tamper your onions a little instead then? :erm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
Printable View
tamper your onions a little instead then? :erm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
I don't get it when people say that Alonso was faster than Massa. Why do those people exclude something significant as overtaking? Massa did it, at the start overtaking Alonso.
And I think the chance is big that he will do it again tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daika
- Massa = fast starter
- Alonso = bad starter and already one jumpstart in 2010
The pair to look tomorrow at 1400CET ;)
They should go watch rallying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daika
I'm just mentioning that you both said "rules are rules" and that "it depends on how it's done". Weird standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
This whole episode didn't look good, but if it was my favourite driver (Lewis) gaining an advantage from all this then I wouldn't be complaining. For that reason I won't be complaining about Fernando gaining an advantage.
If Heikki was said to be impeding Hamilton's progress in 2008 then the same could be argued for last week in that Massa was backing Alonso into Vettel compromising Ferrari's race for a 1-2 finish which even Adam Cooper, who didn't advocate Ferrari's team orders, thinks holds substantial weight even if Ferrari did eventually finish 1-2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
Quote:
http://formula-one.speedtv.com/artic...rand-prix//P2/
One interesting aspect to the affair is that neither Alonso nor Stefano Domenicali majored on the fact that Sebastian Vettel was not far behind – and that Massa in effect should have either gotten a move on or let Fernando past – by way of justification. It’ll be interesting if they try to use that now.
see back in the days of TAD when elect boxes were not regulated the pit would just reduce your rpms and they hence no team orders.
Not at all, dear chap, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Sigh. Let's go through it again, really simply.
Ferrari swapped their drivers who were running first and second. They literally could not do better, and whichever way you slice it 25+18 = 18+25.
The overwhelming majority of viewers were in no doubt that they had heard a clear and unambiguous team order over the radio, an opinion which was lent weight by Smedley's words on the slowing down lap, and then as if further proof was needed along comes Luca di Montezemolo blowing the gaffe wide open by saying "that's how it's always been done".
If Ferrari want to say "it's for the good of the team" then fair enough - I actually have some sympathy with that - but they can't in the same breath say that Massa isn't a #2 driver. Both statements can't be true.
McLaren in 2008 then. Because of a cock-up with the pitstops, Hamilton was being held up by his team mate and denied the chance of chasing down faster cars up front. Heikki let him past, and there was no doubt whatsoever that he was correct to do so as Lewis went on to win, while the Finn only had the pace for 5th. It was obvious to a blind monkey at the back that Hamilton was faster than Heikki.
So, the differences between 2008 and 2010 are as follows. There was no call over the radio to McLaren, there was to Ferrari. McLaren benefited as their driver went on to win, Ferrari already had 1st place and literally could not improve. No other team complained at the time about Heikki's move. Heikki appears to have acted independently, whereas everybody heard Smedley on the radio to Massa. The stewards did not investigate McLaren, presumably because they didn't feel there was a case to answer, and because they didn't feel it was a team order.
Please confirm you understand the above :p
Edit: the notion (above) that Ferrari's 1-2 was under threat from Vettel holds little water, as Vettel only began to close up on Massa once the demotivated Brazillian put in a series of mediocre laps. Until the team order, Ferrari owned that race. And that's what makes it worse.