2 DRS zones and only one detection point is the worst idea ever. I doubt we'll see any good ''racing'' since it'll probably be so easy to pass by using DRS that the drivers won't try to overtake anywhere else.
Where's the difficulty in passing that makes it so amazing to watch if you can get past by pressing a button if you're close? The 1 second difference is also just idiotic since there's no way you can get past if you're one second behind. All you're doing with the DRS is then using it to boost your lap times and possibly to get closer to the driver in front. How's that good for racing?
Pirelli's new tires have already made it more possible to overtake so there's no reason for DRS. My opinion is that the whole DRS-system should be banished from F1. Besides, what happens if the DRS-system gets stuck say before corner 13? We've seen DRS get stuck so that it won't open but what if it gets stuck so that it won't close? In corner 13 it would result in severe crash.
I'm expecting an interesting race. I'm guessing that Red Bull can't win this race since Montreal is ''stop and go'' track which doesn't suit Red Bull that well. I'm also hoping it'll rain.
Where's the difficulty in passing that makes it so amazing to watch if you can get past by pressing a button if you're close? The 1 second difference is also just idiotic since there's no way you can get past if you're one second behind. All you're doing with the DRS is then using it to boost your lap times and possibly to get closer to the driver in front. How's that good for racing?
Pirelli's new tires have already made it more possible to overtake so there's no reason for DRS. My opinion is that the whole DRS-system should be banished from F1. Besides, what happens if the DRS-system gets stuck say before corner 13? We've seen DRS get stuck so that it won't open but what if it gets stuck so that it won't close? In corner 13 it would result in severe crash.
I'm expecting an interesting race. I'm guessing that Red Bull can't win this race since Montreal is ''stop and go'' track which doesn't suit Red Bull that well. I'm also hoping it'll rain.
I've said that Hamilton is in top three fastest drivers currently. That's not credit? Apparently you only read what you want to read and miss everything else. Driving fast is one thing and having intelligence is another. One Hamilton has and the other he doesn't have. (bet you can only see half of my previous sentence)
Kimi's championship came only because Hamilton and Alonso were too busy competing with each others and didn't co operate. Mclaren's car was the fastest clearly and part of Alonso's problem was that he wasn't treated as a world champion but instead Hamilton was the one who was treated better. Alonso couldn't cope with that drove poorly (compared to his potential) and left. That also tells something about Alonso but I'll leave that for you to figure out.
Well in Monaco's qualifying the differences between drivers of the same team were 0,5s in Red Bull, 0,4s in Ferrari, 1,1 in Mercedes 0.4 Renault. I don't think that is as huge difference as you make it sound like it but yes, the differences between drivers have gotten smaller. If in 80's or 90's someone was faster than everyone else by a second I believe that was called dominance back then too.
Also it's been proved in sports on many occasions that you don't need to start 4 years old to be good at something. As a kid you just need to do all kinds of sports. Yes, motorsports is started younger and younger but that doesn't for certain make the drivers better when they're adults. The skill level that it takes to get far in motorsports has gotten higher due to increased amount of people interested in motorsports but the skill level of the best drivers hasn't gotten much better.
Drs has failed in my opinion since it's used in other things as passing too. And when you have many people driving behind each other's only the second one gets the advantage over the one in front of him. Also the passing is too easy and no more is it exciting to see someone pass since as long as you have long straight you don't need skill since you can just push the drs button if you're close enough and go past the other driver. Where is the skill? You only need to be fast on clear track and you can get past anyone in 90% of the races as long as you get about 0.5 seconds close to them.
Pirelli's tyres have been a great success and affect in the quality of racing much more and make the races fun to watch. Since everyone has worn tires in the end you never know what's going to happen if they are close enough.
I highly doubt that. Also how do you think the modern day F1 drivers have more experience? The trend is to go to F1 as soon as possible. How's that experience?
It is also a tactical solution to have one stronger and one weaker driver and right now both Ferrari and Red Bull do have one driver who's clearly better than the other. Schumacher ruled in from mid 90's almost a decade so now that he's gotten old people are getting to forget how good he actually was. I dare say no driver currently could have beaten Schumacher at his best.
Overall quality may be better now when F1 is more popular but if you look at the best drivers you can't compare most of them since you've never seen them drive with the same gear. Schumacher has driven with the same gear and did quite fantastic job before his ''retirement'' that turned out only to last for few years. Don't forget that Barrichello was a clear second driver in Ferrari and was very close with Button in Brawn. That tells something of modern day drivers. You my friend are seriously undermining the former champions. And I can't figure why. Even Intrepid respects Senna. You seem to be so excited about modern day driving (mainly Hamilton though it seems) that you forget that the greatest battles or most exciting overtakes were not done by modern day drivers. This is the result of changes in both equipment and drivers and we will never know which affects the most. You can guess but remember that it's only guesses that one can make of driver's true skills. It's exactly the same as comparing Nascar's champion to F1 champion without ever seeing them drive a ''neutral'' race with car that neither of them is familiar with.
It is also a tactical solution to have one stronger and one weaker driver and right now both Ferrari and Red Bull do have one driver who's clearly better than the other. Schumacher ruled in from mid 90's almost a decade so now that he's gotten old people are getting to forget how good he actually was. I dare say no driver currently could have beaten Schumacher at his best.
Overall quality may be better now when F1 is more popular but if you look at the best drivers you can't compare most of them since you've never seen them drive with the same gear. Schumacher has driven with the same gear and did quite fantastic job before his ''retirement'' that turned out only to last for few years. Don't forget that Barrichello was a clear second driver in Ferrari and was very close with Button in Brawn. That tells something of modern day drivers. You my friend are seriously undermining the former champions. And I can't figure why. Even Intrepid respects Senna. You seem to be so excited about modern day driving (mainly Hamilton though it seems) that you forget that the greatest battles or most exciting overtakes were not done by modern day drivers. This is the result of changes in both equipment and drivers and we will never know which affects the most. You can guess but remember that it's only guesses that one can make of driver's true skills. It's exactly the same as comparing Nascar's champion to F1 champion without ever seeing them drive a ''neutral'' race with car that neither of them is familiar with.
I was talking about the gap between the car's technology now and before. Looking back and reminded that still in the mid 90's all electronic aids were forbidden. Yes there were quite a few cheating attempts and we don't know how many pulled those off succesfully but the fact is that the cars were harder to drive before with less grip and less electronic devices. It has been said on many occasions that modern day technology in F1 softens the gap between good and bad drivers when compared to old days.
And here you are again making some lousy accusation and trying to mock me even I've said nothing that would prove so. You were talking about how modern day drivers are all better than before and I disagreed. Now you're insulting me and why? Does insulting someone else who disagrees make you more right? Does it give you some satisfaction that no matter who wins the conversation you've managed to throw some wild accusations trying to mock me? Well if that's how little kids argue nowdays and it gives you satisfaction go ahead I couldn't care less. As Vettel said, ''I don't care what he thinks of me''
''Following the San Marino Grand Prix, the Benetton, Ferrari and McLaren teams were investigated on suspicion of breaking the FIA-imposed ban on electronic aids.''
This is taken from wikipedia so it's possible it has flaws but I doubt that. This incident happened in 95. Are you saying there is no electronic aids currently being used?
And about slipstream, my mistake. I'm not a native speaker so tend to make errors now and then. I thought it meant the system that prevents tires from skidding in starts. Meant to write traction control but somehow ended up writing slipstream.
This is taken from wikipedia so it's possible it has flaws but I doubt that. This incident happened in 95. Are you saying there is no electronic aids currently being used?
And about slipstream, my mistake. I'm not a native speaker so tend to make errors now and then. I thought it meant the system that prevents tires from skidding in starts. Meant to write traction control but somehow ended up writing slipstream.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
Do you know why the differences were so big before? It's mostly because that nowdays the car's quality is coming more and more important and with technical devices driver's importance is diminishing. Wit launch control, slipstream, improved gears driving F1 car is easier than it was before. Comparing generations is useless. You can't be certain that now there are better drivers or that before there were better drivers.
