Hamilton plans run in his X44 team’s Extreme E car

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton said he intends to drive his new Extreme E team’s SUV.

Join RaceFans on Facebook

Don't miss anything from RaceFans - join us on Facebook here to see whenever a new article has been added:

What they say

Hamilton plans to drive his X44 team’s car but doesn’t plan to race in the series:

Most athletes we all have partnerships so there’s one element of wanting to be a part of something going forwards and my goal is one day to own a company of some sort so it’s part of that.

But, more so, I was just really impressed with their aims, with their goals, very much aligned with what I’m focused on right now. And I really think it’s going to be amazing.

They’ve done a lot of work in the background and we’ve had great conversations with Alejandro [Agag, founder]. I honestly can’t wait.

I’m going to get to drive my own car since I own the team. I think obviously drivers in the past were team owners here in Formula 1. I think that’s something really exciting.

I’ve learned a lot from Toto [Wolff, Mercedes team principal] so maybe he can mentor me. I’ll my manage my team I love that it’s diverse, each team is pushed to be diverse. I said that we needed to have females in it so we’ve got female drivers now which is awesome. So I’m glad that I can contribute in a positive way, hopefully.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Formula 1 needs to revert to its previous Safety Car rules following the Mugello crash, says Witan:

The real problem is that the rules now say that the Safety Car restart line is the start line, but on such a straight where a tow is so likely the lead car either gives up and lets other past using the tow or does what Bottas did and go very slowly until the last minute and that is bound to bunch everyone up jockeying around to ensure they are no a millisecond too late in flooring it.

Surely the sensible solution is to have an old fashioned Safety Car line at the start of the straight and as the teams all knew that a Safety Car restart would require the tactics Bottas used then surely the race director and his driver steward knew that too, and in knowing that knew there were serious risks to consider.

The fact that F2 escaped the same pile up doesn’t disprove the risk, it just shows both good fortune and lower power machines were involved.
Witan

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Adam Milleneuve (F1 Badger), Joao Pedro Cq, Handcart and Discotheque!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 75 comments on “Hamilton plans run in his X44 team’s Extreme E car”

    1. Regarding COTD (which is very reasonable in spite of what I’m about to say), the solution is for drivers to not try to make a gap with the purpose of flooring it sooner than the rest of the field with the intent of passing the safety car line with more momentum than the others. They can’t judge it properly because the restart moment is uncertain, and then they crash… The rules could minimize this but the drivers are fully to blame.

      1. There was no erratic driving by Bottas (or the ones that closely followed him).
        A few drivers left huge gaps (RIC, KVY, RUS*) which they decided to close hastedly at some point; they caused the erratic driving and endengered the drivers behind them.

        * Still surprised the stewards reprimanded the other 9 drivers who seemed to follow as closely as possible the driver(s) ahed of them.

      2. If one takes note of Ocon’s comments. It wasn’t so much that the restart was at the start finish line or the safety car line. It was that the safety car turned off its lights so late. So he wasn’t focused on the restart perhaps he was still weaving and warming his tyres not paying much attention or trying to look far ahead to see what was going on. He assumed they were going another lap under the safety car.
        The drivers are trained to react to what the immediate car ahead of them is doing. So warning all those drivers is also stupid.
        Bottas didn’t have much time also as the lead start driver.
        Drivers have had the experience of a restart at the start finish line in Baku.
        Does the FIA recommend the distance the cars have to maintain when the race is about to restart?

      3. The trick is to drive according to those immediately in front do, not try to guess what someone upteem cars ahead will do and act accordingly. It was failure to take the actions of those ahead into sufficient account that caused this mess. It is wise to check whether the car ahead has stopped weaving when weaving, that the car ahead has space to brake if they are surprised, and

        Ocon should have known the Safety Car was pitting because that’s a Race Control signal and if nothing else, his team should have told him. While I could just about understand Esteban not picking up on that himself due to the distance to the Safety Car, he should still have been informed via pitwall of the change of situation. (The Baku example might not have helped Ocon as he didn’t race last year and therefore any experience of it would have been vicarious). Perhaps Renault needs AlphaTauri’s voice announcement system for race control instructions too?

        No recommendation regarding minimal or maximal distances exists for the time after the Safety Car pits, though as Bottas is effectively the Safety Car, there is a theoretical rule that requires everyone to be within 10 car lengths of the next vehicle. (I say “theoretical” because it is at best, imposed sporadically, even when the Safety Car is the actual Safety Car).

