I was completely against a whole series of them, but I think it will be interesting to see 1 of them up against more traditional cars. Who knows, maybe we won't laugh at it as much as I think we will
On another note, are those headlights on the rear wheels
the reason they would likely be considering west coast would be logistics reasons... it's that much closer to Australia. But yeah, if they were anywhere in the region, I'd try to get there too.
I wish Murray Walker had been commentating that game, he would have done an infinitely better job. This was just... painful, even if the game went well.
I don't think it quite happened like TOC leaving the team right then... from what I have been able to piece together I think it's something like this:
TOC wasn't under contract at AMD. He was there to help development work on the car, and because he's a great driver, and they were there to keep him on the grid. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. AON now have gotten their third car ready, and needed a good third driver. TOC is by all accounts a great development driver and gives lots of useful feedback. AON has a new chassis and engine, and is struggling somewhat to get consistent results. I don't think the fallout that everyone says happened actually happened, TOC has stated that he has remained talking to Chilton a lot.
So anyways, third car now ready, they meet with TOC sometime during the race weekend and offer to pay him to rejoin the team. A more competitive car, with a higher standard team, and getting paid, It's pretty much impossible to turn that down. TOC accepts, or is planning to accept, and informs Hollamby that it will be his last race... Hollamby elects to not send him out in the car because of potential damage to the car. Hopefully TOC will not get team-ordered.
Now AMD need a new driver... Hollamby is capable of stepping in, which he has indicated he might, but he has also said that the team has already been approached by many drivers about the ride. So I'm reasonably confident that they will be alright in the long run.
And quite rightly, no way was he up the inside on that move. That is not the same as the whole Hamilton Maldonado thing at all, he only had the very front of his nose slightly inside and basically punted Mucke from behind.
ok... I see the distinction you are making here... and I disagree that that's how it should be viewed. In my view, it should be the driver on the inside with the right to the apex, not the defending driver. Both ways end with the fault on Fisichella, but different in Hamilton's case (Maldonado, I still think the Massa move was never on)
But F1 cars have no B-pillar to judge from like in (for example) V8 Supercars, so it does make it tough to judge exactly when the car is seen as alongside, and when he should back out. This is partly why I'm not such an open-wheeler fan... the rules on passing are too vague and they often end up in penalties that contradict eachother.
I generally look at it and ask if the front wheel is next to the front of the sidepod... if it is I tend to see it as being rightfully alongside, if it is clearly not, then he was behind and it's his fault. Unfortunately there are shades of grey, but I do think in Maldonado's case that Hamilton was far enough along side him that Maldonado should have seen.