And where have I said or proved that I hate Hamilton? I could say that you've been sleeping with Hamilton for the last decade and that is why you've been defending him for everything he's done but that doesn't make it true does it?
And if Massa's quality is so bad how is it that he was the one fighting for championship the next year with Hamilton? See you're arguments works this way too.
If you look at the scoreboards Mclaren has 0 point in constructor's championship. That's why Ferrari won. Mclaren was penalized for spying. (wonder why their car was so fast) Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton were second and third and had they not fought with each other's and chose number one driver instead that one would've won the championship. You are the one talking out of your arse.
My point was that pearcy said this;
''But you call him an idiot and say he's dangerous, if he's so stupid and reckless how did he manage to beat alonso who many describe as the best driver on the grid in his rookie season? And loose out by only 1 point to kimi in the season, who obviously you rate as a driver.''
To clarify this Alonso never got the treatment he deserved and that Hamilton got. Kimi had worse car almost the entire season and yet he managed to win. The world remembers winners, not the losers. Finishing second is absolutely nothing in the eyes of the world. Every racer would rather win just once than be second for ten times. Hamilton proved making those errors that he wasn't ready. He had speed but his mental capabilities were not good enough. The next year Hamilton got his victory but I'd say that his luck was more important than his driving in the last race. Hamilton has driven few fantastic races but he can't keep up the same work throughout the season. That's his problem. He makes mistakes too much. In Monaco he made 3. I don't remember the last time some driver screwed up his race and qualifying as badly as Hamilton did in Monaco.
Hamilton has amazing potential in him but to be remembered as a great champion he needs to be fast all the time and quit making foolish errors every now and then. He needs to grow up use media for him not against him. I rate him and Räikkönen both as drivers but Kimi would've - this is my opinion - won more championships had he had the same gear as Hamilton because of his nerves. They don't call him iceman for nothing.
The driver I have seen race and thus honor the most isn't Kimi by the way. It's Mika Häkkinen. Even Schumacher has said that there has only been one driver he's been afraid of and that was Häkkinen. Häkkinen was quite smart. (his English wasn't the best so don't know what picture you've got of him) He also was a huge car developer, maybe even better than Schumacher, had nerves of steel, was fast and wasn't afraid to show his feelings. Unfortunately he got bored of F1 and the risks after his championship victories and left.
About Schumacher you clearly don't know anything. When he moved to Ferrari Ferrari was not the best team not even close. Schumacher and Brawn were the ones building it to be the team we know. When Schumacher and Brawn left Ferrari it has only has the champion in one year and that was only due to Mclarens fighting each other's and Hamilton's mistakes in the last races.
Lastly I do not believe that the champions are always the best drivers. You have given comments such as ''he's a champion he's always right''. And others that boast on his success. Don't forget that Alonso raced in Minardi and was fast with it. The car was just so slow that no one knew just how fast Alonso was. Now you're saying that many champions has won because of the cars. My point exactly. The ones that should be remembered most are the ones who built the dynasties. Schumacher, Häkkinen and Vettel are the ones I can think of from the time I've watched F1. There are more if you go back in the past but can't think of the names right now.
Since I don't live in UK I don't have access to all his interviews and mostly when we see news about Hamilton it's because he's said something that's not ordinary. Usually that means he's said something about someone's talents or his talents. On rare occasions he might have something valuable to say but usually the ones we get are bad for his reputation. For some reason I don't see other drivers making such comments as often as Hamilton. I form my opinion about drivers intelligence from the comments they make and Hamilton has given stupid comments more than anyone else. After Hamilton commented Vettel's driving skills all Vettel answered was laughing and saying that ''Hamilton can think whatever he wants''. I don't care less about his comments on the track. Those are said in the heat of the moment. But once he's out of the car he can avoid interviews until he has cooled down if he can't comment anything than how someone else sucks.
Also you might consider that Mclaren's car was the best in that season and played a big role in Hamilton's success as a rookie. Alonso had problems with Hamilton all along and he didn't fit in the team as Hamilton did. That's one of the reason's he had so hard time in that season.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
How about his comments about Massa and Maldonado after the race? The comments how he's the best car developer in the entire sport and that Vettel is only at the top because of his car? Also his comments about Toro Rosso helping Red Bull are quite strange. Hamilton might have some respect for Alonso and former F1 stars but in general he respects no one but himself.
And what on earth has Kovalainen got to do with Hamilton or Schumi driving against the rules? I think you're just trying to change the subject since you know you've already been beaten in other conversations.
Now look who's not a Hamilton fan?
Your comments about Kovalainen are also quite strange. Who thought he was going to be an instant winner? I've never heard those comments. Also Kovalainen suffered from the tactics Mclaren gave him and he would've won a few more races had he been able to get the strategies Hamilton was given even few times. Also you seem to forget that Kovalainen had way more fuel than Hamilton in all qualifies and that's the main reason everyone sees Hamilton much better than Kovalainen. In fact Kovalainen was faster in qualifies than Hamilton many times but for some reason he always was given so much fuel in q3 that Hamilton would be ahead of him in the grid. Kovalainen is also young and has many years left in him. Truth to be told, he's not good enough to win championships but he's talented and might surprise you in some distant future.
I also remember Button being considered as a future champion from the beginning of his career and just when everyone had given up hope on him he won the championship with Brawn.
Oh and Pearcy. I'm saying he's stupid because of his comments not his driving. Pulling the black card might've cost him few races for ''ruining F1's reputation''. How's that intelligent? And his mental decisions in the car also lost him the championship Kimi won. Was it 3 or 2 races when he managed to drive out without anyone pushing him when he needed just a few points and didn't need to drive fast. He's probably the fastest racer or in top 3 for sure but his mental capabilities make his goals so much harder to achieve.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
What you're saying means that because Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver he hasn't done anything wrong? Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH8ETv2aXc4
No one (as far as I've seen) has said here that he could drive better than Hamilton. Hamilton causes collisions and doesn't respect anyone else than himself. (not even the stewards) You really think that he shouldn't grow up and at least try to learn from his mistakes rather than accusing every one else from them? No one hasn't said that he's a lousy driver or anything like that. It's his mental capabilities most of us are worried about and criticize.
I think everything Tristan has said has been quite reasonable and correct. So the big question is what's wrong with you?
Oh and BTW Hamilton has called Maldonado and apologized for his behavior on and off the track. I'm surprised that he had the balls to do so. I hope that he actually learned from his mistakes in Monaco and this apologize was not ordered by Mclaren.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
You have good points. In n.1 we have our differences and we can't be certain which one is right due to missing information about their speeds at the corner in that situation.
In number two there you are partly right. I do however doubt that had Hamilton did a ''banzai'' move and came way too fast Maldonado would not have turned in, braked some more and let Hamilton crash if Hamilton got alongside Maldonado when he began to turn.
3 Your comments about Maldonado are true. I admit that looking at the results it might have been wiser for Maldonado to let Hamilton pass but he couldn't have known that maintaining his position and turning in was going to end up so poorly for him. Had he let Hamilton pass he might have also broken the responsibility to bring as much points in as possible since then we would be guessing whether he should or shouldn't have given room and just turned in. Letting Hamilton go could have been seen that he did not bring as many points in as he possibly could have brought home. It goes both ways.
4. I see Vettel more as a strategist since he doens't care for one victory. He needs to think about the whole situation and get as many points as possible to win the championship. When in that big lead he needs to think about getting enough points to keep his lead. He can't start risking few points when he could lose them all. Vettel also had so poor tires that I believe Hamilton would've gotten past anyway.
