FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[sagi58]

So... basically... Unless you're a Mercedes fan and unless you agree with the status quo,
you're not allowed to voice an opinion.

Out of curiousity, have you seen this:

[darwin dali]

So... basically... Unless you're a Mercedes fan and unless you agree with the status quo,
you're not allowed to voice an opinion.

Out of curiousity, have you seen this:

Tu es Charlie Whiting? Quel bobard!

[sagi58]

So... basically... Unless you're a Mercedes fan and unless you agree with the status quo,
you're not allowed to voice an opinion.

Out of curiousity, have you seen this:

Tu es Charlie Whiting?

Pas aujourd'hui!

[racechick]

So... basically... Unless you're a Mercedes fan and unless you agree with the status quo,
you're not allowed to voice an opinion.

Out of curiousity, have you seen this:

I thought you said it was all over your Tv's ??

[overboost]

The teams? You mean 2 teams but not 5 others and not the engine makers either? Renault don't want unlimited spending unless you have a link that says so, I'm sure you can show where Ferrari still want this?

So 2 teams should decide what 7 do?

And that's fair?

Maybe we should all boycott F1

That's the way it is set up. Two or three teams on the strategy group with support for a common vision can set the direction for the rest. After Merc's veto runs out of course!

Of course this is fair, it is the group in charge.

[CookinFlat6]

I think its very healthy for F1 to have a system where teams who are more clever than teams who have more money have the regulations that allow them to score more points. Otherwise F1 would not be about engineering or driving, it would be about bank account. The dark dark days where 1 team could win every single race for 5 years, winning the titles halfway through the season, having 1 driver subjugated to assistant role, being the only team with their own race track where they could develop and spend money day and night - thiose days nearly killed F1. Audiences turned off in droves, fans fell asleep on sofas, the whole thing became a laughing stock and the inevitable celebrations by MS and his TP Todt became risible and as fake as a Ferrari handbag made in the shadow factory next to the official factory in Guang-Ho Province.

And when it became clear that this team had a veto on the rules, a veto on the managers of F1 and received 90 million off the top of the revenues, and then installed their TP as boss of the governing body of racing, the sport was about to die.

Until someone noticed that Ferrari had stopped winning despite all these cheats after it sacked its successful servants, MS, Brynne and Brawn, in pursuit of a proud all Italian winning dream team. Then the general public realised that it was actually fun to watch teams with little budgets and little history pulling down the pants of the emporor and spanking its royal behind year in year out.

And so F1 became a place where a garagista drinks company with clever staff could beat the longest pampered and fat incumbents. And F1 got exciting again, engineering genius overcame brute force cheque book trial and error 24 hour driving around in circles whilst feeling the 'passion'

No one has a bad work to say about plucky Williams who smashed Ferrari on a 5th of its budget (after adjusting for good old accounting as practiced by 'family' , 'passionate' and ' patriotically proud' firms the world over). The Hybrid engine is acclaimed as a triumph for human ingenuity, to spend a fixed amount of money and to produce a car using almost half the fuel and producing more power.

And now those with ""stunted"" knowledge of history or of any type of reason or logic want F1 to take a massive step forward by spending a huge amount of money to introduce engines that are less efficient and are a function of who spends the most money as wastefully and as inefficiently as in the good old days.
And car giants that were attracted back to F1 because of the technical challenge will throw away all their investment in new tech engines, and then start from scratch a new round of spending inefficiently again to produce old inefficient engines so they can compete with ""old""inefficient engine makers to spend the most money on diminishing returns.

Oh yeah, and the """old""2 engine makers are just about to be sold to the public because an aspiring efficient giant car maker doesnt want the car engineering side of the company anymore (only wants sepia pictures and drawings of its cars) and is so eager to get some money out of it that they tell the media the company is not about making cars but about selling luxury merchandise

But the would be boycotters of F1 dont, wont (and most pertinent) cant understand any of this, and are still trying to work out why everyones laughing

pure class boys and girls, keep em coming

[sagi58]

NB: RC, I believe you responded to my comment; but, you may have forgotten to quote me.
I did a little editing to reflect what was actually posted and by whom... Hope you don't mind?

So... basically... Unless you're a Mercedes fan and unless you agree with the status quo,
you're not allowed to voice an opinion.

Out of curiousity, have you seen this:

I thought you said it was all over your Tv's ??

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question.

No, it wasn't maybe I'm missing something here? But anyway let's leave this thread to discuss the loophole.

[racechick]

The teams? You mean 2 teams but not 5 others and not the engine makers either? Renault don't want unlimited spending unless you have a link that says so, I'm sure you can show where Ferrari still want this?

So 2 teams should decide what 7 do?

And that's fair?

Maybe we should all boycott F1

That's the way it is set up. Two or three teams on the strategy group with support for a common vision can set the direction for the rest. After Merc's veto runs out of course!

Of course this is fair, it is the group in charge.

What Cookie said.....
Oh, and Mercedes don't have a veto, only Ferrari. I think I mentioned that before, perhaps you forgot.

[CookinFlat6]

RC, I think you need to explain to those who dont understand even after the 34th explanation in another way.

A veto = noun = a tangible asset
a veto as a noun means Ferrari have a veto over rules - which they can then use to veto rules

To veto = adjective = descriptive of an action
Merc can veto the changing of a unanimous agreement by objecting

There we have it, Ferrari HAVE A VETO, Merc couldnt even veto (override) an unfreeze - a previous unanimous agreement - Ferrari changed the rules WITH THEIR VETO

A biscuit for anyone who still doesnt get that and is not embarrassed to admit it/lie/flog a dead horse/boycott F1

[What's Burning?]

RC, I think you need to explain to those who dont understand even after the 34th explanation in another way.

A veto = noun = a tangible asset
a veto as a noun means Ferrari have a veto over rules - which they can then use to veto rules

To veto = adjective = descriptive of an action
Merc can veto the changing of a unanimous agreement by objecting

There we have it, Ferrari HAVE A VETO, Merc couldnt even veto (override) an unfreeze - a previous unanimous agreement - Ferrari changed the rules WITH THEIR VETO

A biscuit for anyone who still doesnt get that and is not embarrassed to admit it/lie/flog a dead horse/boycott F1

what kind of biscuit?

[darwin dali]

RC, I think you need to explain to those who dont understand even after the 34th explanation in another way.

A veto = noun = a tangible asset
a veto as a noun means Ferrari have a veto over rules - which they can then use to veto rules

To veto = adjective = descriptive of an action
Merc can veto the changing of a unanimous agreement by objecting

There we have it, Ferrari HAVE A VETO, Merc couldnt even veto (override) an unfreeze - a previous unanimous agreement - Ferrari changed the rules WITH THEIR VETO

A biscuit for anyone who still doesnt get that and is not embarrassed to admit it/lie/flog a dead horse/boycott F1

To veto = verb ≠ adjective.

[CookinFlat6]

Ok you got me, Noun vs Verb, not Noun vs Adjective


My whole argument is technically thrown out on appeal, the perps can walk away and feel proud of themselves now that Mercs vetoed (by Ferrari) right to veto a rule change is not proven to not be the same as Ferraris blanket rule veto.

and in other news, a lawyer broke the record for the biggest paycheck recently when he got the pope off a child molesting charge by pointing out that the term 'blue sky' was wrong as the sky is not blue!!!!

[CookinFlat6]

And getting back to the engine, the would be boycotters of F1 need to be afraid, need to be very afraid

Merc are not bothering to start with their new engine and will develop it further with an eye on 2016, maybe they will wait to see what the other 2 losers bring before deciding whether to even update the 2014 engine at all. If everyones exactly the same level as the end of last year whats the point of trashing the rest by 8 secs instead of 5?

Toto Wolff was clearly in a confident mood when he stated that the Silver Arrows will start the season with the Power Unit that took the season by storm last year. The new six cylinder turbo engine will not be debuted until the circus returns to Europe for the Spanish Grand Prix.

“We are planning ahead and focusing on 2016 already. Around September we will begin testing components for the following season so we are as prepared as possible.”

As far as the development between the manufacturers is concerned Wolff is adamant: “Thinking about what has been decided, it will be us who will gain the most from the ‘unfreezing’ of the regulations and not our competition.”

[Hammer278]

Oh yeah baby, that's what I'm talking about!! The mighty Germans are not to be f*cked with.

[CookinFlat6]

They really enjoy handing it out, and they do it in style