Virgin tipped for Marussia name change

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Virgin may change their name to Marussia for the 2012 season.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Marussia in pole position to displace Virgin (The Times, subscription required)

“The team are to ask the Formula One Commission, the sport’s commercial ruler, for permission to erase the Virgin title and replace it with Marussia, the Russian car brand that is providing financial backing.”

Martin Brundle column: India a huge success for F1 (BBC)

“Massa was penalised for the subsequent contact because he was looking in his mirror and so was deemed to have seen the other car. That is nonsense – at 180mph, you have to look in your mirror and make a split-second judgement call as to whether it is your corner or not depending on exactly where the other car is.”

Justin Wilson via Twitter

“I liked that the stewards penalised Felipe Massa for Sunday’s crash with Lewis Hamilton. Massa left the door open then turned in like Hamilton wasn’t there. If Massa turned in earlier and gradually, that would be signal to Hamilton to back out. Race craft is all in the subtleties and it’s hard to see outside cockpit.”

F1, India style (FT, registration required)

“Besides the stray dogs, things went smoothly. The protests planned by farmers whose land had been acquired to build the track ?ǣ allegedly under the guise of building industry that could employ locals ?ǣ were cancelled.”

The posh and the poor: F1 brings out the deep divide (The Tribune India)

“Labelling F1 a ‘misplaced priority’ for a poor country like India, former Sports Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar dubbed the sport as ‘vulgar display of money’. Sociologists say that the sport will only increase the disparity among different sections of the society and increase the gap between ‘haves and have-nots’.”

Vicky Chandhok via Twitter

“Sickening to hear Mani Shankar Iyer’s comments on the F1 Indian Grand Prix! Its time people like him accept that this event has done India proud!”

Ecclestone hails Indian GP a success (Autosport)

“They only need to work on bits and pieces. But this is a prototype, as soon as they get down and have a good look they will find things to improve and I am sure they will improve them.”

Ecclestone backs Qatari bid (Daily Telegraph)

“The deal would reportedly see The Alpha Group pay an annual rent of around ??2.5m [on Silverstone], while taking on BRDC debt of ??23.5m and committing to spend at least ??50m developing the circuit.”

Motor racing-Alternating races could ease crowded F1 calendar (Reuters)

Martin Whitmarsh: “I think 20 races and a lot of flyaways (long-haul races) is pretty hard on the team and I think we are at tipping point. You are getting close to the point where you do need to alternate (staff). It’s the NASCAR approach where you alternate crews.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Adam Tate warns over a possible return for customer cars:

This issue of customer cars is the Pandora’s box of F1.

If it is done right and highly limited, it could be a nice way to close up the field. If manipulated and under-scrutineered, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
Adam Tate

From the forum

An interesting discussion on the rules of racing.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Joe Jones!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Sebastien Buemi who turns 23 today.

Advert | Go Ad-free

90 comments on Virgin tipped for Marussia name change

  1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 0:22

    I’m pretty sure the Virgin-Marussia name swap was always the plan. Richard Branson would fund Manor’s start-up efforts, and then find them a whole host of partners, one of which would be a manufacturer. That manufacturer would then buy into the team, and eventually buy out Virgin’s stake. Virgin would then become title sponsor rather than constructor, and the manufacturer – Marussia – would go from title sponsor to constructor, the idea being to gradualy introduce the manufacturer into the fold without compromising the team’s standings in the WCC (not that they have a standing, but they no doubt wanted to preserve their position if they did have one).

    • vjanik said on 1st November 2011, 9:10

      @Prisoner Monkeys Its easy to say that now after the fact.

      i actually doubt that this was Branson’s plan when he decided to enter his own team. I think he (along with Lotus, HRT and USF1) were expecting the budget cap to be in place, hence giving them a chance to be competitive and race in the midfield in their first season. This didn’t happen and left the 3 new teams struggling at the back having to look for new sponsors as they had to spend more than expected to stay alive (USF1 folded as we know). I bet Branson wasn’t planing to sell his stake so early. Given the circumstances I can understand why he is doing it, but I would be very surpirsed if thats what he planned form the start. If you have a successful team/company you never want to sell it to some one else. Virgin is a failure in Branson’s eyes, who is used to success wherever he goes.

