Unpopular F1 opinions

[TheBigJ]

Ramilton fanboys > Senna fanboys

Also, F1 would be so much better if Jean-Marie Ballestre hadn't been deposed by Bernie 'n' Max.

[CoopsII]

Also, F1 would be so much better if Jean-Marie Ballestre hadn't been deposed by Bernie 'n' Max.

He certainly looked cooler in sunglasses than those two, like a French Capo di tutti capi.

[FullMetalJack]

Senna fanboys in general are complete hypocrites.

They all criticise Prost for vetoing Senna in 1993, although Senna did the exact same thing to Derek Warwick in 1986.

[FMecha]

Senna fanboys in general are complete hypocrites.

They all criticise Prost for vetoing Senna in 1993, although Senna did the exact same thing to Derek Warwick in 1986.

Even outside F1, your "fanboys = hypocrites" argument is correct.

[pasta_maldonado]

Senna fanboys in general are complete hypocrites.

They all criticise Prost for vetoing Senna in 1993, although Senna did the exact same thing to Derek Warwick in 1986.

Even outside F1, your "fanboys = hypocrites" argument is correct.

Genrally, fanboys are completely ignorant and naive when other matters of their sport are concerned.

[ibsey]

Had Vettel been a bit more aggressive in forcing Button to the inside, and thus actually attempted to make the corner, Button never would've been able to take more or less his normal line.

This is the issue that I was trying to highlight above. Button's driving onto Vettel's line (i.e. the normal racing line) once Vettel decided to go off the race track. That doesn't sit well with me, as of course this meant that Button got better drive off the corner etc. I think it would have been wiser had Button left a car width on the outside of the corner. Just to hammer home the point he was prepared to give Vettel space.

When Vettel & Button were side by side, it wasn't clear whether Button was going to leave Vettel space or not.

Please be aware I do think Button would have left space, I just wanted him to show it more.

What? So, even though it was fairly obvious that Vettel wasn't going to make the corner unless he aborted the move altogether, Button should comprimise his exit anyway? Why on earth should he do that?

Simply to prove that Button was willing to give Vettel the space & to elimate all doubt.

By not doing so, there has to be an element of doubt as to whether Button was going to give Vettel that space.

Given Vettel was going to get penalised anyway for running off the track. It wouldn't have cost Button anything to leave that space. Whatsmore it would have proved that Vettel was 100% at fault in that incident. I guess I personally prefer drivers to show they are prepared to leave each other space & race cleanly, hence this is why its an unpopular opinion.

Anyway onto another unpopular opinion....which is Mika Hakkinen's overtaking move on M Schumi at Spa in 2000 was good but I consider it to be overrated. Mika simply passed him on a straight, where the track WAS wide enough for 3 F1 car racing side by side.

I think Piquet Snr's overtake on Senna at Hungary 1986 to be much better than the above move. Yet hardly anyone mentions that in great F1 overtaking moves.

[pasta_maldonado]

Had Vettel been a bit more aggressive in forcing Button to the inside, and thus actually attempted to make the corner, Button never would've been able to take more or less his normal line.

This is the issue that I was trying to highlight above. Button's driving onto Vettel's line (i.e. the normal racing line) once Vettel decided to go off the race track. That doesn't sit well with me, as of course this meant that Button got better drive off the corner etc. I think it would have been wiser had Button left a car width on the outside of the corner. Just to hammer home the point he was prepared to give Vettel space.

When Vettel & Button were side by side, it wasn't clear whether Button was going to leave Vettel space or not.

Please be aware I do think Button would have left space, I just wanted him to show it more.

What? So, even though it was fairly obvious that Vettel wasn't going to make the corner unless he aborted the move altogether, Button should comprimise his exit anyway? Why on earth should he do that?

Simply to prove that Button was willing to give Vettel the space & to elimate all doubt.

By not doing so, there has to be an element of doubt as to whether Button was going to give Vettel that space.

Given Vettel was going to get penalised anyway for running off the track. It wouldn't have cost Button anything to leave that space. Whatsmore it would have proved that Vettel was 100% at fault in that incident. I guess I personally prefer drivers to show they are prepared to leave each other space & race cleanly, hence this is why its an unpopular opinion.

Anyway onto another unpopular opinion....which is Mika Hakkinen's overtaking move on M Schumi at Spa in 2000 was good but I consider it to be overrated. Mika simply passed him on a straight, where the track WAS wide enough for 3 F1 car racing side by side.

I think Piquet Snr's overtake on Senna at Hungary 1986 to be much better than the above move. Yet hardly anyone mentions that in great F1 overtaking moves.

IF Button left that space, Vettel wouldn't need to run off the track, therefore incurring no penalty. Vettel was the one on the outside going into the corner, and off the racing line. Button had the inside, and therefore the right to choose where he wants to put his car. Vettel was not ahead of Button when he went off, he was in line with JBs rears, at most halfway alongside. Vettel could have chosen to back out of the move, but he didn't and cheated.

About Hakkinen, you have to bear in mind that they were going almost 200mph, and that if the backmarker (can't remeber who it was offf the top of my head. Was it Zonta?) moved over, Hakkinen would have an almighty crash. Something like Michael Ammermuller's GP2 Crash (about 1 min 40 in)

[Salamander]

What? So, even though it was fairly obvious that Vettel wasn't going to make the corner unless he aborted the move altogether, Button should comprimise his exit anyway? Why on earth should he do that?

Simply to prove that Button was willing to give Vettel the space & to elimate all doubt.

By not doing so, there has to be an element of doubt as to whether Button was going to give Vettel that space.

Given Vettel was going to get penalised anyway for running off the track. It wouldn't have cost Button anything to leave that space. Whatsmore it would have proved that Vettel was 100% at fault in that incident. I guess I personally prefer drivers to show they are prepared to leave each other space & race cleanly, hence this is why its an unpopular opinion.

I still don't see why he has to prove this, especially when, as I stated, there was no guarantee Vettel was going to get a penalty. Had Button shoved Vettel off the track, it was more than likely he would've gotten a remprimand, and lost the position anyway. I understand you wanting to see other drivers giving space and racing cleanly, but that should not mean you have to comprimise your own exit to a corner, because the car you're racing went off the the track.

IF Button left that space, Vettel wouldn't need to run off the track, therefore incurring no penalty. Vettel was the one on the outside going into the corner, and off the racing line. Button had the inside, and therefore the right to choose where he wants to put his car. Vettel was not ahead of Button when he went off, he was in line with JBs rears, at most halfway alongside. Vettel could have chosen to back out of the move, but he didn't and cheated.

Besides, Vettel had started straightening out well before the point where he would've made the corner, and was well wide of Button at that point - you could've fit another car between them at the apex. He could've easily forced Button to a tighter line and blasted past him with a better exit had he made use of that space. He made the decision to go off the track all by himself.

[Gerudo Dragon]

Sato is better than Kobayashi.

Takagi was better than De La Rosa in 1999.

[Salamander]

Sato is better than Kobayashi.

On one lap pace, I think you might be right. Sato was very quick, but the problem for him was always stringing those laps together. When he did, he then wouldn't find the pace for another few races or so. Kobayashi might lack a tad in the pace department, but he's better at making his speed last a whole race, and indeed, a whole season.

[pasta_maldonado]

Sato is better than Kobayashi.

On one lap pace, I think you might be right. Sato was very quick, but the problem for him was always stringing those laps together. When he did, he then wouldn't find the pace for another few races or so. Kobayashi might lack a tad in the pace department, but he's better at making his speed last a whole race, and indeed, a whole season.

Kamui-san BANZAIIIIIIII!!!!!!!s more than Takuma-san anyways.

[CoopsII]

Listening to F1 on the radio is pointless.

[FMecha]

Listening to F1 on the radio is pointless.

Because you can't see what happened, only listening to it?

[ibsey]

Apologies I didn't have very much time to write my last post, so perhaps I didn't explain my point of view as well as I could have.

IF Button left that space, Vettel wouldn't need to run off the track, therefore incurring no penalty.

Indeed. Surely it would be better for drivers not to take to the escape road so quickly when battling for position?

I feel it would help avoid this situation in future, if drivers were obliged to leave a least a car width space when racing side by side (as Button & Vettel were) even if one of them subsquently takes to the escape road (i.e Vettel). This would mean that drivers who are on the outside (like Vettel) will have a greater certainty that the guy on the inside won't squeeze him off the track, when racing side by side. Thus they won't be so keen to use the escape road in future.

As previously stated I sense that the reason Vettel did what he did, was because he felt Button was squeezing him off the track & Vettel was unsure of Button's intentions in that split second. We must also remember that Vettel has won the last two WDC & pulled off numerous overtaking moves & wins in the last few years & he had as good a view as anyone on that situation (i.e. peripheral view of Button coming over to him which the TV Pod camara might not have picked up). Therefore his judgement of the situation must be as good as anyone's.

Also, I don't think Vettel would have run of the track, without good reason to have done so. Knowing the assoicated risks involved etc. Whats more it seemed to me at least that Vettel & Christian Horner were slightly guarded in their post race comments on this incident on BBC, given they were already in trouble with the stewards for engine mapping on that very day.

I still don't see why he has to prove this, especially when, as I stated, there was no guarantee Vettel was going to get a penalty. Had Button shoved Vettel off the track, it was more than likely he would've gotten a remprimand, and lost the position anyway. I understand you wanting to see other drivers giving space and racing cleanly, but that should not mean you have to comprimise your own exit to a corner, because the car you're racing went off the the track.

There are several reasons why I feel Button should have to prove that he would have left space, irrespective of whether Vettel when off the track or not.

For instance what if as a result of not leaving that space, the stewards took the view that Button 'ran Vettel off the road' or that Button had no right to be on the outside of the corner (where Vettel should have been), thus gained an unfair advantage? Therefore gave Button a 10 place grid penalty for the next race. Would it have been worth it for Button then.

Especially when you consider that it wouldn't have cost Button anything in terms of championship points to leave just a car width of space. Furthermore by doing so would elimate any potenial risk of him being penialised by the stewards afterwards. That to me seems to be a fair trade off. Particularly as by that point Vettel had already taken to the run off area, so was out of the equation. One thing I've learnt over the years is the importance of using your head in a race (like Prost, or Jackie Stewart, thus avoiding & eliminating as many potenial risks as you can).

I know you stated above that there was no guarantee Vettel was going to get a penalty. However, in that situation, by leaving that car width worth of space on the exit of the corner would have made Vettel look even more guilty than he already did. In addition to supporting Jenson claims even further in a worst case situation.

In any case, I would have said the risk of Vettel not going getting a penalty, therefore costing Button a potenial 3 WDC points, is preferable. When compared to the risk from the stewards taking the view that Button 'ran Vettel off the road' as a result of not leaving him space or that Button had no right to be on the outside of the corner (where Vettel should have been), thus gaining an unfair advantage. This potenially could of cost Button much more than just 3 WDC points at Hungary, via a 10 place grid penalty, a track known for being tricky to overtake on & a track Button has always gone well at, winning twice IIRC.

I know there was a stewards enquiry in reality & Button was correctly absolved of blame. However there have been stewards enquiries in the past which have resulted in an innocent party being incorrectly penalised in some shape or form. Furthermore as stated previously it appeared to me that Vettel & Red Bull were slightly guarded in their post race comments on this incident, given they were already in trouble with the stewards for engine mapping on that very day. So it wouldn't suprise me at all if they didn't fight their corner as hard as they could have, instead considering themselves lucky with the grand scheme of things.

Another reason why I feel a driver in Button's position should have to prove that he would have left space, irrespective of whether a driver in Vettel's position when off the track or not. Is lets say that instead of it being Button on the inside of the corner, who is someone i regard as a 'clean' driver. Instead it involved a driver who as history for questionable sporting behaviour, perhaps someone like Maldonado or M Schumi. In that situation, how sure could the driver on the outside be that they were in fact going to left enough space to race side by side?

Sure the driver on the inside could say they were going to leave space after the race, when their competitive streak & adrenaline has died down. However in the heat of the battle, when instinct takes over, how can anyone be so sure?

By forcing that driver to leave a space, irrespective of whether their competitor when off the track or not, is the only way I can think of to solve that problem.

As stated previously it would cost very little in terms of lap time to do this perhaps it may have cost Button 0.2 secs at most...which wouldn't have effected either his result or points.

However in return for this 'cost' it would be more likely that the fight for 2nd position would have been settled on the race track & not after the race. Whats more it seems to be safer as well. For instance, what if Vettel had decided, or even lost control of his car, which meant he came back on the track sooner than he did i.e. when Button was still on the outside of the corner? Then there would have been an almighty accident. However if Button was forced to leave at least a car width on the exit then in this situation, there would be more time to react.

I know forcing drivers to leave at least a car width on the exit sounds a little picky. In fact a few years ago, I propably would have been against such a move. However one of the things that really struck me at Germany was how much better & closer the wheel to wheel action has got compared to 15 years ago (Button's 'dummy' on Hulkenberg was a particular highlight for me).

Therefore in order to contiune 'this good work' I just feel that we should look at ways to ensure that in future drivers are less inclined to take to the run off areas when they are racing side by side. Therefore more battles are resolved on the race track & not after the race. Perhaps one of those ways is to ensure that both drivers who are involved in a on track fight, know that they must leave at least a car width of space irrespective of whether their competitior takes to the run off or not?

Just to reiterate I'm not suggesting that Button should be penalised for his actions in Germany as I acknowledge he didn't break any current driving standards regulations. I am simply stating that the driving standards regulations should be changed to avoid what Button did in future. I feel the cost for implementing this change appear to me to be very little. However the benefits that I have stated above, seem to me at least to greatly outweigh those costs.

And ibsey, you DO realise that what I say about Vettel's move was slightly different that you say (i.e. possibility of Vettel doing Jerez 97 against Alonso in a penultimate race)?

Apologies I have been meaning to response to you for the last few days, but have not had the time to do so. Yes I did realise that your orginal comment refer to something different than what I wanted to highlight. However the first part of your comment i.e...

Having seeing that Vettel was penalized in German GP, I think, at a penultimate GP, Vettel will pull a Jerez '97.

...was the thing to trigger my memory, hence that was the reason I posted only that in my orginal post. I wasn't trying to twist your words in any way shape or form. Apologies for any confusion caused.

About Hakkinen, you have to bear in mind that they were going almost 200mph, and that if the backmarker (can't remeber who it was offf the top of my head. Was it Zonta?) moved over, Hakkinen would have an almighty crash. Something like Michael Ammermuller's GP2 Crash (about 1 min 40 in)

Yes I understand that & I'm not denining that it was a good move not only for that but also because he tried that same move the lap before & M Schumi had completely shut the door on him at 200 mphs which was equally as dangerous for Hakkinen. Therefore to say Mika had shown the world just how big his balls were that day, is a masterpiece of understatement. In addition to the whole siutation of being late in the race & championship fight etc.

However my point is that although it was a good move, I don't think it was the best overtake in F1 as many people seem to claim. I mean there are other over taking moves that appear to at least have been equally as dangerous & good if you think along those terms. However one appears to hype these moves to the same extent as the Hakkinen / Spa move. A few such examples include;

Jones overtaking Prost whilst Lapping Arnoux at Hockenheim 1981....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb4iBFECi4Q ...can you imagine what would have happened had Prost left front wheel clipped Jone's rear wheel, flicking Jones into the unprotected crowd? So IMO that move was at the very least equally as ballsy as Mika's move. Especially when you consider how fragile the car were back in 1981, in comparison to the cars in 2000? Yet how many people talk about that as a great overtaking move?

Same thing with Piquet overtaking Senna at Hungary 1986, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYcc6PXNmcE again in much more fragile cars than in 2000? What if Senna had clipped Piquet rear wheels, thus flipping Piquet up-side down into the gravel trap (very dangerous). The risk

Or just think of the dangers that could have occured when Bellof overtook Arnoux at Monaco in 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqdM6RtqZ4Y or indeed most overtaking moves at Monaco.

Or even Alesi passing Hill around the outside of the Casio chicane when Jean was on slicks on a damp track http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99DOD_X2mxU. If you consider how close the barriers are to the side of the track at that point, therefore it could have ended very badly indeed.

IMO all of the above moves involved just as much balls as the Hakkinen move. But crucially they also involved MORE driver skill than the Hakkinen move, as Mika was largely driving in a straight line for the duration of his move. Yes he had to pass Zonta in a gap barely big enough for him. But as Zonta had slowed down dramatically, to allow the leader to lap him, the risk of hitting Zonta would have only lasted for a split second.


