eytl wrote:DonTirri wrote:You know, what the heck. Once more to celebrate a great win.
OK that's enough. The haters are only going to hate more at this rate. Incredible luck notwithstanding, this ain't encouraging people to appreciate Vettel's achievements.
eytl wrote:
OK that's enough. The haters are only going to hate more at this rate. Incredible luck notwithstanding, this ain't encouraging people to appreciate Vettel's achievements.
DonTirri wrote:eytl wrote:
OK that's enough. The haters are only going to hate more at this rate. Incredible luck notwithstanding, this ain't encouraging people to appreciate Vettel's achievements.
Yeah. I'll stop using that.
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese
Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
Marco wrote:I know I will make myself unpopular here, but when I look at the incident from Hamiltons on-board cam, I think that he had a big enough overlap way before Maldonado turned in, so he had the right to be there, and Pastor turned into the corner as if the McLaren wasn't there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYiNKYaviZI
Marco wrote:I know I will make myself unpopular here, but when I look at the incident from Hamiltons on-board cam, I think that he had a big enough overlap way before Maldonado turned in, so he had the right to be there, and Pastor turned into the corner as if the McLaren wasn't there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYiNKYaviZI
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing, I wouldn't be in Formula 1
Marco wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYiNKYaviZI
LionZoo wrote:"Alonso admitting later that he was prepared to try a do-or-die effort when the time came"
I must rue what might have been. I'm pretty sure Alonso was serious too, as letting Vettel just get away farther means he has no championship hope anyway. Alonso might have figured Vettel had a lot more to lose than him and so would have tried to avoid taking them both out.
Of course if Alonso had taken out Vettel, the podium would've been composed of Button, Webber, and Kobayashi.
Marco wrote:I know I will make myself unpopular here, but when I look at the incident from Hamiltons on-board cam, I think that he had a big enough overlap way before Maldonado turned in, so he had the right to be there, and Pastor turned into the corner as if the McLaren wasn't there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYiNKYaviZI
Klon wrote:LionZoo wrote:"Alonso admitting later that he was prepared to try a do-or-die effort when the time came"
I must rue what might have been. I'm pretty sure Alonso was serious too, as letting Vettel just get away farther means he has no championship hope anyway. Alonso might have figured Vettel had a lot more to lose than him and so would have tried to avoid taking them both out.
Of course if Alonso had taken out Vettel, the podium would've been composed of Button, Webber, and Kobayashi.
I don't believe him for a second. Alonso has just too often played the victim card, robbed by everyone around him. This statement is purely so he looks good to the Tifosi, the poor, yet brave Ferrari driver against the evil German and the FIA. Although I admire his smoothness in this regard in a way.
"With 10 laps to go, it was looking like either myself, Sebastian or Fernando [Alonso] could win the race: Sebastian's tyres were going off and Fernando was pushing him really hard. I could tell that Fernando was getting ready to have a go into Turn One – it was fun to watch because they were either going to crash or there was going to be an opportunity for me to try and get through as they battled each other. Any of us could have won at that point."
ADx_Wales wrote:We're now looking for a bigger word than Luck.
nome66 wrote:gee i wonder who would win the austrian gran prix if we had one.
ADx_Wales wrote:We're now looking for a bigger word than Luck.
CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm in a bit of a mood with Hamilton's stupid comments, but not with his driving. I've linked to this picture elsewhere in the forum:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8572/h ... 2011t1.jpg
Your opinion, gentlemen?
CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm in a bit of a mood with Hamilton's stupid comments, but not with his driving. I've linked to this picture elsewhere in the forum:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8572/h ... 2011t1.jpg
Your opinion, gentlemen?
) would have been really really happy had he done that against Vettel. 
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
James1978 wrote:As for his mouthing off after the race, well another thing I don't understand is that the likes of Irvine, Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve seem to be lauded for saying what they thought and not being too"corporate". Hamilton said what he thought in the heat of the moment and yet he's castigated for it? (I was even quite amused with the "because I'm black" comment)
F1 would be so much duller without him and you all know it.
Ed24 wrote:Well that picture doesn't show Hamilton basically out of control on the way into the Schumacher move. His brakes were locked, and he used Schumacher to bounce around the corner.
He was lucky to get away with the Schumacher move without more contact, to be honest, particuarly considering it was Schumacher.
CarlosFerreira wrote:Ed24 wrote:Well that picture doesn't show Hamilton basically out of control on the way into the Schumacher move. His brakes were locked, and he used Schumacher to bounce around the corner.
He was lucky to get away with the Schumacher move without more contact, to be honest, particuarly considering it was Schumacher.
Did he? I was under the impression there was no contact in that incident, but I won't contest it. More to the point: why have a DRS in Monaco at all, if you can't possibly pass into Ste. Devote? And is it possible at all to distinguish the two things - Hamilton and di Resta trying, failing and being unfairly penalised; and Hamilton being a beep beep and a beep in the post-race interview?
CarlosFerreira wrote:Did he? I was under the impression there was no contact in that incident, but I won't contest it. More to the point: why have a DRS in Monaco at all, if you can't possibly pass into Ste. Devote? And is it possible at all to distinguish the two things - Hamilton and di Resta trying, failing and being unfairly penalised; and Hamilton being a beep beep and a beep in the post-race interview?
Ed24 wrote:CarlosFerreira wrote:Did he? I was under the impression there was no contact in that incident, but I won't contest it. More to the point: why have a DRS in Monaco at all, if you can't possibly pass into Ste. Devote? And is it possible at all to distinguish the two things - Hamilton and di Resta trying, failing and being unfairly penalised; and Hamilton being a beep beep and a beep in the post-race interview?
Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0R4XqZEUrQ
There was another angle that showed it better, but that has been taken down now.
mario wrote:Unfortunately, the video you have linked to has also been removed thanks to FOM - they do move pretty fast, don't they?
mario wrote:Anyway, Adam Cooper has published an article suggesting that the FIA are looking to modify the barrier that Perez struck by removing the temporary crane and camera post. The camera post would be moved into the trees behind the barrier, whilst mobile recovery vehicles would replace the crane - that way, the end of the barrier could be moved back by around 20m, increasing the run off area in that region of the track. http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/05/31/mona ... -for-2012/
AndreaModa wrote:mario wrote:Anyway, Adam Cooper has published an article suggesting that the FIA are looking to modify the barrier that Perez struck by removing the temporary crane and camera post. The camera post would be moved into the trees behind the barrier, whilst mobile recovery vehicles would replace the crane - that way, the end of the barrier could be moved back by around 20m, increasing the run off area in that region of the track. http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/05/31/mona ... -for-2012/
There was also an article in the latest edition of Autosport about perhaps creating a continuous barrier across the run-off area to the current location of the tech-pro barrier in a sort of 's' shape. This would remove all of the current run off (with the exception of the square of tarmac currently created by the configuration of the chicane) and instead allow cars to hit the barrier, but run alongside it, the barrier deflecting the car, reducing it's energy and sending it into the area where Rosberg eventually ended up after his crash, on the straight down to Tabac. Apparently also any idea of reverting back to the previous fast version of the chicane was completely rejected.
It would seem a sensible idea to have a continuous barrier instead of the run-off and thus protruding section of barrier which Perez hit, but then, the run-off is very useful for safely catching errant cars. It's a difficult one to sort out.
AndreaModa wrote:mario wrote:Anyway, Adam Cooper has published an article suggesting that the FIA are looking to modify the barrier that Perez struck by removing the temporary crane and camera post. The camera post would be moved into the trees behind the barrier, whilst mobile recovery vehicles would replace the crane - that way, the end of the barrier could be moved back by around 20m, increasing the run off area in that region of the track. http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/05/31/mona ... -for-2012/
There was also an article in the latest edition of Autosport about perhaps creating a continuous barrier across the run-off area to the current location of the tech-pro barrier in a sort of 's' shape. This would remove all of the current run off (with the exception of the square of tarmac currently created by the configuration of the chicane) and instead allow cars to hit the barrier, but run alongside it, the barrier deflecting the car, reducing it's energy and sending it into the area where Rosberg eventually ended up after his crash, on the straight down to Tabac. Apparently also any idea of reverting back to the previous fast version of the chicane was completely rejected.
It would seem a sensible idea to have a continuous barrier instead of the run-off and thus protruding section of barrier which Perez hit, but then, the run-off is very useful for safely catching errant cars. It's a difficult one to sort out.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.
GroupLotusRenault wrote:The mclaren does look after its tyres better
Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:GroupLotusRenault wrote:The mclaren does look after its tyres better
In my opinion, this has more to do with Button's driving style. Hamilton had a way too topsy-turvy race to conclude that the Macca is better at saving tyres.
kostas22 wrote:AndreaModa wrote:mario wrote:Anyway, Adam Cooper has published an article suggesting that the FIA are looking to modify the barrier that Perez struck by removing the temporary crane and camera post. The camera post would be moved into the trees behind the barrier, whilst mobile recovery vehicles would replace the crane - that way, the end of the barrier could be moved back by around 20m, increasing the run off area in that region of the track. http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/05/31/mona ... -for-2012/
There was also an article in the latest edition of Autosport about perhaps creating a continuous barrier across the run-off area to the current location of the tech-pro barrier in a sort of 's' shape. This would remove all of the current run off (with the exception of the square of tarmac currently created by the configuration of the chicane) and instead allow cars to hit the barrier, but run alongside it, the barrier deflecting the car, reducing it's energy and sending it into the area where Rosberg eventually ended up after his crash, on the straight down to Tabac. Apparently also any idea of reverting back to the previous fast version of the chicane was completely rejected.
It would seem a sensible idea to have a continuous barrier instead of the run-off and thus protruding section of barrier which Perez hit, but then, the run-off is very useful for safely catching errant cars. It's a difficult one to sort out.
The only issue with this idea is it could cause one person's accident to become someone else's. Being sideswiped on the exit of the chicane by a wrecked car at 140mph can't be good, especially if there is a loose wheel or something that could strike the other car. At least with the empty avenue to the right there is a reduced chance of collateral damage.
Aerond wrote:Would it be an option to remove the middle of the avenue, therefore creating a big tarmac area, big enough to play with a wider chicane and approach to it (for better overtaking opportunities), retarding the braking area (therefore eliminating the dangerous bump just before the braking area), and not having to depend on a limited run off, or even giving the chance to completely remove the chicane?
Phoenix wrote:Aerond wrote:Would it be an option to remove the middle of the avenue, therefore creating a big tarmac area, big enough to play with a wider chicane and approach to it (for better overtaking opportunities), retarding the braking area (therefore eliminating the dangerous bump just before the braking area), and not having to depend on a limited run off, or even giving the chance to completely remove the chicane?
What do you mean, removing the trees? Too complicated, and I doubt the city council would be willing to do it. But removing the chicane sounds rather interesting, it'd make the entrance to the swimming pool area more challenging.
DanielPT wrote:Phoenix wrote:Aerond wrote:Would it be an option to remove the middle of the avenue, therefore creating a big tarmac area, big enough to play with a wider chicane and approach to it (for better overtaking opportunities), retarding the braking area (therefore eliminating the dangerous bump just before the braking area), and not having to depend on a limited run off, or even giving the chance to completely remove the chicane?
What do you mean, removing the trees? Too complicated, and I doubt the city council would be willing to do it. But removing the chicane sounds rather interesting, it'd make the entrance to the swimming pool area more challenging.
And probably more dangerous because the chicane purpose was to avoid the 160mph left-right flick that existed before going into Tabac. It was a change suggested by the drivers for the 1986 grand prix.
