Wondered what others think about the state of what is poorly referred to
these days as "Formula 1"?
We have -
No tyre manufacturer competition (insane and probably corrupt - wonder how
much Bridgestone paid Ernie?). And now they're starting to frig the teams
around by deliberately turning up with less than best compounds because some
stupid little child thinks that that is exciting and more interesting.
Frozen engine development (insane - the name on the engine means nothing -
why do manufacturers even remain in F1????) and talk of some "World Engine"
(by cane arse Mosley) for not only formula 1 but different iterations for
rally and anything else the FIA deem it appropriate for (equally
insane/corrupt)
Slower cars every year instead of faster ones - cars to fit 100 year old
tracks instead of new tracks for modern cars that should have 2000+
horsepower, full downforce, etc
Regulations that apparently take the experts that created them days for even
themselves to interpret. It took 40 lawyers, officials and team personnel 8
hours to argue their rubbish and a decision was not given until 24 hours
after that. What kind of idiotic rules must they be? And this issue was
raised well over a month before Australia - why was nothing done before
then? What a joke. Not sure if the Japs are throwing money around this -
they are the common denominator with the double diffuser cars - Honda,
Toyota and Williams/Toyota. When most of the teams apparently get the rules
wrong then the rules must be idiotic.
This "Lie Gate" thing is a load of absolute bullshit as well - wtf are the
stewards doing asking a driver stupid fucking questions like that anyway.
What difference does it make as to why Hamilton slowed and Trulli passed.
Total and complete bullshit and just another reason to believe that F1 is
indeed a circus that's over run by clowns.
Bernie's kneejerk over reaction to Hamilton winning the championship
with merely 1 less win than Massa. He wanted to throw the car reliability
and driver consistency factors away completely - I think old Bernie's well
past his use by date. And as for cane arse
Max........................................................
Complaints about the state of Formula 1 in 2009
Byron Forbes started a discussion of what was wrong with F1, from the single tyre supplier to the proposed $20M budget cap. Posters discussed BBC commentary and coverage in various countries. Much of the thread covered the Hamilton and Trulli safety car incident in Australia and the FIA's handling of it.
real motorsport
Automated summary.
Personally, I think the main thing they need to sort out is that the drivers
on the podium at the end of the race have actually finished 1,2,3. Make it
like football, when a goal is given it cannot be changed. Then shoot all the
lawyers.
On the plus side: the form book has been thrown away, more mechanical grip
and slicks are a good thing, as is the maximum budget.
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (42 lines)
> Wondered what others think about the state of what is poorly referred > to these days as "Formula 1"? > > We have - > > No tyre manufacturer competition (insane and probably corrupt - wonder how > much Bridgestone paid Ernie?). And now they're starting to frig the teams > around by deliberately turning up with less than best compounds because > some stupid little child thinks that that is exciting and more > interesting. > > Frozen engine development (insane - the name on the engine means nothing - > why do manufacturers even remain in F1????) and talk of some "World > Engine" (by cane arse Mosley) for not only formula 1 but different > iterations for rally and anything else the FIA deem it appropriate for > (equally insane/corrupt) > > Slower cars every year instead of faster ones - cars to fit 100 year old > tracks instead of new tracks for modern cars that should have 2000+ > horsepower, full downforce, etc > > Regulations that apparently take the experts that created them days for > even themselves to interpret. It took 40 lawyers, officials and team > personnel 8 hours to argue their rubbish and a decision was not given > until 24 hours after that. What kind of idiotic rules must they be? And > this issue was raised well over a month before Australia - why was nothing > done before then? What a joke. Not sure if the Japs are throwing money > around this - they are the common denominator with the double diffuser > cars - Honda, Toyota and Williams/Toyota. When most of the teams > apparently get the rules wrong then the rules must be idiotic. > > This "Lie Gate" thing is a load of absolute bullshit as well - wtf are the > stewards doing asking a driver stupid fucking questions like that anyway. > What difference does it make as to why Hamilton slowed and Trulli passed. > Total and complete bullshit and just another reason to believe that F1 is > indeed a circus that's over run by clowns. > > Bernie's kneejerk over reaction to Hamilton winning the championship > with merely 1 less win than Massa. He wanted to throw the car reliability > and driver consistency factors away completely - I think old Bernie's well > past his use by date. And as for cane arse > Max........................................................dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote:
> on the plus side: the form book has been thrown away, more
> mechanical grip and slicks are a good thing, as is the maximum
> budget.
