2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

[MTA99]

you talk about them enough to suggest it does

Now you're just being provocative.

And as i have said many times, i am not particularly a Ferrari fan (I was happy when Alonso won the DC twice, and would love to see him in a competitive car again. And actually, i did also say, changing the rules to try stop Ferrari's domincance, wasn't neccesarily a bad thing.

I just don't like McLaren

I'm just trying to explain that the rule changes (with a couple of exceptions) weren't there specifically because of Ferrari. I don't care if you're not particularly a fan or if you think they were a good idea or not, its the same old BS that the rule changes were there stop Ferrari. Its simply not the case. Its a line that was invented by Tifosi to make themselves feel better after 20 years of achieving nothing

 

[TheStig1]

Now you're just being provocative.

and your dancing donkey comment was?
still talking about them i was right

 

[MTA99]

I hate their smugness considering they are **** and have been for years tbh. I think Hamilton is perfectly suited to that team for the very same reason.
They seem to think they are wonderful (again have done for years, even when Renault and Ferrari where ruling the roost) and that everyone is out to get them, but in actual fact, they are not.

Actual LOL - you could easily be describing Ferrari (with the reference to Ferrari and Hamilton edited out)

 

[El_Watcher]

Why should we give people a free pass to cut corners? The rule is don't do it, if you get an advantage, you get a drive through (which has always been the case iirc) and i hope it continues through the rest of the season for all teams tbh.

But in this case it has not been proven that he actually gained an advantage from cutting the corner, and as someone has already said, several other drivers gained the same "advantage" from going wide at La Source, outside of the race circuit.

And if what somebody else posted is true that Mclaren were told during the race that what they had done was OK, how can you then go back once you are penalised after the race and try to make amends by letting the other driver through?

 

[JUMPURS]

Actual LOL - you could easily be describing Ferrari (with the reference to Ferrari and Hamilton edited out)

In the past 8 years how many titles have Ferrari won and how many have McLaren won?

In the last 12 years McLaren have won as Many drivers championships as Williams and Renault, don't see them being smug? In fact in the past 14 years, Renault (if you include benneton) have won twice as many drivers championships as Mclaren.

Yet renault are not smug? Williams are a good down to Earth team who get on with things.

 

[MTA99]

and your dancing donkey comment was?
still talking about them i was right

Yeah it was provocative - I make no apology for it, I chose my words carefully.

As for you, how am I supposed to engage in sensible debate and discussion about a team without mentioning their name? Perhaps you could contribute something meaningful to the discussion, how about you start by explaining how the rule below impedes the team I can't mention but not the teams I can?

the one tyre per race rule in 2005

 

[TheStig1]

Yeah it was provocative - I make no apology for it, I chose my words carefully.

As for you, how am I supposed to engage in sensible debate and discussion about a team without mentioning their name? Perhaps you could contribute something meaningful to the discussion, how about you start by explaining how the rule below impedes the team I can't mention but not the teams I can?

i said the tyre rule change to negate the bridgestone advantage ferrari had
you asked what tyre rule change
i said the one tyre per race rule in 2005
bridgestone had no endurance tyre experience while michelin had loads as was proven in the 2005 season a rule change that was a direct hit on ferrari which you claim has never happened

you then said the world does not revolve around ferrari yet your posts are all about them which is just funny really but carry on being provocative yet claim your having a sensible discussion lol

 

[MTA99]

In the past 8 years how many titles have Ferrari won and how many have McLaren won?

In the last 12 years McLaren have won as Many drivers championships as Williams and Renault, don't see them being smug? In fact in the past 14 years, Renault (if you include benneton) have won twice as many drivers championships as Mclaren.

Yet renault are not smug? Williams are a good down to Earth team who get on with things.

Yet Ferrari were smug, arrogant and ****-sure when McLaren, Williams and Benetton were winning championships.

 

[JUMPURS]

Yet Ferrari were smug, arrogant and ****-sure when McLaren, Williams and Benetton were winning championships.

I wont get into my opinions of 20 years ago tbh, as i didn't watch F1 back then, and can't comment on if Ferrari where smug or not back then, but i do know they where a laughing stock and i think they knew it. But like McLaren, seems you are living in the past still

 

[MTA99]

i said the tyre rule change to negate the bridgestone advantage ferrari had
you asked what tyre rule change
i said the one tyre per race rule in 2005
bridgestone had no endurance tyre experience while michelin had loads as was proven in the 2005 season a rule change that was a direct hit on ferrari which you claim has never happened

So it had nothing to do with the tyres being harder, therefore having reduced grip and as a consequence reducing lap times (read improving safety)? Could you explain how evidence of the poor performance of Bridgestone in the 2005 season is relevant to the process that brought about a rule change before the season started?

you then said the world does not revolve around ferrari yet your posts are all about them which is just funny really but carry on being provocative yet claim your having a sensible discussion lol

Firstly you're exaggerating (for effect?) to suggest all my posts are about Ferrari. Secondly if you want to carry on having a sensible off-topic discussion then I'll carry on mentioning them. As for being provocative, you're hardly in a position to comment.

 

[TheStig1]

So it had nothing to do with the tyres being harder, therefore having reduced grip and as a consequence reducing lap times (read improving safety)? Could you explain how evidence of the poor performance of Bridgestone in the 2005 season is relevant to the process that brought about a rule change before the season started?



Firstly you're exaggerating (for effect?) to suggest all my posts are about Ferrari. Secondly if you want to carry on having a sensible off-topic discussion then I'll carry on mentioning them. As for being provocative, you're hardly in a position to comment.

cant see the woods for the trees kind of guy?
why did they change back in 2006?
ferrari had a bridgestone monopoly the fia did not like 2004 and the ease at which ferrari won nearly every race
the tyre rule was nothing to do with safety it was to level the playing field and played right into michelins hands as many predicted prior to the season staring and proved to be quite correct.

no doubt you will just deny all this so its pointless really

 

[Dutch Guy]

McLaren: FIA told us we were 'okay'

By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, September 9th 2008, 15:09 GMT

McLaren have revealed that they were told twice by FIA race officials during the Belgian Grand Prix that Lewis Hamilton had given back the race lead to Kimi Raikkonen in an 'okay' manner.

With the team confirming on Tuesday that they were pressing ahead with their appeal against Hamilton's 25-second penalty for gaining an unfair advantage, McLaren's F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh claims that the team enquired twice with Race Control whether or not their driver had acted in a legitimate manner.

Hamilton was given the penalty after cutting across the Bus Stop chicane while attempting to pass Kimi Raikkonen for the lead with three laps to go.

Whitmarsh said: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis's actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

If this is true, it really is a farce, McLaren even considered letting KR thru again but were told it was fine what LH did.

You can't give a penalty after saying it's okay :mad;

Goddammit, it still winds me up

 

[Anders0n]

I love Mclaren.

 

[mmj_uk]

If this is true, it really is a farce, McLaren even considered letting KR thru again but were told it was fine what LH did.

You can't give a penalty after saying it's okay :mad;

Goddammit, it still winds me up

Yep, total farce.

Hopefully McLaren have proof of race control giving them the OK, otherwise the FIA will probably just deny it.

If they weren't sure at the time then they should have said as much so that Lewis could let Kimi through again and put it beyond doubt, to say "yes that's okay" and then later change their minds is just incompetancy from the race stewards, why should McLaren take the punishment for that?

 

[NathanE]

The Kenyan steward spoke out saying that he was just doing his job blah blah. It's on Autosport.

To be honest he sounds like he isn't a bad fellow and I doubt he would turn around and say "I didn't say it was OK" if McLaren wanted a witness.

 

[JUMPURS]

If this is true, it really is a farce, McLaren even considered letting KR thru again but were told it was fine what LH did.

You can't give a penalty after saying it's okay :mad;

Goddammit, it still winds me up

The problem is, Charlie Whiting isn't one of the Stewards, assume that is who they checked both both times, i know they checked with him on one occasion.

I dunno if the team bosses can speak to the stewards during the race can they?

I do think that they should have the same stewards in every race, but i suppose the reason they change them is so nobody can call favoritism in the stewards throughout the season. But look how well that worked out.

Buttttt if McLaren where thinking about letting Kimi through again, they must have thought Lewis' move would be seen as a bit suspicious?

 

[dannyjo22]

Buttttt if McLaren where thinking about letting Kimi through again, they must have thought Lewis' move would be seen as a bit suspicious?

With the rough ride they have had for a while you can't blame them for wanting to double check.

I hate Mclaren and have no liking of Hamilturd but it's one of the worst mistakes i've seen in F1 for over 10 years. Just as 'gay' as when they bought in the stupid blocking rule in quallies if someone was within 100 yards.

They have set a horrible precedent.

 

[JUMPURS]

Who do you support Danny??

 

[MTA99]

cant see the woods for the trees kind of guy?
why did they change back in 2006?
ferrari had a bridgestone monopoly the fia did not like 2004 and the ease at which ferrari won nearly every race
the tyre rule was nothing to do with safety it was to level the playing field and played right into michelins hands as many predicted prior to the season staring and proved to be quite correct.

no doubt you will just deny all this so its pointless really

Your argument doesn't add up. If the tyre regs were there to stop the Ferrari dominance (and it did just that in 2005) why change it for 2006? If however the safety implications of not being able to change a damaged or badly worn tyre outweighed the safety of a reduced grip tyre then its sensible to change the regs back.

 

[TheStig1]

Your argument doesn't add up. If the tyre regs were there to stop the Ferrari dominance (and it did just that in 2005) why change it for 2006? If however the safety implications of not being able to change a damaged or badly worn tyre outweighed the safety of a reduced grip tyre then its sensible to change the regs back.

like your argument they were changed for safety but changed back again 1 year later? you were allowed to change a worn or damaged tyre
the change was to stop ferrari and it worked