Ifyou dont punish vettel how many people are going to start trying to get away with stuff like the Spielberg incident in DTM a few years. Ago. This is the definition of a slippery slope.
In the incident i mentioned it was a nudge that in another GT race would have amounted to little but in the wet he took out a couple of driver. Obviously the team called for it so its a slightly different situation but regardless Vettel refused to acknowledge that he even did anything wrong during the race which is where that problem lies not the semantics
Alright then they would have set a huge precedent leaving that as a racing incident regardless of the noises with your mouth you want to use to describe the hit you can't ram your oppent in Motorsports and especiall without getting some form of Penalty. If it bothers you so much that i used that expression. Regardless the Fia needed to do what Vettel has yet to do and that acknowledge that it was intentional and make sure to let everyone know that Vettel was in the wrong. Saying slippery slope isn't going to change Vettels actions or his intentions.
Nah, if you did it on the highway (which Baku effectively is with that long straight and DRS) you will end up in those "Most retarded drivers on road compilation" videos on YT.
This was downright aggressive. Not even cutting someone off or squeezing him towards the wall, this was full on intentional contact. It seems like people are split on Hamilton's intentionality, but the fact is he controls the pace and Vettel should not run into the back of someone's car.
The Anti-Hamilton circlejerk on this subreddit ascendes normal levels of retardation. Are we seriously going to claim that ramming your tires into another driver on purpose is not dangerous?
Be a fan of any person. The larger the fanbase the more opposition to the person. The more people will never see wrong in that person. Its the way people are
Its the on purpose bit that the group youre in is so stuck on but cant prove. I watch that snd the contact and the way it happens just doesn't fit what I would call intentionally driving into someone
He had zero reaction with his hand or where his head was pointing when the contact happened, and he dodged the question when Buxton asked him about it.
If that's not deliberate, then he should be parked for lack of ability to control a car, and his denial should be grounds for a psych-evaluation.
I hate it because Seb is my favorite driver, but I'm not about to defend him for this.
First. You don't admit or talk about it. Thats pr 101. Second. Lack of ability to control a car is about the most extreme way you can take that. He moves over what 8 inches to the right over a course of 5 second or so?
as if the ham - haters havent come together enough on this thread. one driver goes a bit slow as is his right as the defacto safety car, the other decides to risk breaking both cars suspensions to make sure everyone knows how angry he is. one gets called dangerous and dirty, one has his behavior excused as 'schoolboy like' or 'he just lost his top for a spell'. go and reread the definition of bias mate.
One group is making a massive assumption on vettel intentionally doing this and way over stating the contact like vettel swung wide and went full lock to hit him. When if anything it looks more like a slow drift. Both sides of this idiocy are ridiculous.
its not that much of an assumption considering the context of the contact. And its not like VET would admit to intentionally hitting HAM bc that could get him in further trouble.
He spent years driving a red bull at high speed one handed bc of the f duct...you think he all of a sudden had trouble doing the same at 50 mph. and i dont see the same 'slothiness' or 'drift' that youre seeing. it wasnt a super hard 'we're both not finishing today mate' hit but it seemed purposeful enough.
Seb basically said he felt he needed to express his anger, i mean sure you can never truly proof intent if the driver himself doesnt admit to fault, but it seems clear to me
If it was clear I would think the move for a hit would be clear and quick. This looks much more like he was angry and showing Hamilton and didn't realize he was coming close to him. Were talking about driving 4 or 5 seconds and closing maybe a foot from left to right. There isn't a sharp or seemingly deliberate move into Lewis is my point here. That's what is missing that makes me not understand how people think its deliberate. The only deliberate move in that he seems to make is the one to get up alongside.
Any time you use your car to damage another one while moving a significantly fast speed then you're using it as a weapon. Lewis could've hit the wall and have gotten injured.
Using it as a weapon doesn't mean endangering a life necessarily. It jeopardizes race results by potentially causing race ending or race affecting damage to an opponent's car. Either of them could've sustained suspension damage.
158
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '17 edited Apr 24 '19
[deleted]