    • Fixy (@fixy) said on 1st November 2011, 22:15

      I don’t like the instability of the new teams. True, Lotus didn’t want to change name, but Virgin and HRT have lasted shortly without changes since they were created, that means the founders didn’t have great plans.

  2. Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 1st November 2011, 0:36

    Hmmm…I agree with Justin Wilson and not Martin Brundle (sacrilege, I know) on this one. If I recall Felipe didn’t see Lewis in his mirrors at Suzuka, and Button didn’t see him in Montreal for that matter.

    Did they both go and see the stewards, or does that only happen if “the incident is investigated after the race”? Surely it would help to get them in a room together, discussing the incident?!

    Justin Wilson’s good value on Twitter isn’t he, some thoughtful words about Dan Wheldon. Underrated driver too, wish he’d had a chance with a proper F1 team.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 1:03

      Did they both go and see the stewards, or does that only happen if “the incident is investigated after the race”? Surely it would help to get them in a room together, discussing the incident?!

      I’m pretty sure all incidents are reviewed post-race. And I don’t think the contact in India is “the issue”. Massa is obvisouly upset at something, probably the way he and Hamilton keep coming together, only for Hamilton to insist there is nothing wrong with his driving. Hamilton’s refusal to admit he is in the wrong (or, as I suspect, his inability to consider that he might have been wrong) is no doubt bothering Massa more than anything else, because for someone who “isn’t doing anything wrong”, Hamilton has ruined Massa’s race on more than one occasion this year.

      • Casanova (@casanova) said on 1st November 2011, 8:41

        Whilst I do think Hamilton’s been at fault disproportionately often in the various “racing incidents” he’s been involved with this year, I respect that on several occasions he has put his hand up and admitted to being at fault. Felipe should man up and do the same this time – his petulance does him no favours at all.

        • no one other than the likes of brundle are taking into account the nature of the bend, and due to it the options massa had.

          massa was clearly ahead, braked later(or lewis backed out of it..same result). Massa therefore had to take the corner. But look at the corner, its a tricky one at the best of times. fitting 2 cars in it was not going to happen in a month of sundays.

          fair play for lewis having ago, its why we admire him. but it was never happening, so ended up a half hearted lunge that was destined for disaster.

          how many of lewis’s fans and non fans thought as the incident happened….lewis, why on that corner, why not wait for DRS aided hairpin move? I know i did!

          Massa turned in on him, but of course he did. he had a blind left bend to take.

          neither showed much race craft. and neither have for 6months. It was at best a racing incident.

          reminds me of them poor tackles in football when the tackler changes his mind halfway through and it ends up in both getting injured.

          both need to take a leaf out of webber and alonso book, if they can get through eau rouge without problems, then they should be able to aswell.

          • mike-e (@mike-e) said on 2nd November 2011, 21:18

            i thought, “nice one he’s made it through…. but i bet massa turns in…on…….hi……. typical”.

            I reckon hamilton backed out because he just knew massa would turn in regardless of where he was, wether he was in front, side by side, or behind.

            If hamilton kept his foot in it, i think they would have bashed front wheels together and both been out of the race.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st November 2011, 12:46

        @prisoner-monkeys, why do you introduce a false fact into the discussion there?

        Hamilton’s refusal to admit he is in the wrong (or, as I suspect, his inability to consider that he might have been wrong)

        How many headlines and quotes we have seen in the past month or so where Hamilton is apologizing to his team, and indeed to Massa (be it only on twitter) for how he was driving and looking for a change in his attetude?
        Aren’t you mistaken here, as it is Massa who is adamant that he is not to blame in any event?