It's a difficult subject. On the surface F1 is turning into more and more of a
circus. But so far this year I've really enjoyed the racing (I'm even, despite
reservations last year, enjoying the qualifying now). Whether that's a result of
the rule changes, I'm not sure. The weather may be a bigger factor in producing
some exciting action.
It may also be down to the fact the new BBC coverage in the UK is pretty good.
Apart from one of the commentators I'm enjoying the overall package a lot more,
adding to the sense of 'event' over the weekend.
And of course it's always interesting to see the usual candidates on the front row
pushed back down the grid. It's good for their sense of perspective. :-)
I suppose I'm also enjoying the fact that Jenson Button's doing so well. I try to
like Hamilton, but I just can't get past those preened sideburns... and his father,
who creeps me out. I suppose part of it is the underdog factor, after Button's
struggled for so many years. But I just like the guy's character, and it's a nice
to see him doing well.
So a combination of a Brit doing well, and newly improved coverage in the UK (with
no ads!) is allowing me to ignore some of the messy rule changes. And I'm sure I
could get pretty annoyed if I spent too long contemplating the whole KERS mess.
Andrew McP
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Not Jonathon Legard, perhaps? He is getting better, but came from
talking on the radio and sounded more like a horse racing commentator
than F1 in his first few commentaries.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (11 lines)
> dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: > > > on the plus side: the form book has been thrown away, more > > mechanical grip and slicks are a good thing, as is the maximum > > budget. > > > It may also be down to the fact the new BBC coverage in the UK is pretty good. > Apart from one of the commentators I'm enjoying the overall package a lot more, > adding to the sense of 'event' over the weekend. >
"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I agree he's getting better.
Quoted text (20 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... >> dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: >> >> > on the plus side: the form book has been thrown away, more >> > mechanical grip and slicks are a good thing, as is the maximum >> > budget. >> >> >> It may also be down to the fact the new BBC coverage in the UK is pretty >> good. >> Apart from one of the commentators I'm enjoying the overall package a lot >> more, >> adding to the sense of 'event' over the weekend. >> > > Not Jonathon Legard, perhaps? He is getting better, but came from > talking on the radio and sounded more like a horse racing commentator > than F1 in his first few commentaries. >dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote:
> I agree he's getting better.
The advantage of being pretty poor at the start is it's easy to get better. ;-)
To be fair it's hard for a new double act to work smoothly from the word go. But
Legard (and Jordan, who sadly won't be replaced by Gascoyne permanently!) are weak
links in an otherwise impressive formula.
Andrew McP
"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Well, I don't think they're all that bad.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: > >> I agree he's getting better. > > The advantage of being pretty poor at the start is it's easy to get > better. ;-) > > To be fair it's hard for a new double act to work smoothly from the word > go. But > Legard (and Jordan, who sadly won't be replaced by Gascoyne permanently!) > are weak > links in an otherwise impressive formula. > Knew I had another gripe - too many to remember at one time! :)
This $20M cap idea - can anyone explain why any of the present
manufacturers would continue. Why pay $500M to have no more performance that
Joe Blow over there forking out only $20M. Am I missing something?
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (42 lines)
> Wondered what others think about the state of what is poorly referred > to these days as "Formula 1"? > > We have - > > No tyre manufacturer competition (insane and probably corrupt - wonder how > much Bridgestone paid Ernie?). And now they're starting to frig the teams > around by deliberately turning up with less than best compounds because > some stupid little child thinks that that is exciting and more > interesting. > > Frozen engine development (insane - the name on the engine means nothing - > why do manufacturers even remain in F1????) and talk of some "World > Engine" (by cane arse Mosley) for not only formula 1 but different > iterations for rally and anything else the FIA deem it appropriate for > (equally insane/corrupt) > > Slower cars every year instead of faster ones - cars to fit 100 year old > tracks instead of new tracks for modern cars that should have 2000+ > horsepower, full downforce, etc > > Regulations that apparently take the experts that created them days for > even themselves to interpret. It took 40 lawyers, officials and team > personnel 8 hours to argue their rubbish and a decision was not given > until 24 hours after that. What kind of idiotic rules must they be? And > this issue was raised well over a month before Australia - why was nothing > done before then? What a joke. Not sure if the Japs are throwing money > around this - they are the common denominator with the double diffuser > cars - Honda, Toyota and Williams/Toyota. When most of the teams > apparently get the rules wrong then the rules must be idiotic. > > This "Lie Gate" thing is a load of absolute bullshit as well - wtf are the > stewards doing asking a driver stupid fucking questions like that anyway. > What difference does it make as to why Hamilton slowed and Trulli passed. > Total and complete bullshit and just another reason to believe that F1 is > indeed a circus that's over run by clowns. > > Bernie's kneejerk over reaction to Hamilton winning the championship > with merely 1 less win than Massa. He wanted to throw the car reliability > and driver consistency factors away completely - I think old Bernie's well > past his use by date. And as for cane arse > Max........................................................
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Knew I had another gripe - too many to remember at one time! :)
>
> This $20M cap idea - can anyone explain why any of the present
> manufacturers would continue. Why pay $500M to have no more performance
> that Joe Blow over there forking out only $20M. Am I missing something?
To show they can inovate rather then just piss money away.
Quoted text (46 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Wondered what others think about the state of what is poorly referred >> to these days as "Formula 1"? >> >> We have - >> >> No tyre manufacturer competition (insane and probably corrupt - wonder >> how much Bridgestone paid Ernie?). And now they're starting to frig the >> teams around by deliberately turning up with less than best compounds >> because some stupid little child thinks that that is exciting and more >> interesting. >> >> Frozen engine development (insane - the name on the engine means >> nothing - why do manufacturers even remain in F1????) and talk of some >> "World Engine" (by cane arse Mosley) for not only formula 1 but different >> iterations for rally and anything else the FIA deem it appropriate for >> (equally insane/corrupt) >> >> Slower cars every year instead of faster ones - cars to fit 100 year old >> tracks instead of new tracks for modern cars that should have 2000+ >> horsepower, full downforce, etc >> >> Regulations that apparently take the experts that created them days for >> even themselves to interpret. It took 40 lawyers, officials and team >> personnel 8 hours to argue their rubbish and a decision was not given >> until 24 hours after that. What kind of idiotic rules must they be? And >> this issue was raised well over a month before Australia - why was >> nothing done before then? What a joke. Not sure if the Japs are throwing >> money around this - they are the common denominator with the double >> diffuser cars - Honda, Toyota and Williams/Toyota. When most of the teams >> apparently get the rules wrong then the rules must be idiotic. >> >> This "Lie Gate" thing is a load of absolute bullshit as well - wtf are >> the stewards doing asking a driver stupid fucking questions like that >> anyway. What difference does it make as to why Hamilton slowed and Trulli >> passed. Total and complete bullshit and just another reason to believe >> that F1 is indeed a circus that's over run by clowns. >> >> Bernie's kneejerk over reaction to Hamilton winning the championship >> with merely 1 less win than Massa. He wanted to throw the car reliability >> and driver consistency factors away completely - I think old Bernie's >> well past his use by date. And as for cane arse >> Max........................................................ > Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.
"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message
news:2SUHl.93460$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (58 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Knew I had another gripe - too many to remember at one time! :) >> >> This $20M cap idea - can anyone explain why any of the present >> manufacturers would continue. Why pay $500M to have no more performance >> that Joe Blow over there forking out only $20M. Am I missing something? > > To show they can inovate rather then just piss money away. > >> >> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> Wondered what others think about the state of what is poorly referred >>> to these days as "Formula 1"? >>> >>> We have - >>> >>> No tyre manufacturer competition (insane and probably corrupt - wonder >>> how much Bridgestone paid Ernie?). And now they're starting to frig the >>> teams around by deliberately turning up with less than best compounds >>> because some stupid little child thinks that that is exciting and more >>> interesting. >>> >>> Frozen engine development (insane - the name on the engine means >>> nothing - why do manufacturers even remain in F1????) and talk of some >>> "World Engine" (by cane arse Mosley) for not only formula 1 but >>> different iterations for rally and anything else the FIA deem it >>> appropriate for (equally insane/corrupt) >>> >>> Slower cars every year instead of faster ones - cars to fit 100 year old >>> tracks instead of new tracks for modern cars that should have 2000+ >>> horsepower, full downforce, etc >>> >>> Regulations that apparently take the experts that created them days for >>> even themselves to interpret. It took 40 lawyers, officials and team >>> personnel 8 hours to argue their rubbish and a decision was not given >>> until 24 hours after that. What kind of idiotic rules must they be? And >>> this issue was raised well over a month before Australia - why was >>> nothing done before then? What a joke. Not sure if the Japs are throwing >>> money around this - they are the common denominator with the double >>> diffuser cars - Honda, Toyota and Williams/Toyota. When most of the >>> teams apparently get the rules wrong then the rules must be idiotic. >>> >>> This "Lie Gate" thing is a load of absolute bullshit as well - wtf are >>> the stewards doing asking a driver stupid fucking questions like that >>> anyway. What difference does it make as to why Hamilton slowed and >>> Trulli passed. Total and complete bullshit and just another reason to >>> believe that F1 is indeed a circus that's over run by clowns. >>> >>> Bernie's kneejerk over reaction to Hamilton winning the championship >>> with merely 1 less win than Massa. He wanted to throw the car >>> reliability and driver consistency factors away completely - I think old >>> Bernie's well past his use by date. And as for cane arse >>> Max........................................................ >> >On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.
