Nice race, apart from the FIA

Sorry for the doublepost. But with the way that this discussion is going, I think that is quite important that I do not let any psycho layout typos on my part go unadressed. So once again here it is, and again sorry for the bother, as I intended it (PLEASE PLEASE PRAY PRAY) 8|


Oh come ON!! Have some consistency in your critique! I thought we agreed to discuss this in a respectable way!

1) Alex first you show us a slideshow of pics claiming that JPM had understeer like M$ had. We all know that a car that understeers wants to continue in a straight line, and it usually comes from carrying to much speed into the corner. So by that argument, both drivers were beyond the limit.

BUT! JPM was on the outside, so he would go in a more or less straight line. Who would that be a problem for? None , because JPM was in the outside, and would not hit anyone if he understeered. He would just lose speed and thus position, or in a worst case scenario, he would go off the track. Who is it a problem for when the dude on the inside understeers? The dude on the outside of the corner!! So clearly M$ had a safety issue to think about, that JPM did not have! And frankly how can JPM cut across/squeeze the man in the inside, if he has lost control due to understeer??? That simply does not make sense!!

JPM cannot both be on the outside, lose control to understeer, and aggressively and dangerously turn in on the man on the inside! So either you are saying that JPM was in control (over had oversteer) and squeezed M$, or he had lost due to understeer, but that cannot generate the crash. Or you can uses Alex's faulty argument that JPM should have anticipated the understeer (which also is loss of control) that M$ had, and backed off because M$ has the right of way when he has lost control of his car.

Now which one is it? Make up your mind, and then maybe we can talk some sense!

2) The picture that Alex claims shows that JPM is squeezing M$ in, and me and Ellis2kx claim shows the moment of impact. Look very carefully at the picture, specifically the right front wheel on the ferrari. Yes there isn't much room. BUT, you can see that the tyre is elevated from the kerb. Now, the only time that tyres (if the car isn't very poorly balanced) lift off the surface is either when they go over a bump, or if the experience sudden lateral g-forces to the opposite side of the wheel. Look at the picture! You can clearly see the shadow of the tyre behind the tyre. It must be off the surface.

Now, was M$ car poorly balanced, going over a bump, or is it the moment of impact? Make up your mind, and then maybe we can talk some sense!

You can also deny that the wheel is in the air, but then M$ does not have a problem, since the ideal line for that very corner, is to huge the curb . I sat and watched the race again yesterday, and you can clearly see that every car (under normal circumstances) strives to hug that curb as much as possible, so they exit in a good turn-in position for left hander that follows. He is on the ideal racing line, and the only way he could get in trouble is if he had lost control due to understeer, or JPM lost control due to oversteer, or if JPM was in control and rammed him deliberately. Make up your mind, and then maybe we can talk some sense!

3) Montoya is to young and inexperienced. He does not have the skill and maturity to bang wheels with masters that have M$ mental stature. Schumi is very experienced now so he can do it, and we should forgive his *irregularities* in 1994 and 1997. JPM will get someone killed if he is not stopped soon, as he has already proven in F1 and F3000.

BUT! Well, according to the canuck (and surely you will not deny it either Alex) Schumi was an highly talented, but immature, reckless and inexperienced driver when he joined the F1 circus. That led to the disasters in 1994 and 1997. We should forgive that now. But I cannot see how you can apply this standard in retrospective on M$ and at the same time fail to do the same on JPM in the present. This smells hugely of a double standard. If we can say that we should forgive M$ because he has shed his bad habits and he has improved, surely you would give the same benefits for JPM wouldn't you. Since JPM joined last year, then in my book, and by your own logic he has this season and 2 more to become a well tempered, mature and stable driver. Correct? Or can M$ really enjoy benefits that his rivals cannot?

And to take up the F3000 argument. One of the danish commentators of the GP was Jason Watts. He is a big M$ fan, AND he has banged wheels with JPM in F3000, before he sadly was paralysed from the chest down in a racing accident (which did not involve JPM by the way!). And to start with he wanted to see a replay before he placed any blame on either of them. Then the replay came, and he said it looked weird, but he couldn't see it any other way than M$ had tried to carry to much speed into the corner and had slided into JPM because of understeer. He never uttered the possiblity of the fault being with JPM! Clearly it is possible to be an big M$ fan, and at the same time admit that the master is human after all, and despite all his talents, skill and experience, he can make small mistakes even today . I am also pretty sure that a lot of people could attest to the fact that M$ sure looked like he was going to get some killed both in F1 and F3000. Häkkinen generally seemed pretty pleased with M$ style in F1, but that was certainly NOT the case in F3000. It is a common claim that the new guy is dangerous and will get someone killed. Räikkonen had to listen to it last season, Massa is taking that load of crap now. Even Villeneuve has had to listen to that load of hogwash when he came to F1.

And regarding the killing spree, who has JPM left dead or maimed in his trail? Surely if he is a killer he would have shown it by now wouldn't he? Make up your mind, and then maybe we can talk some sense!

Come on Alex, at least I know for a fact that you enjoy discussing these issues without the "Booh"-"hurrah"tendencies, and the no holds barred style of argumentation.

Remember this thread?

[www.php-service.de]

And if my post that began with "I subscribe to that point of view. " threw you into this bloodlust fit, you should look at the time it was posted. 3 minutes after Ellis2kx posted his! I actually meant what I wrote in extension to your post which ran like this:

Quote: "It will be called a racing incident, because its just not clear whose fault it was, all we can give is our opinions.

Agreed."

What happened dude? You used to be cool under fire...

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Hey It worked! Hurrah! I will just sneak off now, rejoice because my puny html code abilities have been increased, and wait for some decency, common sense and reasonability to rejoin the discussion. Remember we are supposed to be friends, right?

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

"He is a super talented driver, and super fast, no doubt, but he isn't ready to go banging wheels with Michael."

So, Alex, how much do you like him to wait to start fighting M$ ???? 1 season more, maybe 2 o 3 ????. How much MS waited to start trying to win races and be No.1 as he is today?. If he had waited too long would he have 4 championsips today???

"The other reckless driver is one who is confident, yet does not have full control of the situation - and in my opinion, Montoya currently falls into that category."

Have you ever seen the last 5 laps of the Michigan 500 race in 2000????
That's a very good example of how much JPM can be in control of a situation. And that was a really dangerous situation in a super-oval at almost 400 Kph, not in a 80Kph corner like in Sepang or Austria last year

Like I've said before in this forum: F1 is supposed to be dangerous!!! so please stop saying that Juan is a crazy guy, everytime he makes a good move on MS

P.S. Sepang judges: shame on you!!!!!!




Saludos desde Colombia.

after reading the posts made today, it seem that JPM has rattled the cages the of the pro Shumi fans.

i can't wait for the rest of the season and the continuing battle between MS and JPM over who has the biggest balls,

we saw this to a certain extent during the opening laps of austria,

the pro MS fans might start to shout about JPM, but take a closer look and you'll see he's just doing the same thing that MS has been doing for years,

nothing wrong with that, but please don't start condeming JPM and saying stupid things like he gonna kill someone

the only time i can see someone getting hurt is when MS pulls straight across the bows of the person sat behind him at the start of a race.

all the cars are accellerating at full speed, some are unsighted as well further down the grid, it only takes for a small coming together between MS and (insert name here) and the people further down the grid will be driving at a faster rate in towards an accident

and i for one do not wish to see a accident in this manner.

remember how MS squeezed ralf almost into the pitwall last year, jeez that was his own brother and it was dangerous, legal or not.

hopefully sometime in the near future the FIA will come to there sense and see how dangerous this is, within the rules or not.






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

remember how MS squeezed ralf almost into the pitwall last year, jeez that was his own brother and it was dangerous, legal or not.

As I said, this thing at Sepang was bound to happen. It has been in the cards since Nürburgring last year.

Btw, here is a fresh poll from ITVF1.COM:

Did JPM deserve his 'drive-through' penalty?

Yes 8.36% (581 votes)
No 91.64% (6371 votes)

And no I did not vote 6371 times today. In fact I have not even voted.

Here is some quotes from the Post Race Press conference. Most of them are from the second round in the native toungue so you might have missed them. I know I did. The transcript is from [www.motorsport.com].

[From the english language round:]

Q: Juan Pablo, talk us through the incident at the first corner?

Juan Pablo MONTOYA: We had to go around the outside of Michael because he moved to the right. We got to the corner. I gave him enough room. I talked to him already and he said he had quite a bit of under-steer. He touched me and that was it. To me it was a race incident. I was a bit pissed off because I thought he under-steered off into me, which is why I went like that to him, but that was it. It was a bit frustrating because the car was very good. I did the fastest lap of the race.

Q: Did you think the drive-through penalty was unfair?

JPM:I think it was very unfair. I gave him the room, he under-steered off a bit, he touched me and that was it. It was a racing incident. I think that after what happened at the first race they went a bit extreme and I had to take it. The stewards had everyone saying 'they should have done something' and they didn't' in Australia.

Q: Michael, how did you see the first corner incident?

Michael SCHUMACHER: You can see it from two ways. Obviously, if he had opened up more, we wouldn't have touched, but wasn't willing to do this so there wasn't any room for me and we touched. I didn't see a drama in that. It was a shame. I lost my front wing and had to come in for a pit stop and obviously lost a lot of time on that lap, plus the pit stop. But it was an exciting race in the end.

Q: Do you think Juan Pablo was dealt with harshly today?

MS: To be honest, yes. I think we've seen far more extreme situations where nothing has happened, and today, a little touch and something was done. We don't seem to have a very consistent situation. That's something we may all want to improve in future.


[From native language session:]

Q: Michael and Juan Pablo, we have seen the video several times over and I realise it is difficult for you to comment on the first lap incident, but Michael you did move a very long way to the right and it was in coming back that I think Juan Pablo may have been confused. Do you think you went too far to the right and this led to some confusion?

JPM:No, I don't think there was any confusion. He has done that plenty of times and I knew he was going to do that - it was quite predictable. He always does it. So, it was just a matter of getting a good start with him, getting to brake with him, you know, beside him, and then I knew if I could stay around the outside then when we come to the next corner I am going to be on the inside. I was not going to give him a lot of room. I gave him enough room to get around the corner and he understeered a little bit, we touched and that was it. It was a racing incident. Very simple. What can you do? I was fairly pissed off, you know, when they gave me the penalty, but, you know, I had to pay the penalty.

Q: I was wondering if you were expecting him to brake a little sooner, given that he had so little room in which to slow down?

JPM:Not really. We are racing here.

Q: Juan Pablo is it difficult to accept the fact that sometimes you depend so much on someone's judgement?

JPM:No, it is racing. I think we are all intelligent enough to behave ourselves and I gave him room, he has the room, he under-steered a little bit and we touched and that was it. You can't expect everything to go your way. No. We were racing and accidents will happen. That was the first one and it probably won't be the last one.

Q: I was not referring to you two on the track, but the stewards who took the decision to give you a penalty.

JPM:Yeah, I think the penalty came, basically, from what happened in the first race. I think the stewards wanted to show they are really strong and if anybody does anything we are going to give you a penalty. Bullshit like that.

[And more. Taken from MS]

...

Let me say one word. I have never done this before, but I said to a question the wrong answer yesterday. I was asked if there was any talk in the drivers' briefing (about behaviour at the first corner) and not to cause any fuss within the media, I purposely wanted to save my team-mate a little bit and calm down the issue, which is why I said no, to answering about discussions. After this, I noticed that some drivers spoke to the press, so I apologise for that.

[And even more]

MS: No, I don't think so honestly. The season is 17 races long and even if the car is not ready for Brazil, we are going to take points from Brazil for sure and the championship is not going to be decided after the first three races.

Q: Michael and Juan Pablo, does getting punished like that alter your approach for the next race?

MS: I don' think so. As we both describe it as a racing accident, what should we do?


That was what they said.

And as I said in the bold screwed post, and forgot in my correction:

"...) And while we are talking of Villeneuve it was him that introduced JPM as a killer (to which JPM replied just as harshly), after their brake testing games at Montreal. And both have since apologized for the incident and admitted that their statments were wrong. If Villeneuve, who introduced the killer theory, does not subscribe to it anymore why should you? And if M$ called the intermezzo at Sepang a racing incident, why should you want to make it a matter of life and death? Wouldn't it be more relevant after Melbourne to discuss if Ralf or Barrichello are potential killers?"

Now clearly, there is no reason to keep portraing Montoya as a killer, nor the situation as life or death.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

remember how MS squeezed ralf almost into the pitwall last year, jeez that was his own brother and it was dangerous, legal or not.

That's the point, do you think Michael would do something like that to Ralf, his brother, if he considered it dangerous? I doubt it. I just want to enjoy the battles for the rest of the season, and hope there are no more incidents like we've seen in the first two races...




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

i agree alex but the thing is, its all fair and well him doing it, but its how the other person reacts to it though, ralph maybe backed off or chose to go right up to the wall rather than have an accident, we've seen that ralf is more careful when trying to get by his brother.

but that sort sort of situation takes two people to make it work.

JPM i think has made it clear that he is'nt sort of person to back off, who is to blame there?

if MS puts JPM into that sort of position and expects him to yeild, but he does'nt who's at fault?

its a fine line i admit, but i for one would like to not see it come to that,

but i expect it will later on this season

MS has been fortunate for the past few years to be able to count on people to back off because of his reputation as being ruthless, in the same way as senna was. but now that someone has entered in to the sport with the same attitude i think that MS has got to accept that he can't behave like this and expect to come out the best all the time.

we saw this for a short while when JV was in a competive car, and it was good to watch as a spectacle, now its JPM's turn.






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

i agree alex but the thing is, its all fair and well him doing it, but its how the other person reacts to it though, ralph maybe backed off or chose to go right up to the wall rather than have an accident, we've seen that ralf is more careful when trying to get by his brother.

but that sort sort of situation takes two people to make it work.

JPM i think has made it clear that he is'nt sort of person to back off, who is to blame there?

if MS puts JPM into that sort of position and expects him to yeild, but he does'nt who's at fault?

its a fine line i admit, but i for one would like to not see it come to that,

but i expect it will later on this season

MS has been fortunate for the past few years to be able to count on people to back off because of his reputation as being ruthless, in the same way as senna was. but now that someone has entered in to the sport with the same attitude i think that MS has got to accept that he can't behave like this and expect to come out the best all the time.

we saw this for a short while when JV was in a competive car, and it was good to watch as a spectacle, now its JPM's turn.






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

This might prove a bit interesting:

Buttons view on the aaccident and subsequent penalty , from [ [] ]:

Jenson Button says Michael Schumacher was responsible for the first-corner collision at Sepang.

Juan Pablo Montoya was penalised by stewards for the clash with Schumacher, which left the Ferrari man without a front wing.

Button, who finished fourth, agrees with Montoya that he did give Schumacher enough space and that the collision was the German

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Williams current position, from [www.f1-live.com]'

...

Williams chief operating officer Sam Michael has now said that he will not pass judgement with regards to who was at fault until he has seen the video of the incident. However he has admitted that the team will be asking the FIA for clarification with regards to the incident and the penalty.

Michael said: "I want to reserve judgement on the circumstances of the accident until I have seen the video and heard what the stewards have to say. We have our own opinions on it but are reserving judgement at the moment. Asking for clarification from them is not going to change anything for the Malaysia result but we just want to know where we stand so we don't do it again."


Stay tuned, people

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Did JPM deserve his 'drive-through' penalty?

Yes 11.38 % (986 votes)
No 88.62 % (7678 votes)

Seems to me like a massive case is building up here

I don't know if you've miss understood me or something, but I don't think that Montoya deserved the penalty, I totally disagree with it in fact. I even said that on one of my earliest posts. There is no way I am trying to argue that JPM deserved the penalty. I just think it was a racing incident, and was trying to prove that Montoya played his part in its happening, as well as Schumi.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

I know that Alex. I also agree.

But I also posted that my opinion was that if anyone should had a penalty, it should have been Michael Schumacher, because he was the one that made the mistake.

And I was giving leverage to that opinion with Button as my voice:

"Montoya braked late into the first corner and held his line, leaving enough room for Michael. Their scrap was definitely down to a mistake by Michael so it was strange that Montoya was penalised."

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

And if anyone should know what really happened, its a driver that was close by, eg RS,JB etc. Obviously if MS or JPM felt that the collision was their fault they would not admit it, if you can get by without having to admit to anything then that's what they'd do.

e.g. MS Jerez 97 realised everyone knew it was his fault, the only way to move on from it was to admit fault. Obviously that situation was much more serious, though.

Jenson has no vested interest, so will tell it as he saw it, probably what happened; I'm willing to believe him.
Chris J

patrick and frank might have dangled a carrot in way of a drive at williams in place of ralf

hoorah!!!!






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

*crackle-prshhht-crackle*

Jean Todt kicks in a point of view:

From [www.itvf1.com]

Jean Todt has defended stewards following criticism of Juan Pablo Montoya's penalty.

The Ferrari boss says that mid-race penalties like the one meted out to Montoya are always likely to be controversial. He added that stewards face exactly the same pressures that hamper referees in football games.

He told Motorsport News: "No two incidents are ever the same, so the stewards have a difficult occupation.

"It would be good to have clear rules, but it

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Meanwhile Boba LS has described, elsewhere on this forum, how the FIA have swarmed over the first corner incidents like small flying insects, who's diet primarily consists of decomposing matter, to the Dionaea muscipula. Or in ordinary in english like flies to the Venus Flytrap.

What gives? 10 positions for just being invovled?!? Proposed, deliberated and decided in total secrecy within less than 3 weeks?!?

With the statement from Jean Todt above, surely Ferrari must be opposed to this. As would any other topteam I might add. Of course, the middle range teams and the lower echelons probably just LOVE this one!

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Argh! It is even better and worse! The FIA can dispense a penalty of 10 positions to any driver being seen as of any accident whatsoever!! What are they doing?!? I bet this rule will cause a lot of drivers to be very tentative in their overtaking attempts, which leads to less dicing, and less overtaking, and a lot more BORING races.

That does it! I am adding a new sentence to my sig!

"FIA! Get out of F1!"

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Try telling me now that there was room...




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

And tell me how the hell Jensen Button could see anything of the incident from there...




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

"Montoya braked late into the first corner and held his line, leaving enough room for Michael" Jenson is talking about going into the corner, where the trouble started. Braking takes place before a corner, if you look at the picture shown by Ellis2kx at 03-17-02 12:51
then you'll see JB was in line, and can easily see both Montoya and MS's moves, and can judge the situation as he saw it, probably better than you because he's a racing driver and can judge such situations better than people like us.
Chris J