Nico Punished
- Thread starter ATL11
- Start date
No please, another race, another incident.
At least that's what the 3 parties involved will tell ya! 
An "error of judgement" is the phrase I think we're going with
Dario Resta
Podium Finisher
Well, I never said that you made that statement. I disagree with your opinion on "the incident", in that I don't believe it was deliberate - Nico is not saying it was, so that doesn't tie in with your opinion either. Insinuating that he did it on purpose is labelling him a cheat anyway, isn't it? If you can tell me which bit of any of my posts was factually incorrect then I'll happily retract it.
I'll admit bringing up the Dave Ryangate affair was me doing a bit of a Nico. It was in reponse to the ridiculous accusations being thrown about regarding the very minor brush between Lewis and Nico.
Yes, he apologised for a misjudgement, not for deliberately taking Lewis out.
Last edited:
Dave Ryan did not lose his job because he had to cover for Hamilton. Paddock insiders (such as Joe Saward) know for a fact that it was indeed Ryan who instructed Hamilton on what to say to the Stewards. Lewis had already spoke frankly and openly to pit lane reporters about being asked by his team to let Trulli back through. Davey felt so bad about having cost Hamilton a podium, that he concocted a story in which they could regain the position. That was the inaccuracy I was referring to.
I'm still baffled as to why the Stewards simply could not listen to the Pit communications in Australia that day, you know, right after the race. It always seemed to me like the order could have been settled with very little dispute if race control had used the tools at their disposal.
I'm still baffled as to why the Stewards simply could not listen to the Pit communications in Australia that day, you know, right after the race. It always seemed to me like the order could have been settled with very little dispute if race control had used the tools at their disposal.
snowy
Champion Elect
You know that's never going to happen.
It took 10 seconds to decide that neither Lewis or Nico had anything to answer for. That's not even time enough to rewind the VCR.
Dave Ryan aside, Lewis lied to Stewards to get another driver penalised. Lewis said in today's press conference, as humans we have a right to question an order to make sure they're the right one. They told me to is no defence, but the one who did it didn't lose his job.
Any who we digress.
Nico didn't do it deliberately but has apologised as he was more wrong in the racing incident. This time.
Good!
Monza time!!!!
Any who we digress.
Nico didn't do it deliberately but has apologised as he was more wrong in the racing incident. This time.
Good!
Monza time!!!!
Incubus
Champion Elect
Well what was it Incubus ?
---------------------------------------------
I was being ironic about the definition of "Incident" Titch .
I always thought the very notion of a "racing incident" to be a ridiculous way of officiating. They all are aren't they? Even when one driver in a collision is most at fault it's still an incident isn't it?
But in the case of this thread and with issues of intent/non-intent a word which has a very broad definition has come to mean absolutely nothing.
My own take on the Spa incident (see what I did there, uh-uh?) for what it's worth is that what I saw was a spontaneous act of petulance by a driver who feels the pressure and is letting one or two grudges (regardless of whether they are justified or not) unsettle his approach, and who later made a fool of himself trying to justify it.
He didn't plan for his race with the idea of taking Hamilton out, he wanted to prove a point and after said grudges was especially determined to beat him.
His adrenaline went off the roof at his failure to overtake and it got the better of him. It might even be that he was actually trying to bang wheels with Hamilton. Which is actually a lot more common than drivers tend to admit. Intimidation and that...
Either this is not something you can plan inb advance. He didn't know he would find himself in that exact position on the track relative to Hamilton. But he did aim a wheel at him. There can't be too much serious debate on that one.
That doesn't make him a cheat. That makes him the victim of what they prosaically call "a brain fade".
Last edited:
OK that's good with me.Did anyone notice when Bianchi and Max clashed on the first lap at Canada? Awful, awful driving by one of them but which one? I'll bet the team was in uproar and ready to sack one of them, it was a terrible business it really was I mean it would have been alright if it was on the last lap but the first!! it ruined everything!!! Dreadful truly dreadful, I don't believe I will ever get over it...
Last edited:
We've all agreed to move on Mephistopheles - shush!
rufus_mcdufus
Champion Elect
But were Bianchi and Chilton fighting for the championship? I hate to be Captain Obvious but no-one took any notice because they were pootling around at the back. I know it's like, really unfair but incidents between less significant drivers don't tend to get picked on in every minute detail like this one seems to be. Yawn.
Lewywo4
Race Winner
Well Said.
I know but I watch F1 for the racing and all "Incidents." are equally important to me, be it front, midfield or back of the field I don't differentiate in that respect.
Last edited:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/apr/08/formula-one-mclaren-lewis-hamilton
Please do not try to rewrite history...
I find the idea that all incidents carry the same weight very peculiar. It's entirely possible that Nico Rosberg just decided the title in Belgium. It would hardly be surprising if the margin in the end was less than 18 points. So obviously this was a fairly crucial moment. FOM couldn't even be troubled to show us a replay of Bianchi's incident!
The fact that a collision between championship leaders generates pages of debate while Bianchi's misfortune goes largely forgotten should come as a shock to no one. Add in the drama that ensued afterwards and there was absolutely no question that Jules' incident would be greatly overshadowed.
It's a noble thought that someone could view each and every incident in a vacuum and judge it only on its own merits, but in practice the notion is incredibly implausible. If you could somehow view every collision without knowing the cars' respective positions in the race, or their championship standings, then you just may be able to do it but we know that is impossible.
The FIA has a habit of placing more weight on certain incidents as well. Romain Grosjean received a ban in large part because he took out Alonso a couple years back. In their ruling they specifically stated that the retirement of "Championship Contenders" was central to their concerns. I do recall some debate at the time whether this should have been taken into consideration or not, but that's neither here nor there anymore. It happened before and it will happen again.
The fact that a collision between championship leaders generates pages of debate while Bianchi's misfortune goes largely forgotten should come as a shock to no one. Add in the drama that ensued afterwards and there was absolutely no question that Jules' incident would be greatly overshadowed.
It's a noble thought that someone could view each and every incident in a vacuum and judge it only on its own merits, but in practice the notion is incredibly implausible. If you could somehow view every collision without knowing the cars' respective positions in the race, or their championship standings, then you just may be able to do it but we know that is impossible.
The FIA has a habit of placing more weight on certain incidents as well. Romain Grosjean received a ban in large part because he took out Alonso a couple years back. In their ruling they specifically stated that the retirement of "Championship Contenders" was central to their concerns. I do recall some debate at the time whether this should have been taken into consideration or not, but that's neither here nor there anymore. It happened before and it will happen again.
Mephistopheles I know this is deviating from the main thread topic somewhat, but I am a bit baffled. Doesn't that Guardian article back up what KekeTheKing said and Lewywo4 agreed with? I don't see how either of their posts constitute trying to re-write history - or am I missing something?
