Forum Replies Created
30th October 2015, 17:34 at 5:34 pm #30808622nd October 2015, 4:45 at 4:45 am #307344
For something obvious: safety is signficantly improved and I mean that in every aspect possible. Until basically my dying day I will have this picture I saw when watching the 1986 Italian Grand Prix in mind, where a bunch of Italian marshals removed a car stranded on the backstraight (not next to, on) whilst the race next to them basically went on as if nothing happened. It is a literal miracle that nobody was killed in the late 80s and, to be brutally honest, 1994’s deaths were accidents waiting to happen.
I agree on the TV work, especially with the inserts it is much, much easier these days to get a full picture of everything going on in the race.29th September 2015, 0:49 at 12:49 am #306283
The thing is, regardless of the sportive morality, by letting Hamilton go, Rosberg legitimised the move. If someone plays the “let me past or we crash” game, you have almost a moral “duty” to run into them.
Nico is now completely in the number two mindset – even worse than that, because we have examples of other designated number two drivers not letting their team leaders do that – and so anything Hamilton does to him is legitimised by Nico’s inaction. Sports require ruthlessness, so unless you want to become an official doormat, you better show everyone to not mess with you like that.21st September 2015, 21:16 at 9:16 pm #305681
It is admittedly unlikely, so “an honour” would have been the best choice had he said something. Probably it would have gone down just fine, but I was thinking potential scenarios as to why comments could backfired, so I allowed myself a bit of hyperbole.21st September 2015, 16:54 at 4:54 pm #305671
Well, not talking about it is most certainly the wisest choice. It seems that, no matter what Vettel said, he couldn’t really win that question.
If he said it doesn’t matter, he’s “disrespecting F1 history”.
If he said it is an honour for him, he’d risk being forced on the same comparison train Hamilton has pushed himself on.
If he said it makes him better than Senna (which he is, but I digress), he’d been torn to shreds by the Church of Senna.
So yeah, being quiet is the best way.4th September 2015, 19:58 at 7:58 pm #304417
Good. Formula One really needs to work on improving its public image, both to suppliers and the audience. Gagging orders are the best way of achieving that in the short term. The “corporate anarchy” currently reigning in F1 is doing nobody any favours.30th July 2015, 14:54 at 2:54 pm #302713
I agreee with @anto, but @pt has a point. In my humble opinion, the best solution to create more excitement through challenging the drivers without making excessive gimmick-ry of it would be to extend the range of tracks F1 is visting. Let’s be honest here, most current F1 tracks are middle-speed affairs of around 5.5something klicks – that is not helping with matters. We need more long tracks, more short tracks, more extremely fast and more extremely slow tracks. Hell, throw in an oval for good measure. Variation is the biggest natural challenge in motorsport, so let’s variate.29th April 2015, 1:22 at 1:22 am #297499
I simply am not capable of naming one out of Prost, Schumacher and Fangio. They were in a level of their own.3rd April 2015, 8:46 at 8:46 am #295718
because otherwise I wonder why the theory is being talked by not only by Fernley, like here and here
Force India a) want to distract how shit their car is and b) remove potential threats for WCC money. This is F1 politics doing their usual thing. Manor doubters are best off ignored.12th March 2015, 17:45 at 5:45 pm #294132
The rules have to be enforced as they are written otherwise there’s no point having them. However the 107% rule is completely unnecessary and they should get rid of it.
You said it yourself. There is no point in having the 107% rule, so why not just keep it on the plate so Ferrari keep quiet and never actually enforce it?11th December 2014, 10:26 at 10:26 am #288612
He was brought in to be the marketing star, he was most likely therefore expected to be the number one. So much is obvious to anyone who’s done a semester of marketing. However, Mercedes GP probably wanted this to happen “naturally”, sort of like Alonso basically made himself number one at Ferrari, so they didn’t do anything about Rosberg because, hey, a champion is a champion, until Spa where public opinion basically made them back Hamilton’s championship challenge from that point on. So yeah, Mercedes favoured Hamilton, but Hamilton made them do it by playing the PR game after a racing accident masterfully, so, as much as I dislike Hamilton, I will say that indeed “it was fair”.24th November 2014, 17:00 at 5:00 pm #287130
What kind of argument is that? It’s his choice, yes, and he is allowed to make it. It would also be my choice to jump off a bridge, because I’d rather be a bird than a human being, and I’d also be allowed to do so. That wouldn’t make “my choice” any less stupid and worth being called such. I do not see why I should approve of someone doing something I consider disrespectful and inappropriate, just because that person is allowed to and chooses to do so.24th November 2014, 16:34 at 4:34 pm #287125
The problem is by not using it, he is in fact using it wrongly. To fix my World Cup trophy simile, it is not like abusing the world cup trophy – it is like not taking it at all.
Yeah, the team would still have won it and would still be world champions, however, what would you imagine would be the worldwide reaction if the coach of the winning team said: “The trophy? Screw the trophy, everyone takes the trophy, that’s way too mainstream, we are the cool kids who don’t need no education nor trophies.”
As I said, it’s special snowflake syndrome to the extreme and both childish and disrespectful. Call me overly idealistic, but I refuse to respect and like someone who is childish and disrespectful … unless they are House, but that’s a different story.24th November 2014, 15:27 at 3:27 pm #287096
Two different things, @davidnotcoulthard2. One thing is procedure, the other is a representation of achievement. The number one represents the champion in Formula One. The man (or woman) who has climbed the very top of the mountain, the (at least in theory) best open-wheel racing driver in the world. If the number wouldn’t mean anything, then why not let Vettel keep number one and save us the trouble of having to associate him with a new number? Good luck finding people who are in favour of that. Not taking the number one in Formula 1 is to motorsport what using the world cup thropy to beat moles to death is to soccer, a blantant disregard for all that have come before you.24th November 2014, 14:04 at 2:04 pm #287091
If this actually goes ahead, it is a bloody disgrace. Lewis Hamilton is shaming the very sport if he does that. You don’t want to carry #1? Then don’t become world champion, for crying out loud. He would wash away years of tradition to be a special snowflake. You’d think becoming immortal in the eyes of the world would be worth having a number you don’t quite as much like as your current one, but noooo. Gotta have his cake and eat it.
Lord, if I wouldn’t dislike Hamilton already, this would seal the deal.