|
Post by Wß on Jun 28, 2017 12:57:27 GMT
Figured I'd start a new thread since the stink is going to linger a while it would seem. This is a Google translation from Auto Motor und Sport, they don't fuck around so this is pretty certain to be looming.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 28, 2017 18:03:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Jun 28, 2017 20:35:40 GMT
I certainly think a precedent should be set for incidents like this especially when it comes to world champions however I do not want him to have a pure disqualification from the 2017 championship even though I do think something like that would be worth it for future of the sport as people will know that they can't get away with doing things like what Vettel did.
If he is willing to do something like that at low speed who says he wouldn't be willing to do it at high speed?
I would say disqualification from Baku and/or 1 race ban would suffice, I don't see them going any further than that, if Vettel wasn't in for a chance of winning the championship I would be much much harsher on him.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 28, 2017 21:14:16 GMT
This would have been much less of an egg in the face situation for the FiA had they issued the appropriate punishment in the first place. There's reporting saying that the Stewards were close to doing just that but they didn't want to "interfere" in the championship battle. They're there to steward the race nothing outside of that, not to control the race outcome. IMO, this has to be investigated along side the actual incident.
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 0:17:54 GMT
Mandatory punishments. F1 has a LONG history, with plenty of incidents on file to compile a list of standard issues. Why can't they form a list and assign standard punishments? It would save doubt or images of bias. The amount of discrepancy we see from driver to driver for the same offence is in itself an offence! And don't even get me started on the farce that was Canada "Oh, we gave the wrong penalty, let's give another one!" Other sports have similar "standard" offences and punishments, so it's not a novel idea. Yes, there will still be the occasional debate over things, but in the long run I think it would give greater transparency to a sport that for years has been run on the whim of 1 guy. Or a penalty system that can't be argued with; incident x intent = level of punishment. ie: Light (1) x accidental (0.5) x unavoidable (1) = 0.5 (5s) Moderate (2) x intentional (1) x avoidable (2) = 4 (drive through) Dangerous (5) x intentional (1) x avoidable (2) = 10 (1 race ban) Either way, will be interesting what they decide. The more I watch this from different angles, the more I start to think he didn't ACTUALLY drive into Lewis, rather the car turned from track input. I'd be happy if they DQ him from Baku and we head to Austria tied on points. *ETA* Remember this little gem? FIA STATEMENT REGARDING ACTIONS OF SEBASTIAN VETTEL AT MEXICAN F1 GRAND PRIX
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 29, 2017 0:51:14 GMT
Intent is something that we'll never *know* all we can do is look at the facts, he denied he did anything wrong, he was cagey in the post race interview even to the point of not acknowledging the hit, always putting the importance on the initial contact. He not only blamed Hamilton for the brake check but insisted that Hamilton should have gotten a penalty as well. Lastly, (his words) said in the interview when challenged by Will Buxton, "that's what you get for brake checking" so there's an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for intent there.
In this video look at his gesturing with his hand even after the hit he doesn't react, he's still waiving his hand at Hamilton, if it had been accidental there would have been a flinch or reaction or something reeling because of what he'd done. There is nothing, only intent.
In this second clip you see it head on, he drive around points his car at Hamilton car and then there's the veering, it hit hard enough to actually raise the entire front of his car, again look at his hand, there's no reaction whatsoever to the impact. He knew what he was doing, no question. Now, is intent important? I'd argue to a degree it is, was the intent to kill the guy or t break his car? No I believe it was calculated and he was going to deliver a message and he delivered that message. Why he felt he could/should do that only Vettel can answer that, but when you've got a short fuse you don't stop and think. That was Ricciardo's commentary.
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 1:06:32 GMT
Oh don't get me wrong, I still DO think it was intentional... just saying that the more i look at the videos the more I start to think it wasn't so much steering into Lewis as losing control while fuming. But then, not having control of your car IS driving in a dangerous manor. Try cruising past a police car with both hands off the wheel waving around and see how you go!
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 29, 2017 1:10:22 GMT
The thing that's going to haunt him is the bringing the sport into ill repute thing which from what I understand was part of the FiA's admonishment to him last year after his Mexico tirade against Charlie. Trying to chase the wording down.
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 1:15:18 GMT
The thing that's going to haunt him is the bringing the sport into ill repute thing which from what I understand was part of the FiA's admonishment to him last year after his Mexico tirade against Charlie. Trying to chase the wording down. See my link in the post up a bit... it goes to the FIA release over the Mexico incident. *EDIT* Pasted here for those who don't like clikcing..
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 29, 2017 1:27:20 GMT
The FiA document noting the stop and go penalty specifically noted intent on the part of car number 5. That's that.
There's no weaseling out of that part.
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 13:35:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 29, 2017 13:42:56 GMT
Yeah Button and Jacques Villeneuve have been the most outspoken drivers on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Jun 29, 2017 13:45:18 GMT
Oh I bet he does!!! Sneaky snitchy smooth talking snake.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Jun 29, 2017 13:55:25 GMT
Some more info here in the impending FIA investigation and details of similar incidents. Dan Ticktum category MSA banned for two years for deliberately colliding behind a safety car Nobuharu Maksushita GP2 Baku last year. Race ban for driving erratically behind safety car Article also refers to Vettel's Mexico outburst where he got off with an apology but was told any further similar incidents of bringing the sport into disrepute would be followed up, www.thepitcrewonline.net/single-post/2017/06/29/Vettel-under-further-investigation-why-the-FIA-has-to-step-up
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 13:57:12 GMT
I knew you'd be happy for JB racechick Twitter also shows that Brundell thinks it should be left as is.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Jun 29, 2017 13:59:47 GMT
Brundle is a paid up member of Button's steak dinner club! Course he's gonna get stuck in there!
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jun 29, 2017 14:30:20 GMT
I like option 2 hahaha
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jun 29, 2017 15:38:14 GMT
“I can see why Seb’s popular, he’s normally polite, got a sense of humor, and smiles a lot, but if things go wrong… mate, when it comes to throwing toys out of the pram, I’ve never seen anyone like him.'” - Mark Webber 2009
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Jun 29, 2017 15:59:44 GMT
Man why can't that little shit just stay quiet in retirement, fuckin moron can't help opening his big mouth and tweeting his worthless opinions and they always sound like its coming from a mentally deficient prick.
I'm obviously referring to the yellow bellied son of a bitch duck of course.
|
|
|
Post by stonemonkey on Jun 29, 2017 16:06:35 GMT
Brundle wants to see warriors behaving like petulant kids behind the safety car?
|
|