From what I've heard Mclaren informed Hamilton about the yellow flag and to me it seems the marshals waving the yellow flags were quite clear. I think the penalties were appropriate. After all they were weaving double yellow flags and the drivers were infromed about them in the radio.
Partly messed up by the system though (or rather by the guy who was supposed to take care of the LED screens).
Obviously they made a mistake but it is just odd that two profeccional drivers both make a rare mistake during a same yellow flag. If one driver would've missed the yellow flags that would've been normal but two drivers missing them is just strange. Like when was the last time something like this happened? I can't even remember. All I'm saying is that it's strange they boths would do the mistake at the same time when we haven't seen this sort of mistakes at all during the season.
Seriousy, what's wrong with Hamilton? Apparently dumping the GF didn't help him a bit.
I can't really believe both Hamilton and Perez would do such foolishness...I can understand Hamilton, but Perez? Just seems odd to me that both drivers would ignore yellow flags if they were informed about them.
I can't really believe both Hamilton and Perez would do such foolishness...I can understand Hamilton, but Perez? Just seems odd to me that both drivers would ignore yellow flags if they were informed about them.
Yes. Why should they let Maldonado go? 40 million dollars gained with a ''not so good'' second driver is much more valuable than few millions gained with a ''good'' second driver. 40 millions to R/D makes a difference and in order to give Kimi a decent car to drive Williams needs all the money they can get.
It is also rumored that Williams needs Qatar National Bank to be able to pay Räikkönen his salary demands and without their money Williams can't afford Kimi.
If they get enough money to barely pay Kimi's salary and then throw away 40 millions how do you think that'll effect their performance?
Just look at the video: Button leaves massive amounts of room to the outside after his turns. ( which means he could've driven the corners faster) and Vettel uses every inch there is on the track. (which means there's not much he could do to improve his lap)
To drive perfectly you need to brake exactly the right time, turn in at the right time and then hit the gas at the right time. Do you seriously think Button didn't know there was room? He is a professional, he knows how to drive better than any mechanic who could tell him that Vettel was faster. He just didn't drive on the limit for either because of mistakes or because he wanted to make sure he'll have a good position in the grid and didn't want to do any mistakes.
The point, which was lost a while ago, was that Button had a better car than Vettel and Vettel still managed to beat him. If I remember correctly even the BBC crew said so when watching that video before the race.
During ''those'' laps Vettel drove better than Button and there were clear signs of car advantage going to Button. That's a fact, not MHO. Vettel drove most of the track on the limit where Button was nowhere near the limit.
What part do you think I should put ''IMHO''? I was only talking about those two laps and the difference between the laps and the cars there.
How do you define a car on the edge? Different drivers like their cars understeer or oversteer different amounts.
The video shows that Button doesn't use all the space he could use in the track and how Vettel is is using the track much better and thus, driving faster. The difference between the cars balances Vettel's driving and only because of the car difference Button puts up a decent fight for pole.
It's obvious that if the cars were equal Vettel would've won Button with at least a tenth, probably even more.
How much faster was Vettel when he passed Alonso in Monza? That 0.5 seconds you stated is probably quite close to the circumstances and Vettel managed to pass Alonso quite easily, even with Alonso defending furiously.
The dirty air gives the lead car an advantage in the corners but in the straights the car behind gains an advantage because of the slipstream. All we need is long straights that have proper corners designed for overtaking.
You say you don't want to watch races where you know there won't be overtakes. Don't you think the driver in front should have a chance of defending his position? With DRS there's not that chance. (unless the DRS is poorly chosen and doesn't do any good) Besides, with DRS the tactic teams use seems to be to drive as fast as possible and pit when the other equal teams pit.
DRS has also made qualifying a waste of time and tires. Not driving the Q3 (or driving only one lap) because you'll get fresher tires in the race and your position doesn't really matter that much because of the passing DRS generates is becoming annoying.
Because of the new tires you are seconds faster with new tires than with the old tires. When you add the original advantage fastest cars had to the slower ones it doesn't take that much to pass slow drivers after pitting. Not to mention that with fresh tires you have more grip and can brake later.
Dirty air is only an issue with two almost as fast drivers. DRS may help the overtaking but it's also taken the excitement out of overtaking. How many times have you been thrilled about a pass in which the overtaker used DRS? DRS takes the challenge from the overtaker to the soon-to-be overtaken. It helps slower drivers keep up with faster ones if they are within a second and sometimes even helps the overtaker after the overtake. How's that good that after an overtake you get few tenths for free?
I don't see how good brakes have any effect on overtaking. It's the same difficulty if you both have to brake 100m before the corner or 50m before the corner. If you have the same brakes there's no difference.
Car speed does have some effect but let's compare Monaco and Spa. In Monaco the speeds are much lower so why aren't there nearly as many overtaking attempts there as there are in Spa (or maybe Monza). It's all about the tracks how easy it is to overtake.