        1. So you can’t then blame drivers for creating a gap to the cars ahead.
          And I believe Ocon has raced in Baku previously and has experienced a safety car restart, and also crashed with his team mate for another reason.
          If Drivers can only at some point see cars just a few positions ahead, and they see them accelerating, are they supposed to confirm from their pit if they should accelerate after them or try as much as possible to keep the gap close.
          We pretty much came close to having just 5 cars left on track, and I think it warrants an investigation, not to punish but to eradicate any ambiguity in how the FIA initiates a restart. The occasional crash is spectacular to watch but we are dealing with human lives, not just carbon fiber.

    2. Agree with COTD, one of the reasons I lost interest in oval track racing was the multiplicity of “full track cautions” which as a sceptic I saw as making time for commercial breaks and bunching the cars up to induce more crashes. These yellow flags were given on the flimsiest excuse like a car getting loose or dropping a wheel off the track, even if the car was back on track in full control. I hope this is not where F1 is headed.

      1. one of the reasons I lost interest in oval track racing

        Even without the full track cautions I’m suprised racing fans like watching oval racing.

        1. @coldfly i’m surprised “racing fans” dismiss oval racing when so much grassroots motorsport in many countries is based around short-track ovals. But I guess for some “racing fans” motorsport only consists of F1, F2 and F3 and the collection of tracks they use.

          My earliest racing memories here in the UK were watching stock cars and hot rods going at it around Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium, and it’s the same in the US with midget cars and sprint cars around dirt tracks and short ovals – the difference is that top-level motorsport in the US (Indycar and NASCAR) happens to be a continuation of that.

          It’s fine for people not to enjoy oval racing, but it really annoys me when people make generalisations that it’s somehow inferior or less “real”.

          1. @graham22822, even though my comment was somewhat TIC, I am certainly not a fan of oval racing.
            I grew up with circuit racing, albeit mostly small go cart circuits. And where I could still see a bit a racing to my liking on the small round/oval (dirt) tracks I certainly don’t ‘get’ oval racing. I know there is a lot of skill involved, but it’s not for me (nor drag racing or any racing where you can crash your opponents out).

      2. Liberty will work towards entertainment first, sport second. It simply is their DNA. Thats what you get when you let the showmasters in. They will do it gradually so there is time to phase us sports fanatics out and they will move on with a refreshed but much bigger audience. Selling popcorn all the way to the bank…

    3. I think it is very narrowminded just wanting to have females in the team…

      1. @cdfemke

        Haha.

        However, everyone’s been complaining all these years that women aren’t being given a chance at the top level in competitive machinery. Now these women have a great chance to show their ability and I wish them all the best.

        1. That is true and that is a good cause. Yet he is bragging all about equality but drops the ball by just mentioning women and then stopping there.

          1. Who said he stopped there? He mentioned a number of other equality issues included how they are going to go about recruiting and the structure they are putting in place. And I thought just about everybody knew the very basic fact that each team will have a man and a women driver. Did you not bother to do a little bit of research before you made your accusations about dropping the ball? You seem to have dropped the ball there.

      2. I suppose one could argue the same if a team had just men in it too, and especially if every team in a racing series had men in it and no women.

    4. Lewis Hamilton has a huge worldwide audience, probably bigger than any other sports personality not named Roger Federer or Tiger Woods. He has the right to use it for any good cause he believes in, and, good for him, he’s doing it.

      1. Through his own media channels, sure.
        Through F1’s media marketplace though – he should act like a professional racing driver, respectfully considering all those organisations and businesses who are propping up himself, his team and his industry.

        1. Not too many organisations and businesses promoting racism.

        2. What a weird comment.
          Hamilton et al. can advertise all kinds of brands merely because they pay them in money, yet should stop promoting cuases that ‘pay’ them in pride and satisfaction.
          I personally am somewhat critical of his most recent t-shirt, but respect him more for that than those promoting tobacco and gambling.

      2. As long as he remains as an MB employee, he has to understand what he does, has some bearing on his employer too.
        If he sticks with the usual broad-base BLM and “end racism” type of messages, then it should be fine.
        But when he calls for cops to be arrested, then thats a whole different ball game. And I dont think a global brand such as MB wants to be associated with such a divisive issue that could easily escalate into an PR nightmare for them

        1. If Mercedes don’t like it, they can fire him or suspend him or whatever. But if Lewis Hamilton, probably Mercedes highest paid employee, can’t say whatever he wants, what’s in it for the rest of us?

          Your thinking is that we should shut up and do what the big company that pays our salary wants us to do and think, presumably.

          Both Mercedes and F1 can disagree with him. If it’s not in line with their values or whatever, they can say so.

          1. @fer-no65
            Lewis can say anything he wants as long at its in his own personal space and time.
            Just because he is arguably the highest paid MGP employee, does that mean he can say and act in any manner he wants? And how does that relate to the rest of us?
            As long as you are an employee, you do have to abide by the rules and reg as laid out by your employment contract. Yes?

            1. @blutto

              Just because he is arguably the highest paid MGP employee, does that mean he can say and act in any manner he wants?

              No, but he surely has some leverage over the rest of us mortals who cannot go through life chosing jobs as we wish because we are worried we might lose our jobs if we say something someone “at the top” doesn’t like… If he cannot express his opinions, and I doubt Mercedes forbids him to do so, the rest of us are just goldfishes in powerful people’s fishbowls…

              I find it incredible that people around here seem to think that just because Hamilton is a Mercedes employee and races in F1 he should abide to whatever Mercedes and F1 say it’s right. I highly doubt either company polices people’s thoughts, nor I think either would go AGAINST Hamilton’s calls for justice, justified or not. At the very least, they’d not comment about it…

              And I repeat, if Mercedes doesn’t like what Hamilton says, if they feel it goes against their policies, they can fire him…

          2. @blutto
            LH as are all drivers, is a contractor. He is contracted to provide a service. That contract is overseen and approved by F1 (FIA contract recognition board)

            He is not an employee in the way you and many others seem to assume when discussions of this type arise. Particularly if someone is trying to score some negative point or another. In the UK employee is pretty much defined by your tax status. Especially if you are PAYE.

            This applies for his salary too which is why he pays tax to each of the countries he earns his money in. He is in effect self employed in the loosest sense of the word. Obviously he is also a share holder and likely director of several companies and again, is unlikely to be an ‘employee’ unless he chooses to be.

          3. @fer-no65 The same, and arguably more. “He who pays the piper calls the tune”, goes the old English proverb. Within the restrictions of law (and from personal experience, often beyond), the moment any employee accepts money from an employer, the employer is entitled to make whatever demands they like. This includes expressed opionions and perspectives on any matter (not just politics, not just human rights) while doing work for the employer. It is what is required of an employee in the nature of labour exchanges of any type. Some situations will require such requirements to be broken in support of a higher obligation (sometimes that can be a moral obligation, sometimes something else e.g. survival), but that has to be decided by the employee in reference to likely consequences that would ensue (which of course vary according to a number of factors).

            Lewis is paid more than a typical employee, and therefore his employer could reasonably expect more adherence to employer-permitted expressed opinions and perspectives while doing the employer’s work.

            It’s the same for contractors, except that in some legal jurisdictions, it’s more difficult to make certain claims stick (in either direction) if the matter concerns a contractor (as they typically have fewer rights and responsibilities in law than employees). Power flows in the opposite direction to the payment. This is perhaps most obviously seen when someone isn’t paid. That employee/contractor effectively has given the employer money (because legally some of the money the employer has should be the employee/contractor’s). The reversal of power that results ends the employer’s power over the employee (in most cases – in some places, the law permits things like non-disclosure agreements concerning company secrets, that otherwise could be told freely). Depending on the effectiveness of the law in that situation, either the employee/contractor regains the powers surrendered in the contract… …or they can go further and pursue restitution in the law. Which as Sergio Perez proved, can lead to the employer having to change…

            Shareholders typically aren’t so affected, but the Contracts Recognitions Board requires a contract from a driver before they can race in a F1 team. Therefore Lewis must be either employee or contractor to Mercedes, and is bound to take its wishes into account. (Fortunately, Mercedes is with him every step of the way so far and, I suspect, will remain so. It is the one team that has shown that it might be inclined to be the change it wishes to see).

            1. All well and good except you probably haven’t read Hamilton’s contract with MB and have no idea as the to latitude he’s negotiated for his personal causes and promotions.

        2. Maybe you’d want to consider the fact that police going scott free for killing an innocent woman because they stormed into her appartment with guns blazing (and Taylor is not the only one it’s happened to), is something most people in the world would consider abhorrent @blutto. And even a large company like Mercedes can surely support a call for justice to be enacted.

          1. @bascb
            Mercedes primary business is selling cars and vehicles. Period.
            Why jeopardize that by taking sides in a hotly contentious incident?
            Should Mercedes be involved in every single case in which there an element of injustice?
            Where does it stop?

            1. @blutto

              Killing of unharmed citizens especially in their home is more important than selling cars.

              Every single company should be involved in every single case of racial injustice especially killings by police.

              Is it until Lewis is killed by a trigger happy cop should Mercedes speak up?

              Fact you think like this about peoples lives is ridiculous to say the least.

            2. Killing of unharmed citizens especially in their home is more important than selling cars.

              China putting millions in concentration camps in more important than selling cars

            3. You really are a master of ‘whataboutism’ when it comes to Lewis.

              What did he do?

              Beat you at online football Or something?