        You are right when saying Hamilton has ruined Massa’s race several times this year (as he ruined his own chances in doing so), but its not true that Hamilton behaves as

        someone who “isn’t doing anything wrong”

        , not anymore.

        Massa should reflect and move on as well.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 13:02

          How many headlines and quotes we have seen in the past month or so where Hamilton is apologizing to his team, and indeed to Massa (be it only on twitter) for how he was driving and looking for a change in his attetude?

          And how many times has Hamilton insisted that nothing is wrong and that he – or the team – see no reason to change?

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 1st November 2011, 15:40

            But that was much earlier in the year @prisoner-monkeys, as @bascb says, after the summer, he has been blaming himself for mistakes. According to Whitmarsh, perhaps even to the point of being too critical and taking too much blame upon himself.

            Massa has a right to feel hard done by for having a lot of average or worse results, but not all of them were (only) due to Hamilton, and this last one clearly wasn’t – Massa even knew to blame the curbs already on Saturday!

            I would say in general Massa should also look at his team for the strategies he gets now that he found pace in these last few races, but perhaps also admit his own frustration at it all. There are a lot of reasons he is not getting good results.

          • Zahir (@zahir) said on 1st November 2011, 17:02

            @prisonermonkeys

            When Hamilton or Whitmarsh talk about no need for change, they’re talking about Hamiltons driving style. Holding your hands up and saying sorry is different to changing your driving style, as @BasCB says Hamilton has apologized for his incidents with Massa but disagreed with people who said he should change his driving style.

            Two completely separate issues

    • John H (@john-h) said on 1st November 2011, 9:44

      Massa quote:

      “I knew he was on my side. But when I braked – this is the important place, not when you are on the straight – he was not on my side.

      “So I turned, because I braked later than him. I cannot understand why… am I supposed to back off and let him by?

      “No, I braked later, he was on the dirty side, and then I turned and he touched me from behind. He did not touch on my side, or wheel-to-wheel. If it was wheel-to-wheel I would not try to close the door.”

      So he knew he was alongside before the braking zone, then he thought he braked later and was sufficiently ahead to turn in on Hamilton.

      I can’t recall Massa ever admitting he’s ever done anything wrong and apologising. Fair enough, you’re not supposed to ‘back off and let him by,’ but that doesn’t stop you giving him some room so you can fight side by side into the next corner, i.e. Racing.

      • Joey-Poey (@joey-poey) said on 1st November 2011, 19:51

        Amen, this is how I feel. Hamilton allowed Schumacher past at Monaco, admitting he left the door open. Hamilton and Webber went wheel to wheel at Korea through MANY corners of both medium and high speed without issue. There reaches a point, even if it’s a fast corner, where you have to acknowledge they got a nose in and it’s safer to give a bit of room.

  3. damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 1:03

    Completely agree with Martin. In my opinion, Massa saw Hamilton there, but realised he was no-where near far enough alongside for it to work, so turned in assuming Hamilton would think the same. But Lewis is Lewis and he doesn’t back out of half-hearted moves, he just puts his nose there and says “It’s up to you now; do you want to crash or not?” We saw this work with Schumacher in Monaco but it didn’t work with Massa and Maldonado later in the race.

    Basically, Massa was in a lose-lose situation. He could either run wide into the gravel to let Hamilton through (I mean, they were going so fast that there was no way they could go through that corner side-by-side) which everyone seems to think he should have done, or he could turn in and hope Lewis has enough sense to realise there’s no room and hope he backs out. Either way, Massa was going to lose out massively whereas Lewis could have just tried again on the next lap. That’s why I think it was more Lewis’ fault.

    But having said that, I’ve watched it over at least 100 times now and I think both of them were at fault to an extent. Neither of them deserve a penalty. It all happens too fast for these ridiculous scenarios that people think they were plotting.

    • lightsout (@lightsout) said on 1st November 2011, 1:50

      Martin also said Hamilton’s overtake on Schumacher was great as I recall!

      Perhaps Massa had another option, and apply the brakes? As Lewis said, he was backing out.

      • laird18 said on 1st November 2011, 10:31

        Martin Brundle is right. This was an eccentric decision from the stewards, and I’m very surprised by many people’s reactions to it (including Keith Collantine’s).

        While I agree that those being overtaken need to take more responsibility for avoiding contact, and it’s good to see the stewards acknowledging this, to overtake in to a 5th gear corner you really need to be clearly along side and Hamilton wasn’t.

        I do have symapathy for Hamilton in this instance: he had a great drive on Massa and looked like he could beat him to the corner, but he didn’t. He recognised this at the last moment and tried to back out, but he was too late and there was contact. While Massa could have done more to get out the way, it is understandable that he didn’t expect Hamilton to be there.

        It was a racing incident. Both drivers should take some responsiblity and no penalty should have been applied. Lets keep tedious steward decisions out of things as much as possible.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 1:55

      Why the opinion that Massa backing out meant the gravel trap? He could have backed out completely before the corner or gone on the low grip side, but at a lower speed so he didn’t fly off the track. If you let someone take the inside line then you’ve let yourself be pushed into the non-ideal situation, and you accept it, not take out the other driver who got the better of you.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 2:00

        Also the track was very wide, so other than being slippery why couldn’t they travel side-by-side?

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 4:48

          While the track was widened to promote overtaking, only three corners actually had it – turns 3, 4 and 16. Turn 5, where the incident happened, did not have the widened tarmac layout.

        • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 6:27

          @matt90 What @Prisoner-Monkeys said. The track was narrow and Hamilton, to even make the move work, would have had to use the entire width of the track (if not some of the run-off) to complete the pass. Massa was not going to just let Lewis run him off the road like that, so he turned in assuming Hamilton would come out of the throttle.

          It all happens too fast. And I’m sick of the people saying Massa did it deliberately. His career is on the line. He’s not going to be causing crashes – especially not after what we’ve seen happen in the past few weeks.

          But in my opinion, the stewarding is the biggest problem. We need clarity, consistency and above all, explanations. @Steph suggested the teams should be given the opportunity to appeal over certain decisions. I think that could also work. Something needs to be done. The whole decision making process needs an overhaul because obviously, it’s not working.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 7:00

            I think the best thing the stewards could do is stop issuing in-race penalties. Instead, they call the drivers involved up to the stewarding booth at the end of the race, and they discuss the whole thing, get an idea for what the drivers were thinking and intending at the time. They then all review telemetry and footage and everything the stewards have, and issue a penalty from there. The penalty could take the form of championship points being docked, with further penalties – like grid penalties – being an option. The stewards then release a transcript of the entire review to the public.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 1st November 2011, 9:38

            I think Martin said HAM would get a penalty on tv bc. that’s how it turned out all year, even if it wasn’t totally clear on first view that he made the error. Somehow Brundle is reluctant to just say that.

            So in Spa HAM was at fault for not looking in the right mirror and taking the racing line where KOB was already going (much further back too), and here Massa was right for looking in his mirror, not being certain HAM wasn’t along side, and deciding to turn in to make sure HAM wouldn’t pass, if only bc. he had to make a split decision? Sorry, that seems a bit of an odd bit of reasoning.

            As Brundle and DC keep saying: you have to make a split moment decision all the time. You can make the wrong one, but not al the time, or you won’t stay in F1. HAM has made quite a few this year, and Massa made one here.

            You are very right @damonsmedley that it would be good to have an explanation of every decision, the stewards good even use those to check that they are being consistent.

          • John H (@john-h) said on 1st November 2011, 9:46

            He didn’t do it deliberately, it was just poor driving.

          • Mr draw said on 1st November 2011, 10:23

            Well, actually the stewards did a good job. The penalized the driver who inflicted damage to the other driver, which has been the case for the whole season.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 13:49

            @Prisoner-Monkeys @damonsmedley
            I know it wasn’t one of the a widest sections, but as with a lot of corners on most Tilke tracks I still think that the corner was more than wide enough for 2 cars and I definitely don’t think it was narrow. And if it was too narrow for 2 cars I still think it was up to Massa to back out, being on the outside as he was.

            And I agree with Mr draw. Whether intentionally or not, Massa wrecked Hamilton’s race (I know it wasn’t going great anyway). In football if a bad tackle happens in the box then a card is given, regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Massa committed the equal of an accidental foul. In Singapore I believe the contact was fairly minor- it was accidental and low speed, as well as just a tap- but Hamilton deserved a penalty for fouling Massa.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st November 2011, 14:35

            @prisoner-monkeys, what you propose would make for the most even handed judgements.

            But I am not too sure it would be more fair in effect, as it would then have to take in effect far more of the consequences of a move to the whole race.

            And it would off course mean hours of judgements following a race. And those being followed by appeals. In other words, it would not be an improvement of the sport.

            Publishing the full findings and reasoning should be mandatory and openly done, as you propose.

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 4th November 2011, 7:42

            @Prisoner-Monkeys

            I agree. As long as there’s no time penalties.

            I don’t disagree with drive-throughs, but sometimes they don’t give enough of an explanation as to why the driver was penalised.

        • matt there was no way 2 cars were going to make that corner, lewis wasnt side by side or ahead. He already admitted to backing out of it to avoid contact.

          all the above adds up to a misjudged move. Therefore lewis’s error. a small one, but an error.

          certainly not massa’s

          damonsedley sums it correctly. Best way of explaining it. One of the few people who have actually looked at the corner(entry, apex and exit), ALL of which is vital to summing up how and why the incident happened. Everyone else is viewing it like its a hairpin! it clearly was not!

          If a driver threw his nose up the inside of someone 130R and clipped the back of the car they were trying to pass everyone would rightly say ‘well that was obviously never going to work’

          and he is also right in saying no pen at all should of been given.

          Both drivers bloody mindedness cost them points and thats punishment enough and sums up both of their seasons.

  4. F1Yankee (@f1yankee) said on 1st November 2011, 1:24

    There is believed to be some consternation from within the BRDC at the prospect of leasing the crown jewels of British motorsport to a foreign consortium.

    yeah, i bet there is.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 2:00

      The article says that under the proposed deal, the Qataris could control Silverstone for the next 150 years. The British Grand Prix is only guaranteed for the next 15. With investment from Qatar, the future of the British Grand Prix could be guaranteed for the next century and a half.

  5. cduk_mugello (@cduk_mugello) said on 1st November 2011, 1:25

    When people in the British media start siding with Massa over Hamilton, you know the game’s up ;)

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 1st November 2011, 7:44

      @cduk_mugello Look at the two examples I’ve picked out here: two British people, two different opinions.

      I wish some people would get over this idea that because someone’s of a particularly nationality they must think a certain way. It is narrow-minded and tedious beyond belief.

  6. UKFan (@) said on 1st November 2011, 1:52

    Happy birthday Buemi hope for better luck and a fair decision about the future. He seems not to raise people eyebrows as more visible drivers.

  7. matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 1:58

    @keithcollantine I’d be quite curious to hear your opinion on my ‘rules’ in the forum.

  8. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 1st November 2011, 2:08

    To be honest it was simply funny to see Massa get the blame. Livened up the race at least and the consequences were minimal, unlike the ridiculous ones in Massa’s favour in 2008 (and I don’t even mean Spa).

    The whole thing was actually a breath of fresh air even in its repetitive aspects. The collision, twitter exploding at the stewards’ decision, opinions dividing almost on party lines (kudos to the Ferrari fans who I saw say it was a racing accident straight away, btw). It sort of reminded me that F1 is best not taken too seriously or you’ll always walk away from the weekend angry about something, be it a stewards’ decision, the DRS zone, the result, etc. In many ways Rowan Atkinson’s reaction summed the whole thing up perfectly.