Actually the fast car vs. slow car issue after pitting is already taken care of because of the new tires. When you come out of the pit with fresh tires your tires are seconds faster than the ones the ''slow cars'' have. That makes passing quite easy. In the old days slower drivers were part of the game and you needed to consider everyone else and where they are instead the current system where you only need to think what the driver behind you does. I understand the DRS is only in it's first year which is why there have been so many ''too easy'' DRS zones but still I'd rather have pure racing where driver behind doesn't get any advantages than have DRS and passes executed by pressing a button. That's for arcade games.
The fundamental issues behind the hard overtaking are the tracks. We have tracks where you don't need DRS to overtake and we have tracks where you can't overtake even with DRS without your opponent making a mistake.
With the DRS we'll soon be in a situation like MotoGP was a while ago (probably still, haven't bothered to watch it for the last few years) where you want to be second when coming into the last lap because you will get past in a certain corner if you are faster (or as fast) and after the corner you just need to drive to the finish line.
I can't really take a stand here since I didn't see the race. However, Hamilton did not make any real mistakes and managed to beat Button. I also heard he battled well with Webber so I think it's fair to say he had a good race.
The reason I want DRS taken out of F1 is because it will kill most of the battles between drivers for positions. I think at least Hamilton fans can agree with me for saying that if the DRS zone here would've been as powerful as in most of the races this season no one would've seen the battle with Hamilton and Webber and the race would've been less interesting.
Everyone has said only Vettel adjusted to Pirelli properly? Where? - sources please. What about Button for example? RBR also destroys their tires much more than Mclaren for example so might the tire thing be related to the warmth of the tire in different teams? Lotus had problems with tires underheating in the race but was that Trulli's or Kovalainen's fault?
In MotoGP they are not forced to use different compounds like you suggested. They simply choose to use different compounds because of tire wear and to get the bike handle like they want it to. The reason there are so many different tire strategies in MotoGP are because the tires are close to each others in performance and that the drivers can't afford to pit during the race and are trying to figure out which tire will give the best performance and last throughout the race.
So you want to make F1 cars impossible for drivers to adjust to their driving style correctly? How will that do any good apart from diminishing the driver's effect on car pace even more? I'm sorry but I don't see how that's a good idea.
No one would use tires the way you described because of the balance issues. If You'd take away the rule about tire changes and only gave the teams really few tires you might see some cars run with different tires at the same time.
I might add Mika Häkkinen -99 as a candidate to your list since Ferrari's car was much more reliable than Mclaren's and if Schumacher had not injured himself he would've won the championship for sure.
This is an interesting opinion. If Hamilton does something that is, according to the rules, worth a DT, the ones who are saying ''he deserved it'' are Hamilton haters and the ones saying ''he did cause a collision but don't punish him like you punish the others'' are neutral? (lol). If we expand this theory to all the other drivers in the field we'll find out that every person who follows F1 hates at least 90% of the drivers. Good theory you have
Vettel said after the race that he thought Button was behind. How's that translate to deliberate? I don't want to argue about whether it was deliberate move or not so let's assume you are right and it was deliberate. Was it a good move? - Absolutely, Button couldn't pass him and Vettel did everything according to the rules. If Vettel's move was bad don't you think they would've given him some sort of warning or penalty? Also why didn't Alonso then get a penalty for similar situation in Monza. BlueFlame, how come I don't remember you whining about Alonso's move at Vettel on Monza? That move Alonso did was about the same move Vettel did and neither got a penalty because their moves were legal, but since you obviously don't think so I'd like to hear why you are only bashing Vettel here.
It's always easy to criticize drivers for driving you think is unsportsmanlike but in races they race by the rules. Vettel did that since the stewards saw his move clean. You say you despise dirty driving but how do you define dirty? If you count breaking the rules Hamilton, your favorite, is much dirtier than Vettel. If you count deliberate rule breaking Hamilton is still either tied with Vettel or in the lead.
I don't get why you think drivers shouldn't defend their positions. It's not weaving if you only make one move to defend and then return to the driving line getting ready for the corner. You seem to have this strange vision what racing should be and you are acting based on that rather than what's the real world. There is a former F1 driver in the stewards each race so don't you think he has a better view of the rules than you or I do?
Actually, if I remember correctly Vettel's move was investigated because Mclaren thought he changed his driving line more than one time. The case was never about Vettel pushing Button to grass.
Massa has tried to talk to Hamilton a few times. Hamilton has ignored him completely every time he's tried to talk to him so it's no wonder Massa's gotten tired of it. Of course Massa's not a nice guy, he's Hamilton's competitor and he would be happy if Hamilton lost his nerves because of all this since Massa is racing against Hamilton and wants to beat him by all means necessary.
Vettel's move was fine. I haven't seen anyone getting a DT for what Vettel did. Even the BBC crew said his move was fine and since they are British if there was anything wrong with a move aimed at any British driver they'd be bashing the driver who made the move immediately.
Hamilton's move on Massa showed again that Hamilton is currently a dangerous driver. I don't know if he didn't see Massa or what but he almost got himself a DT with that move. Did anyone else notice how Massa was faster than Hamilton before the collision and after it slower? It's not the first time Hamilton ruined Massa's race.
Great driving from Button, deserved his victory. Alonso and Vettel drove well too but Button was just better at managing his tires.
And once again you are clearly wrong. Just watch this video from Hamilton's perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... DdM2Y&feature=related
Hamilton is never behind Massa. He is actually driving slower than Massa because he's trying to slow down and then turn in right behind Massa. How can Hamilton be closing Massa if he's trying to let Massa go past the corner first and then dive in right after him?
It is also widely known that you can't drive into a corner as fast from the inside than you could if you were outside (apparently you haven't figured that yet) so even if Massa was a bit slower in the apex than Hamilton, it wouldn't mean anything. There might have also been a clear downforce advantage with Mclaren over Ferrari which means that Hamilton can dive into corners faster.
It's a shame there are people who can't admit that their favorite driver makes mistakes...well, it's also a shame that the driver we are talking about refuses to admit that he's made mistakes.
If so why did she start whining how no one from LFS community had given any money through her? Why didn't she just post the link and say for example that we should donate there money if she can quit smoking? Why is there even a possibility to give the money through her?
This trust you have for some stranger in the Internet is just ridiculous. So far I haven't seen any proof about her giving money to MS or her not smoking. You are all counting on her word. There are few Nigerian princes you might want to get acquainted with if you support Becky. If you ask really nicely they might have even played LFS at some point.
Come on, If this same thread was done by a demo racer who had no racing experience or posts anywhere else this thread would've been locked and destroyed in about 30 minutes. And yet to 99% of us Becky is most likely as much a stranger as a random Nigerian who's post would've been destroyed in 30 min.
Except we can't know for sure if she actually has given up smoking (or if she even has ever smoked) Basically we'd be giving her money because she says she didn't smoke.
Will you give me money if I promise to stop breathing? I'll tell you if I have breathed and if I keep on telling you I haven't breathed at all you'll give me money? I might even donate your money to some charity (which you obviously can't be certain of either) to get you give me more money.
She's just trying to scam you all. You can't be sure of anything she says. How do you know if she hasn't smoked and more importantly, WTF has not smoking got to do with MS? Why does the money need to go through her? If I donated five millions to MS she'd still be whining here how I haven't given anything to her since she won't know I donated already. She just wants your money to herself.
There's no reason why anyone should give her the money instead of giving it directly to the non-profit organization she ''supports''. If you want to support MS it's fine, but for the love of god don't give the money to her.
Did I say they will be solved? Giving money however, does save people's lives. and that way boost the country's economy which will then show most likely as an increase in their wellfare. That's a fact.
Cancer can't be completely prevented by anything you do. There's always a chance of getting cancer. Think about Saku Koivu, a professional athlete who eats right, does sports and almost never drinks. Still he got a cancer in his mid-career. The problem with cancer is that there is not enough equipment everywhere and that costs. Getting proper equipment everywhere will tackle the cancer some. And some of the cancer funds' money is going to the exact thing your MS money is going to - to the sick person's family as a treatment on how to continue normal life.
I'm not saying MS shouldn't be completely forgotten but in the end it's everyone's OWN choice where to give the money.
Actually ethics allow us to do that by comparing the advantages and disadvantages but I won't go to it now. I'm just asking: if you have 2 friends and one is starving (for reasons that are not his fault) and the other has MS would you give money to the starving one to save his life or give money for your MS pal? You have to choose one.
Honestly, its's you who are selfish. Because of few friends getting MS you feel it's the most important thing in the world. Tell me, what does giving money for MS do? MS is not curable, it can't be prevented and the money goes basically to therapists of some sort.
About 25000 people die every day of hunger every day. Instead you want to give your money to your friends because you can't see the big picture. 5$ will save the lives of few people in Africa and 5$ for MS doesn't save anyone.
Or how about giving money for cancer funds? I bet my ass that if your friends had gotten stomach cancer you'd be raising money for curing cancer. That actually would have been better for everyone since giving money to cancer funds actually saves lives.
Or maybe invest in a well for some African country and save hundreds of people dying on thirst and infections. (with few hundred dollars you can buy a well so you have raised enough money for it)
But no, you support MS. I don't judge you but demanding others to give money to MS and calling them names for not giving money to your cause is just stupid. Remember, money you use is always away from something else. If you have excess money and use it to MS instead of Africa you could have saved lives but chose not to.
There are currently millions of worthy causes. Unfortunately, I'm not a billionaire.
Also, What has you not smoking got to do with supporting MS? I give my money where I think it affects the most and I give my money straight to the NP-organizations, not to some hobos collecting money ''for'' the organization. (most likely themselves) I wouldn't care if you smoked hundreds of cigarettes a day for the rest of your life. That has nothing to do with supporting anything. IF you want to be a ''good person'' just quit the smoking and give the same amount of money you used to smoking for the NP-organization of your choice and GTFO.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG