Quote from samjh :

None of my law courses have ever mentioned mass trademark-related legal actions by Virgin in Australia.

Virgin's Australian brands has been involved in noteworthy legal actions, but as a defendant, not as a plaintiff.

oh shoot perhaps I remembered it the wrong way round... lol

Quote from Mustafur :

Peter Sauber knows whos hot and who isn't, i mean the last 3 drivers he brought to F1 were Heidfeld, Raikkonen and Massa.

And it'll obviously help if the driver he signs can also bring along some "decoration" for their white cars...
He can't afford another year with no sponsor, but I believes that Mexican guy is talented enough for Peter Sauber to take notice....

And Massa probably wasn't exactly brought to F1 by Peter Sauber through. He's managed by Nicolas Todt, and Jean Todt is a pretty good friend of Peter Sauber...

Last edited by JCTK, Tue 5 Oct 2010, 05:30.

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

Perez was the man of this GP2 season IMO, got rather unlucky in the first rounds but he didn't give up and eventually scored several wins and good points towards the champ. His 3 victories in sprint race show that he knows how to overtake too(and he got all of them from 2nd/3rd row IIRC, none was lights to flag).

Sure, Telmex's money helped a lot but that's still well deserved. I wonder where Heidfeld will go now though.

Perhaps Heidfield will be back to Mercedes again~?

Quote from samjh :

Eh? You're the first person I heard that from.

It was definitly in the news. Around the time when the Virgin airline entered into the Australian market. I did exaggerated it a bit through.

And law lecturers most certainly do like to use that as examples...

Quote from Mustafur :

Fact is if they don't have the rights to Team Lotus then that Lotus is completely different from anything Group Lotus is.

In other words, if i make a company called Team mumbo, if Group Mumbo tell me i can't do this they have no say as Group and team Mumbo are two completely different companys.

Team Lotus will therefore have nothing to do with Group Lotus or the Lotus cars brand and be a completely different identity.

As I said earlier, the laws ain't as simple as that.
Although I do believe the chances for Proton winning the case is pretty slim...

Sir Richard Branson (aka Virgin) also went around your country and did something similar to what Proton is planning to do, by sueing everyone with the name Virgin in their business name/identity, and failed pretty badly.

Quote from Mustafur :

But if you don't have the rights, then you don't have the rights

and if you do have the rights, then you do have the rights!

Unfortunately most of the time laws ain't as simple as that.

Otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers~

But yes, Proton (Group Lotus) doesn't have the right to "Team Lotus". But that fact wouldn't stop Proton from trying to stop others from using anything to do with "Lotus" in their branding/name.

Quote from Mustafur :

What Proton is doing is contradicting everything, the team couldn't go for the Team Lotus name due to the rights being owned by someone else meaning it is not associated with Lotus group, now that they have acquired the rights to the name the Group that allowed them to Race in F1 is now saying that its not allowed, as they own the rights to Team lotus as its part of Lotus which they hold all rights too.

If they had rights to Team lotus why couldn't they be called Team lotus at the start of the season!!

Proton has no case and will lose which will be funny as you will have a Proper Lotus team racing under the name Lotus without the support of the brand itself.

nah from their perspective they ain't really contradicting themselves.

I think what it all really meant is:
Group Lotus doesn't have the rights to Team Lotus. But it doesn't stop them from sueing others for "passing off" to be Lotus when they attempt to use Team Lotus.

Whether that will work will be upto the court to decide.

Quote from CSF :

Group Lotus already lost a case against David Hunt in 1998, so quite honestly they are either thick or have short memories.

Or most probably the senior management at Proton now have been completely changed...

And of cos those senior management people never give a sh*t about what happened in the past, all they care is how to milk as much money for themselves as possible. So..........

PS. And to be honest I can never linked this "Lotus" team to the "Lotus" most of us love, this is just some Malaysian racing team. And Proton should thank Tony for letting the world know it's some stupid Malaysian company that owns Lotus (and is doing nothing with it, until recently).

Quote from tinvek :

must admit i don't understand why, chicanes apart, we've developed this thing of having kerbs on the inside of street tracks which force the cars to run in a narrower track, out side of the corner sort of makes sense as it allows a bit of room to run wide but the only reason i can think of for that kerb on the inside of where hamilton and webber hit is to hide the fact that a lot of the bends here are square 90 degree bends, let them run right up to the inside wall or outside walls if they want, makes the track wider and then if someone does go down the inside tight against the wall, chances are they'd have to run wide at the exit so allowing the outside car a chance to cut back inside

I think that idea is a pretty idiotic way for saying "yay we've got some artificially made "run-off area", so it is not that dangerous after all".

But then the FIA and the track designer most probably have a much better reasons for these.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Was a racing incident imo Hamilton drove the corner like no-one was there and so did Webber. BOOM!

I wouldn't say Lewis drove the corner like no-one was there, Lewis did allow for "some" space for Mark Webber, just that obviously it wasn't enough. (It would usually work out through, except when one tries that on Mark Webber or Michael Schumacher, or perhaps Robert Kubica...)

Which was obviously not enough especially since Mark usually drove round corners like no one was there... so....

But agree it's 100% pure racing incident through, I can't see how any of them could take it any differently. Mark wouldn't just give up, and Lewis couldn't give Mark more space because if he does, he has to go over the other side of the kerbs, and he'll then be screwed for "gainning an advantage by going off the track".

Last edited by JCTK, Tue 28 Sep 2010, 13:11.

Quote from JPeace :

In my opinion, Hamilton left as much gap as Kubica did for Sutil.

Anyway, on another subject. The rules clearly state, that once you pick up speed in a considerable manner (race speed) when you are leading the pack acting as the safety car, you must not then descrease racing speed unless acting to aviod and accident and/ or slow for a corner. I counted twice Alonso picked up speed, slowed dramatically then gunned it again. Its a shame the officials seemed to have missed this. Also I saw multiple times Alonso brake tested Vettel, although this may have just been a dodgy camera angle, but my first point I am very much sticking too. Anyone else see this?

that's all very normal at the restart after a safety car period through, it's been happening for years...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Have to say the BBC pre race show with Hamilton on F1 2010 was really quite good.

And how ironic he is out of the race because of an incident in that chicane.

Just watched BBC pre-race show. Lewis should have done what he did to his brother in the video game, then he wouldn't have knocked his front right off!!!

Quote from Timo1992 :

Haha what a bullshit, I'm only living about 40 km away from the track and here it raining like a hell but it's all dry there omg.

If it doesnt rain tomorrow it will be a boring race again like all the other races.

Spa wouldn't be boring even without the rain.

Quote from 5haz :

Jesus I just read up about this, just when you think FIA or FIFA officials are inept, IndyCar have taken it to a new level.

they're Americans after all...

not moving over when someone is faster is not allowed, while wrecking into someone is ok...

Quote from Mustafur :

Petrov improved alot in Hungary but he still showed signs of a weak driver when that easy as hell pass hamilton did on him on turn 2.

Kobayashi did incredible, overtaking 7 cars on the first lap to finish the race in 9th from 23rd!

And so did Hulkenburg getting a neat 6th positiion.

To be fair to Petrov, he realised there were no point in stuffing himself up just for the sake of holding up Lewis at lap 2 of the race. If he tried to defend then he most definitly wouldn't have finished 5th.

As for Kobayashi, his job wasn't made toooooooo hard from 23rd after all. He did incredibly in the first lap to pass those 7 cars, then he didn't have to pass any (other then when a Toro Rosso ran wide) and still finished 9th, thanks to the chaos at the pitlane...

Quote from JPeace :

For once I disagree with you. If you acctually watch Schumacher onboard with him, he actually takes a steady line towards the wall down the straight. It just so happened that as Barichello tried to overtake Schumacher was within seconds of closing the door. If anybody is the culprit of erratic driving it would be barrichello because once he was alongside Schumacher he weaved into the side of him "baulking" him out of the way. Not saying Schumacher was right, not saying that at all, infact I beleive that although he brings a sort of banzai Kobayashiness to the sport that is great to see, sometimes he needs to draw the line, as Coulthard said.

Rubens was eratic?
He has to move back onto the track after Michael squeece him to the pitwall and push him further to the pitlane exit (after the wall ended).

If he didn't do that he'd be on the grass, and I guess that isn't a smart thing to do at over 300km/h.

Rubens wasn't baulking Michael out of the way, he's just trying to stay on the track.

Edit, after watching a replay on Rubens on board, he didn't even weaved into him agreesively. He just moved slightly to the left to stay on the track (and then turn right immediately after to stick to the inside instead of giving Michael the same medicine). Michael then decided the move was done and all of a sudden be nice again and gave Rubens plenty of room.

Last edited by JCTK, Mon 2 Aug 2010, 04:02.

Quote from N I K I :

Good job marshals for penalizing a man who just held his line and letting Hamilton off with that ugly, ugly weaving earlier this year

I'm sorry, but pushing someone towards a wall and weaving to break a tow (when the car behind isn't alongside you) is something completely different.

I'm not saying Michael really deserved that penalty through. But that about serves him right. It was for sure potentially very dangerous.