I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're
fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of
money...
Cheers!
Remco
Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here.
The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option.
See here -
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/17/budget-caps-for-f1-in-2010/
"This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial
information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical
regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince me
that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company announces it
wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent �200m on research and
development in 2010?"
So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they are
now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to spend 30 or
so? The entire proposal is idiotic.
And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and
facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just piss it
all away?
The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in
the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more idiotic!
It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory - it
is an option.
"Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point. > > I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're > fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of > money... > > Cheers! > > Remco > >Mr T <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
Oh, so you don't get NASCAR people. Well that's an improvement. North of
the land of the great burger, we get two choices: SPEED - a 24/7 NASCAR
and NHRA channel and TSN - the Canadian hockey channel. The latter gets
the BBC feed, but cuts the first 1/2 hour and the interviews. The Podium
you *might* get to see if you're lucky. SPEED on the other hand has
decided that anything but the sole practice carried is not available up
here, because they have competition. Rebroadcasts later in the week are
fine. But then you have to put up with Bob Varsha. One of the
aforementioned acronym crowd.
To be fair to SPEED, they *are* carrying ALMS - missed the last race, but
carrying one this weekend and carrying GT2 - at 2:00 a.m. Sunday moring.
Quoted text (13 lines)
>> So a combination of a Brit doing well, and newly improved coverage in >> the UK (with no ads!) is allowing me to ignore some of the messy rule >> changes. And I'm sure I could get pretty annoyed if I spent too long >> contemplating the whole KERS mess. >> >> Andrew McP > > No ads? We are jealous now. In Australia we get ads plus additional > comments from Aussy people who have no idea what they're talking > about. The last race in China they had Darryl Beattie (an ex-motorcyle > star) making comments 'cause they couldn't get the usual V8 supercar > guy. >> So a combination of a Brit doing well, and newly improved coverage in the UK (with
> no ads!) is allowing me to ignore some of the messy rule changes. And I'm sure I
> could get pretty annoyed if I spent too long contemplating the whole KERS mess.
>
> Andrew McP
No ads? We are jealous now. In Australia we get ads plus additional
comments from Aussy people who have no idea what they're talking
about. The last race in China they had Darryl Beattie (an ex-motorcyle
star) making comments 'cause they couldn't get the usual V8 supercar
guy.
Mike.
[email hidden] (Mr T) wrote:
> No ads? We are jealous now.
The BBC got the contract back this year after ten years or so of ads with ITV. But
I still find myself listening to Martin Brundle's voice (the BBC brought him across
from the ITV coverage) and expecting an advert to kick in at any time.
Fingers crossed the BBC will be able to afford to keep the contract, though I
expect Bernie extracted several dozen pounds of flesh from them for the pleasure.
Andrew McP
And now this -
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Mosley_tempts_big_teams_to_join_budget_cap.html
Now we're excluding driver's salaries - the wheels are falling off
already. LOL
Good old Maxy baby aye - he thinks he needs to invite the manufacturers
to join the cap. Does he really think he needs to? Does he really think
they'll spend $500M when they can build the same for about $70? Mosley and
Ecclestone are fucked - they've completely lost the plot!
I wonder if Bernie's Mrs left because she knew that or if he lost the
plot after she left. As for the FIA - well what would you expect from an
?organization? that allows itself to be headed up by a caned arse freak?
Pitiful!
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:49f10049$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (46 lines)
> Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here. > > The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option. > > See here - > http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/17/budget-caps-for-f1-in-2010/ > > "This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial > information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical > regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince > me that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company announces > it wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent �200m on research > and development in 2010?" > > So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they > are now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to spend > 30 or so? The entire proposal is idiotic. > > And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and > facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just piss it > all away? > > The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in > the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more > idiotic! > > > It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory - it > is an option. > "Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point. >> >> I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're >> fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of >> money... >> >> Cheers! >> >> Remco >> >> > And more on this -
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Leak_of_Whitmarsh_letter_keeps_lie_gate_rolling.html
So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish.
For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in
Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) they
asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently under
instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever reason.
Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question
anyway!
This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you
no lies!