          2. @bascb

            Maybe you’d want to consider the fact that police going scott free for killing an innocent woman because they stormed into her appartment with guns blazing

            That’s a lie, which is the opposite of a fact.

            1. Ah, the regular brigade @aapje. It is not a lie (and a lie does not have to be “opposite of fact”), you might see it as bit of exaggeration, since they just stormed in with their guns first, and the guy inside, fearing for his life managed to shoot at them before they shot some 20 rounds into the appartment without any attempt at aiming or being able what they were shooting at.

              To me it is pretty much the same. I am very happy you nor I live in a place where the police are getting away with that kind of behaviour and don’t even get investigated for the shooting. And I support people who call for this kind of thing not to happen to anyone.

          3. @bascb
            The Police returned fire as they were shot at first.

            1. Sure, @petegeo. The police stormed into a house without any annoucement, in the dark with guns, so a guy inside, who clearly had a gun, as is all too common in the USA, was afraid, and immediately shot, because he thought he was being robbed or something. As you are allowed to do when someone breaks into your house, right (not where I live, luckily). So yeah, the guy shot first. And they returned fire without restraint or thought. And killed someone who was just sleeping in her own bed.

              Look you can argue how much you want but really, if you feel this is a normal situation that can and should happend regularly, than that is your thing. I don’t.

            2. To be fair to the police they also shot three bullets into the house next door. So they were not being that discriminate.
              Maybe a different culture but where I come from armed police have to at least know how to shoot in the right direction. They do seem to have a tendency to hit the wrong people.

          4. It seems the Louisville City authorities have decided to pay the family of Breonna Taylor $12M for her being killed by their police officers. I don’t see that as being “Scot free”. The city authorities have also promised to make changes to the way their police department operates.

            1. The city authorities have also promised to make changes to the way their police department operates.

              Hahhahaha

            2. @felipemassadobrasil

              They’ve already made changes, but you radicals won’t ever be happy.

    5. You are right @james blutto its ok for hamilton to highlight the wrong doing but he definitely should not be calling for any sort of punishment or repercussion hey?! Because who is hamilton to make such a call? He shouldnt be allowed to give his opinion. But you should.

      1. He is free to make and express any opinions he wants to with regards to this matter as long as its on his own personal time and medium. And I should be allowed to criticize him in much the same way.

    6. Let’s leave politics out of sport.

      Shouldn’t Hamilton focus on social issues in his native Britain (or his adopted home Monaco).

      I don’t understand this fascination with what happens in the US. Why not focus on African-America on African-America crime as well?

      There is no conspiracy by white police to murder black suspects in cold blood. It is absurd.

      1. Hamilton just voices justice, like many sportsmen before him and many will do after.
        I’m sure F1 of Mercedes can cope with justice seekers.

      2. >Let’s leave politics out of sport.

        Which sport? Football (UEFA & NFL), Athletics, Basketball, Baseball, F1.. or just Hamilton? All major sports seem to be united in pushing an anti-racism message. Doesn’t this at least suggest a large number of people believe this to be a major issue?

        >Shouldn’t Hamilton focus on social issues in >his native Britain (or his adopted home >Monaco).

        He does. See other posts detailing his work for underprivileged communities around the world.
        Google the “hamilton commission” for more details.

        >I don’t understand this fascination with what >happens in the US.

        He seems to care about the issue. That’s ultimately his choice. However, he’s also commented on a variety of other things in the last few days – from a new racing team to safety at restarts. Painting him as obsessed about a single issue seems inaccurate. Criticising him for not highlighting all global problems is simply “whataboutism” and brings nothing useful to the conversation.

        >Why not focus on African-America on African->America crime as well?

        Because they’re not institutional? I agree that they’re also issues (although gun control would seem to be the major factor here, rather than pointing the finger at the black community). Surely you can see the difference between an apparent bias in a governmental agency (police) to problems between individuals (who pay taxes to support the same agencies)?

        >There is no conspiracy by white police to >murder black suspects in cold blood. It is >absurd.

        No one is suggesting a conspiracy to murder in cold blood. Recent events do continue to strongly suggest that policing of black/coloured communities in the US and Europe is (putting it mildly) overaggressive and that significantly more oversight and accountability is needed. His T-shirt highlights one of these (and sucessfully encourages much needed public debate), but many more examples are available.

        Frankly, it’s absurd to think this is a non issue and that the only black F1 driver shouldn’t take a stance here.

        1. That last sentence should read
          “Frankly, it’s absurd to think this is a non issue and that the most successful black F1 driver shouldn’t take a stance here.”

          And if Alex Albon happens to read this. I apologise.

        2. Because they’re not institutional? I agree that they’re also issues (although gun control would seem to be the major factor here, rather than pointing the finger at the black community). Surely you can see the difference between an apparent bias in a governmental agency (police) to problems between individuals (who pay taxes to support the same agencies)?

          If it was a gun control issue you’d see white on white crime and gun crime at the same rate as African-American on African-American crime.

          This is more complicated issue than pointing fingers at police and wearing slogans.

          1. I said “seem”. There are also factors in play that include poverty, educational opportunities, drug use and lack of medical coverage that disproportionately affect the black community. I’m happy to discuss this of you wish, but broad access to lethal weaponry is possibly not the greatest idea and it’s not unreasonable to suggest it is a major factor.

            If you have other explanations for the disproportionate rate of black deaths at the hands of the police I’m interested to hear them.
            However, this does not invalidate the rest of my points.

            1. African-Americans make up 12% of the population and 25% of police shooting.

              However, African-Americans are responsible for 56% of violent crime.

              It makes sense that African-Americans have more violent confrontations with police because they commit more crime.

              It’s not an issue of race because Asian-Americans succeed in education at rates higher than whites and earn higher incomes than whites, Asian crime rate far lower than whites. These are people that often came to America with nothing 2-3 generations ago and have slowly built lives for themselves and their families despite being in a foreign country with a massive language barrier.

              The same supposedly racist white system that is keeping African-Americans down is helping Asian-Americans to succeed? Makes no sense.

            2. Your first point indicates you’re aware of the disproportionate numbers being shot.

              You are also correct in that a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by African-Americans. However, for someone who would like to avoid simple finger pointing and sloganeering have you not considered the societal reasons behind this? I cannot believe that you think black people are simply more violent by virtue of their skin colour.

              As I wrote, the lack of education, racial profiling in policing and poverty seem to be major factors. Your point about income disparity to Asian-Americans actually seems to support this. Please bear in mind that violent crime is strongly linked to poverty. Systemic racism is not just confined to the police, but they bear responsibility for the ultimate (fatal) outcome.

              As you say, it’s a complex problem that deserves in-depth analysis, but there are clearly issues in how the black community feels it is being treated.

              References

              Warren, Patricia Y.; Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald (May 1, 2009). “Racial profiling and searches: Did the politics of racial profiling change police behavior?”. Criminology & Public Policy. 8 (2): 343–369. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00556.x.

              West, Jeremy (February 2018). “Racial Bias in Police Investigations” (PDF). Working Paper.

              Donohue III, John J.; Levitt, Steven D. (January 1, 2001). “The Impact of Race on Policing and Arrests”. The Journal of Law & Economics. 44 (2): 367–394. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.381.8047. doi:10.1086/322810. JSTOR 10.1086/322810

            3. Your first point indicates you’re aware of the disproportionate numbers being shot.
              If a group is responsible for 56% of violent crime I’d expect shootings to be much higher than 25%. I’d expect to be 50-60%.

              You are also correct in that a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by African-Americans. However, for someone who would like to avoid simple finger pointing and sloganeering have you not considered the societal reasons behind this? I cannot believe that you think black people are simply more violent by virtue of their skin colour.

              You said that not me. I think everyone is equal. I’m just stating statistics.

              As I wrote, the lack of education, racial profiling in policing and poverty seem to be major factors. Your point about income disparity to Asian-Americans actually seems to support this. Please bear in mind that violent crime is strongly linked to poverty. Systemic racism is not just confined to the police, but they bear responsibility for the ultimate (fatal) outcome.

              You can’t blame white people if an African-American as a poor education, no more than you an credit white people for a second generation Asian-American being top of his class.

              You believe that the same group of people that supposedly hate African-Americans are allowing Asian-Americans to dominate them educationally and economically.

            4. I’m not blaming anyone. I’m saying black people are disproportionately more likely to be shot. Which is a point we agree on.

              The reasons for it are multifactorial – including systemic disadvantages, racial profiling/profiling and aggressive policing approaches. Which we also seem to agree on.

              The effects of this are that innocent people are killed – and again disproportionately those from the black community.

              This is an important point to bear in mind as none of the recent protests (including the Tshirt you find so objectionable) involved the deaths of violent criminals, but of innocent people. Treating all black people as a potentially dangerous group leads directly to overaggressive approaches and inevitable tragedies.

              This is an unhealthy situation that needs public conversations, ideally leading to change. As I wrote, more oversight and accountability are needed.

              >You believe that the same group of >people that supposedly hate African->Americans are allowing Asian->Americans to dominate them >educationally and economically.

              I’ve said nothing about hate or the police allowing educational or economic dominance. These are your words. There is a systemic racism issue here, but I doubt it’s as centralised as you’re suggesting.

            5. I’m not blaming anyone. I’m saying black people are disproportionately more likely to be shot. Which is a point we agree on.

              They aren’t really. Victims of 25% of police shootings but involved in 56% of violent crime. I would expect the shooting numbers to be much higher if anything.

              This is an important point to bear in mind as none of the recent protests (including the Tshirt you find so objectionable) involved the deaths of violent criminals, but of innocent people. Treating all black people as a potentially dangerous group leads directly to overaggressive approaches and inevitable tragedies.

              George Floyd was a recidivist lifelong criminal who was trying to pass off fake currency to a corner store. He was under the influence of drugs also. He resisted arrest which resulted in the officer aggressively holding him down.

              He didn’t deserve to die that day, but I don’t think the officer deliberately tried to kill him just stop him resisting. An innocent man is not someone trying to stealing from a corner store while high on drugs.

            6. >They aren’t really. Victims of 25% of >police shootings but involved in 56% >of violent crime. I would expect the >shooting numbers to be much higher >if anything.

              There your expectations are contradicted by the 3 PhDs who wrote the paper I posted in the thread below. And the 2-3 independent PhDs who reviewed their paper. Similar conclusions are presented in the papers I posted above. Are all of these scientists getting this wrong, or is your model perhaps a touch too simplistic?

              If you’re going to use statistics in your argument you have to choose those that are correlated. Your quoted percentages can’t be directly compared for a host of reasons. Most simplistically because violent crime is rarely committed in front of an armed officer – implying a poor correlation between commission of a violent crime and probability of a fatal law enforcement shooting. Unsurprisingly the race of the victim has a very strong correlation with his/her race. Please also note that “violent crime” is not the same as “murder” in these analyses and a fatal law enforcement shooting may in and of itself represent a disproportionate response.

              The same paper I posted below also shows (at a statistically significant level) that interactions between black victims who are unarmed and/or offer no immediate threat to the police end significantly more frequently in death.

              Here is is again, if you would like to debate their analysis or choice of dataset that might be a more fruitful approach.

              DeGue et al 2016 (Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/#__ffn_sectitle).

              >George Floyd was a recidivist lifelong >criminal ….[who] didn’t deserve to die >that day, but I don’t think the officer >deliberately tried to kill him just stop >him resisting.

              I tend to agree that it was a tragic accident rather than deliberate murder, although him saying “I cant breathe” clearly and repeatedly may make it negligent homicide. Regardless of his previous actions and chemical state that is for a court and jury to decide.
              However, please rewatch the video and you can clearly see how little he is resisting arrest in the 9 minutes it took to kill him.

              However, I’m glad you agree it was another example of an unjustified killing. Perhaps you can understand why people got upset about it. Bear in mind it wasnt the first or last such recent example.

              Given your original complaint was about Hamilton’s Tshirt: What’s your excuse for Breonna Taylor? Guilt by association?

            7. Accidental killings happen everyday to all races. Very unfortunate what happened to Floyd but could have just as easily happened to a white recidivist criminal stealing from a corner store while high on drugs, and resisting arrest. If didn’t didn’t resist while being put in the back of the patrol car for a crime he was caught red handed for he doesn’t die.

              African-Americans make up 25% of police shootings but involved in 56% of violent crime.

          2. >Accidental killings happen everyday to all >races.

            Indeed. But, as shown above, more frequently to black people. Which is the whole point of the protests.

            >Very unfortunate what happened to Floyd >but could have just as easily happened to >a white recidivist criminal stealing from a >corner store while high on drugs, and >resisting arrest.

            Yes. But it happens more frequently to black people. Which is the whole point of the protests.

            >If [he] didn’t resist while being put in the >back of the patrol car for a crime he was >caught red handed for he doesn’t die.

            Firstly, he wasn’t being put into a patrol car. He was face down with an officer kneeling on his neck for 9 min. Ample time to cuff him and put him in a patrol car surely? The officers (3 of them) failure to stop kneeling on his neck (whether or not they place him in the patrol car) caused his death. I can’t see how that was in his power to stop, although he did repeatedly tell the officer “I can’t breathe”.

            Secondly, you seems comfortable with a death sentence for being high and “trying to pass off fake currency to a corner store”. Is this an accepted punishment in your country? Even in the event of repeated offenses? Seems harsh.

            >African-Americans make up 25% of police >shootings but involved in 56% of violent >crime.

            This is a statisitically weak argument as I addressed above. I thought you were against simple statements that didnt accurately reflect the truth?

            1. Not statistically weak at all. 12% of the population, 25% of police shootings, but involved in 56% of violent crime.

              He didn’t deserve to die that day. It was a horrible accident. But could have all been avoided if Floyd didn’t choose to violate many laws that day. It’s not like police grabbed someone minding their own business and decide to choke them to death.