The situation whether to turn in is different to each driver since they need to think their responsibilities and chances to crash. When you are beginning your journey in F1 you most definately need to get good positions and drive fast to maintain your place in the team and perhaps get into a better team and one day get a shot at winning the championship.
1. Watch the video I posted. You'll see that Hamilton pushed Massa into Webber.
2. Maybe but the point that I've been told here with Hamilton Maldonado applies to this too. ''If he had no hope of making it the other one could've just let him go wide.
3. They do not have the responsibility to give room until other one is alongside. That's why Hamilton got the penalties. He pushed there knowing what would happen and crashed.
4. True but think about his reputation. Had he given room he might have been thought as a coward or quitter. He did not know Hamilton was going to crash. Perhaps he though Hamilton would hit the brakes or turn right and cut the corner.
About Button you might be right or might not. I have strong suspicions the car is made to be handled like Lewis wants to.
Now where in my posts do I prove I'm not neutral? If you accuse me of something or argue about something please back up your comments. Otherwise they're worth nothing.
And since you can't give me footage about Koba - Sutil move I obviously can't discuss about it since I do not remember the incident.
Blueflame please stop posting before you've carefully read the post you're commenting. I was talking about Koba's banzai move in suzuka against a toro rosso. (he listed incidents with sutil and a Toro Rosso in Suzuka and I did not find incident Sutil with first try from youtube)
which I found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPc_Z-QQjM
Now look who's the one who failed
Perhaps you can give me a link about Kobayashi's moves against Sutil? I also can't remember every race from the past years so if you want to argue about another move please post a video. I'm not going to search videos of any of your arguments. If you want to argue please back them up so that your argument might be considered as valid.
Without any proof that something actually happened you're just shouting names of races and drivers that no one remembers. Post videos it'll be much easier to discuss about them.
And please don't bring any motorcycles into this since it's a totally different sport with different rules. Next you'll probably bring up some Nascar or maybe Indycar accident.
I mean that Massa would've not hit Webber at all without Hamilton. Watch the replay I posted some time ago and you'll see there was room for him to go. He also has brakes to use if it gets too close and Webber was accelerating.
I don't see how my points about kobayashi contradict my third point could you please please explain that? In the video I looked Kobayashi got side by side which made the move legal. Only if he hadn't gotten side by side would it have been his fault.
1.Massa hit Webber because Hamilton pushed him there.
2. Kobayashi's banzai move in Suzuka was completely different. Their tires hit eachothers. Which means that Kobayashi was side by side when the collision happened. His speed is questionable but he was alongside and therefore had made it to the gap before he was turned on. Which makes it legal. Had he hit toro rosso's side he'd have gotten a penalty.
3. How many times do I need to say that it's the driver's behind responsibility to watch out that his overtake attempt doesn't end in a crash when he's behind. If you make it side by side with opponent it's legal if you don't and cause a crash it's your fault and the attempt shouldn't have been attempted.
4. Drivers need to think about the whole picture. Lewis is dangerous and Vettel cannot risk his points for just one place. That is the way you win championships; do not crash. Button is in the same team as Lewis' and as we all know Lewis is the favourite one in Mclaren. Reason enough to give room for Lewis? The rest at this point are after better position in another team or maybe just after their best race and have no need to give room where they don't have to. They know that they're doing the right thing and that they don't need to give room.
It has been made clear by previous penalty decisions that the responsibility not to crash is the driver's who is behind. If you are not side by side and cannot outbrake him so that once your opponent turns in you are side by side with him you are not allowed to push in for a closing gap. I cant' see why some of you don't understand that. It doesn't even matter whether neither Massa or Maldonado were defending or didn't even see Hamilton because Hamilton was not side by side with them. Not even close. In both occasions Hamilton's front wing was behind their front tires which means that he was way too far to succeed in an overtake unless the driver in front gave him the pass as a gift. Hamilton should've known that he cannot pass that he wasn't in front enough and there wasn't enough room at the time. That was why he was gotten penalty. He caused a collision in both situations a collision that could have been avoidable by just smart thinking. Apparently Hamilton doesn't do smart since he whines like a child about his penalties.
