Mad Max or Rash Ricciardo? Have Your Say!

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

@keto95 seems I'm in the minority here, but that first block on the Kemmel straight by Schumacher was disguuuusting driving if you ask me!

The two differences is that Schumacher didn't knock Häkkinen off the track the lap before, and Schumacher started his defensive move before Häkkinen started his offensive move.
It's not pretty but it's not reactive.

 

[Eagle Racer]

how many people will have to crash with Verstappen, before he is officially marked dangerous and sacked

yes it brings excitement to the sport and he made some great moves in the past, but overall he is costing many people lot of $$$ because of his eagerness and sometimes just plain stupid actions

if he doesn't grow up, it's time for him to leave the sport

How many people will continue to blame Verstappen for every accident he's involved in before they realize that other drivers can make mistakes as well. Everyone keeps saying 'Verstappen moved twice' but if they weren't so one-sided, they would see that Verstappen covered the outside, then chose his line for braking as the so called "second move" which, I think you'll find, is perfectly fair. Ricciardo's fault, unfortunately.

 

[keto95]

The two differences is that Schumacher didn't knock Häkkinen off the track the lap before, and Schumacher started his defensive move before Häkkinen started his offensive move.
It's not pretty but it's not reactive.

How right you are!

 

[After_Midnight]

then chose his line for braking as the so called "second move" which, I think you'll find, is perfectly fair. Ricciardo's fault, unfortunately.

..this was not a move by Verstappen to chose his line for braking. It was a reaction to cover the inside.
To choose this line for braking makes no sense for the turn 1. Just for defending.
Verstappens fault, unfortunately

 

[RasmusP]

[...] Verstappen covered the outside, then chose his line for braking as the so called "second move" [...]

I'd really appreciate a source (no matter what language), stating that "choosing the line for braking" gives a free additional move. Until then I'll stick to Appendix L from the FIA that got mentioned a few times by now.

 

[Stig Bidstrup]

Here in the virtual world of simracing RD specifically , I have never personally experienced a double move like that --so it kind of speaks for it self.
Them being team mates makes even more strange .
On the other hand I simply don't understand why Ricardo goes for the inside line --since its firmly closed . Combination of a Panic double move --and a Panic overtaking move

 

[Snailer]

How many people will continue to blame Verstappen for every accident he's involved in before they realize that other drivers can make mistakes as well. Everyone keeps saying 'Verstappen moved twice' but if they weren't so one-sided, they would see that Verstappen covered the outside, then chose his line for braking as the so called "second move" which, I think you'll find, is perfectly fair. Ricciardo's fault, unfortunately.

Of course any driver can make a mistake. That said, I find it rather strange some of them appear to be making more mistakes when around Verstappen than when around other drivers. I'm sure it's nothing.

 

[muzikant]

Max krijgt altijd de schuld:

 

[InsaneOzzie]

The one thing most arguments here don't have which the stewards do have, is car telemetry. To say "Max wasn't braking when he made his 2nd move" buy watching the replay is guessing at best, it's also fair to say that the comment "Daniel didn't brake hard enough to avoid the impact" by viewing the same replay is also farcical.
As racing officials the stewards would of taken the data from both cars and analysed it from every angle, no team personnel are permitted near the cars till after the officials have done their preliminary investigations. So using the telemetry of both cars the stewards are able to see who was and who wasn't braking, and where they were braking prior to impact, which is probably why they made the statement Max moved under brakes, they can also see a plethora of other data that informs them of car speed, gearing etc etc, that we never see. We as lounge chair officials can speculate all we like regarding who was at fault, but only the team and the officials really know what was what, based on the telemetry they've analysed.
I think this one needs to be put to bed, it's history, can't be changed, so lets move on shall we.

 

[Patrick van der Meulen]

I'd really appreciate a source (no matter what language), stating that "choosing the line for braking" gives a free additional move. Until then I'll stick to Appendix L from the FIA that got mentioned a few times by now.

Well, problem is, the F1 World Championship has it's own sporting regulations. Just for the sake of being able to refer to it I added it to this post. It's the last available version published on december 7th 2017.

And here comes the problem because everyone here seems to be the proud owner of "The One And Only Truth" and no other view or opinion in between seems to be allowed... There is no place on earth where you will find the International Sporting Code and Regulations are applicable. Or not applicable. Neither you'll find it in the enclosed F1 Sporting Regulations.

There is only one reference in chapter 27 point 2 (page 22 of the PDF): Drivers must observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits at all times.

Here comes the problem, it doesn't say they will be judged accordingly to international sporting code. International sporting code isn't even mentioned. Let alone international sporting code appendix L. Which I also provided. You can see chapter 4 called "Code of driving conduct on circuits" (page 24 of PDF). Point 2 is about overtaking, car control and track limits.

Does F1 sporting regulations implies it's applicable as general rule of thumb. Yes, it implies very, very indirectly. But it isn't stated as such.

And that my friends, is why we can debate 'till the end of times. Because when overview it objectively, F1 rules are a swamp and a mess.

And it's a shame the debate is so polarized. Almost if it's like soccer. Either you are for the one, or the other. Nothing in between seems to be possible...

 

[RasmusP]

Well, problem is, the F1 World Championship has it's own sporting regulations. Just for the sake of being able to refer to it I added it to this post. It's the last available version published on december 7th 2017.

And here comes the problem because everyone here seems to be the proud owner of "The One And Only Truth" and no other view or opinion in between seems to be allowed... There is no place on earth where you will find the International Sporting Code and Regulations are applicable. Or not applicable. Neither you'll find it in the enclosed F1 Sporting Regulations.

There is only one reference in chapter 27 point 2 (page 22 of the PDF): Drivers must observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits at all times.

Here comes the problem, it doesn't say they will be judged accordingly to international sporting code. International sporting code isn't even mentioned. Let alone international sporting code appendix L. Which I also provided. You can see chapter 4 called "Code of driving conduct on circuits" (page 24 of PDF). Point 2 is about overtaking, car control and track limits.

Does F1 sporting regulations implies it's applicable as general rule of thumb. Yes, it implies very, very indirectly. But it isn't stated as such.

And that my friends, is why we can debate 'till the end of times. Because when overview it objectively, F1 rules are a swamp and a mess.

And it's a shame the debate is so polarized. Almost if it's like soccer. Either you are for the one, or the other. Nothing in between seems to be possible...

Nice post, thanks for that!
I don't really feel blamed for the black/white statement though as I said in my first post that verstappen is at fault but ricciardo also could've avoided it.
Which means something like 70/30 or whatever numbers you want to give this..

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Well, problem is, the F1 World Championship has it's own sporting regulations. Just for the sake of being able to refer to it I added it to this post. It's the last available version published on december 7th 2017.

And here comes the problem because everyone here seems to be the proud owner of "The One And Only Truth" and no other view or opinion in between seems to be allowed... There is no place on earth where you will find the International Sporting Code and Regulations are applicable. Or not applicable. Neither you'll find it in the enclosed F1 Sporting Regulations.

There is only one reference in chapter 27 point 2 (page 22 of the PDF): Drivers must observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits at all times.

Here comes the problem, it doesn't say they will be judged accordingly to international sporting code. International sporting code isn't even mentioned. Let alone international sporting code appendix L. Which I also provided. You can see chapter 4 called "Code of driving conduct on circuits" (page 24 of PDF). Point 2 is about overtaking, car control and track limits.

Does F1 sporting regulations implies it's applicable as general rule of thumb. Yes, it implies very, very indirectly. But it isn't stated as such.

And that my friends, is why we can debate 'till the end of times. Because when overview it objectively, F1 rules are a swamp and a mess.

And it's a shame the debate is so polarized. Almost if it's like soccer. Either you are for the one, or the other. Nothing in between seems to be possible...

Every FIA championship have their own supplementary regulations. However, they are all bound to the FIA International Sporting Code.

Also, "Observe". I am not saying this to try to undermine you, your knowledge of English or anything like that (I mean, strictly speaking, English isn't the first or second language where I live, so I am no English-expert myself), but the word observe in a situation like this, means that they must follow it.
So the F1 sporting regulations states in clear words that they must follow and obey the rules outlined in the Sporting Code at all times (or as it says, code of driving conduct, which is the Apx.L Chapter IV). This is not a thing that's up for debate at all.

 

[spark12072001]

My humble opinion: Max moved twice (illegal move) but Daniel should've backed off earlier. Conclusion: racing incident. I also believe people are hating on Max, just because he is Max. I think he doesn't deserve some of the things that have been said about him (like all of the "he needs to be banned from the sport" comments). There are more and have been more dangerous drivers on the grid in my op opinion (Magnussen, Schumacher...). Besides that, Horner should have applied some team orders in this situation.

 

[muzikant]

My humble opinion: Max moved twice (illegal move) but Daniel should've backed off earlier. Conclusion: racing incident. I also believe people are hating on Max, just because he is Max. I think he doesn't deserve some of the things that have been said about him (like all of the "he needs to be banned from the sport" comments). There are more and have been more dangerous drivers on the grid in my op opinion (Magnussen, Schumacher...). Besides that, Horner should have applied some team orders in this situation.

Good post!

 

[Piero Favretti]

Between Verstappen and Grosjean you can almost bet there will be an accident or two at every race weekend...then they talk about Maldonado. It's great to be fast, but fast and stupid don't mix.

 

[Appie Kuipers]

Max his first GP win in Spain was due a stupid move by Hamilton! So also the dickhead makes mistakes, most overhere forgot it seems!

 

[gamer19]

On second thought...
maybe Max was just following @Brandon Wright personal mantra ?

 

[Patrick van der Meulen]

Nice post, thanks for that!
I don't really feel blamed for the black/white statement though as I said in my first post that verstappen is at fault but ricciardo also could've avoided it.
Which means something like 70/30 or whatever numbers you want to give this..

Well, nobody have to feel blamed. It’s my observation and opinion and something that irritates me. Why not just have a good discussion with each other no matter what opinion one have. Truth is, there is no higher truth. Except FIA makes a mess with sanctioning within F1.

The stewards just must follow the rules and sanction accordingly. And when possible directly.

Every FIA championship have their own supplementary regulations. However, they are all bound to the FIA International Sporting Code.

Also, "Observe". I am not saying this to try to undermine you, your knowledge of English or anything like that (I mean, strictly speaking, English isn't the first or second language where I live, so I am no English-expert myself), but the word observe in a situation like this, means that they must follow it.
So the F1 sporting regulations states in clear words that they must follow and obey the rules outlined in the Sporting Code at all times (or as it says, code of driving conduct, which is the Apx.L Chapter IV). This is not a thing that's up for debate at all.

I totally don’t feel undermined , the more knowledge the better. It’s good to know the sporting code applies alongside with the specific competition rules. Problem imho is that it isn’t explicitly mentioned. And I think “observe” is a debatable expression for one who should follow the rules at all times according to the international sporting code. My interpretation is more like “to have knowledge from”. And with a background in insurrance I can assure you everything to the last point have to be written down and every reference have to be mentioned explicitly. And every word and meaning must be undebatable clear.

And with the *cough* very consistent sanctioning by the stewards *cough*... It makes it a swamp and a mess.

And the international sporting code is as clear as it can be. But the F1 regulation stinks imho. And then you have every raceweekend all exceptions and adaptions made by FIA and Charly Whiting. Which makes it even more of a swamp and a mess.

And again as I said earlier, the incident itself is almost as stupid as Grosjean plunging into the wall under SC, both Verstappen and Ricciardo where dumb, the team acted stupid and imho even senseless during the race. And if Verstappen would vanish out of F1, there will always be the next driver to debate about untill the end of times.

As I mentioned, Grosjean for example, FFS... Crashing under SC... and directly blaming one who’s not even close. As we say in Dutch, he drives like a pancake. And always complaining, remember COTA last year? Even Steiner got fed up with him .

There is so much more to have more interesting debates about. Verstappen we know by now. Sometimes brilliant moments, and often carnaging like Schumacher did. Schumacher was far, very far, from a saint. But point is, there are 19 other drivers which are more interesting to have topics on. I rather see topics about LeClerc, Gasly or Perez who more or less silently have had brilliant races this year. Or Ocon’s development. Things like that. The whole Verstappen thing gets a bit meh imho. So please @Paul Jeffrey, make a topic about more interesting things which happened after Barcelona. Not the dumb things from Verstappen.

 

[Patrick van der Meulen]

Between Verstappen and Grosjean you can almost bet there will be an accident or two at every race weekend...then they talk about Maldonado. It's great to be fast, but fast and stupid don't mix.

Grosjean isn’t that fast. But crashing under SC is pretty stupid indeed. But Verstappen isn’t stupid, he isn’t driving smart. But at least he’s fast

 

[gamer19]

Baku crash suggests Red Bull favours Verstappen

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/baku-crash-suggests-red-bull-favours-verstappen-1032693/

I have said exact the same thing earlier, here:
https://www.racedepartment.com/thre...baijan-grand-prix.150032/page-11#post-2739331
Why they really, if they "just support fair racing", and they are neutral - didn't order Max to let Dan pass ?
Obviously... they much more into Max than into Dan.
That's why he should go. And most probably will.