            2. Not statistically weak at all. 12% of the population, 25% of police shootings, but involved in 56% of violent crime

              Yes it is statistically weak. There is a poor correlation in your comparison, as I posted above. Feel free to point out the errors in my argument, which is based on peer-reviewed expert opinion. You claim to be

              just stating statistics.

              , but seem unwilling to accept any deeper analysis of them or present an alternative analysis.

              He didn’t deserve to die that day. It was a horrible accident. But could have all been avoided if Floyd didn’t choose to violate many laws that day. It’s not like police grabbed someone minding their own business and decide to choke them to death.

              There are a whole host of events leading to the tragedy. Victim blaming is generally accepted to be a poor argument in any analysis of a crime. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been arrested, but the action that directly contributed to his death was the officer making a choice not to stop kneeling on his neck. That would seem to be largest contributing factor and is rightly the focus of the protests. Why was he knelt on for 9 min? Why were non lethal restraint measures not used? The question is not: Why was he arrested?

              Returning to an earlier comment of yours:

              Very unfortunate what happened to Floyd but could have just as easily happened to a white recidivist criminal stealing from a corner store while high on drugs, and resisting arrest

              Actually the statistics that you want to base your argument on show that this is untrue (as posted above). Such events happen significantly more easily to black recidivist criminals. Which is, again, the whole point of the protests.

              It would be considered good debate protocol if you could also answer some of the questions I posed, and might move this on (rather than simply repeating yourself).

              For instance:
              Given your original complaint was about Hamilton’s Tshirt: What’s your excuse for Breonna Taylor? Guilt by association?

      3. Not sure the point you are making as his main homes are in the USA. He visits the UK, spends the European season in Monaco; and for the Americas, far east legs and winter he spends in the States. Where he has homes in LA, Florida, NY and Colorado. And he pays his tax there. In addition I think you will find he can say what he likes about the USA because he is protected by their First Amendment. Probably why he also supports a number of American charities that care for disadvantaged children
        As for Britain; where he doesn’t live. He supports Renaissance, GOSH, Alperton, military hospitals, a childrens cancer hospice, and as was recently stated gave a million pounds to Children in Need. In addition when he has time he does hot laps for disabled vets at the Merc track. And is in the top 5000 of British taxpayers.
        But I get your point about him poking his nose into countries where he has no skin. Maybe you could start a campaign to have him removed from his roles EducationAfrica, TogetherBand and the United Nations for example. And maybe get Australia to return the £400,000 he gave them in relation to their fires at the beginning of the year?

      4. Sport and politics have always been intertwined. Any request to separate them is impossible.

      5. @ David Bondo

        There is no conspiracy by white police to murder black suspects in cold blood. It is absurd.

        If this were true, then these issues wouldn’t be happening so frequently in America. That statement sounds like willfull ignorance to me.

        I don’t know where you live- but here in Britain, we had a Windrush scandal were nth generation Brits with Carribean ancestry where specifically targeted by the Home Office due to the colour of their skin- and these findings were backed by the Equality and Human Rights commission.

        To be pretend that institutional racism is non existent is part of the problem.

        1. African-American on white crime, African-American on African-American crime, white police shootings of white people isn’t reported to the same degree. Happens everyday in the US.

          You just have look at the stats.

          1. Since you’re so fond of statistics here’s an interesting paper from DeGue at al 2016 (Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/#__ffn_sectitle).

            Amongst other interesting breakdowns the authors include the following statement suggesting that disparity in fatality rates is (at least partially) attributable to frequency of stops/arrest – as suggested by my comments on racial profiling in policing above:

            “However, the authors found no differences in rates of injury or death per 10,000 stops/arrests by race—that is, blacks and whites were equally likely to be injured or killed during a stop/arrest incident. These findings—from one study—suggest that disparities in fatality rates by race may be accounted for, in part, by differential rates of police contact through stops or arrests.”

            There are conclusions that place mental health as a major driver (perhaps more important than race), but one of the other startling details was:

            “Black victims were significantly more likely to be unarmed than white or Hispanic victims. Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to [Law Enforcement].”

            Just goes to show that sometimes a deeper examination of the stats can lead to more accurate conclusions.

            1. Just by way of example how using poorly correlated statistics and inadequate analysis of contributing factors leads to unreliable conclusions:

              Black F1 drivers are currently underrepresented on the grid (2/20 or 10%), yet are currently responsible for 7/9 (87.5%) wins in the 2020 season. Therefore, black drivers are significantly better than white drivers.

              Further, the average age of black drivers is 34% greater than of dutch drivers (29.5 vs 22). So, assuming performance drops with age linearly, this means Hamilton is significantly better than Verstappen.

              I’m absolutely certain you won’t accept this conclusion (and for the record, neither do I), but it’s a similar approach to that you’ve been taking regarding the statistics of police killing black people.

