FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[theTruth]

This is insane. Someone answer for me whether or not a driver who records the fastest Q3 lap, but who gets demoted for a gearbox change, is still considered to have won the pole, even if he doesn't start from the pole position? Or is the second fastest guy considered the actual pole winner (as opposed to pole starter)?

I ask this question because I just read that Lewis' car will need a gearbox change in China.

And if any of this is incorrect, someone please correct me (as if I need to ask). . . .

The reason it's insane is because I remember thinking a few weeks ago, when a broadcaster mentioned that Lewis had just won McLaren's 799th pole position or something, that "Hmmm, that means the next one will be significant in their history, so probably some problem will crop up that keeps Lewis from achieving it." Not thinking, mind you, that there was any great likelihood that any of that would actually transpire.

Of course, the whole thing could be mooted if the answer to the first question is "yes," in any event.

On the other hand, if the new gearbox s*cks, then both qualy and race will be taken care of, in one fell swoop (not that any team would actually intentionally disadvantage one of their drivers ). Ain't this why y'all love F1 so much people? I know it's why I do.

[Hammer278]

gearbox.

[LRW]

Listen, Lewis will still go faster in Q3 than anyone else, so will still be 6th. He can still do something major from there. including having the pleasure of zipping past a slow vettel inb a slow RedBull*. And dont forget its being forcast as another rainy weekend.....


*yes ok, I realise that its been 3 weeks since the last race and the ability/order of the teams could well have changed, and RedBull might have restored the status quo - but I prefer to use a bit of PMA

[Hammer278]

Hopefully he qualifies 2nd, so he starts from 7th. Clean side, plus has a shot at the outside of Turn 1 to gain a couple there and then close the door on the inside of 2.

Sigh...when he doesn't play a part in making it difficult for himself, McLaren take the baton.

[LRW]

McLaren take the baton.

PLEASE tell me you are not serious?!

IF a gearbox needs changing, it needs changing......

[bud]

Well it's most likely going to be wet Quali and Race so might be able to get a win regardless as we saw with Alonso.

[LewEngBridewell]

Given McLaren's previous performance in the wet, I'm not sure whether I want rain either.

Frigging gearbox!

[Hammer278]

McLaren take the baton.

PLEASE tell me you are not serious?!

IF a gearbox needs changing, it needs changing......

It's a f**kup on their end. Why is this hard to believe? Something failed in QC, who's in charge here? Ferrari?

[LRW]

McLaren take the baton.

PLEASE tell me you are not serious?!

IF a gearbox needs changing, it needs changing......

It's a f**kup on their end. Why is this hard to believe? Something failed in QC, who's in charge here? Ferrari?

Sometimes things go wrong - it happens - you are going to start sounding like racechick......

[Hammer278]

What's your obsession with racechick?

This sh*t counts as unreliability. What, we can't criticise the team over stupid reliability issues anymore?

[vaptin]

What's your obsession with racechick?

This sh*t counts as unreliability. What, we can't criticise the team over stupid reliability issues anymore?

I think you have to do it in the anti Mclaren thread

The forum seems to be having a categorisation drive(Lewis thread, Alonso thread, Vettel thread), maybe the auditors are coming.

[LRW]

What's your obsession with racechick?

This sh*t counts as unreliability. What, we can't criticise the team over stupid reliability issues anymore?

Deep breaths.... count to 10.....

1) define, and give evidence of obsession...... oops, you can.

2) Its one feaking gearbox. They could of left it and let it blow up half way round the 3rd lap.

3) I personally do not think ONE gearbox failure constitutes 'unreliability'.

[LewEngBridewell]

3) I personally do not think ONE gearbox failure constitutes 'unreliability'.

If this was jaw-dropping unreliability, then what was Lotus' 2nd test defined as?

[Hammer278]

What's your obsession with racechick?

This sh*t counts as unreliability. What, we can't criticise the team over stupid reliability issues anymore?

Deep breaths.... count to 10.....

1) define, and give evidence of obsession...... oops, you can.
Yes I can....it seems whenever someone criticises McLaren now, racechick is mentioned/hinted at.

2) Its one feaking gearbox. They could of left it and let it blow up half way round the 3rd lap.
The point is these issues are supposed to be accounted for during manufacturing/QC.

3) I personally do not think ONE gearbox failure constitutes 'unreliability'.
It's the 3rd race of the season.

[LRW]

1) define, and give evidence of obsession...... oops, you can. [this was obv a typo and meant to say cant]
Yes I can....it seems whenever someone criticises McLaren now, racechick is mentioned/hinted at.
But you are still failing to prove MY suppposed obsession with RC. I think Ive metioned here twice and her wild conspirocy theories.

2) Its one feaking gearbox. They could of left it and let it blow up half way round the 3rd lap.
The point is these issues are supposed to be accounted for during manufacturing/QC.
Did you know what the issue with the gearbox was...? No you dont - doesnt always mean a manufacturing defect.

3) I personally do not think ONE gearbox failure constitutes 'unreliability'.
It's the 3rd race of the season.
Exactly - weve only done two races but all of a sudden the McLaren has unreliability issues.

You are such a tool!!