I struggle with (and I'm no racing driver); but Max is overtaking
>> Hamilton off the normal line, into a tighter apex, so he's going faster that Lewis
>> has judged is "correct" for that corner and yet is still on a trajectory to make the
>> turn?  Are you factoring in speed to that evaluation?  The trajectory might have been
>> good but the pace might have been excessive to achieve the turn (perhaps that's what
>> you're alluding do in terms of the understeer?
>
> Here's Jolyon's take on it (he says Max should have been penalised):
> <https://youtu.be/mZquZxUHtC0>
>
> What's interesting is this is an edited down version of the same video I watched on the official F1
> site a couple of days ago that I can no longer find. The bit that's been edited out Jolyon said "It
> was the right call for the sake of spectacle but the wrong call for the sake of sport" (or very
> similar words). Seems he's been reeled in a bit.

The closest thing I can find to his original statement that he made on video is this quote;

"In my opinion, though, I’m dubious about the decision. For me, it raises questions about
precedents for racing in the future – and from a sporting point of view, it didn’t make sense to me."

from here;
<https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.palmer-has-verstappen-and-hamiltons-interlagos-battle-redefined-the-rules-of.haWPCg4AmginMS17n3Ytn.html>


This from a guy who has not only raced in F1 in relatively recent times but who also has access to
all video of all races in his capacity as official F1 racer / pundit for the last few years.

[~misfit~]

On 20/11/2021 5:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:

> On 19/11/2021 10:12 pm, Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 22:15:41 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> Until he picks up the understeer—WHATEVER CAUSED IT—I can clearly see a
>>> trajectory that is going to stay on the track.
>>>
>>> But then, I've been in a racing car at speed and had to read those
>>> trajectories for myself. And no: they're not magically different because
>>> they're F1 cars.
>>
>> That's the only bit I struggle with (and I'm no racing driver); but Max is overtaking
>> Hamilton off the normal line, into a tighter apex, so he's going faster that Lewis
>> has judged is "correct" for that corner and yet is still on a trajectory to make the
>> turn?  Are you factoring in speed to that evaluation?  The trajectory might have been
>> good but the pace might have been excessive to achieve the turn (perhaps that's what
>> you're alluding do in terms of the understeer?
>
> Here's Jolyon's take on it (he says Max should have been penalised):
> <https://youtu.be/mZquZxUHtC0>
>
> What's interesting is this is an edited down version of the same video I watched on the official F1
> site a couple of days ago that I can no longer find. The bit that's been edited out Jolyon said "It
> was the right call for the sake of spectacle but the wrong call for the sake of sport" (or very
> similar words). Seems he's been reeled in a bit.

So I just got my hands on the full version of Jolyon's analysis for F1TV and, yeah I paraphrased
above. He said more like;

'from an entertainment point of view (not penalising) kept the race alive but from a sporting PoV
it's tough to see that Verstappen got away with this'.

(Again paraphrasing a bit but that's almost verbatim.)

[Bigbird]

You put such store in them that I assumed they would be the actual
telemetry traces as available seen on F1TV which you were banging on
about previously.

> But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost precisely
> the same place from almost precisely the same speed.

Nonsense.

As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking yet again
you totally ignore the throttle.

Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...

You only ever look at part of the picture which is why you never have
the whole picture.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make but you won't get
anywhere while you keep claiming your poor guesses as facts when they
clearly are not.

--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Enjoy!

[Bigbird]

That's a falsehood. You are not rebutting anyone.

> >
> > Do you not realise you put people off reading any further.
> >
> > You clearly have nothing to add to what we can see on the video but
> > your guesses which appear rather uneducated.
>

The FACT is that Verstappen chose to drive in such a way that he would
never stay on track. He created the understeer.

Did you even look at the videos you were touting earlier?

Take another look.

Less nonsense more consideration.

[Alan]

No. He chose to drive in a way that he THOUGHT would allow him to stay
on track, but force Hamilton off track or to fall in behind.

>
> Did you even look at the videos you were touting earlier?
>
> Take another look.
>
> Less nonsense more consideration.

Look at the original overhead. There is a HUGE, obvious moment where the
car suddenly goes much straighter than it had been the moment before,
and now that we've seen the forward-facing in-car video, it is clear
that it didn't do so because Verstappen opened the wheel.

So you're seriously suggesting that Verstappen chose his line counting
on that sudden moment of understeer happening?

Really?

[Alan]

I'm sorry, but those telemetry traces aren't shown on F1TV. I don't know
how the poster of the YouTube video got them.

>
>> But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost precisely
>> the same place from almost precisely the same speed.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking yet again
> you totally ignore the throttle.

Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right off the
throttle until the point where you'd expect him to get back on it.

More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle at the
point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't throttle induced.

>
> Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
> given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...

Almost precisely is a perfectly useful expression that indicates that
while their is a difference, it is perishingly small.

>
> You only ever look at part of the picture which is why you never have
> the whole picture.
>
> I have no idea what point you are trying to make but you won't get
> anywhere while you keep claiming your poor guesses as facts when they
> clearly are not.

The point is that from a cornering perspective, Verstappen's performance
on each of the compared laps was very, very similar. He started his
braking a fraction later and he was definitely trying very hard to force
Hamilton to either go off, or fall in behind. And as I've stated before,
just doing that given where Hamilton had gotten his car would still have
been against the rule about allowing your competitor racing room.

But if it weren't for picking up some understeer for a very brief
fraction, Verstappen would have stayed on the track. That's what the
comparison demonstrates. The only large difference between the two
attempts was the understeer that V suddenly experiences as his car was
heading to the apex.

Watch either video and you can see precisely when it happens (it's JUST
after the video hits 3 seconds, BTW) and it is not accompanied by any
change in throttle, because he's right OFF the throttle at that point.

In short, he tried a tactic (which I still think would have been illegal
even if he'd successfully executed it), and the tactic failed when some
turbulence (most likely explanation; we've seen cars "wash out" from
turbulence over and over) from Hamilton's car caused him to understeer
wider than the line he would have wanted (because he gains maximum
advantage if he forces Hamilton off but stays on himself).

I'm sorry if this is not obvious to you, but it's really not that hard
to see. When we only had the original high angle shot, the understeer
was so severe that everyone thought it must have been from opening his
hands. Brundle said as much at the time. (His exact quote: "Ah, he
opened the steering wheel there, didn't he?"). If you get F1TV, the
replay is from 1:13:45 and the moment of understeer occurs just before
1:13:47. He was running parallel to the inside kerb and then suddenly
the car runs on a wider radius.

We know from the later-seen in-car video that at that point in the
corner, there is no opening of his hands AT ALL.

Yes, because he braked from a slightly later point, he is slightly
deeper into the corner, but he has slowed the car to precisely the same
speed he was at in the earlier lap at the same time from the moment the
later lap started braking (that's where it appears the two laps were
synchronized as V's rear wing is in precisely the same relationship to
the shadows and trackside features), so it isn't extra speed being
carried that made the car understeer.

The one real difference is Hamilton's car being close beside his.

[texas gate]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:41:39 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...

Yesterday he used the term exactly correct.
The guy is a fucking idiot.

[Bigbird]

Be sorry for being wrong. That is where I saw them.

> >
> > > But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost precisely
> > > the same place from almost precisely the same speed.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking yet
> > again you totally ignore the throttle.
>
> Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right off the
> throttle until the point where you'd expect him to get back on it.

Wrong.

Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle while
understeering?

>
> More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle at the
> point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't throttle
> induced.
>

<sigh> Such a tiny part of the picture.

> >
> > Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
> > given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...
>
> Almost precisely is a perfectly useful expression that indicates that
> while their is a difference, it is perishingly small.
>

Yet it isn't. Almost means "not exactly" and if something is not
exactly precisely then it is not precise so it is pure ignorance to
imply otherwise.

How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?

25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.

I count 4 frames.

So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than the
width of the track.

> >
> > You only ever look at part of the picture which is why you never
> > have the whole picture.
> >
> > I have no idea what point you are trying to make but you won't get
> > anywhere while you keep claiming your poor guesses as facts when
> > they clearly are not.
>

[snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.

You cannot infer anything when you don't understand what you are
looking at and have your eyes half shut.

[Bigbird]

Wrong. Why would he then get on the throttle while oversteering towards
the edge of the track.

> >
> > Did you even look at the videos you were touting earlier?
> >
> > Take another look.
> >
> > Less nonsense more consideration.
>
> Look at the original overhead. There is a HUGE, obvious moment where
> the car suddenly goes much straighter than it had been the moment
> before, and now that we've seen the forward-facing in-car video, it
> is clear that it didn't do so because Verstappen opened the wheel.
>

Oh yes, something else you previously claimed was a certainty.

LOL.

> So you're seriously suggesting that Verstappen chose his line
> counting on that sudden moment of understeer happening?

No. I am saying he did not have that much control over his line nor did
he care. His mind was not on making the corner as much as blocking
Hamilton from doing so.

[Alan]

I can't even talk to you about this if you think that Verstappen was
EVER OVERsteering in that incident.

And you also lack anything resembling a clue if you think that adding
throttle can never be a solution to oversteer in cases where oversteer
is actually happening.

>
>>>
>>> Did you even look at the videos you were touting earlier?
>>>
>>> Take another look.
>>>
>>> Less nonsense more consideration.
>>
>> Look at the original overhead. There is a HUGE, obvious moment where
>> the car suddenly goes much straighter than it had been the moment
>> before, and now that we've seen the forward-facing in-car video, it
>> is clear that it didn't do so because Verstappen opened the wheel.
>>
>
> Oh yes, something else you previously claimed was a certainty.
>
> LOL.
>
>> So you're seriously suggesting that Verstappen chose his line
>> counting on that sudden moment of understeer happening?
>
> No. I am saying he did not have that much control over his line nor did
> he care. His mind was not on making the corner as much as blocking
> Hamilton from doing so.

And you're also saying he was "oversteering", so...

[Alan]

Link, please! I'm an F1TV subscriber so don't worry that I won't be able
to see it.

>
>>>
>>>> But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost precisely
>>>> the same place from almost precisely the same speed.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking yet
>>> again you totally ignore the throttle.
>>
>> Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right off the
>> throttle until the point where you'd expect him to get back on it.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle while
> understeering?

So was he understeering when he got back on the throttle or was he
oversteering?

Because you've now claimed both.

>
>
>>
>> More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle at the
>> point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't throttle
>> induced.
>>
>
> <sigh> Such a tiny part of the picture.

You say that now... ...after implying that the understeer was caused by
his use of the throttle.

>
>>>
>>> Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
>>> given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...
>>
>> Almost precisely is a perfectly useful expression that indicates that
>> while their is a difference, it is perishingly small.
>>
>
> Yet it isn't. Almost means "not exactly" and if something is not
> exactly precisely then it is not precise so it is pure ignorance to
> imply otherwise.

Amazingly (to you), English is a language that has "idioms".

Look it up.

>
> How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?
>
> 25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.
>
> I count 4 frames.
>
> So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than the
> width of the track.

Which is irrelevant when you look to see that he got the car's speed
down to the same as it was in the comparison to lap 58.

>
>>>
>>> You only ever look at part of the picture which is why you never
>>> have the whole picture.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what point you are trying to make but you won't get
>>> anywhere while you keep claiming your poor guesses as facts when
>>> they clearly are not.
>>
>
> [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.

LOL

So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.

Got it.

>
> You cannot infer anything when you don't understand what you are
> looking at and have your eyes half shut.

Sorry, sunshine, but I've been out there. I realize you think F1 cars
are magic and that that means that I can't see what a car is doing when
I've been in a car that's done what those cars are doing, but you're
wrong about that.

[News]

As usual, big woo.

[Alan]

Nope.

Just the eyes and experience of someone who has been out there.

The car didn't create constant understeer as if it was going too fast
for the radius it was being asked to navigate.

It was turning in fine, and the for a moment, the radius opened with no
change of the controls that can reasonably account for it.

[Bigbird]

Then why do you claim to have trouble finding them. They are on the
thumbnail of the clip.

Anyone might think you a liar.

Brasil, Shows and analysis.

Do you still claim not to see them? I an happy to see you dig your hole.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost
> > > > > precisely the same place from almost precisely the same speed.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking
> > > > yet again you totally ignore the throttle.
> > >
> > > Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right off
> > > the throttle until the point where you'd expect him to get back
> > > on it.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle while
> > understeering?
>
> So was he understeering when he got back on the throttle or was he
> oversteering?
>
> Because you've now claimed both.
>

So you chose not to answer the question... instead you LIE.

I GET REALLY FED UP WHEN YOU RESORT TO LYING.

STOP IT...

... and answer the question... if you can.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:
>
> > >
> > > More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle at
> > > the point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't
> > > throttle induced.
> > >
> >
> ><sigh> Such a tiny part of the picture.
>
> You say that now... ...after implying that the understeer was caused
> by his use of the throttle.
>

LIAR.

STOP LYING.

BUT instead of avoiding the question again. If he was understeering
what happens when he applies the throttle?

[Alan]

When you say "the clip", which clip do you mean?

>
> Anyone might think you a liar.
>
> Brasil, Shows and analysis.
>
> Do you still claim not to see them? I an happy to see you dig your hole.

Just provide a URL.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost
>>>>>> precisely the same place from almost precisely the same speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you already claimed but while banging on about the braking
>>>>> yet again you totally ignore the throttle.
>>>>
>>>> Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right off
>>>> the throttle until the point where you'd expect him to get back
>>>> on it.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle while
>>> understeering?
>>
>> So was he understeering when he got back on the throttle or was he
>> oversteering?
>>
>> Because you've now claimed both.
>>
>
> So you chose not to answer the question... instead you LIE.
>
> I GET REALLY FED UP WHEN YOU RESORT TO LYING.
>
> STOP IT...
>
> ... and answer the question... if you can.
>

Do you want me to provide the quote?

Ask and I will.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle at
>>>> the point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't
>>>> throttle induced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <sigh> Such a tiny part of the picture.
>>
>> You say that now... ...after implying that the understeer was caused
>> by his use of the throttle.
>>
>
> LIAR.
>
> STOP LYING.

I'm not.

>
> BUT instead of avoiding the question again. If he was understeering
> what happens when he applies the throttle?

That depends on how much throttle he applies.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> >
> > How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?
> >
> > 25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.
> >
> > I count 4 frames.
> >
> > So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than the
> > width of the track.
>
> Which is irrelevant when you look to see that he got the car's speed
> down to the same as it was in the comparison to lap 58.
>

What a meaningless assertion.

Both cars had to slow to much less than optimal speed at some point....
they were also no longer on the racing line and understeering way
offline.

Your pointless responses just emphasise your inability to respond
intelligently.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:14 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?
>>>
>>> 25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.
>>>
>>> I count 4 frames.
>>>
>>> So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than the
>>> width of the track.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant when you look to see that he got the car's speed
>> down to the same as it was in the comparison to lap 58.
>>
>
> What a meaningless assertion.
>
> Both cars had to slow to much less than optimal speed at some point....
> they were also no longer on the racing line and understeering way
> offline.

No, actually. Hamilton's car was not "understeering".

You remain confused about that basic racing dynamics terms mean.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:


> > [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.
>
> LOL
>
> So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.
>
> Got it.
>

You say that but you never get it.

There is only so much of your dumb shit I am willing to read no matter
respond to.

When you are able to formulate an intelligent response to a single one
of the points I have made I will not only be shocked but willing to
read and respond.

As it stands your stupid arguments have been utterly destroyed.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:17 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>
>>> [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>
> You say that but you never get it.

I get it very, very well.

>
> There is only so much of your dumb shit I am willing to read no matter
> respond to.

Says that man who doesn't even know what "understeer" means...

[Bigbird]

So you are claiming not to be able to find it despite my help
spoonfeeding?

That is PATHETIC!

https://f1tv.formula1.com/page/1364/formula-1-heineken-grande-premio-de-sao-paulo-2021

Still can't see it, liar?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost
> > > > > > > precisely the same place from almost precisely the same
> > > > > > > speed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you already claimed but while banging on about the
> > > > > > braking yet again you totally ignore the throttle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right
> > > > > off the throttle until the point where you'd expect him to
> > > > > get back on it.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle
> > > > while understeering?
> > >
> > > So was he understeering when he got back on the throttle or was he
> > > oversteering?
> > >
> > > Because you've now claimed both.
> > >
> >
> > So you chose not to answer the question... instead you LIE.
> >
> > I GET REALLY FED UP WHEN YOU RESORT TO LYING.
> >
> > STOP IT...
> >
> > ... and answer the question... if you can.
> >
>
>
> Do you want me to provide the quote?
>
> Ask and I will.

You're a fcuking liar.

Answer the question or STFU.

[Bigbird]

Avoidance.

LOL.

You can see how much throttle he applies and the result.

Now you just look like a liar through and through.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-11-24 12:14 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?
> > > >
> > > > 25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.
> > > >
> > > > I count 4 frames.
> > > >
> > > > So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than
> > > > the width of the track.
> > >
> > > Which is irrelevant when you look to see that he got the car's
> > > speed down to the same as it was in the comparison to lap 58.
> > >
> >
> > What a meaningless assertion.
> >
> > Both cars had to slow to much less than optimal speed at some
> > point.... they were also no longer on the racing line and
> > understeering way offline.
>
> No, actually. Hamilton's car was not "understeering".
>
> You remain confused about that basic racing dynamics terms mean.
>

..and yet more irrelevance.

I see your white flag.

> >
> > Your pointless responses just emphasise your inability to respond
> > intelligently.
> >

^^^^

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-11-24 12:17 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.
> > >
> > > Got it.
> > >
> >
> > You say that but you never get it.
>
> I get it very, very well.
>

In that case you admit your responses are bullshit.

>
> >
> > There is only so much of your dumb shit I am willing to read no
> > matter respond to.
>
> Says that man who doesn't even know what "understeer" means...

LIAR.

Just a tedious little liar.

[Alan]

That's the general URL for a bunch of videos.

Give me the URL for a SPECIFIC video, asshole.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the fact is that Verstappen begins braking at almost
>>>>>>>> precisely the same place from almost precisely the same
>>>>>>>> speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you already claimed but while banging on about the
>>>>>>> braking yet again you totally ignore the throttle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in both cases, you can see that Verstappen is right
>>>>>> off the throttle until the point where you'd expect him to
>>>>>> get back on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not know what happens when you get back on the throttle
>>>>> while understeering?
>>>>
>>>> So was he understeering when he got back on the throttle or was he
>>>> oversteering?
>>>>
>>>> Because you've now claimed both.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you chose not to answer the question... instead you LIE.
>>>
>>> I GET REALLY FED UP WHEN YOU RESORT TO LYING.
>>>
>>> STOP IT...
>>>
>>> ... and answer the question... if you can.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you want me to provide the quote?
>>
>> Ask and I will.
>
> You're a fcuking liar.
>
> Answer the question or STFU.

Well, you didn't really ask, but here you go.

On Nov 20, 2021, 2:50:16 AM:

"The FACT is that Verstappen chose to drive in such a way that he would
never stay on track. He created the understeer."

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.sport.f1/c/dduRbn5VtHk/m/ggHDdlQoNgAJ>


On Nov 23, 2021, 2:52:35 AM:

"Wrong. Why would he then get on the throttle while oversteering towards
the edge of the track."

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.sport.f1/c/dduRbn5VtHk/m/cFBIkDIUNwAJ>

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:23 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-24 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More importantly, Verstappen is all the way off the throttle
>>>>>> at the point where his car suddenly understeers, so it wasn't
>>>>>> throttle induced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <sigh> Such a tiny part of the picture.
>>>>
>>>> You say that now... ...after implying that the understeer was
>>>> caused by his use of the throttle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LIAR.
>>>
>>> STOP LYING.
>>
>> I'm not.
>>
>>>
>>> BUT instead of avoiding the question again. If he was understeering
>>> what happens when he applies the throttle?
>>
>> That depends on how much throttle he applies.
>
> Avoidance.

Nope. And actual understanding that there is not one outcome if one
applies the throttle while understeering.

>
> LOL.
>
> You can see how much throttle he applies and the result.

You can see he applies the throttle after it becomes apparent that he is
going to leave the track whether he applies it or not.

>
> Now you just look like a liar through and through.

LOL!

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:24 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-24 12:14 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How far does the 33 car travel in just one frame before braking?
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 frames per second 306km per hour. Do the maths.
>>>>>
>>>>> I count 4 frames.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in your opinion "almost precisely" is actually greater than
>>>>> the width of the track.
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevant when you look to see that he got the car's
>>>> speed down to the same as it was in the comparison to lap 58.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What a meaningless assertion.
>>>
>>> Both cars had to slow to much less than optimal speed at some
>>> point.... they were also no longer on the racing line and
>>> understeering way offline.
>>
>> No, actually. Hamilton's car was not "understeering".
>>
>> You remain confused about that basic racing dynamics terms mean.
>>
>
> ..and yet more irrelevance.
>
> I see your white flag.

Quick yes or no question:

Was Hamilton understeering in that incident?

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> > Wrong. Why would he then get on the throttle while oversteering
> > towards the edge of the track.
>
> I can't even talk to you about this if you think that Verstappen was
> EVER OVERsteering in that incident.

A simple mistype as you know from my other posts unless you are
claiming to be a complete buffoon.

You can't respond to anything regardless.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:25 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-24 12:17 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You say that but you never get it.
>>
>> I get it very, very well.
>>
>
> In that case you admit your responses are bullshit.

Nope.

>
>>
>>>
>>> There is only so much of your dumb shit I am willing to read no
>>> matter respond to.
>>
>> Says that man who doesn't even know what "understeer" means...
>
> LIAR.
>
> Just a tedious little liar.

Without looking it up, give us YOUR definition of
understeer.

Remember, I'm actually a certified road racing instructor, so I'll be
grading you.

:-)

[Bigbird]

The ASSHOLE is the person who claims that he cannot see a clip with
telemetry traces.

Keep digging ASSHOLE

https://f1tv.formula1.com/detail/1000004973/weekend-debrief-sao-paulo

Would you like a close up picture of the telemetry too.

You hopeless wanker.

[Bigbird]

So you are claiming that applying the throttle as and when he did did
not contribute to his line.

FUCKWIT!

> >
> > Now you just look like a liar through and through.
>
> LOL!

[Bigbird]

You're really waving that white flag now.

The discussion is about Verstappen's line so obviously you want to
concentrate on Hamilton now.

[Bigbird]

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-11-24 12:25 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-11-24 12:17 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > [snip] absolute rubbish and yet more guesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > So you couldn't refute a word and just snipped it instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Got it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You say that but you never get it.
> > >
> > > I get it very, very well.
> > >
> >
> > In that case you admit your responses are bullshit.
>
> Nope.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is only so much of your dumb shit I am willing to read no
> > > > matter respond to.
> > >
> > > Says that man who doesn't even know what "understeer" means...
> >
> > LIAR.
> >
> > Just a tedious little liar.
>
> Without looking it up, give us YOUR definition of
> understeer.

What makes you think you get to ask me basic questions when you have
proven your incompetence, unwillingness and inability to answer any of
my questions so completely?

You know I know what understeer is.

I am not so sure you know how it is induced, corrected or made worse.

>
> Remember, I'm actually a certified road racing instructor, so I'll be
> grading you.
>

You are a certified fuckwit.

I have graded you.

[Alan]

On 2021-11-24 12:28 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. Why would he then get on the throttle while oversteering
>>> towards the edge of the track.
>>
>> I can't even talk to you about this if you think that Verstappen was
>> EVER OVERsteering in that incident.
>
> A simple mistype as you know from my other posts unless you are
> claiming to be a complete buffoon.

Funny you didn't say it was a "simple mistype" back when I first
responded...

[Alan]

Did you not just say:

"THEY were also no longer on the racing line and understeering way offline"?

Or is it you just don't know what the word "they" means?

[Alan]

I'm claiming that at the time and place he applied the throttle it was
already completely apparent that he was going to go off the track.
Apparent to him and everyone else who actually understands racing
vehicle dynamics.

I understand that leaves you out.

He realized two things:

1. He was going to go off the track.

2. He could apply some throttle to make his off-track exit get him back
on track with as much speed as possible.

[Alan]

No. I do not know that at all.

As you claimed that Hamilton "understeer" in that incident as well.

[Bigbird]

Yet it is you who choose to abandon your original argument and divert.

It's almost as though you know how wrong you are and want to run away.

[Bigbird]

> No. I do not know that at all.##

Liar.

Transparently evasive.

[Bigbird]

Do you really.

I understand that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Only a complete moron would claim that applying the throttle when he
did had no consequences on his line.

You keep waving the white flag while claiming otherwise.

It's clear to everyone that your previous arguments were complete
nonsense.

[Alan]

Really?

What argument did I supposedly "abandon"?

Did you claim that Hamilton understeered?

Yes or no.

[Alan]

Nope.

You've claimed both that Verstappen oversteered and understeered (and
now claim it was just a "mistype")...

...and you've claimed that Hamilton understeered off the track.

So, no: I really don't think you truly understand what "understeer" means.

[Alan]

Since I didn't claim that, it's true...

...but irrelevant.

[texas gate]

troll

[texas gate]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:33:21 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Yes or no.

yes you are a fucking idiot

[texas gate]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> ...but irrelevant.

just like unprotected gay sex

[Alan]

That video is an image of a graph made from telemetry data.

I cannot have been used to create the live, changing data shown in the
two videos under discussion.

[texas gate]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I cannot have been used to create the live,

logoff stupid

[texas gate]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I cannot have been used

you piece of shit

[texas gate]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I cannot have been used to create the live,

wtf?

[texas gate]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I cannot have been used to create the live,

haha

[Phil Carmody]

Alan <no...@nope.com> writes:
> On 2021-11-23 2:46 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-20 2:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:

>>>> Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
>>>> given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...
>>>
>>> Almost precisely is a perfectly useful expression that indicates that
>>> while their is a difference, it is perishingly small.
>>
>> Yet it isn't. Almost means "not exactly" and if something is not
>> exactly precisely then it is not precise so it is pure ignorance to
>> imply otherwise.
>
> Amazingly (to you), English is a language that has "idioms".
>
> Look it up.

It's not particularly an idiom, a whole range of other languages would
have exactly the same construct, even non-IE ones, and it is perfectly
clear in its meaning. It's no more confusing than saying track
renovations are "mostly complete", say: yes, "complete" means all, and
"mostly" modifies that, and together the idea has been communicated
perfectly cromulently. Just ignore him.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[Sir Tim]

Phil Carmody <pc+u...@asdf.org> wrote:
> Alan <no...@nope.com> writes:
>> On 2021-11-23 2:46 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-20 2:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Also you can not possibly make such a claim from the perspectives
>>>>> given. There is no precision. "Almost precisely" is an oxymoron...
>>>>
>>>> Almost precisely is a perfectly useful expression that indicates that
>>>> while their is a difference, it is perishingly small.
>>>
>>> Yet it isn't. Almost means "not exactly" and if something is not
>>> exactly precisely then it is not precise so it is pure ignorance to
>>> imply otherwise.
>>
>> Amazingly (to you), English is a language that has "idioms".
>>
>> Look it up.
>
> It's not particularly an idiom, a whole range of other languages would
> have exactly the same construct, even non-IE ones, and it is perfectly
> clear in its meaning. It's no more confusing than saying track
> renovations are "mostly complete", say: yes, "complete" means all, and
> "mostly" modifies that, and together the idea has been communicated
> perfectly cromulently. Just ignore him.
>
> Phil

“Cromulent” - nice word, wonder how many people have come across it? ;-)

--
Sir Tim

[Darryl Johnson]

Not being a Simpsons fan, I had to look "cromulent" up. I wonder if my
son, was was a Simpsons fan, knows the word, let alone actually uses it.

[geoff]

Me - twice now.

geoff