Where as in all of the above moves and others I can think of including Alesi overtaking Wurz & Barrichello at the same place a year earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qoe031ixTsg. In terms of time alone, the risk of interlocking wheels appear to be just as great, if not more so, than the Hakkinen move. Furthermore Alesi's move was around the outside of them both, against two cars he was racing against yet I've yet to hear as much hype about that move as the Hakkinen & M Schumi move in 2000.

Just as some one of the utube comment says, "Hakkinen had some 20kph more top speed than Schumacher. He started with dry setup and Schumacher with wet setup, so he had much less downforce and as a result overtaking was much easier for him. Spa 1999 was a dry race, no gambling on setups and no big top speed differences".

Although I cannot verify that for sure, I do know that Hakkinen's car qualified around 1 second quicker than M Schumi in dry conditions. Furthermore Hakkinen would have been well ahead of M Schumi had it not been for an earlier spin.

So thats what I mean when I say the Hakkinen Spa 2000 overtake, although was good, is over hyped. Possibly because those relatively new to F1 perhaps aren't that aware of other great overtaking moves.

[mario]

Apologies I didn't have very much time to write my last post, so perhaps I didn't explain my point of view as well as I could have.

IF Button left that space, Vettel wouldn't need to run off the track, therefore incurring no penalty.

Indeed. Surely it would be better for drivers not to take to the escape road so quickly when battling for position?

I feel it would help avoid this situation in future, if drivers were obliged to leave a least a car width space when racing side by side (as Button & Vettel were) even if one of them subsquently takes to the escape road (i.e Vettel). This would mean that drivers who are on the outside (like Vettel) will have a greater certainty that the guy on the inside won't squeeze him off the track, when racing side by side. Thus they won't be so keen to use the escape road in future.

The FIA has already stated in a sporting directive, which was issued at Silverstone and reiterated again in Hockenheim, that a defending driver is obliged to leave room if a significant portion of the attacking driver's car is alongside his car.

In the note, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Whiting said that "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."

To further clarify the situation he later added: "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'."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101147/

In addition to this, the FIA's Sporting Regulations explicitly state that running another driver off the track is against the regulations:

20.4: Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

In effect, therefore, what you are asking for is already covered in the sporting regulations on driver conduct.

Incidentally, it has kind of gone unmentioned but, on the opening lap of the race, Vettel was defending very aggressively against Schumacher and, when Michael threatened Vettel's position on the run from the chicane to Turn 7, pushed Schumacher onto the grass (for those within the UK, it is at about 45 seconds into this highlights clip from the BBC). http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18947728
Looking at that particular move, it looks like Vettel wasn't exactly adverse to pushing the limits of acceptable behaviour at that point, since it could be argued that he was close to or breaching article 20.4 in that instance.

[ibsey]

[

In effect, therefore, what you are asking for is already covered in the sporting regulations on driver conduct.

Thanks for that info Mario. Personally I just find it a little strange that more questions weren't asked of Button's actions for the reasons I had stated in my previous post.

Incidentally, it has kind of gone unmentioned but, on the opening lap of the race, Vettel was defending very aggressively against Schumacher and, when Michael threatened Vettel's position on the run from the chicane to Turn 7, pushed Schumacher onto the grass (for those within the UK, it is at about 45 seconds into this highlights clip from the BBC). http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18947728
Looking at that particular move, it looks like Vettel wasn't exactly adverse to pushing the limits of acceptable behaviour at that point, since it could be argued that he was close to or breaching article 20.4 in that instance.

Unfortuanely I was unable to view that clip (I don't have the correct flash thingy) & I missed the incident you are refering to on Sunday. But I agree if Vettel did indeed defend too aggressively against Schumacher, then I feel his actions need to be questioned also.

Just like when IMO Vettel defended his lead from Button too aggressively at the start of Suzuka 2011 (I couldn't find a utube clip on it, therefore I am recalling it purely from memory, but IIRC I think it was bad enough for Button to complain to his team over the radio about it).

I know the arguement against investigating the two above incidents is that it happened on the 1st lap of a race, where it is generally hard to keep on top of & police everything that happens. However I feel we should look into any seriously dangerous moves that happen on the 1st lap. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any 1st laps incidents being penalised since the stupid penalty against Montoya at Malaysia 2002.

Just like we should look at ways to ensure that in future drivers are less inclined to take to the run off areas when they are racing side by side, like the suggestion of ensure both drivers leave a car width of space irrespective of whether or not their competitor goes of the track.

I guess this is the point I am ultimatily trying to make in all of my recent posts. Which is I feel F1 driver conduct over the last 15 odd years, appear to me at least to have steadily improved. It seems to me that, one of the many changes that helps the close wheel to wheel racing we see & enjoy in F1 today, compared to 15 odd years ago. Appears to me to be the greater awareness & enforcement of sporting regulations on driver conduct.

So I would like to see this improvement carry on & perhaps go a step further. The only way I can currently think of achieving this is by question moves such as Vettel's 1st lap move at Suzuka 2011 or Hockenhiem 2012 & Button's actions when Vettel ran off the track at the end of Hockenheim 2012.

Which is why I would advocate greater enforcement of article 20.4, in such situations or the implementation of new rules to cover such incidents. I think F1 can handle it now & should be looking at ways to improve both sporting conduct & safety.

[TheBigJ]

Someone suggested on the RotR thread that Vettel would get trounced by Maldonado. Should Webber retire.


I can't help but think Mark Webber is the only reason Vettel is WC and overrated as well hated by many. We all know even Karthikeyan could've won the WC last year in that car. And Webber or Alonso were sure to win in 2010 until they decided to fight each other and let Sebastian win. And then there were clear team orders.


Webber should therefore retire. He's just not up to the standard.

[Salamander]

As previously stated I sense that the reason Vettel did what he did, was because he felt Button was squeezing him off the track & Vettel was unsure of Button's intentions in that split second.

Then he should've fought back. There was still enough space for him to put two wheels on the kerb and keep going.

We must also remember that Vettel has won the last two WDC & pulled off numerous overtaking moves & wins in the last few years & he had as good a view as anyone on that situation (i.e. peripheral view of Button coming over to him which the TV Pod camara might not have picked up). Therefore his judgement of the situation must be as good as anyone's.

Exactly. And as somebody who knows how to overtake, he knows that you can't give an inch to your competitors, or they will take advantage of it. Remember his overtake on Alonso last year in Monza? Where he wound up taking to the grass but made it stick? He never gave space to Alonso there, so what stopped him from doing the same to Button?

Also, I don't think Vettel would have run of the track, without good reason to have done so.

Keep in mind Vettel was not 100% cool calm and collected. Hamilton unlapping himself unsettled him significantly, as evidenced by him running wide several times between then and the end of the race.

There are several reasons why I feel Button should have to prove that he would have left space, irrespective of whether Vettel when off the track or not.

For instance what if as a result of not leaving that space, the stewards took the view that Button 'ran Vettel off the road' or that Button had no right to be on the outside of the corner (where Vettel should have been), thus gained an unfair advantage? Therefore gave Button a 10 place grid penalty for the next race. Would it have been worth it for Button then.

You're assuming that because Button took his normal line on exit that he would've done that whether or not there was a car to his outside. I don't see how that is a reasonable assumption to make. You're right in that if Vettel was on his outside and within the track limits simultaneously, that had Button done the same thing he would've warranted a penalty for doing so. But the key fact is that Vettel was not simultaneously within the track limits and alongside Button. You can't make that assumption, because one of the most important factors in racing is that you are constantly maximising your opportunites. No matter what Vettel thought, by going off the track he conceded the corner exit to Button, who was then obliged to take whatever exit he pleased. Being a racing driver, he obviously took the quickest exit possible to maximise his position relative to Vettel. If he had left space for an imaginary Vettel that did stay on the track, then he would've effectively conceded the position.

Especially when you consider that it wouldn't have cost Button anything in terms of championship points to leave just a car width of space. Furthermore by doing so would elimate any potenial risk of him being penialised by the stewards afterwards. That to me seems to be a fair trade off. Particularly as by that point Vettel had already taken to the run off area, so was out of the equation. One thing I've learnt over the years is the importance of using your head in a race (like Prost, or Jackie Stewart, thus avoiding & eliminating as many potenial risks as you can).

I know you stated above that there was no guarantee Vettel was going to get a penalty. However, in that situation, by leaving that car width worth of space on the exit of the corner would have made Vettel look even more guilty than he already did. In addition to supporting Jenson claims even further in a worst case situation.

That's hindsight speaking. There was absolutely no way that, at that point in time, Button could've reasonably assumed Vettel would've gotten a time penalty for passing him off the track. What if, say, the stewards had decided to give Vettel a grid penalty at Hungary instead, or not penelised him at all? He would've looked a complete and utter moron for leaving space for an imaginary Vettel, and losing any chance at reclaiming the position.

I know there was a stewards enquiry in reality & Button was correctly absolved of blame. However there have been stewards enquiries in the past which have resulted in an innocent party being incorrectly penalised in some shape or form.

This is, unfortunately, true. However, fear of stewards reprisal should not lead to drivers intentionally comprimising their race when they have no reason to.

Another reason why I feel a driver in Button's position should have to prove that he would have left space, irrespective of whether a driver in Vettel's position when off the track or not. Is lets say that instead of it being Button on the inside of the corner, who is someone i regard as a 'clean' driver. Instead it involved a driver who as history for questionable sporting behaviour, perhaps someone like Maldonado or M Schumi. In that situation, how sure could the driver on the outside be that they were in fact going to left enough space to race side by side?

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. If such a situation occurs, and the overtaking driver is forced off, then they should get a penalty. If a driver forces themself off without being pressured significantly by their competitor, that's their own problem.

Sure the driver on the inside could say they were going to leave space after the race, when their competitive streak & adrenaline has died down. However in the heat of the battle, when instinct takes over, how can anyone be so sure?

In the same vein, how can you be sure they wouldn't? Ultimately, you can only deal with reality, consisting of the actual things that actually happened, not the 'what if's. In this circumstance, Vettel ran himself wide, leaving far too much space to the inside and comprimising his position. He may say he did not want to risk contact with Button, but leaving a car width of space is his own fault. On the exit, Button uses some of this space to maximise his exit to the corner, as he is entitled to, what with still being ahead of Vettel and all. There is still some space left, enough for Vettel to leave at least 2 wheels on the track. Vettel can still make the corner and likely gain the position if he continues turning and forcing Button to recognise he's asserting his position on the outside. Instead, though, he begins straightening out and completes the pass on the run-off. It's a combination of Vettel, whether by design or by fault, running wide and then preferring to take the easy way out and cheat rather than fight as he could've.

By forcing that driver to leave a space, irrespective of whether their competitor when off the track or not, is the only way I can think of to solve that problem.

As stated previously it would cost very little in terms of lap time to do this perhaps it may have cost Button 0.2 secs at most...which wouldn't have effected either his result or points.

Hindsight's a great thing, isn't it? You seem to go between arguing for a rule to force a defending driver to give space regardless of whether or not their attacker goes off, and arguing that Button should've backed off because it wouldn't have changed anything for him. Both things are wrong, by the way: Had Button lost those 2 tenths, he wouldn't have been able to attempt to regain the position at the next corner. Yes, it ended in failure, as it was most likely to, but you can't assume that it would've failed before it actually happened, which is what Button would've been doing by leaving space for an imaginary Vettel. And even setting that aside for a moment, you can't assume that just because, in this particular case, Button comprimising his exit to show he was willing to give space would not have ultimately affected him, that it would never ever affect another driver in a similar position, but with perhaps more laps left in the race, and/or other cars much closer behind him.

