News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

jacfan wrote:Good question but right at this moment I can't actually remember.

I'm quite sure it had something to do with being underweight with Jensons car......If I am wrong then someone please correct me.....

If I am correct, then Kubica(and BMW) may have gotten off lightly.....assuming no further penalties evolve....

<T-K> wrote:

jacfan wrote:Good question but right at this moment I can't actually remember.

I'm quite sure it had something to do with being underweight with Jensons car......If I am wrong then someone please correct me.....

If I am correct, then Kubica(and BMW) may have gotten off lightly.....assuming no further penalties evolve....

No willfull manipulation, BMW claim that excessive tire wear (0.5kg/wheel) was to blame.
Honda had a system allowing them to deliberatly rum the car underweight.

GhoGho wrote:

<T-K> wrote:

jacfan wrote:Good question but right at this moment I can't actually remember.

I'm quite sure it had something to do with being underweight with Jensons car......If I am wrong then someone please correct me.....

If I am correct, then Kubica(and BMW) may have gotten off lightly.....assuming no further penalties evolve....

No willfull manipulation, BMW claim that excessive tire wear (0.5kg/wheel) was to blame.
Honda had a system allowing them to deliberatly rum the car underweight.

Rum!!!


Understood........I now see the difference....although tire wear could be quite a good scapegoat in a sticky situation....

<T-K> wrote:

GhoGho wrote:

<T-K> wrote:
I'm quite sure it had something to do with being underweight with Jensons car......If I am wrong then someone please correct me.....

If I am correct, then Kubica(and BMW) may have gotten off lightly.....assuming no further penalties evolve....

No willfull manipulation, BMW claim that excessive tire wear (0.5kg/wheel) was to blame.
Honda had a system allowing them to deliberatly rum the car underweight.

Rum!!!


Understood........I now see the difference....although tire wear could be quite a good scapegoat in a sticky situation....

Rum all round Cheers

<T-K> wrote:Just a quick question......what was the exact reason that Honda were DSQ from two races last year?

Illegal fuel tanks, as in scavanger pumps that were not scavanger pumps...........I think

Julian Mayo wrote:

<T-K> wrote:Just a quick question......what was the exact reason that Honda were DSQ from two races last year?

Illegal fuel tanks, as in scavanger pumps that were not scavanger pumps...........I think

I thought it was just plain and simply being underweight.....

Kubica's lack of race experience and the youth of the team in general meant he forgot the golden rule of F1 stay on line until the chequed flag then don't touch it again until your in the pits with your tyres caked in marbles and looking not very attractive!

Snowy wrote:Kubica's lack of race experience and the youth of the team in general meant he forgot the golden rule of F1 stay on line until the chequed flag then don't touch it again until your in the pits with your tyres caked in marbles and looking not very attractive!

That works for more than just F1.......

F1greyhound wrote: I would have to correct you though, JENSON was a deserved winner even if FERNANDO drove a great race and might have finished a close 2nd.

You CANNOT correct a speculation

F1greyhound wrote:Re.MICHAEL, your memory might be a bit short-lived as he had gone into this race with 3 straight GP wins, so getting lapped might not have had to do much with driving ability....PS.lapped by FERNANDO who had NOT been to pits yet(a difference of a mere 20s..). The problems of the BRIDGESTONEs were pretty obvious, all the more impressive were MICHAELs initial laps. In the later part of the race the japanese rubber were competitive but for once FERRARI/MICHAEL decided wrongly not to go for dry tyres at the 2nd pit stop.

I see, your driver wins because of his skill but when he gets lapped it is because of his tyres.

F1greyhound, get this, your driver is no longer any good in the wet, those performances of the past have gone. The performance of Alonso in Hungary in the wet is one of the most impressive I have seen. He passed so many cars and made it look so easy. No other driver was anywhere close.

And please please please get a caluclator out and do some A wet lap was around 1 minute and 30 seconds, say a pit stop would take 30 seconds (and that is a long stop) then the difference would be a mere 1 minute If you can call that mere

F1greyhound wrote:Re.the stewards (non-)decision I think that was bearable as it was A) WET and B) NOWHERE TO GO!

Oh, if it is WET then drivers can do anything ?
NOWHERE TO GO That chicane in Monaco is also crossed because NOWHERE TO GO but the drivers do give the position
[/quote]

Julian Mayo wrote:Um, JV at the risk of having my ears ripped off, a heavy car is an advantage in the wet

Oh thanks for telling me that, now tell me how many other drivers were also heavily fuelled ? What happened to them ? 1 so called rainmeister comes to mind

and and one for JayVee as well....

Kapel wrote:Howcome no1 commented on Alonso's dangerous driving, blocking & brake testing poor Doornbos

Showing the strength of being a world champion,R u Mr.Alonso?








3 weeks to go..getting bored..need spice

Huh ? Poor Doornbos, well that poor Doornbos should look in his mirrors more often!
Anyway, he got a penalty and copped it. He didn't complain and got on with the job and in the end could have won the race.

Had he done that and gotten away with it then you can about being champion.

Now it is your turn:
Howcome no1 commented on Michael's dangerous driving passing cars under the RED FLAG

And yes he did get penalised but he is such a loser that he can't take full blame he goes and blames Alonso for slowing down Hullo the session was STOPPED, of course you would slow down.

Anyone notice Raikkonen crashing into Liuzzi ? How similar is that to that other driver crashing into Coulthard years ago ?

Anyone noticed the different reactions from Kimi and that other driver ?

For those who don't remember, that other driver accused Coulthard of trying to kill him, yes kill him

Raikkonen was as always cool and described it as a racing incident.

GhoGho wrote:

<T-K> wrote:

GhoGho wrote:
No willfull manipulation, BMW claim that excessive tire wear (0.5kg/wheel) was to blame.
Honda had a system allowing them to deliberatly rum the car underweight.

Rum!!!


Understood........I now see the difference....although tire wear could be quite a good scapegoat in a sticky situation....

Rum all round Cheers

Did somebody say RUM!!!!


YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bundy wrote:

GhoGho wrote:

<T-K> wrote:

Rum!!!


Understood........I now see the difference....although tire wear could be quite a good scapegoat in a sticky situation....

Rum all round Cheers

Did somebody say RUM!!!!


YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tsk Tsk