And it just shows that the marshalls this year ain't plain stupid and just take the rules literally.

PS. if you think Lewis deserves a penalty at Malaysia, then so did Petrov (the other car he was racing against). Petrov did exactly the same thing the straight before, at a lesser scale than Lewis.

if I'm Vettel I'd be barging my way into the side of Alonso at the chicane or going into T1.

Yes he need the 15 points, but Alonso need those even more! So it's well worth a crack. XD

at this rate Red Bulls have thrown a 1-2 away AGAIN...

Quote from Timo1992 :

chances are maybe 10%, I'm sure there won't happen anything and all 24 cars will come through lap 1 without any bigger problems.

and then you can say race is over

not if Massa is leading...

Quote from ATHome :

Yes, I know, but the old Countryman was still a small car. The new one is just a SUV with Mini design elements. I mean, look at the size of it. The new Countryman is acutally wider than a new 3 series BMW. What's "Mini" about that?

The whole "new Mini" thing with the pretty ugly Clubman and now the even worse Countryman is just a sellout of the old Mini aimed for "trendy" people. And that's what I dislike about the new Mini.

But there are still plenty of people paying a hefty premium for the new mini, which is probably the more important thing.

PS. for the new S2000 machine, does these cars still need to be at least 4m long? I remembered Peugeot was running massive bumpers on their 206WRC to stretch it to 4m.

Quote from zeugnimod :

And that one was awesome. Back when Alonso wasn't whining all the time but driving awesomely (ignore the music, it's the only video of it on youtube :/).

Still possibly the best F1 onboard video I have seen.

Perhaps the stint at McLaren with Ron changed him... lol

Quote from joshdifabio :

Clearly it's relevant to the German GP since all of the discussion spawned from the incident on Sunday. All of the discussion related to team orders should be in one place - to have two separate discussions on the same topic would simply result in duplicate posts in both threads which would make no sense whatsoever.

But back on topic - do you think that McLaren asking their drivers not to race one another should also have been punished? Or is it only a problem when a team actually reverses the order of their drivers?

Edit: Sorry, I didn't intend for the first paragraph of this post to sound so confrontational.

I believes the intention of the rule is to catch teams that swap their positions when they're leading and second. (Just my personal opinion)

But they have to leave the rules worded that way, to ensure they can catch the team when it happens. They can't really just go and describe under whatever circumstances would you be guilty of team orders in the rules, as the teams will simply avoid those circumstances when they're manipulating the results.

Therefore, the rule just simply state that any team orders that interfere the race results is prohibited. But there are always team orders, surely telling a driver to pit is a team order that may interfere with the race results? Hence that's where my opinion arose for my first paragraph.

And I guess we shall see from the WMC whether such a rule is really unworkable, or what further penalties, if any, would be handed down to Ferrari.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Agree. But the surrounding race situation/context doesn't have be considered at all when you're trying to apply that kind of sporting regulation.

Really? What position are you working for in the FIA? Are you part of the stewards or part of the World Motorsport Council that made you so sure on that?
I guess what the FIA did pretty much disagree with what you said there.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Recent one would be Turkey 2010

LH : If I back off, Jenson gonna pass me or not?

Pitwall: No Lewis.. No.

Why would a driver inquire to his team about that if there's no team orders allowed? The fact that Jenson actually made a move not long after shouldn't change how you view this.

I also remember Kovalainen letting Lewis through on at least two occasions either simulating a driving mistake(France?) or just letting him through (Germany 2008 LOL same corner as today). No big deal was made of that. This applies to multiple teams...no one here remembers seeing stuff and thinking "yeah right no team orders" during a gp ??? Come on.

Ferrari just did it without any tricks and everyone could see it. I respect that more than what the others did. 100 000$ will be enough to make sure they do it the right way next time. Hide it so the most logical sport on earth sport doesn't look bad to the emotional mass.

Here at 1:55 for the 2008 German "move"
http://www.videohighlights.net ... any-hockenheim-formula-1/

The no Jensen would not pass you was the personal opinion of his race engineer based on the fact that he thought Jensen would need to be slowed down to save some fuel.

But what happened a couple of laps later showed perfectly that there were no obvious team orders there. They short fueled both McLarens, and it's only normal that they need to slow the cars down to get to the finish.

The one with Heikki was covered already by others, so I ain't gonna touch on that. But basically, the rules were introduced when a number two driver was leading the race, and had to hand the win to the number one driver when the team asked. I believe (and it's my personal opinion only) it's worded in such a way to be very general in nature, so they could have grounds to punish the teams when the same thing happened again, as was the case yesterday.

Last edited by JCTK, Mon 26 Jul 2010, 04:47.