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (67 lines)
> And now this - > http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Mosley_tempts_big_teams_to_join_budget_cap.html > > Now we're excluding driver's salaries - the wheels are falling off > already. LOL > > Good old Maxy baby aye - he thinks he needs to invite the manufacturers > to join the cap. Does he really think he needs to? Does he really think > they'll spend $500M when they can build the same for about $70? Mosley and > Ecclestone are fucked - they've completely lost the plot! > > I wonder if Bernie's Mrs left because she knew that or if he lost the > plot after she left. As for the FIA - well what would you expect from an > ?organization? that allows itself to be headed up by a caned arse freak? > > Pitiful! > > > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:49f10049$[email hidden]... >> Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here. >> >> The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option. >> >> See here - >> http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/17/budget-caps-for-f1-in-2010/ >> >> "This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial >> information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical >> regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince >> me that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company >> announces it wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent �200m >> on research and development in 2010?" >> >> So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they >> are now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to >> spend 30 or so? The entire proposal is idiotic. >> >> And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and >> facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just piss >> it all away? >> >> The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in >> the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more >> idiotic! >> >> >> It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory - >> it is an option. >> "Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes" >>> <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>>> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point. >>> >>> I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're >>> fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of >>> money... >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Remco >>> >>> >> >"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
Actually Trulli went off onto a grassy area where the oncoming Hamilton
couldn't have seen him - except by his absence in front on the track.
Hamilton then passed him naturally. While Trulli was still in the grass.
After which Hamilton decided to be nice and let Trulli past, Trulli did
pass, was penalized for passing under the yellow. Then the insanity
ensued.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> And more on this - > http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Leak_of_Whitmarsh_letter_k > eeps_lie_gate_rolling.html > > So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter > rubbish. > > For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow > in > Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) > they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently > under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever > reason. >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
The whole incident is nuts. Even Nascar can get the cars in position behind
a pace car before a restart. Now they are talking about 30 race points
and/or a possible 2 race suspension for something so crazy. Whether Hamilton
let Trulli pass or not isn't the main issue IMO. FIA, with all their
technology could have just told Trulli to fall back behind Hamilton and all
this crap would be moot.
Ed
Quoted text (17 lines)
> And more on this - > http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Leak_of_Whitmarsh_letter_keeps_lie_gate_rolling.html > > So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish. > > For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in > Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) > they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently > under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever > reason. > > Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question > anyway! > > This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you > no lies! >
"Ed Medlin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NoEIl.25389$[email hidden]...
FIA need to follow the example of Rigby Union Football, where the referee
tells the player what to be to avoid being penalised. Wouldn't be hard, just
have steward watching each driver.
Quoted text (27 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> And more on this - >> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Leak_of_Whitmarsh_letter_keeps_lie_gate_rolling.html >> >> So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish. >> >> For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in >> Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) >> they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently >> under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever >> reason. >> >> Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question >> anyway! >> >> This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you >> no lies! >> > The whole incident is nuts. Even Nascar can get the cars in position > behind a pace car before a restart. Now they are talking about 30 race > points and/or a possible 2 race suspension for something so crazy. Whether > Hamilton let Trulli pass or not isn't the main issue IMO. FIA, with all > their technology could have just told Trulli to fall back behind Hamilton > and all this crap would be moot. >
"Ed Medlin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NoEIl.25389$[email hidden]...
100% correct! What's annoying me about the entire thing is that the
focus is on a fib (stupid as the fib was) instead of on the fact how stupid
the FIA are for asking a redundant question in the first place. The stewards
see all the same things Trulli saw - whether Hamilton lets him around, has a
mechanical problem or whatever makes no difference - you have good reason to
pass a car under yellow that is not keeping pace with the pack! It's just
that simple!
Quoted text (29 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> And more on this - >> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/04/article_Leak_of_Whitmarsh_letter_keeps_lie_gate_rolling.html >> >> So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish. >> >> For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in >> Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) >> they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently >> under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever >> reason. >> >> Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question >> anyway! >> >> This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you >> no lies! >> > The whole incident is nuts. Even Nascar can get the cars in position > behind a pace car before a restart. Now they are talking about 30 race > points and/or a possible 2 race suspension for something so crazy. Whether > Hamilton let Trulli pass or not isn't the main issue IMO. FIA, with all > their technology could have just told Trulli to fall back behind Hamilton > and all this crap would be moot. > > Ed >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Yeah. How stupid is it that FIA can't organise the drivers behind the safety
car without the help of lawyers and the need to DQ, ban and dock points.
Fucking useless bunch of cants!