          2. @Matt +1. @David Bondo what say you dear boy? Not that ou addressed anything in my original comment.

            1. Posted in the wrong place… sorry

    7. “Lewis Hamilton said he intends to drive his new Extreme E team’s SUV.”

      Damn straight, imagine paying so much for a car, being such a good driver and then let some kids drive it while you stand and watch?

      I’d be planing on driving it. As long as he does not drive any motorcycles, that would be dangerous or go skiing.

    8. Regarding the COTD: The positioning of the SC lines hasn’t changed, so SC1 is still usually towards the beginning of straights (on some tracks, like Sochi Autodrom before the last corner(s) depending on where the pit entry starts.) The problem is, of course, that overtaking is only allowed from the timing line rather than SC1 as used to be the case, so maybe allowing it from SC1 again would be better in the long-term, so this is one change that should be made. Another is to only do rolling starts following every red-flag stoppage as it makes the overall race times shorter and is also fairer to all drivers compared to a standing one. For example, some grid slots proved to be less ideal compared to others in these two races that have featured at least one additional starting start. Stroll wouldn’t have lost out positions in Monza had it been a rolling start following the red flag (presuming he wouldn’t have gone off at the second chicane in this scenario) instead of a standing one, thus, would’ve stayed second, i.e., in net-lead and probably stayed there until the end to eventually win the race, so somewhat unfair to him to have to start from a grid slot where Bottas had got an equally poor getaway on the original start.
      VSC should also be used when suitable rather than resort to full SC for every single situation for the sake of it. Otherwise, what’s the point of its existence if it isn’t going to be used for its intended purpose, i.e., small(er) things? This also takes less time compared to full SC as it doesn’t break the flow of races as much and gets everything back up to racing speed quicker, so should be favored more.

      1. someone or something
        16th September 2020, 9:09

        Stroll wouldn’t have lost out positions in Monza had it been a rolling start following the red flag

        Completely disagree. The other drivers in the even-numbered grid slots had good starts. Raikkonen (from 4th) passed Stroll after just a couple hundred metres and slotted into 3rd, right on Hamilton’s and Gasly’s tails (both from odd grid slots). Sainz (from 6th) had a better getaway than team mate Norris (7th) and was fully alongside Stroll when they approached the first corner. Bottas (from 8th) had another unimpressive start, but it was still better than his immediate grid neighbours’, and he kept his position. Ricciardo (from 10th) had a much better start than his grid neighbours Latifi (9th) and Verstappen (11th) did, and pulled alongside Bottas before the first corner, right behind Norris, who had started 3 places further up.
        In other words: This had absolutely nothing to do with grid slots and absolutely everything to do with Stroll dropping the ball. A ball he had been handed on a plate.

        1. @someone or something But he most likely wouldn’t have lost positions like that on a rolling start, which is what my point is about.

          1. someone or something
            16th September 2020, 15:06

            @jerejj
            Well, this was the sentence before the quote I replied to:

            For example, some grid slots proved to be less ideal compared to others in these two races that have featured at least one additional starting start.

            So I’m fairly sure this was indeed the point you were making.

            I do appreciate the irony of you quote-mining your own comment, though. ;-)

    9. Jolyon might benefit from the reminder that Turkey is a Tilke track that a lot of drivers of that era listed in their top 5-6 tracks (I can forgive him not remembering since it fell off the calender long before he was a F1 driver). I guess we’ll see later this year whether the attraction still holds.

      1. @alianora-la-canta Turkey is also known for ‘stealing’ parts of iconic circuits with drivers giving corners names like Faux Rouge for Turn 11, Diabolica for Turn 8 (a copy of Parabolica or 130R depending on who you ask) and the Turkish Corkscrew (aka Turn 1).

        1. @paeschli If it works, it works. It might not be Tilke’s most original design, but it was popular in the 2000s and Jolyon might have wanted to hold back until seeing how the 2020 cars handled the track before making such a sweeping statement.

    10. Just by way of example how using poorly correlated statistics and inadequate analysis of contributing factors leads to unreliable conclusions:

      Black F1 drivers are currently underrepresented on the grid (2/20 or 10%), yet are currently responsible for 7/9 (87.5%) wins in the 2020 season. Therefore, black drivers are significantly better than white drivers.

      Further, the average age of black drivers is 34% greater than of dutch drivers (29.5 vs 22). So, assuming performance drops with age linearly, this means Hamilton is significantly better than Verstappen.

      I’m absolutely certain you won’t accept this conclusion (and for the record, neither do I), but it’s a similar approach to that you’ve been taking regarding the statistics of police killing black people.

      1. Posted in wrong place. Sorry.

    Comments are closed.