FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vaptin]

No..you do know people without the red fever have no access to that little shrine though right?

I tried going through a couple of red guys' post history, doesn't show up there either. Not bothered enough to try anything else. But I'd be curious enough to know if my true thoughts of these little red clubs on the net are indeed happening in reality.

I know, and I knew that when I wrote it, so my comment stands

[racechick]

I don't want to go in there anyway. I think id suffocate. Or do naughty things.

Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2

[What's Burning?]

Or do naughty things.

...mmmmm

[Hammer278]

Or do naughty things.

...mmmmm

mmmmmmmmm x2

[CookinFlat6]

I don't want to go in there anyway. I think id suffocate. Or do naughty things.

Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2

[LewEngBridewell]

I tried going through a couple of red guys' post history, doesn't show up there either.

Yeah they're hidden, just like posts made on the moderator forums.

[darwin dali]

I don't want to go in there anyway. I think id suffocate. Or do naughty things.

Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2

[sagi58]

I heard that's where dd's dungeon is...

[zurich_allan]

A subtlety that should be added to the Glock / Hamilton issue. The level of rain wouldn't be what caused Glock to get exponentially slower. What will have happened is that the rain began, and even if it stayed at the same level, he STILL would have gotten slower at the same rate. It goes:

Rain falls, car goes slower because of no grip, tyre temperatures drop giving even less grip, tyre pressures drop giving less grip, times continue to get slower.

It's a vicious circle once you start going below the normal operating speeds for the tyres in question. Even if the rain had gone off completely, Glock would never have been able to get the temperatures and pressures back up to normal levels again.

In other words, it was a poor call from a technical perspective, but one that did benefit him with a one position gain overall from a strategy view.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Ferrari man 009]

Do you actually understand strategy and modelling?

Hamilton pitting was a gamble that nearly didn't work? As opposed to what? As opposed to not pitting when the best thing to do was to pit based on empirical evidence? 16 and 26 full seconds slower in 2 laps, do you even know which lap Lewis pitted on and what the time cost is to pit?

No, it was a gamble on Glock's part that paid off. Maybe I mis-worded it, but the gamble almost propelled him up to 4th and cost Hamilton the championship. Hamilton partly won the championship with luck (Massa's engine blew at Hungary with 2 laps left when he was cruising towards 10 points - NO strategy or modelling could have predicted that).

What I will say is the world champion always deserves to be world champion. I have been watching the world cup and one of the BBC pundits (ex player) said that luck is a factor in success but you create your own luck. Hamilton put himself in the position to be champion with skill, and the occasional bit of luck he gets got him over the line.

That said, he deserved the 2007 championship and was very UNlucky in Brazil that year that he had the gearbox glitch. I have no problem with Hamilton, he is one of the top 2 drivers in the world (with Alonso in my opinion), but occasionally luck comes into it. To say that luck is non-existant is not true to be honest.

[darwin dali]

A subtlety that should be added to the Glock / Hamilton issue. The level of rain wouldn't be what caused Glock to get exponentially slower. What will have happened is that the rain began, and even if it stayed at the same level, he STILL would have gotten slower at the same rate. It goes:

Rain falls, car goes slower because of no grip, tyre temperatures drop giving even less grip, tyre pressures drop giving less grip, times continue to get slower.

It's a viscous circle once you start going below the normal operating speeds for the tyres in question. Even if the rain had gone off completely, Glock would never have been able to get the temperatures and pressures back up to normal levels again.

In other words, it was a poor call from a technical perspective, but one that did benefit him with a one position gain overall from a strategy view.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Sometimes it's viscous, sometimes it's sticky and muddy

[zurich_allan]

A subtlety that should be added to the Glock / Hamilton issue. The level of rain wouldn't be what caused Glock to get exponentially slower. What will have happened is that the rain began, and even if it stayed at the same level, he STILL would have gotten slower at the same rate. It goes:

Rain falls, car goes slower because of no grip, tyre temperatures drop giving even less grip, tyre pressures drop giving less grip, times continue to get slower.

It's a viscous circle once you start going below the normal operating speeds for the tyres in question. Even if the rain had gone off completely, Glock would never have been able to get the temperatures and pressures back up to normal levels again.

In other words, it was a poor call from a technical perspective, but one that did benefit him with a one position gain overall from a strategy view.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Sometimes it's viscous, sometimes it's sticky and muddy

Bloody autocorrect!!!

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[What's Burning?]

Non-Newtonian liquids are more my style.

[geetface9]

I think rob smedley is full of $#@! thinking that perez should have retired before the crash.

Was his comment not down to misinterpreting a FI radio message he heard as the car had a terminal brake failure when it wasnt?

Was it? I don't remember the transmission. It just seemed odd to me cuz he might as well have been saying that rosberg should have just retired the car too. I know he was saying they had bottas slow down cuz he had an issue. That's their own fault for lost points (unless he had to slow down to save the engine to avoid penalties)

[Ferrari man 009]

I think rob smedley is full of $#@! thinking that perez should have retired before the crash.

Was his comment not down to misinterpreting a FI radio message he heard as the car had a terminal brake failure when it wasnt?

Was it? I don't remember the transmission. It just seemed odd to me cuz he might as well have been saying that rosberg should have just retired the car too. I know he was saying they had bottas slow down cuz he had an issue. That's their own fault for lost points (unless he had to slow down to save the engine to avoid penalties)

Not sure, but thought I read that was the case. I was in Cape Verde last week so had to watch it on RTL which is a worse version of ITV when it comes to adverts so didnt see Sky's analysis/interviews post race. But from the collision I wouldnt say it was caused by brake failure, it seemed to be more to do with Perez changing line/closing the door too late.