    Less than 2 hours after we remembered those who paid the ultimate price for doing what they loved, a minor incident of zero race or championship consequence descended into chaos as if the championship depended on it or one of them had ended up in hospital. I’m not sure what my point is really, but it does make me wonder if there is an endemic lack of perspective and how those who say they wish for close racing find blame in everything that goes over the edge, as it inevitably will. sometimes I think we give these masters of speed far too much credit for their ability to control situations.

    • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 6:29

      @Icthyes Good comment.

      In many ways Rowan Atkinson’s reaction summed the whole thing up perfectly.

      Yep, I agree. I’m going to really chill out for the next race. I hope the drivers do, too!

    • Casanova (@casanova) said on 1st November 2011, 8:44

      I’d like Rowan Atkinson’s facial reactions to be a central part of the coverage of every race. They could put his face in the top right corner next to the lap counter.

    • Blog_Raider said on 1st November 2011, 9:28

      but it does make me wonder if there is an endemic lack of perspective and how those who say they wish for close racing find blame in everything that goes over the edge, as it inevitably will. sometimes I think we give these masters of speed far too much credit for their ability to control situations.

      Agree 100%, wish all fans had a mind like yours!!!

  9. matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 2:13

    I’ve lost a bit of respect for Brundle there. For one thing, the corner was not ‘180 mph.’ If accurate, I’ve seen that it is more like 130 mph. Also, if Massa had doubt then he should have left space, and if he didn’t doubt it and really believed he was ahead, then he was wrong and because he damaged Hamilton’s race he should get a penalty. The Singapore collision was tiny, but I assume the penalty was because Massa had been so heavily penalised by Hamilton’s actions. I think the day a driver can’t put his car almost level with another on the inside approaching a corner without people calling it rash is just a bit sad.

    • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 1st November 2011, 2:19

      I think the day a driver can’t put his car almost level with another on the inside approaching a corner without people calling it rash is just a bit sad.

      Indeed.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 2:56

        To be fair, we’re not just talking about Turn 5. The racing line going into 5 affects the racing line through Turn 6 and Turn 7. There was no way that Hamilton could have passed Massa and gotten onto the racing line for Turn 6 without losing any speed. Massa would have re-taken the position going into Turn 10, simply because he had the faster line through that section.

        I think the whole thing was really just a racing incident. Hamilton never quite drew alongside Massa, and when they touched, Hamilton’s front wheel was roughly level with Massa’s rear wheel. So Hamilton didn’t brake enough, and Massa turned in too soon. They’re both equally responsible, but I think the penalty for Massa was a show of good faith to Hamilton, a case of the stewards saying “we don’t automatically blame you”.

        • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 6:33

          @Prisoner-Monkeys

          They’re both equally responsible, but I think the penalty for Massa was a show of good faith to Hamilton, a case of the stewards saying “we don’t automatically blame you”.

          I wouldn’t go that far, but it certainly did look a bit suspicious at first.

          I agree with you though, it was a racing incident. I still think Hamilton had more options than Massa. Whatever Massa did, he was going to lose out. He took the decision to turn in in the hope that Hamilton would think better of a dangerous and unnecessarily risky manoeuvre.

          Hamilton could have backed out and lost barely any time at all, but for Massa to back out, he’d have almost certainly run wide just to let Lewis through. In my opinion, that’s not how it should be.

          Racing incident. Move on.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 1st November 2011, 9:52

            But @damonsmedley isn’t it true that at the point/time Massa started turning in, HAM didn’t have much more choices to back out: only breaking, hard, and he said he did that. Massa could have steered around, he even had run-off if he hadn’t gotten the corner.

            And he only got as far ahead bc. he lifted a bit, something he wouldn’t have done when normally going around on the racing line, as it would have compromised the way he took the corner.

            The racing line is, as far as I know, just the line that, under ideal circumstances, is the best way to get around the track. It is not a magic thing where you have to be on to stay on track.

            And when overtaking, not being on it for a bit is essential, unless the driver ahead makes a mistake.

            Not taking the racing line when it isn’t free seems like a smart choice to keep you in the race, even if it costs a position right that moment.

            But I don’t race much myself, so perhaps I see it wrong. I do like to see HAM racing well; but I also want to see Massa racing as well as he did in 2008, not being frustrated so much.

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 10:39

            @bosyber

            The racing line is, as far as I know, just the line that, under ideal circumstances, is the best way to get around the track. It is not a magic thing where you have to be on to stay on track.

            But the track was incredibly dusty and dirty off-line. I honestly can’t see how Felipe would have been able to go off the racing line at that speed and stay on the track.

            Hamilton himself would have crowded him out to the edge by virtues of the increased speed he was carrying and braking on the dirty line. Hamilton was headed the edge of the track – if not further, so I can’t see how Massa was ever going to get out of it short of slowing right down. If he did that, he’d risk losing more positions.

            As far as I see it, Hamilton put Massa in an incredibly awkward position.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 1st November 2011, 10:56

            @damonsmedley, yes, but that’s part of overtaking, putting someone in an awkward position, isn’t it? I think it is a bit to easy to say that it’s HAM, and so it must have been an overeager move. But we don’t know how it would have gone, so maybe you are right.

            I still think that since there was run-off, Massa having to go there was better than steering into HAM and causing a collision, so Massa still chose the worse option, even if before that HAM made a wrong move.

            That incident alone didn’t warrant a drive-though for me, but I also didn’t like other such penalties before this year, thinking them too much interference.

            See my COTD of yesterday, I think that’s why Massa likely got a penalty on Sunday, and HAM got them on other occasions where maybe they were a bi harsh.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 1st November 2011, 11:10

            @damonsmedley you’ve just basically criticised Hamilton for forcing Massa into a defensive position, i.e. trying to overtake him. Trying to make sure the defending driver doesn’t get a good line into a corner is a basic part of overtaking, that you compromise his line and force him to go slower, thus taking his place away. Massa is a very cynical defender and has been shutting doors on people for year, so I’m actually glad he was penalised now, despite the incident itself being just a run-of-the-mill accident. He didn’t know when he was beat, partly due to his own insistence on leaving an inside gap instead of staying inside and leaving Hamilton a moving apex he would never have got by.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 13:55

            It was Massa’s fault that he allowed to be put in a position where his only options were the dirty line or falling behind Hamilton. I’m with @bosyber and @icthyes that that is essentially just overtaking- block and take the ideal line. As long as he isn’t forced onto the grass or into a wall or directly crashed into to punt him out the way, then it should be fair game.

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 4th November 2011, 7:50

            @Icthyes

            Trying to make sure the defending driver doesn’t get a good line into a corner is a basic part of overtaking, that you compromise his line and force him to go slower, thus taking his place away.

            Yes, but you still have to have more than a wheel alongside their rear axle to expect them to just pull over and let you through.

            Massa shouldn’t have let him get that close in the first place, but in the end, Hamilton had more options to avoid a collision.

      • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st November 2011, 6:36

        @matt90 @icthyes I actually agree. But the stewards need to be consistent. I don’t agree with most of the penalties, but I think everyone needs to be treated equally.

        Hopefully next year they’ll rewrite the entire book, or at least give us some more information behind decisions. It’s all so vague at the moment and inconsistent. They could do with a clean slate, really.

    • ed24f1 (@ed24f1) said on 1st November 2011, 4:39

      If it was a clean track, it wouldn’t have been a rash move, but considering how dirty the track was, how little grip and how early he would had to brake, it was quite a dangerous move to make.

      • paolo (@paolo) said on 1st November 2011, 12:02

        My opinion is that if Lewis was backing out of the move then he knew it was a bad move, ie a bad place to try it. In the past when he has gone for an overtake he normally goes into it 100% and doesn’t mind banging wheels etc. So the argument that he knew Felipe wouldn’t back out doesn’t stack up for me as that has been the case in previous instances, ie Monaco. So IMO he knew the move he was pulling was a bad one, tried to come out of it but only half heartedly and hence the crash.

        Whether this deserves a penalty or not is another matter)

    • Rucknar (@superted666) said on 1st November 2011, 11:59

      Watch this video of great F1 overtakes, at least half of them were made where the overtaker was less than a car length back, the other car sees him and leaves him room. If we are not careful we will limit overtaking to straights and under DRS only…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUD0yOEE7I

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 13:56

        That’s exactly what I’m afraid people want.

      • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 4th November 2011, 7:54

        @superted666

        Yes, but that’s Hamilton’s problem in a way. He doesn’t get far enough alongside drivers when he’s making his moves. His overtake in China on Jenson could (and probably should) have ended in disaster. It was a miracle that Jenson saw him in time to react.

        His half-hearted move on Webber in Canada was also a bit risky. He puts too much trust in the other driver, and the other driver isn’t always going to just let him through.

  10. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 1st November 2011, 2:15

    Feel bad for Sebastien Buemi,as if not the car failed he could have finished in points which would have bring a lot of happiness for this Birthday,hope you enjoy the day mate.

    Agree with the people on the MAS/HAM incident,it was MAS fault.

  11. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 1st November 2011, 2:16

    If that’s the case then we will have 5 car manufacturer in F1 next year.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 3:04

      Technically, McLaren is also a manufacturer. So we’d have Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Marussia, Lotus and Caterham.

      Of course, Marussia would have to convince the F1 Commission that they’re in the sport for the long haul – that’s one of the issues on the agenda for this meeting. The sport wants to avoid teams that only invest in the sport for a year or two before disappearing.

      • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 1st November 2011, 8:54

        @Prisoner Monkeys I think that should be no problem for Marussia: I think they have found à nice niche market, being really à brand for those new rich Russians, who are proud of their country.
        We do have à crisis however, so I think it’s hard for anyone to make sure they’re in F1 in years to come.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st November 2011, 10:09

          We do have à crisis however, so I think it’s hard for anyone to make sure they’re in F1 in years to come

          That could be applied to anyone, @verstappen – for all we know, Sauber could be snuffed out of existence tomorrow by a fire that destroys their factory. So they can’t guarantee that they’ll be around for the future, either.

          The best that groups like Marussia can do is convince the F1 Commission that they have every intention of being around for years to come.

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st November 2011, 14:05

          As long as they aren’t like Spyker- that was never going to work out, and it almost ruined a team with potential and a great little supercar manufacturer.

      • Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 1st November 2011, 9:58

        …but not Renault – sounds strange doesn’t it.

        Will Renault still use F1 for promotional events, such as the F1 demonstration at their World Series races? Maybe they’ll use a Williams or even Red Bull.

  12. Adam Tate (@adam-tate) said on 1st November 2011, 5:09

    Wohoo! Thanks for the COTD Keith!! :)

  13. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 1st November 2011, 9:18

    I thought this might be a good place to get some publicity.

    I’m currently accepting registrations of interest for new members to join Season 2 of the ‘Collantine Cup’ F1 2011 PS3 winter racing series. At the moment, it looks like we’ll only have around 4 remaining places up for grabs, but I’m still waiting on confirmation from 3 of the original 11, so there may be more.

    I advise people interested in joining to read the rules on the OP of the original Collantine Cup thread and then to read this post if they are interested in registering.

  14. BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st November 2011, 10:55

    Here’s a link to a quarter of an hour of really interesting interview with Schumacher before the Indian GP (via James Allen on twitter).

  15. IDR (@idr) said on 1st November 2011, 11:21

    On Hallowe’en the thing you must do
    Is pretend that nothing can frighten you.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/idrs/6301619297/in/photostream

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.