planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:29 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Perfectly encapsulates the idiocy of the rules that would further penalise someone for having their gearbox rammed.



Exactly.

Another thing how is that further penalising Vettel?

If he has to take a penalty.

He wasn't penalised in Malaysia for the incident.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Perfectly encapsulates the idiocy of the rules that would further penalise someone for having their gearbox rammed.

If Stroll had been behind Vettel then you would have had a point.

Just leave aside who is to blame for the moment. The fact that a competitor gets penalised for changing a part that was involved in accident is surely absurd?

Them's the rules you can't change them to suit, also what's been pointed out giving Vettel a brand new gearbox gives him an advantage over Hamilton.

I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
chetan_rao wrote:
Why does the replacement have to be brand new? Why can't he be given an intact gearbox with similar mileage to the damaged one to maintain performance parity?

First of all how do you find such a gearbox, secondly a gearbox has to last 6 races any replacement is a 5 place grid penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
slide wrote:
i 'd like to know the size of the repair bills that Ferrari have faced in the last few weeks

and think of the Ferrari repair people -they are getting some practice in at the moment

and wasn't stroll picking up rubber , and they sometimes move about a bit

and why does vettel keeps finding himself in these silly positions and after a brilliant comeback too

and the image of vettel coming round the corner with his rear wheel up above the rear wing will be played again and again and was funny
just as the caption " driver of the day -sebasian vettel " was scrolling across the bottom of the screen , lol

Actually when I first saw it I was thinking you lucky beggar, some kind of major suspension failure just after he takes the flag. :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Yes, it is a good one, Brundle's comments reflect the feeling of Coulthard and Webber on C4, that is a better way of saying what other posters on here have described as arrogance and might in part explain his magnetic attraction to other cars.
Link below: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/11062777/attitude-and-aggravation-could-cost-sebastian-vettel-the-f1-world-title

I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'

I believe that's what actually happened and Vettel to his credit never refuted it.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
If Stroll had been behind Vettel then you would have had a point.

Just leave aside who is to blame for the moment. The fact that a competitor gets penalised for changing a part that was involved in accident is surely absurd?

Them's the rules you can't change them to suit, also what's been pointed out giving Vettel a brand new gearbox gives him an advantage over Hamilton.

I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Perfectly encapsulates the idiocy of the rules that would further penalise someone for having their gearbox rammed.



Exactly.

Another thing how is that further penalising Vettel?

If he has to take a penalty.

He wasn't penalised in Malaysia for the incident.

:uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Just leave aside who is to blame for the moment. The fact that a competitor gets penalised for changing a part that was involved in accident is surely absurd?

Them's the rules you can't change them to suit, also what's been pointed out giving Vettel a brand new gearbox gives him an advantage over Hamilton.

I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Exactly.

Another thing how is that further penalising Vettel?

If he has to take a penalty.

He wasn't penalised in Malaysia for the incident.

:uhoh:

I repeat he finished 4th in Malaysia so how would he be further penalised?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2439
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Another thing how is that further penalising Vettel?

If he has to take a penalty.

He wasn't penalised in Malaysia for the incident.

:uhoh:

I repeat he finished 4th in Malaysia so how would he be further penalised?

He finished 4th, from the back of the grid, where he started through no fault of his own. He would have been favourite to win this. Now, as a result of a 'post-racing' incident, he may face a grid penalty if his (possible damaged) gearbox needs replacing.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:57 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Them's the rules you can't change them to suit, also what's been pointed out giving Vettel a brand new gearbox gives him an advantage over Hamilton.

I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 503
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Them's the rules you can't change them to suit, also what's been pointed out giving Vettel a brand new gearbox gives him an advantage over Hamilton.

I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

Was Hamilton's gearbox changed as it got damaged from accident? You may be thinking it could be from Vettel's swipe at Baku :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:31 am
Posts: 78
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Yes, it is a good one, Brundle's comments reflect the feeling of Coulthard and Webber on C4, that is a better way of saying what other posters on here have described as arrogance and might in part explain his magnetic attraction to other cars.
Link below: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/11062777/attitude-and-aggravation-could-cost-sebastian-vettel-the-f1-world-title

I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'


I see.

I refer to the FIA stewards report after the Baku race, Document 45, 25 June 2017, 20:08hrs

"The Stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44.
The Stewards decide this manoeuvre was deemed potentially dangerous."


I'd love you to enlighten me as to how the stewards got it wrong, and if possible, why they got it wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2108
Location: England
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


While you have a point in there somewhere about the Lewis love, it is a genuine question to ask why people are asking for Vettel to get a free box if his is knackered because the damage was absolutely nothing to do with him, when it has happened to countless other drivers since the rule's inception (remember a few needing changing after cheese tyres going pop and causing crash damage) and the general attitude at the time seemed to be resenting the rule and the unfairness of its outcomes rather than suggesting that a wronged party should get a freebie.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:36 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


While you have a point in there somewhere about the Lewis love, it is a genuine question to ask why people are asking for Vettel to get a free box if his is knackered because the damage was absolutely nothing to do with him, when it has happened to countless other drivers since the rule's inception (remember a few needing changing after cheese tyres going pop and causing crash damage) and the general attitude at the time seemed to be resenting the rule and the unfairness of its outcomes rather than suggesting that a wronged party should get a freebie.
I'm not asking for him to get a freebie. I'm just saying the circumstances - where a driver has an accident whereby something gets damaged and then has to suffer a penalty on top of that - highlight how daft the penalty system is. It's a shame if he does get a penalty but so be it, but doesn't mean I can't laugh at the way they are written.

Incidentally, I said the same a year or so ago when Alonso had an accident and needed a new PU (I think). I don't like the penalty system anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1387
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


While you have a point in there somewhere about the Lewis love, it is a genuine question to ask why people are asking for Vettel to get a free box if his is knackered because the damage was absolutely nothing to do with him, when it has happened to countless other drivers since the rule's inception (remember a few needing changing after cheese tyres going pop and causing crash damage) and the general attitude at the time seemed to be resenting the rule and the unfairness of its outcomes rather than suggesting that a wronged party should get a freebie.
I'm not asking for him to get a freebie. I'm just saying the circumstances - where a driver has an accident whereby something gets damaged and then has to suffer a penalty on top of that - highlight how daft the penalty system is. It's a shame if he does get a penalty but so be it, but doesn't mean I can't laugh at the way they are written.

Incidentally, I said the same a year or so ago when Alonso had an accident and needed a new PU (I think). I don't like the penalty system anyway


So do away with the engine and transmission limits. Allow as many engines and trannies as the teams want, all year long.

Problem solved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2108
Location: England
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


While you have a point in there somewhere about the Lewis love, it is a genuine question to ask why people are asking for Vettel to get a free box if his is knackered because the damage was absolutely nothing to do with him, when it has happened to countless other drivers since the rule's inception (remember a few needing changing after cheese tyres going pop and causing crash damage) and the general attitude at the time seemed to be resenting the rule and the unfairness of its outcomes rather than suggesting that a wronged party should get a freebie.
I'm not asking for him to get a freebie. I'm just saying the circumstances - where a driver has an accident whereby something gets damaged and then has to suffer a penalty on top of that - highlight how daft the penalty system is. It's a shame if he does get a penalty but so be it, but doesn't mean I can't laugh at the way they are written.

Incidentally, I said the same a year or so ago when Alonso had an accident and needed a new PU (I think). I don't like the penalty system anyway


Yeah that wasn't entirely aimed at you but there is a section of fans who have suddenly found their voice in much the same way Poker does when Lewis is perceived to have been wronged. It does swing both ways (and yes, the penalties are utter, utter garbage. Hidden under the agenda of cost saving, I dread to think what they spend on making these as close to the limit as they do, without the thousands of failed versions that have come before it)

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2439
quere wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Yes, it is a good one, Brundle's comments reflect the feeling of Coulthard and Webber on C4, that is a better way of saying what other posters on here have described as arrogance and might in part explain his magnetic attraction to other cars.
Link below: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/11062777/attitude-and-aggravation-could-cost-sebastian-vettel-the-f1-world-title

I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'


I see.

I refer to the FIA stewards report after the Baku race, Document 45, 25 June 2017, 20:08hrs

"The Stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44.
The Stewards decide this manoeuvre was deemed potentially dangerous."


I'd love you to enlighten me as to how the stewards got it wrong, and if possible, why they got it wrong.
I don't.
It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
If he has to take a penalty.

He wasn't penalised in Malaysia for the incident.

:uhoh:

I repeat he finished 4th in Malaysia so how would he be further penalised?

He finished 4th, from the back of the grid, where he started through no fault of his own. He would have been favourite to win this. Now, as a result of a 'post-racing' incident, he may face a grid penalty if his (possible damaged) gearbox needs replacing.

Right I just saw the engine penalty as being separate to the end of race crash, so it's just a case of lamenting the rules that have existed for years and how unfair it all is.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense

No I'm just pointing out that the rules are fine so long as they don't have a negative effect for you, I didn't complain about the rules last year when Hamilton had all the grid penalties because they are the rules.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
robins13 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not sure I said you should change them to suit? I'm highlighting the absurdity of potentially punishing someone for the consequences of an accident, regardless of who was at fault

This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

Was Hamilton's gearbox changed as it got damaged from accident? You may be thinking it could be from Vettel's swipe at Baku :twisted:

Mercedes said not.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense


While you have a point in there somewhere about the Lewis love, it is a genuine question to ask why people are asking for Vettel to get a free box if his is knackered because the damage was absolutely nothing to do with him, when it has happened to countless other drivers since the rule's inception (remember a few needing changing after cheese tyres going pop and causing crash damage) and the general attitude at the time seemed to be resenting the rule and the unfairness of its outcomes rather than suggesting that a wronged party should get a freebie.
I'm not asking for him to get a freebie. I'm just saying the circumstances - where a driver has an accident whereby something gets damaged and then has to suffer a penalty on top of that - highlight how daft the penalty system is. It's a shame if he does get a penalty but so be it, but doesn't mean I can't laugh at the way they are written.

Incidentally, I said the same a year or so ago when Alonso had an accident and needed a new PU (I think). I don't like the penalty system anyway


So do away with the engine and transmission limits. Allow as many engines and trannies as the teams want, all year long.

Problem solved.

Apparently it saves money.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:50 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
This has happened for years it now becomes an issue because it may involve Vettel?

what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense

No I'm just pointing out that the rules are fine so long as they don't have a negative effect for you, I didn't complain about the rules last year when Hamilton had all the grid penalties because they are the rules.

I've complained about the rules on a number of occasions before. I believe my position on penalties is fairly well known (against many of them, especially grid penalties), as are my views on the excessive restrictions which are the hallmark of F1 these days. I've even had discussions with you about it in the past, too. This isn't a new thing.

I've simply stated that this latest case illustrates how poorly thought out they are, that an accident which involves damaging a part may subsequently result in a penalty. I haven't called for anything or stated it's just become an issue. You are reading way too much into it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:31 am
Posts: 78
tootsie323 wrote:
quere wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Yes, it is a good one, Brundle's comments reflect the feeling of Coulthard and Webber on C4, that is a better way of saying what other posters on here have described as arrogance and might in part explain his magnetic attraction to other cars.
Link below: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/11062777/attitude-and-aggravation-could-cost-sebastian-vettel-the-f1-world-title

I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'


I see.

I refer to the FIA stewards report after the Baku race, Document 45, 25 June 2017, 20:08hrs

"The Stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44.
The Stewards decide this manoeuvre was deemed potentially dangerous."


I'd love you to enlighten me as to how the stewards got it wrong, and if possible, why they got it wrong.
I don't.
It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.


:lol: :lol: The opposite of intentional is unintentional. If that was the case perhaps he needs to invest a few Euros in a couple of driving lessons with an emphasis on steering wheel control. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5023
tootsie323 wrote:
quere wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Yes, it is a good one, Brundle's comments reflect the feeling of Coulthard and Webber on C4, that is a better way of saying what other posters on here have described as arrogance and might in part explain his magnetic attraction to other cars.
Link below: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/11062777/attitude-and-aggravation-could-cost-sebastian-vettel-the-f1-world-title

I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'


I see.

I refer to the FIA stewards report after the Baku race, Document 45, 25 June 2017, 20:08hrs

"The Stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44.
The Stewards decide this manoeuvre was deemed potentially dangerous."


I'd love you to enlighten me as to how the stewards got it wrong, and if possible, why they got it wrong.
I don't.
It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.

Tbh, if he drove into Hamilton unintentionally, that's worse!

But anyway, if you did continue reading a bit, he did have a point to make. It was more that he didn't leave his steering wheel with the car and also took a ride on a Sauber which is against regulations. That was what Brundle was referring to by Vettel's attitude and seemingly trying to provoke the stewards.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what part of my initial post led you to believe it's now just become an issue?

I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense

No I'm just pointing out that the rules are fine so long as they don't have a negative effect for you, I didn't complain about the rules last year when Hamilton had all the grid penalties because they are the rules.

I've complained about the rules on a number of occasions before. I believe my position on penalties is fairly well known (against many of them, especially grid penalties), as are my views on the excessive restrictions which are the hallmark of F1 these days. I've even had discussions with you about it in the past, too. This isn't a new thing.

I've simply stated that this latest case illustrates how poorly thought out they are, that an accident which involves damaging a part may subsequently result in a penalty. I haven't called for anything or stated it's just become an issue. You are reading way too much into it

Hamilton has suffered with this many times, I don't recall at the time you ever being up in arms about it, so I have to conclude that a major difference here is that it involves Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
minchy wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
quere wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
I respect Brundle, but he went a bit overboard here.

Hmm... stopped reading it after 'intentionally hit another car behind the Safety Car in Baku.'


I see.

I refer to the FIA stewards report after the Baku race, Document 45, 25 June 2017, 20:08hrs

"The Stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44.
The Stewards decide this manoeuvre was deemed potentially dangerous."


I'd love you to enlighten me as to how the stewards got it wrong, and if possible, why they got it wrong.
I don't.
It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.

Tbh, if he drove into Hamilton unintentionally, that's worse!

But anyway, if you did continue reading a bit, he did have a point to make. It was more that he didn't leave his steering wheel with the car and also took a ride on a Sauber which is against regulations. That was what Brundle was referring to by Vettel's attitude and seemingly trying to provoke the stewards.

I think that was the whole point about the apology Vettel had to give to escape further penalties, let's not forgot he had already been penalised so why the need for the special hearing?

To his credit not once did Vettel allude to it being a pure accident.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20609
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I don't remember similar consternation when Hamilton had a gearbox penalty earlier in the season?

...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense

No I'm just pointing out that the rules are fine so long as they don't have a negative effect for you, I didn't complain about the rules last year when Hamilton had all the grid penalties because they are the rules.

I've complained about the rules on a number of occasions before. I believe my position on penalties is fairly well known (against many of them, especially grid penalties), as are my views on the excessive restrictions which are the hallmark of F1 these days. I've even had discussions with you about it in the past, too. This isn't a new thing.

I've simply stated that this latest case illustrates how poorly thought out they are, that an accident which involves damaging a part may subsequently result in a penalty. I haven't called for anything or stated it's just become an issue. You are reading way too much into it

Hamilton has suffered with this many times, I don't recall at the time you ever being up in arms about it, so I have to conclude that a major difference here is that it involves Vettel.

Still grinding the Hamilton axe, I see. In a thread which has nothing to do with him. It's an art, it really is.

Anyway: really? He's had a lot of accidents which have resulted in him getting penalties in subsequent races for damage incurred with the car? Do you have a list of the many times this has happened?

I'm not "up in arms" about it. I made a single comment regarding the rules, in a thread specifically set up to discuss Vettel's gearbox damage and the resultant (potential) penalty. All I did was give my view on said (potential) penalty. It's you that appears to be up in arms about it, because you seem unable to let it go.

But since you are so adamant that this is a new, somehow Vettel-related thing:

http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13636&p=643688&hilit=regulations+and+penalties#p643688

Please note the following extract:

Similarly, when a driver's race is ruined because another ploughs into the back of him, necessitating a PU change, how is it just that the driver then faces a penalty for a new unit which neither he nor the manufacturer have any control over

Did a ctrl+F search, and Vettel wasn't even mentioned on that page, apart from in someone's signature. Happy now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
...and we're back to Hamilton. Honestly, if I said the sun was shining you'd somehow manage to make it about Hamilton. How is this relevant? In any way? Why in the name of all that's holy do you have to make absolutely everything - and I mean everything - about Hamilton? Can you please just try and break the habit of a lifetime and just not make it about him for a change? Some of us don't factor him into everything we say or do. This obsession cannot be healthy

I said it highlighted the absurdity of the rules. That's all. You insist on seeing deeper meaning and making things so much bigger than they are. It's just nonsense

No I'm just pointing out that the rules are fine so long as they don't have a negative effect for you, I didn't complain about the rules last year when Hamilton had all the grid penalties because they are the rules.

I've complained about the rules on a number of occasions before. I believe my position on penalties is fairly well known (against many of them, especially grid penalties), as are my views on the excessive restrictions which are the hallmark of F1 these days. I've even had discussions with you about it in the past, too. This isn't a new thing.

I've simply stated that this latest case illustrates how poorly thought out they are, that an accident which involves damaging a part may subsequently result in a penalty. I haven't called for anything or stated it's just become an issue. You are reading way too much into it

Hamilton has suffered with this many times, I don't recall at the time you ever being up in arms about it, so I have to conclude that a major difference here is that it involves Vettel.

Still grinding the Hamilton axe, I see. In a thread which has nothing to do with him. It's an art, it really is.

Anyway: really? He's had a lot of accidents which have resulted in him getting penalties in subsequent races for damage incurred with the car? Do you have a list of the many times this has happened?

I'm not "up in arms" about it. I made a single comment regarding the rules, in a thread specifically set up to discuss Vettel's gearbox damage and the resultant (potential) penalty. All I did was give my view on said (potential) penalty. It's you that appears to be up in arms about it, because you seem unable to let it go.

But since you are so adamant that this is a new, somehow Vettel-related thing:

http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13636&p=643688&hilit=regulations+and+penalties#p643688

Please note the following extract:

Similarly, when a driver's race is ruined because another ploughs into the back of him, necessitating a PU change, how is it just that the driver then faces a penalty for a new unit which neither he nor the manufacturer have any control over

Did a ctrl+F search, and Vettel wasn't even mentioned on that page, apart from in someone's signature. Happy now?

Fair enough :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2439
pokerman wrote:
minchy wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
... It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.

Tbh, if he drove into Hamilton unintentionally, that's worse!

But anyway, if you did continue reading a bit, he did have a point to make. It was more that he didn't leave his steering wheel with the car and also took a ride on a Sauber which is against regulations. That was what Brundle was referring to by Vettel's attitude and seemingly trying to provoke the stewards.

I think that was the whole point about the apology Vettel had to give to escape further penalties, let's not forgot he had already been penalised so why the need for the special hearing?

To his credit not once did Vettel allude to it being a pure accident.
I accept that Vettel was very non-committal over whether the contact was intentional or not; just not prepared to accept that it must have been intentional. As for it being worse if unintentional - yes, that suggests not being in control of the vehicle!
I was being a bit facetious about the Brundle article, in the face of 'intentionally' - did go back and read it. I understand his take on Vettel doing two things that are, on the face of it, against regulations. I half expected some sort of slap on the wrist. Apparently his explanation regarding the steering wheel was that it would not go back onto the column (is that right?) so I'd expect mitigation in that respect. As for hitching a ride - either, as another poster suggested, it's only illegal if you have to enter / cross the track to do so or perhaps Liberty Media 'flexed' some benevolence in the light that it makes for good publicity. I'm just speculating here.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8503
Nico joins sky for Japan, in the commentary box with Brundle and Crofty hopefully.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... apanese-gp

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23073
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
minchy wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
... It's the word 'intentionally,' from Brundle's article, that I take issue with.

Tbh, if he drove into Hamilton unintentionally, that's worse!

But anyway, if you did continue reading a bit, he did have a point to make. It was more that he didn't leave his steering wheel with the car and also took a ride on a Sauber which is against regulations. That was what Brundle was referring to by Vettel's attitude and seemingly trying to provoke the stewards.

I think that was the whole point about the apology Vettel had to give to escape further penalties, let's not forgot he had already been penalised so why the need for the special hearing?

To his credit not once did Vettel allude to it being a pure accident.
I accept that Vettel was very non-committal over whether the contact was intentional or not; just not prepared to accept that it must have been intentional. As for it being worse if unintentional - yes, that suggests not being in control of the vehicle!
I was being a bit facetious about the Brundle article, in the face of 'intentionally' - did go back and read it. I understand his take on Vettel doing two things that are, on the face of it, against regulations. I half expected some sort of slap on the wrist. Apparently his explanation regarding the steering wheel was that it would not go back onto the column (is that right?) so I'd expect mitigation in that respect. As for hitching a ride - either, as another poster suggested, it's only illegal if you have to enter / cross the track to do so or perhaps Liberty Media 'flexed' some benevolence in the light that it makes for good publicity. I'm just speculating here.

If it was an accident why would you not say it was, that makes absolutely no sense, what I see is basically a honest man.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1544
Ferrari - incredible!
Marchionne will be furious and some heads will roll.

Now it is 2:2 between Vettel and Ferrari in the discipline of throwing away winnable races this season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2933
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari - incredible!
Marchionne will be furious and some heads will roll.

Now it is 2:2 between Vettel and Ferrari in the discipline of throwing away winnable races this season.

If Marchionne does make heads roll he'll be a daft man. This season's Ferrari has had the biggest step up of any team from 2016 and has Mercedes scared. They've got a very fast but unreliable car. Mercedes have been clueless about their tyre issues since 2013. It is far more likely that Ferrari will make their package reliable than for Mercedes to crack their tyre wear issues.

The team will be hurting enough for the problems that have happened, they've not been unreliable becsuse they've been complacent, it's because they were daring. If they hadn't have been, it would have been another season in Mercedes's shadow. The Ferrari team should be commended for their 2017 performance. Cutting edge racing cars are unpredictable beasts, and I think Ferrari are presently the team in the best position to lead next season.

But if Marchionne wants to fulfil his bloodlust, then fine. Give 2018 to Mercedes and Red Bull


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5079
Location: Mumbai, India
OP - In the title, change Japan to Austin.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1387
UnlikeUday wrote:
OP - In the title, change Japan to Austin.

Done. The expected disaster for Vettel never happened (5 grid position penalty), and I’m not sure what can happen in the US but I’m sure Ferrari will find some way to throw away another race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1570
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari - incredible!
Marchionne will be furious and some heads will roll.

Now it is 2:2 between Vettel and Ferrari in the discipline of throwing away winnable races this season.

If Marchionne does make heads roll he'll be a daft man. This season's Ferrari has had the biggest step up of any team from 2016 and has Mercedes scared. They've got a very fast but unreliable car. Mercedes have been clueless about their tyre issues since 2013. It is far more likely that Ferrari will make their package reliable than for Mercedes to crack their tyre wear issues.

The team will be hurting enough for the problems that have happened, they've not been unreliable becsuse they've been complacent, it's because they were daring. If they hadn't have been, it would have been another season in Mercedes's shadow. The Ferrari team should be commended for their 2017 performance. Cutting edge racing cars are unpredictable beasts, and I think Ferrari are presently the team in the best position to lead next season.

But if Marchionne wants to fulfil his bloodlust, then fine. Give 2018 to Mercedes and Red Bull


Mercedes tire issues go back to at least 2011. I think in 2012 they came up with holes in the wheels to regulate temps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5079
Location: Mumbai, India
Herb Tarlik wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
OP - In the title, change Japan to Austin.

Done. The expected disaster for Vettel never happened (5 grid position penalty), and I’m not sure what can happen in the US but I’m sure Ferrari will find some way to throw away another race.


They must've taken clue from Hulk's car - open DRS.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 187
Herb Tarlik wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
OP - In the title, change Japan to Austin.

Done. The expected disaster for Vettel never happened (5 grid position penalty), and I’m not sure what can happen in the US but I’m sure Ferrari will find some way to throw away another race.


they better not cause bottas fancies taking the number 2 spot away from vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 710
lucifers wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
OP - In the title, change Japan to Austin.

Done. The expected disaster for Vettel never happened (5 grid position penalty), and I’m not sure what can happen in the US but I’m sure Ferrari will find some way to throw away another race.


they better not cause bottas fancies taking the number 2 spot away from vettel.


Honestly, who cares? A bit sad that Ferrari did leave walkover on bith titles.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Black_Flag_11, Google Adsense [Bot], mds, ScottR267, Zoue and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group