Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

On another note, I wouldn't say that the majority of drivers are on LH's side...

8 of the 20 current drivers have stated that they agree with the stewards decision. That leaves 12 drivers. Minus the 2 McLaren drivers who are obviously on McLaren's side, and you're left with 10.

Now I'm no mathmetician, but that results in a 50-50 split, and thats assuming that the remaining drivers that haven't spoken out, disagree with the stewards.

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yeah i dont really care so much if we dont agree.

So you dont think the FIA have manipulating anything? :)

The very least they could do is modify the rules to keep that thing we tune in to week after week consistent - the racing.

What point is there in strangling a guy for making a wicked move to take the lead? Are you not the same guy who was bitching in the past about there being no overtaking in F1 any more?

You should run for PM, Dezz.

The answer to more passing in F1 doesn't come by cutting chicanes. I'm the same guy that also said, anyone can pass anyone, if they don't make the corner.

Your post on the last page pretty much says that you're happy for anyone to cheat, as long as they're trying to pass. I don't even need to tell you how ridiculous that is.

On another note, I wouldn't say that the majority of drivers are on LH's side...

8 of the 20 current drivers have stated that they agree with the stewards decision. That leaves 12 drivers. Minus the 2 McLaren drivers who are obviously on McLaren's side, and you're left with 10.

Now I'm no mathmetician, but that results in a 50-50 split, and thats assuming that the remaining drivers that haven't spoken out, disagree with the stewards.

Get it right for once, will you?

Some may agree but they said and i will repeat myself for you for the 10th time " The punishment did not fit the crime."

Far out man, youve got a hard head.

So if that was NOT the right punishment according to the majority of the F1 paddock - including said current drivers, then what was according to the gospel of Dezz?

The answer to more passing in F1 doesn't come by cutting chicanes. I'm the same guy that also said, anyone can pass anyone, if they don't make the corner.

Your post on the last page pretty much says that you're happy for anyone to cheat, as long as they're trying to pass. I don't even need to tell you how ridiculous that is.

FFS! He gave the place back!

I wish you would try and stop yourself from manipulating what i try and express.

You take it whatever way you will.

I dont think, and this is the last time ill say it, that LH "cheated"

You do, thats fine. Others do too, but the crowd is massively split on the "crime" and the "punishment"

What does that tell you if you bothered to stop and actually think about it for once.

can you not look at the bigger picture here instead of squinting through your FIA magnifying glass for once??

Get it right for once, will you?

Some may agree but they said and i will repeat myself for you for the 10th time " The punishment did not fit the crime."

Far out man, youve got a hard head.

So if that was NOT the right punishment according to the majority of the F1 paddock - including said current drivers, then what was according to the gospel of Dezz?

Oh my. 4 of the drivers that said they agreed with the stewards, said they thought it was a shame that LH was stripped of the win. They didn't say the punishment didn't fit the crime, because it did. The punishment was a 25 second penalty in place of a drive through penalty that obviously could not be served.

I'll say it again for your benefit. The punishment was a 25 second penalty, in place of a drive through penalty that could not be served. The penalty was not being stripped of a race win. That was the result of the penalty.

It's unfortunate for Lewis that it cost him a win, but he broke a rule and was punished accordingly.

Exceptions should not be made because of what the end result may be. Crime A = Punishment A. In this case, gaining an advantage attracts a drive through penalty, or a 25 second penalty, and that 25 second penalty put Lewis in 3rd place.

FFS! He gave the place back!

I wish you would try and stop yourself from manipulating what i try and express.

You take it whatever way you will.

I dont think, and this is the last time ill say it, that LH "cheated"

You do, thats fine. Others do too, but the crowd is massively split on the "crime" and the "punishment"

What does that tell you if you bothered to stop and actually think about it for once.

can you not look at the bigger picture here instead of squinting through your FIA magnifying glass for once??

:)

At the end of the day, what you THINK, means sweet f**k all.

The stewards believe LH gained an advantage, and punished him accordingly. That punishment just so happened to cost him a win.

Your problem is that you are making a connection between the penalty (25 seconds), and the fact that it took him out of P1 and into P3. There is no connection to be made.

Can't put it any simpler than that :)

Oh my. 4 of the drivers that said they agreed with the stewards, said they thought it was a shame that LH was stripped of the win. They didn't say the punishment didn't fit the crime, because it did. The punishment was a 25 second penalty in place of a drive through penalty that obviously could not be served.

I'll say it again for your benefit. The punishment was a 25 second penalty, in place of a drive through penalty that could not be served. The penalty was not being stripped of a race win. That was the result of the penalty.

It's unfortunate for Lewis that it cost him a win, but he broke a rule and was punished accordingly.

Exceptions should not be made because of what the end result may be. Crime A = Punishment A. In this case, gaining an advantage attracts a drive through penalty, or a 25 second penalty, and that 25 second penalty put Lewis in 3rd place.

Alright, cool.

1.Would you have done the same thing as the stewards in Spa?

2. What do you think of the decision to give FM a fine for his pitlane antics when there were other "options" available - the stewards choosing the most lenient one? Or the decision to not give KR a meatball flag, allowing him to drive a potentially hazardous car around for 20 odd laps?

3. you say Crime A: Punishment A. Do you not think there should also be punishment B and C or just A by itself?

And finally, the best one

4. If there was option A, B and C, would you still choose to hit him with A even though a more lenient B and C were available as options taking into account all you have seen?

Thats for everyone by the way, not just Dezzo.

Alright, cool.

1.Would you have done the same thing as the stewards in Spa?

2. What do you think of the decision to give FM a fine for his pitlane antics when there were other "options" available - the stewards choosing the most lenient one? Or the decision to not give KR a meatball flag, allowing him to drive a potentially hazardous car around for 20 odd laps?

3. you say Crime A: Punishment A. Do you not think there should also be punishment B and C or just A by itself?

As you've told me so many times, I'm not qualified to make the call. The stewards are in place to do just that. People posting in here have already told you from first hand experience in that department that its not an easy job. You're never going to be the nice guy.

My personal opinion on Massa's pit lane exit is that, if anything, Ferrari as a team should be fined, as they're responsible for releasing the driver. In that instance (yes even if it was McLaren) I think it would be wrong to punish a driver unless they were found to break early (before the green light/raised lollipop). It's not like a 10,000 Euro fine is going to phase Massa or Ferrari, but to punish a driver for being released by his team seems wrong in my opinion.

As for Kimi, again, I'm not qualified on the specifics of F1 parts. My recolection of that race is that Kimi was pretty much by himself the entire time, so the likliehood of it causing an incident if it had broken off would be reduced in that instance. Maybe that was taken into account.

As for point 3, all I'll say to that is what I've said already. I believe that you need to step back and differentiate between the penalty and the result. The penalty for that particular incident is a drive through penalty. The penalty when a drive through cannot be served (last lap of the race, or when the decision is made post race etc) is 25seconds on to the drivers total race time.

If Lewis had finished 26 seconds in front of P2, then he would have still finished first, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. He didn't finish 26 seconds in front of P2 or P3, and as a result was classified in P3.

Point 4 was added later obviously..

I don't think there should be A, B, C D E F G H..... I think it causes even more problems. If they hit him with B you'd still want to question why they didn't hit him with C instead

In this case there seems to be A(drive through) and A1(25 second penalty)

At tracks with longer pit lanes, the 25 seconds may even be an advantage over the drive through...

As you've told me so many times, I'm not qualified to make the call. The stewards are in place to do just that. People posting in here have already told you from first hand experience in that department that its not an easy job. You're never going to be the nice guy.

My personal opinion on Massa's pit lane exit is that, if anything, Ferrari as a team should be fined, as they're responsible for releasing the driver. In that instance (yes even if it was McLaren) I think it would be wrong to punish a driver unless they were found to break early (before the green light/raised lollipop). It's not like a 10,000 Euro fine is going to phase Massa or Ferrari, but to punish a driver for being released by his team seems wrong in my opinion.

As for Kimi, again, I'm not qualified on the specifics of F1 parts. My recolection of that race is that Kimi was pretty much by himself the entire time, so the likliehood of it causing an incident if it had broken off would be reduced in that instance. Maybe that was taken into account.

As for point 3, all I'll say to that is what I've said already. I believe that you need to step back and differentiate between the penalty and the result. The penalty for that particular incident is a drive through penalty. The penalty when a drive through cannot be served (last lap of the race, or when the decision is made post race etc) is 25seconds on to the drivers total race time.

If Lewis had finished 26 seconds in front of P2, then he would have still finished first, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. He didn't finish 26 seconds in front of P2 or P3, and as a result was classified in P3.

That is where you are dead wrong.

This is the FIA regulation for leaving the pit lane: 23.1

i) It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so.

After reading this can anyone tell me why Ferrari were not penalised and not Massa?

The competitor refers to the driver.

Case closed.

It was NOT the team but Massa who was responsible.

And i believe there should be a range of options available on this type of thing because, the offense was marginal and the penalty extreme.

A grid penalty, a larger fine, loss of constructor points...

Not what is currently in place.

And i believe there should be a range of options available on this type of thing because, the offense was marginal and the penalty extreme.

A grid penalty, a larger fine, loss of constructor points...

Not what is currently in place.

Apparently they could have decided on a ten place grid penalty for the next race but instead chose a fine/time penalty depending which incident everyone is whittering on about presently. Sorry I can't keep up.

Then of course there is the option of a $100 Million fine. But somehow they resisted that aswell.

Edited by djr81

i believe by 'competitor' they mean the team member responsible for releasing the car. the driver is not the only 'competitor' in the team and it most certainly is not the drivers call as to when it's safe to leave his pit box. that is just stupid. if it were up to the driver half the time they would be driving off with 3 wheels on, or half a tank of fuel etc. it's the crews responsibility to release the driver safely.

well since I'm in a pedantic mood in this thread, the only competitors are the driver and the entrant (Ferrari cheaters inc or whatever they are called). But certainly it is the driver's responsibility to enter the circuit safely not the entrants

i believe by 'competitor' they mean the team member responsible for releasing the car. the driver is not the only 'competitor' in the team and it most certainly is not the drivers call as to when it's safe to leave his pit box. that is just stupid. if it were up to the driver half the time they would be driving off with 3 wheels on, or half a tank of fuel etc. it's the crews responsibility to release the driver safely.

So thats why your superlicense was provoked... :P

So thats why your superlicense was provoked...

provoked? eh?

as for you dundan:

"well since I'm in a pedantic mood in this thread, the only competitors are the driver and the entrant (Ferrari cheaters inc or whatever they are called). But certainly it is the driver's responsibility to enter the circuit safely not the entrants."

yeah I agree. the driver is the competitor, and I guess you would call the team the entrant. but the team have a bloke who is responsible to release the driver from his pit box safely. the driver relies on that bloke 100%. when he says nail it, the driver nails it. sure I agree the driver has to enter the circuit safely on his own smarts, but leaving his pitbox to get into the pitlane that timing is all up to the team. the driver can't see bugger all with a dozen blokes huddled around his car he just has to trust them that when they say go, he can go.

can't afford a super licence any more. and besides, now that they charge 1 X 11ty mil euro per championship point I would be flat bloke with all those points I'd be winning. nasty. I'm fair happier steering my armchair.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, thumbsup from me. The distant shot of the bay just looks same-same as before.
    • Dad had a court case drag out with them from 1998 to 2004. He was in a not at fault accident, NRMA were the ones who covered the other person. They tried to blame his neck injuries on the fact he'd had an injury in 1981 on his extreme lower back where he slipped a single disc right near the bottom. Had been all cleared from that injury for years. This accident destroyed his shoulder, and f**ked a heap of discs in his neck, and he still has major problems with it to this day. Sarah's sister while on her L plates had a small Suzuki Alto, she had stopped to give way to an ambulance, and someone changed lanes behind her because there lane was also slowing, and rear ended her at 80km/h. (She had been stopped for a few seconds already too!). Car was completely f**kED. NRMA sent the vehicle around to 3 different workshops as they kept claiming "We believe it can be repaired, and not written off, we just need to find the correct workshop". It took 3 months, and a lot of arguing before they'd concede and wrote it and paid out. About two years later her sister had a Lancer, someone pulled out of a stop sign without stopping (in an 80 zone). Her sister swerved, hit the front of the other persons car (Instead of dead t-boning the drivers door), which ramped her Lancer, and made it roll multiple times down the road. It hit every panel on the way through. Her sister had slid her self out of the car, and remembers the ambos walking to the accident (They'd been sitting at a set of lights just down the road and witnessed it) and they were saying "Well, this ones going to be a fatality, no way you can walk away from that". Well, she did. And then NRMA sent two assessors out to look at the car, both of which wrote it off. They tried to send another assessor out, except a HUGE uproar was raised, and they FINALLY paid it out. That was on a car, that had damage to EVERY panel, you could see from 100m away the whole car was also twisted, roof bowed etc. Nah, we'll try get out of needing to payout on a $10,000 car... Her sister ended up with major shoulder reconstructive surgery being required, and was permanently limited in her ability to do her job as a nurse after that, as she can't (And was told before surgery too this would be guaranteed to happen) regain full strength in that shoulder. However, there was no choice to not have it, as she could barely use her arm, which was her dominant one, and was in near constant major pain. (And she's the type of person that would try and walk off a broken leg!) NRMA did the biggest run around on the personal injury side too for about 18 months, even to the point of trying to put 100% blame of the accident on Sarah's sister, even though the other driver admitted she didn't look, and didn't stop, and was charged by the police. Sarah used to have a Barina insured with them. It was a policy setup, paid all 12 months in advance. At the end of the 12 months, Sarah was living with me, I reviewed the renewal, it clearly stated "If you do nothing, your policy will cease on XYZ date". We did nothing, as we moved her insurance in with all of mine and I was with Shannons. We find out 10 months later, NRMA decided, because he DAD had a car insurance policy at the same address as what Sarah's mailing address was (Garaged address had been changed), that they'd put Sarah's (What should have been non existent policy) onto her Dad's month to month charges on his credit card. We had to jump through hoops, to get a refund. They didn't care that we actually found the letter that said "If you do nothing, your policy will cease" they made us prove we had NON COMPULSORY insurance else where before they'd issue the refund, and after they agreed to the refund, it still took another 6 weeks and 3 more phone calls for them to actually process it. They also had two insurance claims from storm damage, and they were an absolute cluster to get resolved as well (one vehicle, one house). Some how, up until about 3 years ago, her parents were still loyal to NRMA too, and we were like "How the hell are you so loyal to staying with them, when other places are so much cheaper, and they've f**ked you over every time you've ever had to make a claim?"
    • I got the four AN10 fitting welded up to the cam covers and started up making the head to sump breather/drain lines. The front passenger side cover I used a 45 up top and a 90 at the bottom into the stock VCT head drain spot (3/4" BPST to AN10 adapter) thats unused on the RB25DET NEO with some speedflow flame shield to protect it from the manifolds heat.   back passenger side was a 90 up top with some flame shield and 45 at the sump end. The rear drivers is 45 at both ends   the front drivers fitting is capped off for now but ready to go if i want to try moving the breathers around. I was told by the fabricator to leave all the welds raw for now to make sure there are no pin hole leaks. A lot of cleaning up, re bundling looms and degreasing to go as well as final assembly on the cam cover baffles. The first real test will be 28th March at a Circuit event. added complexity and more spots for leaks but overall looks relatively neat imo
    • Yeah i think the dash needs to come out. To get the loom or maybe just climate control and radio cluster. My mirrors are done i think the motors don’t work so well after flood haha i need the ac fan, you said you wanted to keep it for your 31 and interior loom not including boot. The wiper motor. I’m not sure how good the window surrounds are on the exterior on the pintara.  I will message you to get your bank details shortly 
    • Just another barrier put up to stop cars being modified. When we're all driving Chinese sewing machines, you won't want to modify it anyway, and you'll likely already have slashed your wrists and be locked up in a padded room for your own protection.
×
×
  • Create New...