The Spanish Incident - Who was at fault? ***spoilers***

I see you're not subscribed, so don't think you can do a poll - I'll do one - lets find out what the 'experts' here feel....

 

Hey,

Prompted by another post, let's see what the great unwashed here feel....

 

You should have put a third option, BOTH, and then a fourth option KVYAT

 

Racing incident imo. Rosberg was legal to make one move and did, Hamilton had to guess which way to go and guessed wrong. If Rosberg's engine wasn't in the wrong mode it would have turned out differently as Hamilton wouldn't have closed anywhere nearly as quickly.

 

Who was to blame?: Senna!

Hamilton learnt from him to go for any gap whatsoever, regardless of the possible outcome because, according to Senna : “If you no longer go for a gap which exists you are no longer a racing driver”

(Bet you didn't see that one coming! )

 

Racing incident imo. Rosberg was legal to make one move and did, Hamilton had to guess which way to go and guessed wrong. If Rosberg's engine wasn't in the wrong mode it would have turned out differently as Hamilton wouldn't have closed anywhere nearly as quickly

 

Hamilton got his hand slapped in the cookie jar...

Robb

 

Please allow me to quote the Sporting Regulations:


27.6 "More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."

27.7 "Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’."


According to the clear English of the Sporting Regs : Rosberg was in violation by attempting to use the full width of the track to defend/block, when Hamilton had part of his front wing alongside Rosberg's rear wheel.

We may not agree about the wisdom of the rule ... but rules are rules.

 

I can't edit it now unfortunately, but you're absolutely right.

However, can't help thinking 'both' or 'Kyvat' would be the overwhelming choices! With Kyvat being the winner!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Rosberg's engine mode setting is done by the driver - - his mistake. The one move Rosberg made came but a split second too late - - by the time he made his move Lewis was already there. The reason Nico passed Lewis in Turn One in the first place is because the long length of the straight (from the grid to Turn 1) allowed the second place driver to get the tow and slipstream by, etc.

 

Just Create another thread, we've only talked about this gajillion billion times already, what's the harm in 1 more thread lololol.

wonk wonk

 

And yet according to the stewards they were both to blame: Why Hamilton and Rosberg avoided penalties for Spain crash

 

How about a: "Who wasn't to blame?" thread? - That would make a nice change!

 

So the real question is:

"significant portion of the car"

I don't see just the front wing as meaning Rosberg should have to yield.

Robb

 

Elton was na ass...brain fart as usual....

 

The rules are clear & unambiguous, defining what is meant by a "significant portion" ... please see 27.7 quoted above. It doesn't demand that Rosberg must "yield", only that Rosberg may NOT use the full width of the track to defend/block. Rosberg is not required to slow down, for example.

Maybe start a new poll : who thinks 27.7, as written, is a stupid rule? I'll be among the first to vote YES

 

They were not applied between Hamilton/Rosberg in Spa and not between Hamilton/Bottas earlier this year, so what does this say about the rules? They are not "clear English" but interpretation of the stewards...If the car has to be given way as soon as the nose is next to the car even without any chance to sucessfully overtake that means everybody can force his way through because the other needs to give room even if this means he has to leave his own racing line...
Look at Hamilton/Bottas: Bottas most likely would have never made the turn in Bahrain but we never know because Hamilton cut the corner and "did not leave room" according to your rule...As Bottas front wing smashed into the sidepod of Hamiton he was obviously "significant" aside of Hamilton...Would you simply blame Hamilton for this accident and say Bottas was right??? I don´t think so but this time you just see this rule and say it is clear.

 

I've been following F1 since the late 60s and I believe that Lewis was at fault on his one. Glad no one was hurt and glad Max made history!

My wife asked me: If that Max guy is on the podium at COTA, what are they going to give him to drink: Pespsi?

 

It's not "my rule" ... i'm simply afflicted with an ability to read & understand English.

Rosberg is not required to yield, in this situation. He's not required to slow-down, and allow Hamilton to pass. He's simply prevented from using the full width of the track to defend/block. He's still allowed to RACE

That's not an interpretation ... that's simply the clear & unambiguous language of Sporting Regulation 27.7

 

Just a racing incident but if the rules state a cars width should be left if a front wheel is alongside your rear wheel then Nico should of left room, so I'd say 60/40 to Nico.

 

So if this is simple and clear, why is it not allways used that way? Obviously it is not so clear at all or do you think the stewards are not able to read clear English?

 

How if he was in wrong engine mode lacking 180 hp set before the start?

 

What part of 27.7 do you think allowed Nico to shut the door completely? Was Nico not "defending"? Was he not on a "straight"? Did Hamilton not have part of his front wing alongside Rosberg's rear wheel?

What's the specific "escape clause" in the Sporting Regs, that allows 27.7 to NOT apply against Rosberg in this situation?

 

LH was the stupid one, considering all aspects, especially team interests. As far as 'legal' blame, both were wrong. And both paid the ultimate price, so I'd say a neutral 'legal' outcome was justified.