MarÃa de Villota found dead
María de Villota: former F1 test driver found dead in Seville hotel
Sad News!
http://www.theguardian.com/spo ... -villota-dead-formula-one
Sad News!
http://www.theguardian.com/spo ... -villota-dead-formula-one
I think people are missing something here that seems to have slipped under the radar.. Massa finsihed second.. and only 20 odd seconds behind Vettel. Sure he got some luck with the first lap incident(s).. but he still (sort of) kept pace with Vettel pretty much the whole race. Certainly wasn't being pressured much from behind either. So... it would seem obvious to me that that Ferrari was faster than people think. The commentators kept saying how it was in need of development but seemed to miss the obvious fact that the driver that ended up second was the driver who has been consistantly out driven by his team mate this year. So I'm surprised no one has wondered where Alonso would have ended up had he not been put out of the race first corner. Personally I think he may well have been giving Vettel a hard time.
Exactly.. and despite the (hate filled) rants of the likes of blue flame, I'd like to see any of the current "talents" of F1 achieve half of what he did and then come back at his age and not be at the back of the bus. Nope.. can't see any of them doing so..
Oh dear .. Hamilton is moving to Merc.. that means never ending whining then.. as they are not going to be competitive next year and we all know how much he loves to win when he's not out partying with other women and upsetting his "arm candy" girlfriend.. even worse it'll mean never ending perfume, jewelry, mens grooming product adverts filled with his face.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
So? What they say is :
"The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."
What matters is if an actual flare hits the earth not the size of the solar cycle. The size of the cycle just determines flare activity and strength. So it increases the risk of earth being hit.
http://www.space.com/12586-sol ... nsity-2013-peak-nasa.html
I'm sure there is truth to that. I think it probably has more to do with the communication between driver and team. If they don't understand each other then any amount of driver feedback is going to be useless, no matter how accurate it may be.
In my belief, it's Schumacher's development capability that's been a significant factor in the Merc's improvements over the last two seasons. I think people are over harsh on him actually. He's been out of the game for a few years, is older (and so will have slower reaction times now) and yet has still got to the point where he is at least a match for Rosberg and not many people would consider him one of the slower drivers on the grid ! Clearly Schumacher isn't the driver he used to be in terms of car control. But in terms of pure "seat of the pants" feel for the car he was one of the best ever at his peak, (there is telemetry to prove it). Granted Schumacher's not at his peak, but I believe that if he was in a McLaren he would be doing at least as well as Button and Hamilton. Button has shown clearly this and last season that Hamilton isn't the driver everybody wanted him so desperately to be. A case of Button being underrated and Hamilton overrated. I don't think that Schumacher could ever win another championship however, he just doesn't have the consistency required these days. But I don't think most people realize just how much better he was than his peers during his reign. Which I find quite amazing really. The only other comparable of dominance that springs to mind is Valentino Rossi in MotoGP and no-one questions his superiority.
Rosberg has pace and he's clearly shown that ability. His issue is that his car just isn't competitive. I think that's he's also just as good as Button or Hamilton.
To be honest it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is more a "push" than a jump.. I can't even start to imagine Hamilton choosing to move to an uncompetitive team. Merc have come on a way but they're still a long way from race/championship winning level and Hamilton has already proved he has no capability when it comes to developing cars so why would Merc want him? He's not good enough to start giving them wins and Merc aren't good enough to give him a drivers championship. Move makes no sense to me, unless he's being pressured to leave McLaren.
I've seen Valentino Rossi race at the British GP. Was back in 2006 when he was on a competitive bike and came second to Pedrosa, who I have to admit I had no idea was at the time. Same for Stoner who was in that race. I was over the moon to see the (even then) great Rossi and other faves of mine such as Capirossi, Checa and Edwards.
Amazing how things change. Just 6 short years ago and Lorenzo won the 250 race, and Bradl retired from the 125s. Simoncelli came 10th in the 250s.
I had to look that last paragraph up as I had no idea who any of those guys were back then.
Amazing how things change. Just 6 short years ago and Lorenzo won the 250 race, and Bradl retired from the 125s. Simoncelli came 10th in the 250s.
I had to look that last paragraph up as I had no idea who any of those guys were back then.
Definitely. In any other business it would be an obvious breach of contract even if there was no explicit confidentiality clause. Confidentiality is implied in any contract within an industry where there is an obvious cause for secrecy.
Unfortunately I think it's unlikely that he wouldn't be offered a drive with another team if McLaren chose not to renew his contract. Money talks too much. He knows it too hence there is no incentive for him to change his behaviour.
After everything Hamilton has said and done during his F1 career and you guys still believe he has the capability to think? I find that kind of weird. The guy has consistently proven that he doesn't have a brain. Fine he is fast, fine he has the ability to pass people on the track, (not going to get in to the debate of how sporting/safe half his passes have been), but evidence that he has the ability to think has been non existent.
I don't think the Vettel/Button situation was the same. Grosjean came over too fast for Hamilton to react IMO. Wasn't a lot he could have done bar deliberately drive off on to the grass which would have almost certainly resulted in him barreling in to the guys turning the corner anyway. Otherwise his only option was to try and keep pace with Grosjean until he hopefully pulled to one side. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
That said I do think that the only reason Grosjean got a ban was because of how close the result came to serious injury for Alonso. I've never been a believer in that form of punishment personally. The move was dangerous irrespective of what actually happened and should be treated as such even if a crash didn't result. i.e. such totally unavoidable circumstances should be treated harshly because of what the end result could be not what they actually were.
The person I feel most sorry for over the whole incident was Kobayashi.
I don't think the Vettel/Button situation was the same. Grosjean came over too fast for Hamilton to react IMO. Wasn't a lot he could have done bar deliberately drive off on to the grass which would have almost certainly resulted in him barreling in to the guys turning the corner anyway. Otherwise his only option was to try and keep pace with Grosjean until he hopefully pulled to one side. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
That said I do think that the only reason Grosjean got a ban was because of how close the result came to serious injury for Alonso. I've never been a believer in that form of punishment personally. The move was dangerous irrespective of what actually happened and should be treated as such even if a crash didn't result. i.e. such totally unavoidable circumstances should be treated harshly because of what the end result could be not what they actually were.
The person I feel most sorry for over the whole incident was Kobayashi.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Never been keen on Sutil personally. Too much of a crasher and basher for my liking.. wasn't at all surprised to here him and Hamilton are personal friends.
Are you serious? Are you really trying to make the claim that a theory has more credibility purely because a lot of people, (99% of which have no "inside" information btw), believe it?
This has got to be the stupidest conspiracy theory I've heard in a long time. Why?
Well
a) Red Bull have always been open with their "team orders" in the past.
b) Webber was never going to secure 2nd place in the championship as long as either Alonso or Button were still on the track.
c) Vettel is not the kind of driver to come second if he has even the slightest chance of winning. If this season hasn't been proof of that then god knows what it would take to prove it.
Given that b) is an extremely unlikely scenario alone then it makes zero sense for RedBull to conspire to let Webber to win.
The only plausible reason I can think of why they might want to do such a thing would to make Webber feel happy. Why they would want to do that god only knows, he's already signed up for next year and afaik doesn't bring a huge amount of sponsership to the team anyway.
Well Vettel does it again !!... and what a time!!
Not sure about claiming the record though.. sure it absolute terms it's more poles in a year than Mansell, but Mansells acheivement was 87.5% poles. Vettel would have needed to get 16.625 poles to equal that. So I don't really think he can claim any "record" as such IMO
Not sure about claiming the record though.. sure it absolute terms it's more poles in a year than Mansell, but Mansells acheivement was 87.5% poles. Vettel would have needed to get 16.625 poles to equal that. So I don't really think he can claim any "record" as such IMO
I don't think comparing driving aids with driving style, (and prefered handling setup etc), is valid. Agreed that there is no one setup/style that proves one driver/rider is better than another, i.e. having an agressive/tail happy style doesn't make a rider intrinsically better than one with a smooth more progressive style.
However, driving aids are different because if they mean a bike needs less feel/sensitivity/finesse to be quick on then it does mean it reduces the talent required to ride it. Why? because it levels the playing field. Taken to it's extreme conclusion it would result in just needing to sit on the seat and open the throttle and hit the brakes on/off style and all the aids work out how much actuall power/braking force gets put down on the contact patch. Any monkey could do that.
The skill in being a good rider is exactly about the ability to ride around the faults / limits of the bike and being able to judge exactly how much throttle / brake / lean angle etc can be applied at any given time without going over the limit, and doing so by being able to feel when that limit is being reached for themselves not having an on board processor doing it for them.
The old (pre big bang) 500cc two strokes were far harder bikes to ride than todays machines, (because they took more finesse to control - the "limit" was harder and sharper), and the guys that rode them had to use a lot more skill than todays riders do to ride them fast. That's not to say that some of todays riders don't have the talent also.
I'm fully aware of that.
The relevant word being "virtually". Fact is any "give" is going to have the potential to make a difference at the extreme. I'm not saying it was the cause. It just seems curious that, (as far as I'm aware), this is the first time a rider has ever lost their helmet in a crash, (and it's not the first time riders heads have been run over), and Marco had more hair than any other rider I've ever seen. Coincidence? maybe. But, I've never been much of a believer in coincidence. My scientifc head believes all effects have a cause.
I am in no way attempting to blame Marco !!! His loss is extremely sad and irrespective of the dangers of the sport, no one deserves such a fate.
Massa incident
Anyone else think that irrespective of how off line a driver gets, (barring actually hitting the barriers), then nothing on the track should cause part of the car to fail even at full commitment?
I'm assuming of course that there wasn't an actual manufacturing fault etc with Massas suspension. Given that assumption I don't see that it would be that hard to know the kind of stuctural strength the cars all have and design at track that won't break bits if it if they get hit full speed. Just build in large safety margins in to the height/severity of kerbing to ensure they can't produce enough force in the cars structure to break anything.
I accept that kerbing is there to "discourage" drivers from cutting the corners etc, but it shouldn't be to the point that it might actually terminally damage the car IMO. At least not so that it causes catastrophic failure leading to loss of control.
BTW I'm talking generalities here, not specifically about the actual bit of kerb that Massa hit. But as I say, assuming it's not down to some fault in his car, the kerb should never have been able to break his suspension IMO.
I'm assuming of course that there wasn't an actual manufacturing fault etc with Massas suspension. Given that assumption I don't see that it would be that hard to know the kind of stuctural strength the cars all have and design at track that won't break bits if it if they get hit full speed. Just build in large safety margins in to the height/severity of kerbing to ensure they can't produce enough force in the cars structure to break anything.
I accept that kerbing is there to "discourage" drivers from cutting the corners etc, but it shouldn't be to the point that it might actually terminally damage the car IMO. At least not so that it causes catastrophic failure leading to loss of control.
BTW I'm talking generalities here, not specifically about the actual bit of kerb that Massa hit. But as I say, assuming it's not down to some fault in his car, the kerb should never have been able to break his suspension IMO.
I have a sinking feeling that the sheer mass of hair on his head won't have lent itself to him having a properly fitted helmet.
Seemingly can't even get through FP1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/9624790.stm
*** BREAKING NEWS: LEWIS HAMILTON GETS A THREE-PLACE GRID PENALTY IN SUNDAY'S RACE FOR IGNORING CAUTION FLAGS AT THE END OF FP1 ***
I don't like DRS. I've always believed that a better driver in a faster car should have to make his own overtaking move rather than having one handed to him by technology. Also, why should the "skill" of being able to block quicker drivers/cars be taken away from midfield drivers if they have the ability to do so and so gain more points for themselves.
