FORUMula1.com

[vaptin]

You guys can't prove Alonso himself did anything unethical in crash-gate.

[Fodda]

I've yet to see any actual proof that Lewis deliberately manipulated the SC at Valencia either for that matter.

[bud]

You guys can't prove Alonso himself did anything unethical in crash-gate.

Seems more than likely he knew about it! Unless he is a moron?

[vaptin]

I've yet to see any actual proof that Lewis deliberately manipulated the SC at Valencia either for that matter.

Indeed, but I wasn't arguing that.

You guys can't prove Alonso himself did anything unethical in crash-gate.

Seems more than likely he knew about it! Unless he is a moron?

It's plausible the team told him his stragety was gambling for an early safety car? That doesn't equate to the team are going to make it happen, its similar to what Ferrari did with Alonso in Monaco?

[SaintDean]

I think we should act as true F1 lovers and let them race to end all arguments. Perhaps race of champions to decide, now that would be something id watch!

[bud]

It's plausible the team told him his stragety was gambling for an early safety car? That doesn't equate to the team are going to make it happen, its similar to what Ferrari did with Alonso in Monaco?

so basically youre saying "hey Fernando lets hope for a SC to screw others races to make yours better" Fernando fans were all happy and shouting "what a drive to finish from the pit lane to 5th at Monaco of all places" no thanks to the SC mind you. yet when his 3rd places gets screwed by the SC those same fans are calling for a rethink of the SC rules Hypocrisy!


and on Singapore i highly doubt a man of Fernandos influence within a team that he knew nothing of the plan the closest team members he has were conjuring up.

[vaptin]

eh? I wasn't saying its particularly fair for a driver to gain places based on a safety car (was still a good drive anyway), I was saying from the teams perspective they would of course take into account a safety car for a advantage.

I wasn't even putting my opinion in my last post, I was just trying to discuss it from the teams and drivers perspective

[SaintDean]

Places like Indy Car. They rely on Safety Cars being deployed to make their race work.

Good thing about half the grid being awful drivers, we will always see silly things happen.


Edit: Found this on Autosport. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[f1ea]

I stand corrected. He inherited the lead when all the other drivers pitted due to the safety car...which gives credence to him being in on the deal.

Yes. Please stand do corrected...
BTW, I meant he didnt use the pits in that SC to claim position as you said...

Pointing to the fact that his was all pre planned all along, while Lewis' made a last second decision which turned out to be a mistake. And you're backing Alonso's scenario as more ethical? Wow....

Who said I was defending or backing Alonso's scenario??

I've only said, it is a lot different to simply be LUCKY and catch a good timing for the SC, than to allow for the pitting mess the FIA allows. On the contrary, under 'my' scheme, Crash gate would not have happened.

I am saying: It is not interesting to gain positions during the SC.
BUT it is ok to get some luck dealt due to a SC period. For example not needing to pit anymore after the cars get bunched up by the SC... to me it is NOT ok to gain positions while all the other cars pit during the SC.

I think, closed pits during the SC (unless for a mech/safety repair). Nobody NEEDS to refuel anyway. Lock positions. When SC leaves the track = green flag. Re-open the pits, AFTER the last car passes the start/finish... SOME cars will have to pit, others not... since the cars will be a bit closer, some guys will be lucky to gain upon the guys who had to pit close to the SC leaving the track. But at all times, positions were made/lost during green flags. There's still a luck factor, and a strategy thing...

but makes much more sense than the current weird lottery.

[bud]

its been a lottery for years f1ea why the sudden outrage i wonder? echoing Fernando and Ferrari's thoughts?

end of they day until they remove the need to make pit stops as you say they dont need to refuel they do still need to run 2 compounds of tyres. So pit stops are still needed.

[SaintDean]

its been a lottery for years f1ea why the sudden outrage i wonder? echoing Fernando and Ferrari's thoughts?

end of they day until they remove the need to make pit stops as you say they dont need to refuel they do still need to run 2 compounds of tyres. So pit stops are still needed.

To end all these debates. Rules should be that no car can be allowed to pit under safety car. That way all these mistakes like the huge mistakes by Mercedes GP on Schumacher which hasnt been mentioned.

[f1ea]

its been a lottery for years f1ea why the sudden outrage i wonder? echoing Fernando and Ferrari's thoughts?

end of they day until they remove the need to make pit stops as you say they dont need to refuel they do still need to run 2 compounds of tyres. So pit stops are still needed.

Its not a sudden outrage. Its been going on for yrs. and also, they changed the regulations from last yr to this yr. Last yr's were flawed (ie pit closed with refuelling). This yr they changed it to pit open, while no refuelling is needed. Its not me, calling for a change or revision. Its the FIA and the teams...

They need to use the 2 compounds, but they dont need to do it at any specific lap and risk being stranded on track. Last yr a certain car could have needed to pit on the same lap the SC came out, because it needed to refule. This yr.. no. Nobody NEEDS to pit.

[bud]

i dont understand your logic, nobody needs to pit? if they dont pit they will get DQ for not using both compounds.....

[vaptin]

Whilst we're at it, scrap the two compound rule as well.

[bud]

Whilst we're at it, scrap the two compound rule as well.

1 tyre per race like in 05 then?