Legislation in real life is formed not only by the law but also the cases and how they are decided. The same applies to any rules any sport has. Law/rules can be seen differently but how the cases are decided by stewards is final and after one penalty from a certain act you should know that the act is forbidden. Hamilton does not. And neither do many here. The stewards have knowledge about rules' intentions and what is agreed behind the curtains. You don't. Stewards also have more cameras and the most importantly a REAL former racing driver who was in his time one of the best and knows how F1 cars are supposed to be driven and raced with safely.
Legislation in real life is formed not only by the law but also the cases and how they are decided. The same applies to any rules any sport has. Law/rules can be seen differently but how the cases are decided by stewards is final and after one penalty from a certain act you should know that the act is forbidden. Hamilton does not. And neither do many here. The stewards have knowledge about rules' intentions and what is agreed behind the curtains. You don't. Stewards also have more cameras and the most importantly a REAL former racing driver who was in his time one of the best and knows how F1 cars are supposed to be driven and raced with safely.
1. If someone wrongs you do you wrong back them as soon as you can and take matters to your own hands? If you believe in the rules you don't take matters to your own hands because you know you're going to only suffer from breaking the rules.
2. I believe I have said enough about both Maldonado and Massa incidents and you can always check in how many posts I reprimand maldonado and in how many talk about Malaysia. No one has even bothered to comment them so I believe I won't gain anything by bringing them up more.
3. Tell me that do you give a man that has committed a crime and has committed many crimes before and clearly doesn't regret them the same penalty as you'd give to a man that committed his first crime. No. That is why Kobayashi got a reprimand. He hadn't done such things before. And as you clearly found out yourself if Kobayashi had done exactly the same and gotten a reprimand it's clearly not allowed to do so. Had Kobayashi done that again he would have gotten the same penalty as Hamilton got.
4. Hamilton deserved the penalties. Try to read and understand Tristan's long post and maybe you'll understand some more about the situations.
Blueflame tell me that how was Hamilton's act JUST breaking the tow. That is forbidden in the rules and also kept Hamilton ahead of Petrov. You make it sound like it's nothing at all. That is pure cheating since without Hamilton's ''breaking the tow'' Petrov would've passed.
I have nothing to add. Thank you for putting that here. Maybe Intrepid will now see his mistakes. I doubt that but seriously hope so.Still I don't need to race against him since I can watch him race from television. My evidence of him being dangerous? here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCsG0DlXkU (what's dangerous is drivers who don't look forward and watch out for cars in front and hit the gas when you're supposed to brake)
He being a clean driver? Here's something to clear that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDfkz0J74Qg
''His style of racing rarely causes accidents... '' well that I'm not going to even bother to reply. He rarely completely destroyes his car but he does cause accidents more often than other drivers.
''understand that racing occasionally includes out-braking manoeuvres into corners'' Out braking means that you get side by side before the opponent turns in by braking late. If you come late and crashing to opponent's side it's not out-brake manoeuvre, it's a crash.
BTW you can't compare how dangerous Hamilton was in minor leagues with him in F1. Have you raced against him in F1? no? so we're at the same line then when talking about his dangerousness in F1.
I have not had a favourite driver since Kimi Räikkönen, so there goes your guess. I only watch F1 for the racing. As much as Hamilton causes excitement he is dangerous and doesn't obey the rules. I do not wish anyone to get penalties for nothing since I couldn't care less who wins the championship. You on the other hand seem quite agressive which I assume is caused by your lack of evidence to support your side of the story.
Lol. Now I see why sticking in this thread is pointless. Because most of people supporting Hamilton are like you.
My posts are about explaining my point of view and telling you why I'm right. You on the other hand can't even say why you think you're right. That proves that you haven't even considered the fact that you might be wrong or that you haven't even analyzed the whole situation without having already decided where you stand. And here you are saying that arguing is pointless crap? You my friend never got to the point and apparently don't even recognize that.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG