Nic_Col wrote: » Time penalties should be done away with. Farcical to have a driver cross the line in first not actually winning. Happened in Monaco too, driver crosses the line in second and doesn't make the podium because of a time penalty. There needs to be a way to penalise the driver in the race itself. Only post race penalties should be disqualification if merited or grid penalties for the next race.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: I don't think Seb's move was deliberate or malicious. But that's not really the point. He lost Control of his car and blocked Lewis. Simple as that.
tigerboon wrote: » The thing about the whole Vettel penalty is it was Hamilton who had full control but chose to go for a gap that was always closing. He could have backed off a fraction and gone left or settled for Vettel staying in front for a while knowing he had a faster car at that stage of the race. He would have got him up the straight with DRS. Vettel was already on the grass as Hamilton came into the chicane. The Ferrari was always going to have poor grip after leaving the grass and was always going to head for the right of the track. Was the overtake ever on or did Hamilton play the situation? He was very quick on the radio after it happening. Leaving the circuit and should have consequences normally, such as the penalty loop mentioned above or maybe a penalty mode on the car which reduces power long enough to suffer the penalty but not be a slow moving hazard. Vettel left the track onto grass however, and managed to hold the car. That shouldn't be punished.
Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: » A penalty mode is an excellent idea! Not as harsh and leaves the decision to what happens on track.. The only problem is it starts to look a bit like mario kart
tigerboon wrote: » Not if it's over a full lap. A good driver might be able to avoid being overtaken. Bit like getting sin binned in rugby but not conceding a try. I don't get the issue with Vettel regaining control and preventing an overtake. It's racing. There's a very good chance Hamilton knew the overtake was never on. He's not a rookie
AMKC wrote: » Also who would have control of that power mood? I doubt the teams are going to hand it over to the FIA or stewards are they? Would they have to tell the team that so so has a power penalty reduce power for 1 lap and if so would the team do it before or after telling the driver?
Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: » I think that's exactly the point. Give the advantage to the driver behind but leave the outcome to be settled between the drivers. The five seconds decided the race, which was very unfair if deserved or not.
BikeRacer wrote: » Rich Energy have completely lost it. "Total parasites"...jaysus.https://twitter.com/rich_energy/status/1138109173722484736
32 Conversely, I found both Mr Storey and Mr Kelly to be poor witnesses. 33 Mr Storey provided different and inconsistent accounts of the development of D1's Device, which also conflicted to a large extent with the evidence of Mr Kelly. He often did not answer questions directly, preferring to make speeches about his vision for his business or alternatively seeking to evade questions by speaking in generalities or in the third person plural. He only answered several questions when I intervened. He had a tendency to make impressive statements, which on further investigation or consideration were not quite what they seemed. For example, when Mr Wyand in cross-examination tried to understand his evidence about the sales figures of Rich Energy drinks, and put to him that he had been quoted in the press in February 2019 as saying that the First Defendant had produced 90 million cans, Mr Storey explained that it had produced 90 million cans, but had not yet filled and sold them. He said he would have to check the figures, but in 2018 he thought the First Defendant had filled and sold "circa 3 million cans" of Rich Energy drink. In another example, he stated in an impassioned fashion that he was " not in the business of trying to create a world-class business by taking any inspiration from anybody else whatsoever", but his own written evidence was that his starting point when thinking about developing a logo was to carry out logo research on what other drinks companies were doing, and to carrying out internet searches on stag head logos used by other companies. For reasons which I set out below, I am satisfied that some of Mr Storey's evidence was incorrect or misleading and that he was involved in the manufacture of documents during the course of litigation to provide additional support for the Defendants' case.
119 In relation to motive, I do not accept Mr St Quintin's submissions that the Defendants can have had no motive for copying C's Device and that copying it is inconsistent with the care he gave to clearing it for trade mark purposes. It is clear from Mr Storey's oral evidence in relation to the Rich Energy can design, as acknowledged by Mr St Quintin in closing, that he has very little idea of what copyright is and no idea of the difference between copyright and trade marks, even after going through this litigation process.
63 I do not believe I should let that pass without comment. I do not consider that there are any circumstances in which one solicitor in the course of his professional duties should accuse another in writing of making imbecilic requests. That language is far removed from the professional courtesy which solicitors are expected to show each other and those they deal with. If a trainee solicitor sent the letter, as the reference suggests, the fact that it was sent in this form suggests a failure by the supervising solicitor properly to supervise.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The 5 seconds decided the order of the top 2 drivers. But so did Vettel, losing control of his car, going off the track, cutting the corner while our of control, re-entering the track while out of control and maintaining the lead only because he blocked Lewis. That decided the order of the top 2 drivers too.
vectra wrote: » I don't buy that for a couple of reasons. 1) Lewis was a good bit behind and saw Vettels car going off track and somewhat out of control, Lewis should have had the experience to lift at that point and not charge for a gap that could have put both drivers in a dangerous situation. But no, He was in the mindset of grabbing that position at all costs, even by putting all four wheels off track. 2) Why should Vettel get a penalty when Lewis got none and went on to win the race in Monaco 2016 when he all but put Dani Ric, in the barrier in Monaco?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ah, the first point needs us to assume we can accurately read Hamilton's mind. I can't read his mind. But I was watching the race on the F1 app because I don't have sky. I was following the gap between them in real time. Hamilton had consistently been within a second of Vettel for the few laps leading up to the incident. He was within half a second when Vettel went off track. Vettel was under pernicious pressure when the incident happened.
vectra wrote: » Hamilton was approaching the chicane when Vettel went off so had had plenty of time to react.Vettel - Hamilton Canada 2019 How does it differ to this??Hamilton - Ricardo Monaco 2016 If it is a different scenario then I am either confused/blind or am on another planet
vectra wrote: » Lewis should have had the experience to lift at that point and not charge for a gap that could have put both drivers in a dangerous situation. But no, He was in the mindset of grabbing that position at all costs, even by putting all four wheels off track.
BikeRacer wrote: » If Lewis, or indeed Seb, had that mentality of not going for a gap they'd have exactly 0 world championships between them. What you're describing is less motorsport and more 'Driving Miss Daisy'.
pjohnson wrote: » This whole idea of "having to go for a gap" is stupid. If theres a 1% chance of succeeding and a 99% chance of crashing only a moron would think to take that chance. Or do you think Leclerc race ending attempt in Monaco was peak motorsport as he limped around destroying his car? Or even Giovinazzi who spun Kubica with his woeful attempt? Ide and Maldonado went for gaps but generally they didn't reap rewards. Lewis could have tried the cutback if he broke let Seb skitter across and then put the power down while Seb was still correcting. Again plenty of drivers have pointed this out that it was unavoidable Seb was gunna be swiping across the track on his return its all he could do with his cars angle. Lewis didnt need to put himself in the path of the Ferrari.
tigerboon wrote: » And Hamilton's not stupid. He stuck the nose into the gap enough that he could shout about a dangerous re-entry as he had to brake. He played for the penalty. A little unsporting but nothing wrong as such.
patmahe wrote: » I was watching a video autosport made about this controversy and how best to stop the situation we had on Sunday where all Hamilton had to do was stay within 5 seconds of Vettel because there were no more pitstops so the time penalty could only be applied post race. What they proposed was a penalty corner, so for example at the hairpin in Canada there would be a lane around the outside of the corner that the penalized driver would need to take within a certain number of laps. That way the penalty is done and dusted during the race and if the penalized driver loses the place then its just hard luck and he has to get on with it and overtake. It saves us the spectacle of the driver who finishes second on the road being the winner of the race. It sounds reasonable and would have been an interesting one for Sunday's issue.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Oh come on. Between this and the punishment engine mode. I can only imagine the complaints about artificially interfering with the race if they actually did either of those things. I'm fine with the 5s penalty. They could have told Vettel to give the place to Hamilton. But I'm fine with a small penalty like 5s.
