Max Verstappen
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
honda_exige said:
EmailAddress said:
BunkMoreland said:
honda_exige said:
Everyone else? 
'Max Verstappen did not deserve a penalty' - Alex Wurz, the current Grand Prix Drivers Association President no less.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/formel1/news-28...
Similar defence of Max here by Peter Windsor:
https://youtu.be/qlwNeVVJIdk?si=YZTvHZ_HQWXg3SP5
Peter Windsor hasnt been right about anything in decades! 'Max Verstappen did not deserve a penalty' - Alex Wurz, the current Grand Prix Drivers Association President no less.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/formel1/news-28...
Similar defence of Max here by Peter Windsor:
https://youtu.be/qlwNeVVJIdk?si=YZTvHZ_HQWXg3SP5
Wurz is a moron if he believes that! GPDA was set up in part for driver safety. Deliberately running your rival off the track is the opposite of that!
ref Ticktum Hes a very strange boy. Unbeliveably fast when the mood takes him. But so self sabotaging its actually sad.
He's got an immense amount of knowledge and experience, but has quite clearly sold to the devil to keep his gravy train running for a few more years before packing it in.
Windsor has an immense amount of knowledge but on this topic it's obvious he's only spouting these views for money as somehow defending Max means money automagically turns up in his account the next day?
I mean maybe, just maybe, these people hold these views because it's a divisive subject and it's not beyond the realms of imagination that someone could hold the opposing view to yours because they do actually believe it's correct?
Otherwise, when I defend Max, why the F isn't money turning up into my account the next day?!
For me it's akin to someone believing the sky is green and the grass is blue.. I cant begin to understand how a person could believe something that is so clearly not the case. Although perhaps a person that gets the colour of the sky and the grass back to front suffers a rare kind of colour-blindness? Perhaps for them, what they say is true.
Perhaps those that defend Max from the indefensible have a genuine disability too? I suppose they might well not know, if they did.
As another example see below, same corner, Norris as well this time with Vettel:
Vettel braking in the middle:
Vettel drifts left all the way through the braking phase ending up in leaving less than a cars width and Norris having to go off track:
The difference is that Norris used the curb to avoid Vettel and almost took him back on the next straight.
Did Norris have to move over against Max? No.
Norris was correct but ended up in the pits going home early Vs making an allowance and being in 1st by the next corner.
In regards the moving under braking - there was an article in Autosport suggesting that GPS was inconclusive and Max may actually have been correct.
Moving under braking isn't a specific offense anymore anyway - erratic driving is.
Was it erratic? Well what's the definition? None exists. If Sainz, Ocon etc do it with no penalty then don't expect Max to not do it either.
mycool said:
i shouldn't feed the troll but are you soft in the head or just deliberately being a troll?
The edge of the track is defined by the white line. Therefore not a cars width. Not difficult to understand.
ahhh you're in stage 1 of dealing with Bo; denial, where you counter any 'point' he makesThe edge of the track is defined by the white line. Therefore not a cars width. Not difficult to understand.
next up...
2. anger; you just get really irritated by his posts
3. bargaining; you'll try to trade points with by accepting some of his as valid
4. exasperation; self explanatory
& then finally
5. acceptance; acceptance that he's just being a di...
Dave200 said:
Bo_apex said:
I can't quite tell if this is "mad" or "attention-seeking". Could you clarify please?Yes Max moved over too far with regards the white line but Lando still had a metre or more that he could've moved over to avoid contact without triggering track limits, as he did against Vettel, as Max did against Sainz etc etc.
honda_exige said:
Moving under braking isn't a specific offense anymore anyway - erratic driving is.
Was it erratic? Well what's the definition? None exists. If Sainz, Ocon etc do it with no penalty then don't expect Max to not do it either.
extremely disingenuous, as the rule is;Was it erratic? Well what's the definition? None exists. If Sainz, Ocon etc do it with no penalty then don't expect Max to not do it either.
2024;
"Article 33.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be
deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."
which was an update of a rule bought in specifically because of Max;
2016:
"Article 27.5 of the Sporting Regulations states that '...no car may be driven...in a manner which could be potentially dangerous to other drivers...', furthermore, Article 27.8 prohibits any manoeuvre '...liable to hinder other drivers, such as...any abnormal change of direction',"
I have no idea why they seem so scared of walloping Max with some sort of punishment.
They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these w
kers.
They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these w
kers.anonymous_user said:
honda_exige said:
Moving under braking isn't a specific offense anymore anyway - erratic driving is.
Was it erratic? Well what's the definition? None exists. If Sainz, Ocon etc do it with no penalty then don't expect Max to not do it either.
extremely disingenuous, as the rule is;Was it erratic? Well what's the definition? None exists. If Sainz, Ocon etc do it with no penalty then don't expect Max to not do it either.
2024;
"Article 33.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be
deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."
which was an update of a rule bought in specifically because of Max;
2016:
"Article 27.5 of the Sporting Regulations states that '...no car may be driven...in a manner which could be potentially dangerous to other drivers...', furthermore, Article 27.8 prohibits any manoeuvre '...liable to hinder other drivers, such as...any abnormal change of direction',"
Is drifting across track in a straight line erratic? If yes then Sainz and Vettel should've been punished.
The contact was punished, the moving under braking was deemed by the stewards as not sufficiently erratic or dangerous enough to be worth sanction.
It's slightly odd to agree with the stewards on the contact penalty but to then say the stewards are incompetent regarding their judgement of Max' other moves.
hondajack85 said:
I have no idea why they seem so scared of walloping Max with some sort of punishment.
They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these wkers.
The show must go on. Don't risk stopping the gravy train.They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these w
kers.honda_exige said:
Regardless, 'moving under braking' isn't enshrined specifically in the ruleset.
Is drifting across track in a straight line erratic? If yes then Sainz and Vettel should've been punished.
The contact was punished, the moving under braking was deemed by the stewards as not sufficiently erratic or dangerous enough to be worth sanction.
It's slightly odd to agree with the stewards on the contact penalty but to then say the stewards are incompetent regarding their judgement of Max' other moves.
Max drives dangerously and breaks rules to avoid giving up the lead. Is drifting across track in a straight line erratic? If yes then Sainz and Vettel should've been punished.
The contact was punished, the moving under braking was deemed by the stewards as not sufficiently erratic or dangerous enough to be worth sanction.
It's slightly odd to agree with the stewards on the contact penalty but to then say the stewards are incompetent regarding their judgement of Max' other moves.
Max fans: "Everyone is doing it, and it's not even specific in the rules".
Makes sense.
Edited by Dave200 on Wednesday 3rd July 13:40
Dave200 said:
hondajack85 said:
I have no idea why they seem so scared of walloping Max with some sort of punishment.
They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these wkers.
The show must go on. Don't risk stopping the gravy train.They need to reintroduce the drive through penalty that has to be servered even if you have crossed the finish line.
The only person in the f1 paddock with any guts is Adreas Stella. Everyone else is worried about their next job.
Bit like how anyone in journalism/media is scared of upsetting facebook,google and the rest of these w
kers.It's perfectly easy for me to understand why they don't penalise Max more often - it's because he's good box office stuff! 90% of the audience don't even understand the rules on terms of moving under braking, they don't care - they just want to see two cars battling away and, if they're very lucky, a dramatic incident occur.
It's got to the point at which they only seem to consider a real penalty for Max once he's well and truly taken the piss, and even then typically only after the avoidable damage has already occurred.
It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando - that's the reality.
deadslow said:
Yeah don't disagree with any of that really, storm in a tea cup.Comments are interesting - pretty much the opposite of the echo chamber in here.
Brawn: 'I loved it'. Me too
TheDeuce said:
90% of the audience don't even understand the rules on terms of moving under braking
It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando - that's the reality.
A) Do the rules contain the phrase 'moving under braking'?It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando - that's the reality.
B) 'It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando' - show your working please.
honda_exige said:
deadslow said:
Yeah don't disagree with any of that really, storm in a tea cup.Comments are interesting - pretty much the opposite of the echo chamber in here.
Brawn: 'I loved it'. Me too
PhilAsia said:
TheDeuce said:
Bo_apex said:
anonymous_user said:
Yep. 1 meter left to play with.The cars width must be withing the track, within the white line.
honda_exige said:
TheDeuce said:
90% of the audience don't even understand the rules on terms of moving under braking
It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando - that's the reality.
A) Do the rules contain the phrase 'moving under braking'?It's financially better for the sport for Max to be a winner than Lando - that's the reality.
Brilliant. Just absolutely exceptional attention-seeking.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff