UNFUCKING BELIEVEABLE
mike hunt
toward ferrari then we have it now.If this stands then the FIA are
bringing the sport (if we can call it that now) into disrepute
Roger
Yeah right.
So let's put sandtraps in the chacane run offs and see how Hamilton
does then shall we?
Remember you are talking about the Hamilton who has got away with
murder regarding the rules on many occasions, one wet race he even got
lifted back onto the track. You think the Stewards are biased
**against** him.
David Fisher's Left Testicle
"Roger" <tech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9663fc4-e2ba-4f53...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 11:47 pm, mike hunt <n...@none.co.uk> wrote:
>> if we ever needed proof that the stewards and the FIA are biased
>> toward ferrari then we have it now.If this stands then the FIA are
>> bringing the sport (if we can call it that now) into disrepute
>Yeah right.
>So let's put sandtraps in the chacane run offs and see how Hamilton
>does then shall we?
Do you want to encourage close racing or not? LH avoided a crash, then gave
the advantage back, in the process providing one of the greatest racing
battles ever seen. And you'd rather see racing cars stuck in sand pits, you
utter, utter CUNT!
>Remember you are talking about the Hamilton who has got away with
>murder regarding the rules on many occasions, one wet race he even got
>lifted back onto the track. You think the Stewards are biased
>**against** him.
You're a twat
News
David Fisher's Left Testicle wrote:
> you utter, utter CUNT!
>
> You're a twat
>
You seem to have a vulvar pre-occupation.
mike hunt
wrote:
>On Sep 7, 11:47 pm, mike hunt <n...@none.co.uk> wrote:
>> if we ever needed proof that the stewards and the FIA are biased
>> toward ferrari then we have it now.If this stands then the FIA are
>> bringing the sport (if we can call it that now) into disrepute
>
>Yeah right.
>
>So let's put sandtraps in the chacane run offs and see how Hamilton
>does then shall we?
so you want two or three cars to finish the race then ?
>
>Remember you are talking about the Hamilton who has got away with
>murder regarding the rules on many occasions, one wet race he even got
>lifted back onto the track. You think the Stewards are biased
>**against** him.
it was not the stewards who lifted hambone back onto the track it was
the marshals moving cars in a dangerous position as they were supposed
to do
and remember how many times shumacher got away with stuff that was
clearly against the rules
i don't think that the stewards are biased against mclaren (unless
that mclaren is beating a ferrari)
Simon says
Engine was still running, so it was legal. zzzzz
hooya
"News" <Ne...@Group.name> wrote in message
news:x6Cdncbsxcy1zlnV...@speakeasy.net...
Better than having the dickhead penis one you seem to have!! :)))
News
hooya wrote:
Based on what? Your penile imagination?
mower man
Someone's got an STI here?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080907-0, 07/09/2008
Tested on: 9/8/2008 01:29:22
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
CatharticF1
> Do you want to encourage close racing or not? LH avoided a crash, then
> gave the advantage back,
So you think he would have passed Kimi before / at La Source if he'd
followed him rather than cutting the previous corner?
The answer is no, that's why he's been penalised.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
Claude
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
news:48c49bbb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> So you think he would have passed Kimi before / at La Source if he'd
> followed him rather than cutting the previous corner?
>
> The answer is no, that's why he's been penalised.
>
accelerate in parallel with Kimi and then, when he was well and truly up to
speed, drop back momentarily and then take Kimi on the other side. The
reasonable doubt is whether he would've had the room to get up enough speed
to take Kimi if he'd had to follow him out of the corner. Lewis should've
just bided his time.
GS
>
>> Do you want to encourage close racing or not? LH avoided a crash, then
>> gave the advantage back,
>
> So you think he would have passed Kimi before / at La Source if he'd
> followed him rather than cutting the previous corner?
>
> The answer is no, that's why he's been penalised.
Actually the answer is it was possible for Lewis in a better car in the
conditions to have passed Kimi by then; just look at the lap following the
incident, Kimi and Ferrari were pathetic.
GS
>does then shall we?
That would have been interesting in 2006 to see Schumacher beach it instead
of getting away with it twice.
Matt M
"Claude" <Cla...@Claude.Invalid> wrote in message
news:_d1xk.34839$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's also my take on it. He might have been able to pass Kimi into La
Source even after following him correctly through the Bus Stop, but equally
he might not have been able. That's where the advantage was perceived to
have been gained. Lewis followed the letter of the law by allowing Kimi to
regain his position, but didn't surrender the advantage he gained by cutting
the corner. IMO this rule has been somewhat spuriously enforced during the
last decade, and yesterday's example was no execption.
Claude
"GS" <n...@spam.comm> wrote in message news:ga285l$ovh$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> So you think he would have passed Kimi before / at La Source if he'd
>> followed him rather than cutting the previous corner?
>>
>> The answer is no, that's why he's been penalised.
>
> Actually the answer is it was possible for Lewis in a better car in the
> conditions to have passed Kimi by then; just look at the lap following the
> incident, Kimi and Ferrari were pathetic.
Lewis would've lost a lot of time recovering from his 'off' if he hadn't cut
the chicane. Sure, he very likely would've still taken Kimi easily in the
course of the next lap, but not in the few hundred metres before La Source.
CatharticF1
The Ferrari wasn't quick in those conditions, Lewis didn't need to do
that..
Paul-B
> Because he cut the corner, Lewis was able to accelerate in parallel
> with Kimi and then, when he was well and truly up to speed, drop back
> momentarily and then take Kimi on the other side
Bwahahaha.
Physics not your strong point, is it?
--
Paul-B
Claude
"Paul-B" <pa...@rasf1.net> wrote in message
news:6ik1ttF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
> Bwahahaha.
>
> Physics not your strong point, is it?
That is not an argument. Perhaps objectivity and logic are not your strong
point.
Paul Ian Harman
> followed him rather than cutting the previous corner?
Yes. He'd have been just as close behind him, and Kimi would made just as
much a balls-up of La Source. Lewis was simply more in control in those
conditions.
Paul
Raoul Duke
...So much so that he had four wheels off the racing surface.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
mower man
Yes, you berk - he DELIBERATELY and in full control put all four wheels
off the "racing surface" (track?) to avoid colliding with
Raikkonen......... Wasn't that obvious?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080907-0, 07/09/2008
Tested on: 9/8/2008 14:15:22
Simon says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM
Now tell me if the FIA isn't biased.
Phil Carmody
> "Paul-B" <pa...@rasf1.net> wrote:
[Restored]
||Claude wrote:
||
||> Because he cut the corner, Lewis was able to accelerate in parallel
||> with Kimi and then, when he was well and truly up to speed, drop back
||> momentarily and then take Kimi on the other side
>>>
>> Bwahahaha.
>>
>> Physics not your strong point, is it?
>
>
> That is not an argument. Perhaps objectivity and logic are not your strong
> point.
It may not appear, to the stupid, to be an argument, but it
highlights _precisely_ where the flaw in what you posted resides.
Your knowledge of Newtonian mechanics is utterly flawed. It makes
no difference if he brakes and then accelerates, or accelerates
then brakes. All that matters is the speed he's travelling after
those two phases. You apparently seem to think that rigid bodies
(such as F1 cars) have a memory of what momentum they previously
had, and that speed lost from braking at high speed is more
easily recovered than speed lost from braking at low speed.
That makes you stupid.
Which is why you couldn't work out how Paul was correcting you.
I'll admit that if one thing good has come out of this abysmal
incident, it's that it's separated the ignorami from those with
at least a modicum of intelligence. Practically everyone who has
made anti-Lewis statements has backed them up with completely
absurd arguments which fly in the face of the laws of dynamics
as we mortals (such as mathematicians and engineers) know them.
One thing's clear - Lewis did have an advantage after cutting the
corner at the chicane - the advantage of being much a harder racer
in a car more suited to the track at the time. Of course, that's
nothing to do with cutting the chicane. And I say that as a Kimi
fan. Try telling that to loons such as Claude though...
Phil
--
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion
Claude
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87myih9...@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
For God's sake Phil, go and have a drink and a lie down......typecasting
anyone who's POV differs from your's as "making anti-Lewis statements" is
paranoid. I'm quite the supporter of Lewis's sublime driving skills, I just
think in the case of this incident there is a legitimate alternative POV to
yours. And I think Lewis displayed poor judgement, much as you are doing in
your own hot-headed way, attempting to obfuscate by portraying yourself as
the physics master.
I'm not one of those who use the now-demonised word 'momentum'. My point is
that Lewis was able to start accelerating sooner because he cut the chicane
than he would've if had not cut the chicane. This raises the possibility
that he might not have been in a position to overtake Kimi at La Source if
Phil Carmody
> anyone who's POV differs from your's as "making anti-Lewis statements" is
> paranoid.
I'm not doing that. I'm saying that anyone making anti-Lewis statement
is making anti-Lewis statements. Quite why you'd think otherwise, I
have no idea. Perhaps it's related to the stupidity you like to
demonstrate.
> I'm quite the supporter of Lewis's sublime driving skills, I just
> think in the case of this incident there is a legitimate alternative POV to
> yours. And I think Lewis displayed poor judgement, much as you are doing in
> your own hot-headed way, attempting to obfuscate by portraying yourself as
> the physics master.
Find anyone on the newsgroup with an A grade O-level in physics
before the age of 14 (when I got mine), and an A grade A-level,
and a grade 1 Distinction at the S-level paper, in physics
before age 16 (when I got mine), and I'll gladly defer to them.
> I'm not one of those who use the now-demonised word 'momentum'. My point is
> that Lewis was able to start accelerating sooner because he cut the chicane
> than he would've if had not cut the chicane. This raises the possibility
> that he might not have been in a position to overtake Kimi at La Source if
> he hadn't cut the chicane.
But that's patent nonsense. After he was ahead he yielded. That
put him both behind and slower than Kimi. End of story. Everything
after that was with Lewis at a _disadvantage_ compared to Kimi.
The only advantage Lewis had was that he was driving a car far
better suited to the track. He went alongside Kimi because he had
better acceleration, not because of some chicane-cutting advantage,
and he went past Kimi because he had better braking, not because
of some chicane-cutting advantage. Compare every previous corner
and straight that lap. He'd been reeling Kimi in relentlessly.
He was faster. He's being penalised for being faster.
Claude
>
> But that's patent nonsense. After he was ahead he yielded. That
> put him both behind and slower than Kimi. End of story. Everything
> after that was with Lewis at a _disadvantage_ compared to Kimi.
> The only advantage Lewis had was that he was driving a car far
> better suited to the track. He went alongside Kimi because he had
> better acceleration, not because of some chicane-cutting advantage,
> and he went past Kimi because he had better braking, not because
> of some chicane-cutting advantage. Compare every previous corner
> and straight that lap. He'd been reeling Kimi in relentlessly.
> He was faster. He's being penalised for being faster.
>
God, you are crass Phil. Notwithstanding your brilliant school results in
physics, the point you're missing is that cutting the chicane enable Lewis
to start accelerating sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
Absent the short-cut, he would have been less likely to have caught up with
Kimi with adequate time/distance to execute a passing manouvre at the next
corner. Yes he very well might have, but that's not certain so there's
still doubt. A cooler driver would simply have waited until after the next
corner - see quote from Massa about the driver briefings. In any event, the
key issue here is the level of the penalty, not the fact of it.
jzfredricks
> In any event, the
> key issue here is the level of the penalty, not the fact of it.
Well, I disagree.
There should not have been a penalty.
Amedeo Felix
Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Suppose this... He did not brake, or he did brake but he broke to a lesser
degree than had he braked for the chicane? Would you say that would have an
effect on his speed, and thus his momentum? From what I understand of
physics, which is indeed of a relatively basic level (compared to a
physicist), the car that brakes less or does not brake at all but merely
reduces acceleration has greater momentum than one which brakes hard...
What part of that makes no sense? Do please point it out, but please stick
to pointing it out rather than saying something wholly unproductive such as,
"You are a moron." or some such.
CatharticF1
> Find anyone on the newsgroup with an A grade O-level in physics
> before the age of 14 (when I got mine), and an A grade A-level,
> and a grade 1 Distinction at the S-level paper, in physics
> before age 16 (when I got mine), and I'll gladly defer to them.
You are such an arse..
ric zito
> Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:87bpyx7...@nonospaz.fatphil.org:
>
> > Find anyone on the newsgroup with an A grade O-level in physics
> > before the age of 14 (when I got mine), and an A grade A-level,
> > and a grade 1 Distinction at the S-level paper, in physics
> > before age 16 (when I got mine), and I'll gladly defer to them.
>
> You are such an arse..
+1
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
Phil Carmody
> "Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:87bpyx7...@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
>>
>> But that's patent nonsense. After he was ahead he yielded. That
>> put him both behind and slower than Kimi. End of story. Everything
>> after that was with Lewis at a _disadvantage_ compared to Kimi.
>> The only advantage Lewis had was that he was driving a car far
>> better suited to the track. He went alongside Kimi because he had
>> better acceleration, not because of some chicane-cutting advantage,
>> and he went past Kimi because he had better braking, not because
>> of some chicane-cutting advantage. Compare every previous corner
>> and straight that lap. He'd been reeling Kimi in relentlessly.
>> He was faster. He's being penalised for being faster.
>
> God, you are crass Phil. Notwithstanding your brilliant school results in
> physics, the point you're missing is that cutting the chicane enable Lewis
> to start accelerating sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
You are so close to being right, and yet, given what actually happened,
you are so completely wrong. Cutting the chicane would have enabled him
to start accelerating sooner, were he to have had the inclination to do
that. However, that's not what happened at all.
What happened is that he waited around and dithered for what seemed an
age waiting for Kimi to catch up and get a nose ahead, and in so doing
be
1) further ahead (just see the track position);
2) faster (it's the only way you can pull ahead); and
3) accelerating harder (presumably he was accellerating maximally)
than Lewis.
That's x, dx/dt, and d^2x/dt^2 all where Lewis has _no advantage at all_
over Kimi after cutting the chicane. How many more derivatives would you
like him to give away?
Claude
> You are so close to being right, and yet, given what actually happened,
> you are so completely wrong. Cutting the chicane would have enabled him
> to start accelerating sooner, were he to have had the inclination to do
> that. However, that's not what happened at all.
>
Very droll Phil (and I don't recall enough of my undergraduate comparative
statics to tackle the math)
The fact that McLaren sought Whiting's opinion on whether or not the pass
was 'legal' makes me think it was not as clear cut in McLaren's view as
you're convinced it was.
Bigbird
Was the self ridicule unintentional then?
Promiscuous kids eh, can't beat them...anymore.
--
In GP Manager Pro, You play the plucky manager of a brand new Formula 1
Grand Prix team! Build your team up, negotiate with drivers, suppliers
and sponsors to build the best car to pair with the best drivers and
annihilate the opposition! http://tinyurl.com/GPManagerPro
Phil Carmody
Why did your brain stop working at Lewis' off?
Did you not see the fact that he then subsequently yielded track
position to Kimi?
Have you not seen hundreds of posts on rasf1 clearly stating that?
Including posts that were responses to you?
Including posts that you have responded to?
Does being so stupid hurt?
Phil Carmody
I know jealousy when I see it.
Haven't you left the newsgroup yet, ric?
I knew I shouldn't have let you creep out of the killfile;
welcome back in where you can happily jerk off Cathy in,
to me, silence.
Bigbird
> "Claude" <Cla...@Claude.Invalid> writes:
> > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:87ej3s8...@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
> >
> >> You are so close to being right, and yet, given what actually
> happened, >> you are so completely wrong. Cutting the chicane would
> have enabled him >> to start accelerating sooner, were he to have had
> the inclination to do >> that. However, that's not what happened at
> all.
> > >
> > Very droll Phil (and I don't recall enough of my undergraduate
> > comparative statics to tackle the math)
> >
> > The fact that McLaren sought Whiting's opinion on whether or not
> > the pass was 'legal' makes me think it was not as clear cut in
> > McLaren's view as you're convinced it was.
>
A reasonable conclusion.
> Why did your brain stop working at Lewis' off?
> Did you not see the fact that he then subsequently yielded track
> position to Kimi?
> Have you not seen hundreds of posts on rasf1 clearly stating that?
> Including posts that were responses to you?
> Including posts that you have responded to?
>
> Does being so stupid hurt?
>
A very unreasonable and ignorant response.
Do we now have to guess who the intelligent one of the two is?
ric zito
> >> > Find anyone on the newsgroup with an A grade O-level in physics
> >> > before the age of 14 (when I got mine), and an A grade A-level,
> >> > and a grade 1 Distinction at the S-level paper, in physics
> >> > before age 16 (when I got mine), and I'll gladly defer to them.
> >>
> >> You are such an arse..
> >
> > +1
>
> I know jealousy when I see it.
LOL. Now why on earth would something as utterly poxy and meaningless to
me as your little physics A level make me jealous?
Christ, you look even more of an arse now.
> Haven't you left the newsgroup yet, ric?
Not yet - I thought I'd deflate your fat fart-filled head one last time
before I go.
> I knew I shouldn't have let you creep out of the killfile;
> welcome back in where you can happily jerk off Cathy in,
> to me, silence.
Don't bother, I'm gone - bye fuckwit.
--
ric
Claude
>
> Why did your brain stop working at Lewis' off?
> Did you not see the fact that he then subsequently yielded track
> position to Kimi?
> Have you not seen hundreds of posts on rasf1 clearly stating that?
> Including posts that were responses to you?
> Including posts that you have responded to?
>
> Does being so stupid hurt?
>
logically then I wish you wouldn't bother