I for one don't want to see the "big teams" up front by right. If the midfield teams are able to hold them up and "spoil" their races so what. That's racing.
DRS stinks too much of big team influence over the FIA.
Get rid of tyre changes too. I want to see driver skill, and that means the driver that wins the WDC should be the one that has the ability to make the most of the widest range of car performance.
I for one don't want to see the "big teams" up front by right. If the midfield teams are able to hold them up and "spoil" their races so what. That's racing.
DRS stinks too much of big team influence over the FIA.
Get rid of tyre changes too. I want to see driver skill, and that means the driver that wins the WDC should be the one that has the ability to make the most of the widest range of car performance.
So lets compare:
Hamilton
Year 1: Looses WDC by 1 point, (exactly the same points as his team mate despite being given all the benefits by Mclaren over him).
Year 2: Wins WDC by 1 point, (in what everyone accepts was the best car that year)
Year 3: 5th place - 46 points behind winner. (2nd/3rd fastest car?)
Year 4: 4th place - 16 points behind winner. (2nd/3rd fastest car?)
Year 5: currently 5th - currently 146 behind winner. (2nd/3rd fastest car?)
Vettel:
Year 1: 14th in a nothing car - team mate came 18th.
Year 2: 8th still in a nothing car - team mate came 17th.
Year 3: Looses WDC by 11 points - in a car that was only competitive for half a season.
Year 4: Wins WDC by 4 points, (in what everyone accepts was the best car that year).
Year 5: Walks the WDC, with 4 races to spare - (in what everyone accepts was the best car that year).
So they've both only ever won when in the fastest car, (has a WDC ever not been in the fastest car? err no), but Vettel has done it twice and done it easier. Hamilton has placed better on the years he hasn't won, but then he's never been in completely crap car.
So in your opinion if a driver is faster / more talented than another that gives him the right to drive how the hell he likes?? Nice well adjusted moral standards you have there.
Whether Massa is worse than Hamilton has absolutely nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of how Hamilton conducts himself on track..
Seriously..how old are you?
You can defend Hamilton as much as you like, but there is no denying the FACT that he has been involved in more collisions, (and that's ignoring the other non contact incidents), this year than most other drivers in the field have had thier ENTIRE CAREERS !! But I'm sure you'll twist that fact in to some paranoid delusion about how everyones out to get Hamilton.
Watched Sucker Punch last night. Not too bad. Not an intellectual watch by any means but at least it wasn't completely unimaginative. Clearly the story line was thought up by an avid gamer though !
hmm.. Don't understand the positioning of the DRS myself.
I'm not a fan of detection zones so far away from the activation. The two should be closer together IMO. ie detection no further away than the section before the section where the activation is. One corner apart max in other words.
Also, looking at the layout alone I would have put the detection zone in the middle of section between 13 & 14 and the activation about where the red spot is just after 14.
I'm not a fan of detection zones so far away from the activation. The two should be closer together IMO. ie detection no further away than the section before the section where the activation is. One corner apart max in other words.
Also, looking at the layout alone I would have put the detection zone in the middle of section between 13 & 14 and the activation about where the red spot is just after 14.
I think if you guys are going to quote the rule then you should quote it in it's entirety :
"20.2 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are
not permitted."
I think the "abnormal change of direction" is the pertinent part as it completely changes the "spirit" of the rule. I believe that it would be hard to argue that "taking the racing line" should be considered an "abnormal change of direction" as it's a given that any driver will always do so if they find themselves somewhere else on the track. To that end I don't believe MSC was outside the "spirit" of that particular rule for his move across track. On other occasions he clearly did squeeze Hamilton however and I think that is what the radio transmissions were all about.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG