Comments on: Did Piquet crash on purpose? (Poll)

By: tiffany co

tiffany co — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:09:24 +0000

Absolutely brilliant post guys, been following your blog for 3 days now and i should say i am starting to like your post. and now how do i subscribe to your blog?

By: sam

sam — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:04:45 +0000

Clearly Piquet junior is a pretty poor driver who failed to make any progress whilst at Renault. If he was an honourable person then he would have raised this issue when he was first approached to crash to order. I don’t recall anyone voicing that the crash seemed odd at the time. It is not surprising that when people are told an accident is suspect that they start to see a situation that isn’t there – similar to conspiracy theories that people love. It would be tragic if the employees at Renault lose their jobs just so the Moseley can get his own back on Flavio. Get rid of Moseley and I suspect the the news from F1 would be less tacky.

By: hollus

hollus — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:44:22 +0000

A post-race 25 second penalty was reversed for Trulli this year.

By: GP1

GP1 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:45:19 +0000

I haven’t read all comments, but I’m wondering are we thinking about Flavio enough ? Maybe he had reasons to get at least one victory at season. Maybe he had promised something to Renault and he saw that Singapore was their last chance. Fernando or Nelson did not had any reason to take this kind of risk, maybe Flavio had ? I don’t think he is very honest guy..

By: Chalky

Chalky — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:03:18 +0000

Both good points that prove that those further down the grid hope for a safety car in their strategy to aid them in their race position.

But a safety car is not always guaranteed.
Cue conspiracy theory.
I still voted No. I just don’t want to believe that these things happen in F1. Maybe I’m being blinkered about it.

It seems to be Renaults turn to get all the bad press this year, with investigations and fines.

By: Ididnt

Ididnt — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:57:36 +0000

I don’t think they’re implicated.

By: James_mc

James_mc — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:58:32 +0000

Good spot. Although I wouldn’t besmirch the good name of F1 by describing Nascar as a “formula”…

By: Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:21:33 +0000

Alonso should know… He’s already rigged a qualifying session after all! I’m sure Raikkonen is grateful though.

By: Ads21

Ads21 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:16:42 +0000

Agree about Alonso’s appearance intitially after the race, he didn’t seem too happy. But at the time i put it down to him being tired, and considering he produced one of his trademark celebrations in prac ferme and looked much happier in later photos i dont think anything can be made of it.

As for the Spa decision, i guess you mean the rejection of the appeal as inadmissable. Well that was quite an obvious decision because it was a stupid appeal. It’s clearly stated in the rules that a 25 second penalty given post race in place of a drive through penalty cannot be appealed. Regardless of the merits of the penalty the appeal was inadmissable.

By: Ads21

Ads21 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:10:30 +0000

Good point about the Red Bulls, Webber was put in with a great chance of a win or a least a podium by the Piquet crash as well.

Also Piquet’s podium at Hockenheim shows Renault often tend to think outside the box with strategy, indeed he was on an unusually long strategy in Singapore to try and take advantage of a possible safety car.