rmpfyf

Members
  • Content count

    959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rmpfyf

  • Rank
    500+ Post Club

Uncategorized

  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,943 profile views
  1. F1 2017

    @Satanica Insofar as what's been ruled, what stewards have said and what the drivers involved have said, deliberate or not doesn't matter. Insofar as our thoughts, it's weighted speculation, nothing more. If you were asking (hypothetically) whether or not I thought it was deliberate, I'd say there's a good chance yes. If you were asking (hypothetically again) whether or not I thought there was a chance it wasn't deliberate, I'd say there's a chance he meant to swerve towards him to gesticulate his displeasure at how he was being slowed down, and didn't deliberately intent to hit him - not least as doing so risked damaging his own car. The consequences of deliberate contact are so severe that it warrants an investigation wherein SV'd have a chance to defend himself or plead guilty. Didn't happen. To your points: No they didn't - they've clearly cited a breach of 27.4 only. Re-read it. Representatives from the FIA does not partake in post-race interviews, they simply provide a transcript of podium and post-race interviews for podium finishers. The entire FIA communications set for the 2017 Azerbaijan GP can be found here http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-30 - you'll note, in any of these documents, no mention of 'deliberate' with regard to the contact made. On the same website you can find the official notes for the subsequent Austrian GP, and you'll see nothing in the event notes (which sometimes include learnings from the previous event) concerning the incident. He's 'taken responsibility for it' though he's not admitted deliberate contact at all. Let's see what he's actually said: “During the restart lap I got surprised by Lewis and ran into the back of his car... With hindsight I don’t believe he had any bad intentions. In the heat of the action I then overreacted and therefore I want to apologise to Lewis directly, as well as to all the people who were watching the race. I realise that I was not setting a good example. I had no intention at any time to put Lewis in danger but I understand that I caused a dangerous situation. Therefore I would like to apologise to the FIA. I accept and respect the decisions that were taken at today’s meeting in Paris, as well as the penalty imposed by the Stewards in Baku. I love this sport and I am determined to represent it in a way that can be an example for future generations.” So he's played 27.4 well, admitting it's a dangerous situation. He's not admitted that the contact was deliberate... quite the opposite actually (see the bold/underlined bits). Why? Because then they'd have to investigate, and there'd be a race ban. If you can't understand that SV's press release is intentionally, carefully worded to limit the need for any investigation that could prove his actions were deliberate, then we're kinda done here.
  2. F1 2017

    Ok then mate... let me put this delicately... having had a bit to do with motorsport over time (FIA included), yes, I get the intent of the rules and the wording of the ruling quite well. 'Deliberate' doesn't matter. The 'damage' argument is a bit of a falsehood - if it looked fine at 50km/h behind a safety car but a hairline fracture in a wishbone let go 5 laps later at 300km/h, they've not have upgraded it from a 10 second stop/go to a black flag - and yet someone could have died if so. Stewards can't absolutely quantify damage from their viewpoint when vehicles are doing their thing, which is why they're trained to identify danger and take steps to contain it during a live session. I'm not being a p***k when I'm suggesting volunteering at your next local big event (it's fun and volunteers quite literally make racing happen) - you'll get it drilled into you time and again, safety is first, you can work out the details later but during the live event maintaining safety and containing danger is absolutely #1. There is no time, need or adequate resources to evaluate 'deliberate'. That happens after. No one cares during a race event whether it's deliberate or not, more about getting everyone home safe, and it's the same International Sporting Code whether you're an F1 steward or running the local kid's karting practice session. This is why the rules are very intentionally structured to not need to judge at all whether any dangerous driving is deliberate or otherwise. You bet - if he was daydreaming and it led to the same move, same penalty. See danger? Contain it. What the FIA did next was totally reprehensible. I don't disagree with you at all that it's highly likely the move was deliberate. SV didn't do much to deny it either. It should have been procedural - open an investigation, run it. Highly likely he'd be banned for a few races. However: New commercial rights holders This would pretty much end the title fight, the first one in three years that looks like being competitive with motorsport's biggest brand in red involved The FIA President is Ferrari's former motorsport head Lots of money riding on the outcome Etc So you're talking about this http://www.fia.com/news/fia-official-statement-following-2017-azerbaijan-grand-prix, right? So rather then have an investigation, they got together and had a meeting, wherein it's likely SV was told by Ferrari's current and former team bosses to cool his jets, that he was absolutely wrong, that his deliberate behaviour is intolerable and that above all... he'd put everyone in a rather tight spot. You read the full FIA statement - note the attendees? An FIA investigation isn't a London roadshow, LH would have been required to attend to present evidence - instead this time around he was 'invited to give an opinion' and opted out. The so-called 'penalties' he got at a meeting are not actually penalties under the ISC. It's a BS wrist-slap wherein the spirit of the rules have been pushed asides to feed some commercial interests. We end, of course, with lip service: "FIA remained deeply concerned by the wider implications of the incident, firstly through the impact such behaviour may have on fans and young competitors worldwide and secondly due to the damage such behaviour may cause to the FIA’s image and reputation of the sport... Nevertheless, in noting the severity of the offence and its potential negative consequences, FIA President Todt made it clear that should there be any repetition of such behaviour, the matter would immediately be referred to the FIA International Tribunal for further investigation." Sound familiar? It's not the first time the FIA's had the opportunity to take the same guy in the same car to task, and ended up bending to the same commercial interests... remember this one? http://www.fia.com/news/fia-statement-regarding-actions-sebastian-vettel-mexican-f1-grand-prix: "The FIA... expects all participants in its Championships to be respectful and mindful of the example they set for the public and the younger generation in particular. The FIA takes this opportunity to advise that, in the event of any future incident similar to the one that occurred in Mexico, disciplinary action will be taken by bringing such incident before the FIA International Tribunal to be judged." In short - nothing was investigated, it's not the first time.
  3. F1 2017

    Please dude. So pot kettle black. Just try reading the rules, and then reading the report that references the rules. It isn't hard. The rule breached is clearly cited, and it's not the first time I've copied the actual rule for you. The rule has nothing to do with 'deliberate', which you're fixated with. You're welcome to think/imagine whatever you want - back here on Earth, the stewards penalised a breach of 27.4, which concerns driving in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous. He could have steered into someone with zero deliberate intent and have won himself the same 10 second stop/go. Understand? Do some volunteering at your next local CAMS race event - they play under the same FIA international sporting code - you'll understand pretty quickly why 'deliberate' has nothing to do with why SV was penalised in-race. I don't actually say much mate. I just reference the FIA rules and rulings, they're pretty clear. Penalties for deliberate driving are (again) determined post-race, and are far more serious than a 10 sec stop/go. SV deserved far, far worse than what he got. I agree that his actions were probably deliberate - and that's not what was penalised. Should have been - wasn't.
  4. F1 2017

    Lovely use of the underline, and I'm chuffed that you're quoting something posted for your review a week ago. Now keep reading (don't wait another week) and head on over to article 27.4 - "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person." That's the breach - nothing about deliberate. So try "The stewards examined video evidence which showed that car 5 drove alongside and then steered into car 44. The stewards decide this movement was deemed potentially dangerous." Note how these underlined bits are relevant? Yup +1
  5. F1 2017

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude let it go. For the millionth time. The FIA doesn't care if it's deliberate. Seb wasn't investigated as per the FIA's code to this end. He received no conduct penalties as per the FIA's code to this end. Go up a few posts, read the incident report (no mention of 'deliberate'), read the FIA rules. No need to label people morons or otherwise, just read. You're living in a parallel universe. Insistently.
  6. Attaribox

    River Raid! Had that an Kung-Fu master too. Good gameplay never dies.
  7. Nothing new. Been around a while - and very essential.
  8. Apple TV or similar?

    If she's about to update her internet to NBN - or is eligible - both Telstra and Optus bundle a device that does just that quite reliably. Otherwise an Apple TV is going to be super easy for your mother to use, assuming the remote control is comfortable for her.
  9. Attaribox

    You mean Pong? That was classic. Loved my old VCS. I think I played Pitfall for years before someone pointed out there was no end to the game...
  10. F1 2017

    No mate, you're doing burnouts in a carpark of irrelevance. Read the rules and the report - nothing about 'deliberate' mentioned, or sing LALALALALALALA and make up your own rules.
  11. F1 2017

    Ask Marcus Ericsson and he's doing the same thing
  12. Roger Federer on the way out ?

    What's a joke is some men thinking leading women athletes can't play five, or believing that tennis is paid hourly.
  13. F1 2017

    Nah, nothing serious there - nothing to see. Deliberately impeding a Haas when you're in the best car on grid is kinda redundant at any rate, and he was legitimately setting himself up for a clean run. Within rules. His team could have communicated traffic a better is all.
  14. electric cars

    There's a pretty big game on in China for EV buses right now; as for cars the name of the game is keeping BYD, BAIC, Geely, Cherry etc in business. Particularly BYD, which sells a lot of cars at high govt subsidy, and attracts a lot of foreign investment - a year ago Samsung got involved with a 2% purchase for USD$450M. It's serious money. BYD alone is large enough to make Tesla's assets and interests look smaller... anyone suggesting the Chinese government wants to incentivise EV uptake because they think Elon Musk is cool... I'd suggest Xi Jinping is not Jay Weatherill. Tesla's been negotiating for China for a while, and it'll be a very not-normal-for-Tesla approach if they do go there. The message right now about the auto industry there is 'we think we've learnt enough - now China first'. More sales = more subsidy. Force it earlier and those subsidies flow from government to local government-funded enterprises. This said.... I kinda like what they're doing over at Proterra (US-based).
  15. electric cars

    A mate (ex-Tesla) reckons 'imagine the S as a pissed-off pufferfish, and you've got X...'