I was asked for examples of other drivers making a mistake like Vettel, so I simply pointed out that Lance Stroll did similar just a few seconds after Vettel's mistake, sending Gasly into the gravel. Stroll even said himself he did a very similar thing to Vettel. But I was told that my example didn't fill the specific criteria because Stroll can't be considered a good enough driver. Maybe you should go back and say it's hilarious to claim my example wasn't suitable (but no, that won't fit your argument, so just ignore it).
I'm not arguing about his form.
Well they're not going to rejoin without having spun off first.
Firstly, I'm not saying that all drivers have the same risk mentality. But the risks they take will depend on the likely outcomes. If Vettel hadn't taken the risk, he'd have sat there for ages, waiting for a marshal to wave him back on, so his race would have been over. He took a risk, and if it had worked out, he'd have been back fighting for the top places. It was an understandable risk. The Hamilton example at Canada meant Hamilton was choosing between backing off and continuing to fight for first/second place - so he might have won, or finish second (he won), or not backing off, crashing and probably not finishing the race. It's pretty understandable he chose not to crash. There's no comparison between the two incidents.
So bloody what? The point is how people rejoin, not whether or not it was their fault they went off in the first place.
Firstly, although he's only 20 he has won a few titles, so he has a winning mentality. Secondly, the point about having a winning mentality is that Vettel is even more likely to take the risk of joining the track when unsure if it's clear or not. That drivers who might not have that winning mentality would also do it further strengthens my point.
He looked to his left, saw Hulkenberg coming, with a small gap behind, so he tried to get back on. He then looked again and saw Stroll at the last minute, when it was too late to do anything about it. Given his position on the track, it wasn't possible for him to see far enough back to drive on safely. The reality is that safety isn't the overriding goal of F1 drivers. Yes it was a gamble.
I'm also not arguing that he's not making mistakes - it was a mistake to spin off in the first place. I'm simply explaining that the competitive F1 drivers will be desperate to get back on the track, and they'll get straight back on unless they know it's not clear.
What a load of nonsense. This is simply about what drivers do to get back onto the track, to race. It doesn't matter whose fault going off was, what's done is done. The stewards penalised Stroll for the way he re-entered the track, they didn't say 'oh, well it wasn't his fault he went off, so no penalty'.
Overall I'm not saying they're all the same, but yes in that particular situation I'm saying others would have also risked collision to get back on. But it is of course completely different to the Hamilton incident in Canada.
You're naive. The racers put their lives at risk every time they race, but when they do it they're not taking extra caution because someone else died a week earlier. He wasn't likely to cause a death, there should have been yellow flags waving to slow drivers down, the speed around that corner wouldn't have been high by F1 standards, and there was plenty of run-off space. Indeed he did get it wrong and pulled out straight in front of Stroll, but it never looked like it was going to cause a fatal accident. As I said above, Albon also rejoined in traffic with clearly no thought of the death last week.
So it seems you're confusing this specific incident with other mistakes he's made recently. You're playing the man, not the ball. I'm just looking at this specific incident in isolation. If there's a general discussion about his loss of form, and mistakes he's been making, you carry on with whomever you were discussing that with, but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm just discussing how he re-entered the track. He took a risk/gamble, whatever you want to call it, and it didn't pay off. It's the same risk other racers take. Stroll took a risk coming back on, as did Albon, and that's just in that race in the space of 3 laps. You haven't commented on the Albon incident because he got lucky and missed Magnussen. You wouldn't be discussing the Vettel incident if he'd been lucky and come back just after Stroll.
Fair enough.
No, what's cheap is that you managed to quote me 8 times in one massive reply, so I responded in kind and then you have the cheek to say you won't bother reading it.
I was called naive by Icy Gull yesterday. Very naive actually. You quoted his post supporting his general view. You didn't seem to have a problem with the language then, but now I say someone's naive and I'm the bad guy
You also reply with childish remarks like 'you are hilarious when you get going' and then you claim foul when I say you're talking nonsense. You just make the rules up as you go along to fit your agenda.Obviously I've written more, because I actually have evidence of drivers joining the track in traffic, despite not being able to see whether it was clear or not. You've come up with nothing, so of course you've got less to say.In terms of marathon replies, my 8 quotes amounted to about 10 lines of text. Yours about 30, the previous 15 or so. Maybe trying to be more concise would help?
I was called naive by Icy Gull yesterday. Very naive actually. You quoted his post supporting his general view. You didn't seem to have a problem with the language then, but now I say someone's naive and I'm the bad guy
Obviously I've written more, because I actually have evidence of drivers joining the track in traffic, despite not being able to see whether it was clear or not. You've come up with nothing, so of course you've got less to say.
Wow. Pot, kettle. I get called very naive, and you post childish remarks. Then when I say you're naive and talking nonsense, you say that I'm the preventing sensible discussion. WTF? This is like arguing with Trump.
You honestly can't see how ridiculous it is to claim that I'm stopping a serious discussion by calling you naive, when I was called naive first and you were being childish?