However in return for this 'cost' it would be more likely that the fight for 2nd position would have been settled on the race track & not after the race.

So? If Vettel didn't cheat then the battle would've been settled on track. I don't see why Button should effectively be punshed just because Vettel made the mistake of running wide.

Whats more it seems to be safer as well. For instance, what if Vettel had decided, or even lost control of his car, which meant he came back on the track sooner than he did i.e. when Button was still on the outside of the corner? Then there would have been an almighty accident. However if Button was forced to leave at least a car width on the exit then in this situation, there would be more time to react.

Irrelevant. Vettel was in more or less complete control of his car for the duration of the overtake. You can't make assumptions based on things that didn't happen.

I know forcing drivers to leave at least a car width on the exit sounds a little picky. In fact a few years ago, I propably would have been against such a move. However one of the things that really struck me at Germany was how much better & closer the wheel to wheel action has got compared to 15 years ago (Button's 'dummy' on Hulkenberg was a particular highlight for me).

Therefore in order to contiune 'this good work' I just feel that we should look at ways to ensure that in future drivers are less inclined to take to the run off areas when they are racing side by side.

Maybe drivers should actually try to force the issue when they overtake? If they put themselves in the position where they feel that the only way to complete an overtake is to use the run-off and cheat, that's their fault. If they get forced off, sure, they can use the run-off then. But if they screw up the overtake as Vettel did then I have no sympathy for them, nor do they deserve it. An overtake is something to fight for, and if you make a mistake, it's nobody's fault but your own. Your proposal would allow drivers to take wider lines through corners, as Vettel did, and still be in an advantageous position. So no, it wouldn't continue 'this good work', because then drivers would not be as close as they were. Why do you think this has to be fixed when it isn't broken?

Therefore more battles are resolved on the race track & not after the race. Perhaps one of those ways is to ensure that both drivers who are involved in a on track fight, know that they must leave at least a car width of space irrespective of whether their competitior takes to the run off or not?

Such a thing always assumes that the defending driver will always try to push the opposing car off. This is not currently a problem - yes, Rosberg did it twice in Bahrain. Think of all the times when defending drivers gave room. There you go. This is not a problem, and thus does not need to be fixed.

Just to reiterate I'm not suggesting that Button should be penalised for his actions in Germany as I acknowledge he didn't break any current driving standards regulations. I am simply stating that the driving standards regulations should be changed to avoid what Button did in future.

Button did nothing wrong. Had Vettel tried to stay on the track, and been forced off, then it would've been wrong. But he wasn't. Forced. Off. He started straightening out at a point when there was still a reasonable amount of space, where he could've kept two wheels off the track.

[LellaLombardi]

I actually quite like Vettel, but he is being spoilt at RBR

[Gerudo Dragon]

Kartikeyan isn't that bad.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Kartikeyan isn't that bad.

I'd like to see HRT sub him with Clos or... you know... anyone for a couple races so that can actually be tested.

[Benetton]

Lewis Hamilton is the next Jacques Villeneuve.

[DemocalypseNow]

Kartikeyan isn't that bad.

I'd like to see HRT sub him with Clos or... you know... anyone for a couple races so that can actually be tested.

Ma Qing Hua, surely.

[ibsey]

Whats more it seems to be safer as well. For instance, what if Vettel had decided, or even lost control of his car, which meant he came back on the track sooner than he did i.e. when Button was still on the outside of the corner? Then there would have been an almighty accident. However if Button was forced to leave at least a car width on the exit then in this situation, there would be more time to react.

Irrelevant. Vettel was in more or less complete control of his car for the duration of the overtake. You can't make assumptions based on things that didn't happen

I don't think I completely agree with you here. Most improvements in F1 safety wouldn't have occured had it not been for people to reckonise the dangers in situations before they happened, & pro-actively take steps to avoid those dangers. For instance, I believe it is generally accepted that F1 was a little too complacent & not pro-active enough on safety issues in the early 1990's. Which of course led to the awful accidents of 1994.

Therefore I feel it is important to look at what dangers could have occured as a result of the Vettel / Button incident. Even if, thankfully, no serious accident occured. Next time, we might not be so lucky.

Yes you are right that Vettel appeared to be in more or less complete control of his car for the duration of the overtake. However don't forget Vettel ran over the Santander painted tarmac when he was running side by side & inches alongside Button. Also that, in addition to the 'marble' build up that would have occured by that point in the race. There had been quite a bit of rain thorughout the previous couple of days, so there was the possible of Vettel hitting a damp patch which may have caused him to instantly lose control & 'T Bone into the side of Button (simliar to, i think, Spa 2010). Thats why I feel it would have been wiser for Button to leave that extra margin of space.

Your proposal would allow drivers to take wider lines through corners, as Vettel did, and still be in an advantageous position. So no, it wouldn't continue 'this good work', because then drivers would not be as close as they were.

Again, I'm not sure I completely agree with you here also. The only advantage I can think that my proposal would give drivers on the outside, like Vettel, would be additional protection that the guy on the inside won't squeeze him off the track, when racing side by side. Thus they won't be so keen to use the escape road in future.

Furthermore it may be safer for both drivers for the reasons stated above.

Those two reasons & ONLY those reasons, are what it is intended for.

I think your above comment may be refering to Button's exit having been very slightly comprimised under my proposal. However looking at the replays again, perhaps Button's exit may not have been comprismised by as much as 2 tenths, as we initally thought. Since Button had initally taken the tighter exit. Then when Vettel when off the track, Button then drifted onto the normal line, which but that point Button's exit had already been comprimised anyway. Therefore in my view he gained very little, maybe hundreads by using the exit kerb (bearing in mind the possible loss of traction in changing surfaces & direction & running over kerbs as apose to contiuning in a straight line on the smooth tarmaced surface).

Which just seems to me not to be worth it in light of the possible risks if Vettel had lost control & came across him, or the possibility, not matter how small, of a stewards reprisal. By the way I know you stated fear of stewards reprisals should not lead to drivers intentionally comprimising their race & that may be true throughout most of the race. However when you are running in a comforable podium position & there is only 1 & a half laps to the end, personally I wouldn't risk it at all. At present, these benefits, seem to me outweigh the lost of a few hundreads of a second, from a slightly poorer exit, one & a half laps from the end.

I acknowledge that this proposal may need some work, (hence the reason I posted it in the unpopular opinions thread, to see what kind of feedback it would recieve). Perhaps it should be a guideline, rather than an rule.

However since my proposal only kicks in if, one of the drivers actually leaves the race track, then I don't see how that would disadvantage 'the good work' talked about early. I mean If Button was going to leave Vettel enough space to fight on the outside, had Vettel stayed on the track, then Button wouldn't have had anything to worry about under my proposal anyway? Therefore the way I see it, Button wouldn't have lost any advantage, under normal racing conditions i.e. had Vettel stayed on track. Since it would only have come into effect once it was clear that Vettel had unfairly gained an advantage by running off the circuit, but which time, IMO he was obviously going to be penalised for.

Why do you think this has to be fixed when it isn't broken?

Even if something isn't broken, that shouldn't stop us from exploring new ideas to see if things can be done in a better way. That's the key to progression isn't it?

[Salamander]

I don't think I completely agree with you here. Most improvements in F1 safety wouldn't have occured had it not been for people to reckonise the dangers in situations before they happened, & pro-actively take steps to avoid those dangers. For instance, I believe it is generally accepted that F1 was a little too complacent & not pro-active enough on safety issues in the early 1990's. Which of course led to the awful accidents of 1994.

Therefore I feel it is important to look at what dangers could have occured as a result of the Vettel / Button incident. Even if, thankfully, no serious accident occured. Next time, we might not be so lucky.

Yes you are right that Vettel appeared to be in more or less complete control of his car for the duration of the overtake. However don't forget Vettel ran over the Santander painted tarmac when he was running side by side & inches alongside Button. Also that, in addition to the 'marble' build up that would have occured by that point in the race. There had been quite a bit of rain thorughout the previous couple of days, so there was the possible of Vettel hitting a damp patch which may have caused him to instantly lose control & 'T Bone into the side of Button (simliar to, i think, Spa 2010). Thats why I feel it would have been wiser for Button to leave that extra margin of space.

Alternatively, Vettel could've not gone off. That seems more logical to me than forcing Button to give room. If we assume that going off track would've resulted in an accident, then what Button did was not inherently dangerous - he didn't go off the track, nor did he force Vettel to. It's Vettel that's endangering both of them. Again, I fail to see why Button should be comprimised for something that is not his fault.

Why do you think this has to be fixed when it isn't broken?

Even if something isn't broken, that shouldn't stop us from exploring new ideas to see if things can be done in a better way. That's the key to progression isn't it?

I still don't think forcing the defending driver to leave room is fair. It is, has, and always should be the car behind that has to make a clean, legal overtake. Instead of pre-emptively assuming that a defending driver will always attempt to shove the attacking driver off the track, which is what your rule implies, just state that a driver which does so is subject to harsh penalties. That way the attacking driver will know, if he is forced off, the other guy will be penelised. If he then goes off without being forced, as Vettel did, then it's a penalty if he rejoins ahead, or in a position where he gains an advantage he would not have gotten had he stayed on the track. Otherwise nothing.

[ibsey]

It's Vettel that's endangering both of them. Again, I fail to see why Button should be comprimised for something that is not his fault.

Simply in the interests of Safety for both of them. In an effort to even things out a bit, perhaps Vettel should not have been allowed to run alongside Button so closely whilst he was off the circuit & therefore something should have been done to have prevent that. But I do believe it would have been wiser for Button to leave that extra margin of space (even if it wasn't his fault) 'just in case'. For me the benefits outweight the costs. Furthermore any move to reduce the dangers in F1 has to be a good thing no.

[Salamander]

It's Vettel that's endangering both of them. Again, I fail to see why Button should be comprimised for something that is not his fault.

Simply in the interests of Safety for both of them. In an effort to even things out a bit, perhaps Vettel should not have been allowed to run alongside Button so closely whilst he was off the circuit & therefore something should have been done to have prevent that. But I do believe it would have been wiser for Button to leave that extra margin of space (even if it wasn't his fault) 'just in case'. For me the benefits outweight the costs. Furthermore any move to reduce the dangers in F1 has to be a good thing no.

Button should not be required to leave that space though. It's his race, and he's the one in danger if Vettel crashes into him. It's down to him whether he feels the risk is acceptable. It shouldn't be forced on him to back off because another car has deliberately put themselves in a dangerous position.

Also, please comment on my alternative to your proposal.

It is, has, and always should be the car behind that has to make a clean, legal overtake. Instead of pre-emptively assuming that a defending driver will always attempt to shove the attacking driver off the track, which is what your rule implies, just state that a driver which does so is subject to harsh penalties. That way the attacking driver will know, if he is forced off, the other guy will be penelised. If he then goes off without being forced, as Vettel did, then it's a penalty if he rejoins ahead, or in a position where he gains an advantage he would not have gotten had he stayed on the track. Otherwise nothing.

[TomWazzleshaw]

I for one hope Ferrari DON'T sign Perez for next year on the basis that it'd be career suicide for him with Alonso in the form that he's in.

[TheBigJ]

Lewis Hamilton is the next Jacques Villeneuve.

I doubt it. For a start Hamilton hasn't yet made the terminal mistake of leaving an established competitive team for a "project" like BAR. It would be like LH joining Caterham.

[CoopsII]

Lewis Hamilton is the next Jacques Villeneuve.

He's already got the hair-line!

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Not really F1 related.

This forum used to be funnier than it is now.

[CoopsII]

Not really F1 related.

This forum used to be funnier than it is now.

I agree. In my opinion this is because of two factors; firstly some members insist on debating the wrong end of the grid and secondly we tolerate members who post nonsense just to get a reaction.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Not really F1 related.

This forum used to be funnier than it is now.

I agree. In my opinion this is because of two factors; firstly some members insist on debating the wrong end of the grid and secondly we tolerate members who post nonsense just to get a reaction.

I also believe that the departure of a few members was/is a contributing factor.

[Sunshine_Baby_[IT]]

Genrally, fanboys are completely ignorant and naive when other matters of their sport are concerned.

I totally agree with you.

[TheBigJ]

Sauber and Force India will never win a race under their current names...

[mario]

Sauber and Force India will never win a race under their current names...

On current form, Force India are quite unlikely to win a race - as for Sauber, the odds are fairly long but I could possibly see a set of circumstances that would allow them to win a race.
I could possibly see a situation like, say, a safety car at the right time at somewhere like Singapore (where passing is very difficult), a strategic gamble in variable conditions (as so nearly happened in Malaysia) or one of their drivers getting there through tyre management (as also nearly happened in Canada - Perez was just over five seconds behind Hamilton and was gaining on both him and Grosjean in the closing laps).

[ibsey]

It's Vettel that's endangering both of them. Again, I fail to see why Button should be comprimised for something that is not his fault.

Simply in the interests of Safety for both of them. In an effort to even things out a bit, perhaps Vettel should not have been allowed to run alongside Button so closely whilst he was off the circuit & therefore something should have been done to have prevent that. But I do believe it would have been wiser for Button to leave that extra margin of space (even if it wasn't his fault) 'just in case'. For me the benefits outweight the costs. Furthermore any move to reduce the dangers in F1 has to be a good thing no.

Button should not be required to leave that space though. It's his race, and he's the one in danger if Vettel crashes into him. It's down to him whether he feels the risk is acceptable. It shouldn't be forced on him to back off because another car has deliberately put themselves in a dangerous position.

Firstly apologies for not responding to you sooner, I’ve have been away for the last few days.

Whilst, all things considered, it probably should not be imposed on Button to leave that space. If I was in his shoes at that moment, I personally would have left it, given how close it was to the end of the race & the risks V’s rewards involved etc.

I guess, as you say, it’s down the individual whether they feel the risk is acceptable or not.

Also, please comment on my alternative to your proposal.



It is, has, and always should be the car behind that has to make a clean, legal overtake. Instead of pre-emptively assuming that a defending driver will always attempt to shove the attacking driver off the track, which is what your rule implies, just state that a driver which does so is subject to harsh penalties. That way the attacking driver will know, if he is forced off, the other guy will be penelised. If he then goes off without being forced, as Vettel did, then it's a penalty if he rejoins ahead, or in a position where he gains an advantage he would not have gotten had he stayed on the track. Otherwise nothing.

I think that probably is the best solution to implement & police in reality. Therefore I am inclined to agree with your proposal.

I have felt over the last few years, that there has been a slow rise of instances where defending drivers have employed ‘questionable’ tactics which seem to escape with little in the way of either questioning or punishment afterwards.

I mean we talked about Vettel’s two 1st lap moves at Hockenheim 2012 & Suzuka 2011, as well as Rosberg’s two moves at Barain 2012. In addition to this I remember M Schumi not leaving Hamilton space at Monza 2011 & Hamilton very firmly pushing Glock onto the grass after the 1st chicane at Monza 2008.
Also in addition to the above, I would have liked to have seen more questions asked over the way Rakkionen appeared (to me at least) to push Grosjean off the track, when they were racing side by side, through turn 1 at Hungary 2012.

Perhaps this is just me, but I feel F1 needs to looks at ways to combat against these types of moves. Perhaps my proposal which gave more ‘protection’ to the attacking driver, meaning they were less likely to take to the run off, was flawed. Where as your idea of stating that a defending driver which does shove the attacking driver off the track is subject to harsh penalties, appears to be much simpler to implement & police.

I just hope something is done (whatever it is) that ensures that overly aggressive defending tactics, which may threaten the ‘good work’ talked about earlier, do not become common in F1.

[AdrianSutil]

Sauber and Force India will never win a race under their current names...

Sauber could've won in Monaco 1996 had they actually listened to Frentzen and put dry tyres on when he came in for a nose change and it's a popular belief that Fisichella would've won in Belgium 2009 had Kimi not had KERS after the restart.

[Ben Gilbert]

Sauber and Force India will never win a race under their current names...

Sauber could've won in Monaco 1996 had they actually listened to Frentzen and put dry tyres on when he came in for a nose change and it's a popular belief that Fisichella would've won in Belgium 2009 had Kimi not had KERS after the restart.

Or if Kimi hadn't cheated at the original start.

[CoopsII]

Willams only ever wanted Damon Hill to be a solid Number 2 driver for Prost and Senna and they also expected he would do the same when Mansell resurfaced for Magny-Cours.

Which makes his success with Williams across only 4 seasons quite remarkable.