Quote from Senninha25 :

This. I can count at least Panis and Massa who had more competitive futures ahead of them before they had an accident that badly affected their performance and their careers.
It's like the new meaning of "death" in Formula 1 (at least for me, and before I put on the flame coat, this is just a metaphor!!)

You could add Brundle to that list. Smashed his ankles to pieces in his first year, which up to that point had been pretty stellar considering the car he was driving.

If you want to conspire a result secretly, so even the drivers are unaware, then you would fake a problem at the last stop. They had a good 15 second gap they could have dropped him into. Webber has a 10-12 second lead. Job done.

Lauda was up and around quite quickly and back in the car within 6 weeks. Robert will, depending on how bad the nerve damage was, have to relearn how to use his hand. It's not a relevant comparison. Neither is Massa though - that was a head injury.

Quite apart from that, he has not done any training apart from physiotherapthy for nearly a year and much of that time has been spent in hospital. It will take months to get back into good enough shape to do serious F1 driving, by which time he could be nearly 2 years out of the car. I think he only did one test on Pirelli and the tyres have evolved a great deal since then.

He has a long way to go. I very much doubt he would walk into a Red Bull, McLaren or Ferrari straight away.

Don't encourage him.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Vettel only became slower than Webber until he was overtake, after such event he was able to stay ahead of 3rd position easily. ( this is a fact )

So, if he was only slower than Webber until he was overtaken, how did he finish 16.9 seconds behind? Wormhole perhaps?

You're quite clearly tying yourself up in knots with this conspiracy theory. I'm sure you'll keep going though.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Nowhere did I say that this theory was correct and dismiss anyone elses opinion.

Nobody can prove or dis-prove this theory.


I commented on an opinion, and nowhere did I say I was correct or that my comment was above anyone elses, so what makes you post a comment like that?

Um....

Quote from BlueFlame :

There was nothing wrong with the gearbox ... the fact is the car was fine

Sky do a tremendous job of their sports coverage. There's nothing wrong with the BBC coverage right now, but if they don't want to do it then Sky is the only other broadcaster who can do it properly.

I see Brundle has moved for more money. Who wouldn't? Makes the BBC/Sky choice when they are both live pretty simple.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well in regards to any information, you can't say it's real or not unless you've seen it with your own eyes.

So you saw the gearbox after the race. What was the oil level in it?

Probably cheaper to just download and arcade emulator and find a version Super Sprint.

Fuel loads? Tyre choice? Test programme? Time of day the laps were set?

Can't draw any meaningful conclusions from those times.

Racing incident. Both could have done more to avoid it. At first glance I thought it was clearly Massa'a fault, but the in car convinced me it was more 50-50.

Dull race. I got up early and watched the Senna movie on Blu ray (recent birthday present) to get all fired up and then not much happened.

One problem we have these days is that the cars are a bit easy to drive. If they had way more power than grip then it would be more difficult to knock out the metronomic lap times that you get these days. There's too much that is easy flat for the front runners so a 4 second gap becomes unassailable.

Prost wasn't punished for turning in on Senna in 1990. He knew exactly where Senna was because he turned for an apex 20 yards before the corner!

It's just so inconsistent!

Quote from gezmoor :

Anyone else think that irrespective of how off line a driver gets, (barring actually hitting the barriers), then nothing on the track should cause part of the car to fail even at full commitment?

Probably also worth pointing out that the kerbs are not on the track. The limits of the track are defined by the two white lines and the kerbs are beyond those.

Quote from gezmoor :

Anyone else think that irrespective of how off line a driver gets, (barring actually hitting the barriers), then nothing on the track should cause part of the car to fail even at full commitment?

I'm assuming of course that there wasn't an actual manufacturing fault etc with Massas suspension. Given that assumption I don't see that it would be that hard to know the kind of stuctural strength the cars all have and design at track that won't break bits if it if they get hit full speed. Just build in large safety margins in to the height/severity of kerbing to ensure they can't produce enough force in the cars structure to break anything.

I accept that kerbing is there to "discourage" drivers from cutting the corners etc, but it shouldn't be to the point that it might actually terminally damage the car IMO. At least not so that it causes catastrophic failure leading to loss of control.

BTW I'm talking generalities here, not specifically about the actual bit of kerb that Massa hit. But as I say, assuming it's not down to some fault in his car, the kerb should never have been able to break his suspension IMO.

There was plenty of track to the left he could have used. They have to have something there, or the drivers will take more liberties. Hitting walls, tyre barriers and even gravel traps also cause a fair bit of damage, but they all have their place.

He's admitted he was at fault and accepted the penalty. He'll start 4th to 6th on the grid. It's really not a massive deal.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Then what are they waving for? The footage clearly shows the whole gap of track between that marshall post and the green-lit board and there's no stranded car there, or even shit on the track.

It doesn't matter why they are waving. Yellow doesn't mean "take your own view of the situation and if you feel it is safe then crank open DRS anyway". Drivers cannot use their own judgment in these situations.

Between the marshal post and the green light is a yellow zone, regardless of lights on the dashboard, radio comms and so on.

If F1 2011 is anything to go by then Tristan is dead right - there's nothing even remotely similar.

It's all to do with gradient and camber. If you laid out Eau Rouge completely flat then it would look the same as it does now on a map but would be totally different to drive.

Yeah, but there a deal more gradient and camber in a much shorter space so it will be completely different to drive.

Me too.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Lets not debate which rider ended Marco's life. It happened, the more concerning thing is the way Marco came across the track like he did, maybe some kind of equipment failure??

He lost the front and tried to hold it on his knee and elbow. Usually what would happen is bike and rider would slide off straight (to the left hand side of the track), which would have been out of the way in this instance. Unfortunately, it seems the front found a bit of grip and it carried on in an arc to the right.

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

What does the FIA have to do with this anyway? As far as I know they're not sanctioning IndyCar or any other major American racing championship.

Perhaps they should be involved. No need for them to sanction or draw up rules, but why not share data and expertise on safety?

Dreadful. Really shocking news. Heartbreaking to watch his father's statement.

I don't think DRS is particularly relevant. It does not really increase the ultimate top speed in most cases as they end up bouncing off the limiter - just the same as a good slipstream.

Even if they go 20mph quicker, these guys are supposed to be the best in the world. It's not the biggest crime the world has ever seen, but deserved a small penalty.

Quote from samjh :

The T2-3 straight is the prime overtaking location on this track, and doesn't need the DRS.

The detection zone should be between T16-17, and activation on the exit of T18 onto the pit straight. That way, a driver can close the gap to T1, and then hope to overtake naturally after T2. It also provides an opportunity to pass on the pit straight with an epic fight to retake position along T2-3.

Wasted opportunity, IMHO.

T4's a good spot to overtake too, so i guess the feeling is if they can get drivers worried and defending at T3 then there's another straight and tight T4 for them to hoon it out.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Although this comment from Hamilton riled me, I sat back and then understood he's talking as-if to say 'cheeky monkeys' which would insinuate he's talking about mid and rear pack opportunistic driving, which we can all relate to. He wasn't refering to the back pack drivers and teams as idiots or untalented. But because of how he entered F1 people took it out of context. Myself included, but then I thought, why would he say it maliciously? Maybe others should think like this too.

Not maliciously, dismissively.