Forum Replies Created
13th May 2017, 12:48 at 12:48 pm #342146
Aha, that’s done the trick. Thanks!9th September 2014, 18:54 at 6:54 pm #274191
Pools panel decision: score draw.8th June 2014, 8:04 at 8:04 am #262698
Thank you both!30th April 2014, 1:10 at 1:10 am #258480
Why should there be a secondary points system? Why not award championship points for all positions?28th April 2014, 23:49 at 11:49 pm #258435
@omarr-pepper articulated my dislike of the zero-points positions much better than I did. Thank you!25th April 2014, 22:12 at 10:12 pm #258199
Interesting thoughts. I suspect there’ll never be a system that works well for all situations, and what we have is pretty good.
Thinking on it more, the only thing I’d change is increasing the number of points and having points for all finishing positions. That would eliminate the weird situation of several drivers with zero points, and no way to tell by looking at the points table why certain drivers are ahead of others.24th April 2014, 12:03 at 12:03 pm #258057
I have no interest in the double points for the purposes of this discussion. It’s purely about the per-race points structure.3rd August 2012, 23:45 at 11:45 pm #206677
One thing that gets me every time on the round-ups – the quotes from the articles you use are frequently nothing to do with the headlines of those articles.
Webber turns Olympic spectator in break (Reuters)
“I know other teams have been asked to address things with their cars, but they (the FIA directives) are not for general consumption. And some of ours do make the general consumption, which is just the way it’s been.”
The quote has nothing to do with the Olympics. My mental gearbox isn’t semi-automatic, and there’s always a horrible crunch of gears when I try to parse these things.
Would you consider having a main headline that you write yourself that relates to the quote, and then a smaller line at the bottom giving details of the article it’s taken from?27th May 2012, 21:31 at 9:31 pm #202351
Always scary to see a car heading towards those fences. They’re basically industrial strength cheese graters. Not that I have any suggestions for anything else, but I just think they’re nasty.22nd April 2012, 22:17 at 10:17 pm #199941
OK, so it seems that the decisions were released at 18:00 UK time. That’s 3 hours after the end of the race, plus the race time after the actual incidents. My point still stands.15th April 2012, 10:15 at 10:15 am #199381
A good Camembert is hard to beat. Especially if it’s turned liquid.23rd January 2012, 23:36 at 11:36 pm #190411
Toad in the hole.10th September 2011, 11:51 at 11:51 am #177988
@raymondu999 The changes seem fair enough. If the drivers have to slow and go round them, then they still get the penalty effect without damaging the cars.
@kaiie I agree that the bumps have to be a decent distance from walls and barriers, so that cars will have a chance to land and slow down a bit before impact. Monaco is a special case – as it is in pretty much every other respect.14th July 2011, 11:14 at 11:14 am #174073
Steph/Ads21 You’re right – it was Alonso/Massa. I don’t blame Alonso for throwing a fit about it. I found the video:
If that’s blocking then I’m an upside-down aircraft carrier.14th July 2011, 6:45 at 6:45 am #174069
I don’t dislike Ferrari because they made the sport dull with a period of dominance. Yes, it wasn’t the most entertaining period of F1 and I was rooting for someone else to beat them, but it’s not Ferrari’s fault if they produce a much better car than everyone else. What were they supposed to do? Make it worse so the other teams had a chance?
I dislike Ferrari because of their arrogance in thinking that they’re the core of Formula 1. Yes, they’ve been around the longest and be very successful with it, but that doesn’t mean they should get to have a veto on rules that they don’t like (I’m astounded that the other teams put up with that), get extra money just for being Ferrari, or wander around slagging off everyone and everything. Their repeated attacks on the new teams were pretty unedifying.
Regarding the FIA favouritism: as a rule all conspiracy theories should be dismissed out of hand, but some penalties of recent years just have to make you wonder. The biggest one from recent memory was qualifying in Monza, when a car (McLaren?) was penalised for disturbing the air flow on a Ferrari along one of the straights, and therefore slowed it down. The stewards said the car should have moved off the racing line, but the distance between the cars makes it obvious that doing so would have made no difference (ye cannae break the laws o’ physics, cap’n). If this was a genuine problem, then pretty much every car on the grid should have been penalised for being on the track in front of another car at some point.
Luckily, I can split my support for a driver/team. If there’s a driver I like in Ferrari, I still want them to do well – but I wish they were doing well for another team.