FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[jackarse]

What I need to know is how can Rubens ruin two or three peoples races at the start and get away without any penalty, yet one of Hamilton or Trulli made a harmless mastake but still one of the two must get a penalty?

I'll tell you why... The FIA and stewards were supporting Brawn. They wanted this 1-2 fairytale to turn into reality. At the same time they couldn't stand Hamilton getting podium from 18th on the grid. He is too outspoken and arrogant for that. The truth is if it was Rubens or Button who did what Hamilton done then the initial ruling would never of been overturned.

You can either be (a) understanding OR (b) strict. You cannot be both because inconsistancy is criminal in sport. In a sport like F1 you should be strict. It is too dangerous for it to be any other way. And they are strict. Well at least against the teams they dislike. Yet they are understanding when they are supporting a team OR when a team is so well supported (Ferrari) that they fear the wrath of its fans.

I watch ALOT of sports and F1 is inconsistant like no sport I've ever seen. It is a real shame really...

And I am no Hamilton lover - I said during Spa that he deserved his penalty. Dig it up.

[Robert182]

What I need to know is how can Rubens ruin two or three peoples races at the start and get away without any penalty, yet one of Hamilton or Trulli made a harmless mastake but still one of the two must get a penalty?

I'll tell you why... The FIA and stewards were supporting Brawn. They wanted this 1-2 fairytale to turn into reality. At the same time they couldn't stand Hamilton getting podium from 18th on the grid. He is too outspoken and arrogant for that. The truth is if it was Rubens or Button who did what Hamilton done then the initial ruling would never of been overturned.

You can either be (a) understanding OR (b) strict. You cannot be both because inconsistancy is criminal in sport. In a sport like F1 you should be strict. It is too dangerous for it to be any other way. And they are strict. Well at least against the teams they dislike. Yet they are understanding when they are supporting a team OR when a team is so well supported (Ferrari) that they fear the wrath of its fans.

I watch ALOT of sports and F1 is inconsistant like no sport I've ever seen. It is a real shame really...

And I am no Hamilton lover - I said during Spa that he deserved his penalty. Dig it up.

Coudnt agree more !

[bud]

agreed! amateurs run the sport

[darwin dali]

He is too outspoken and arrogant for that.

Outspoken? This remark alone disqualifies your post. He's a McLaren PR robot and rarely says anything other than what corporate management approves. And the few times he speaks freely he gets burned (like just seen in his Speed interview in Australia).

[bud]

He is too outspoken and arrogant for that.

Outspoken? This remark alone disqualifies your post. He's a McLaren PR robot and rarely says anything other than what corporate management approves. And the few times he speaks freely he gets burned (like just seen in his Speed interview in Australia).

youre basing that assumption on.....? do you follow his every media move?

[bmwpower]

What I need to know is how can Rubens ruin two or three peoples races at the start and get away without any penalty, yet one of Hamilton or Trulli made a harmless mastake but still one of the two must get a penalty?

I'll tell you why... The FIA and stewards were supporting Brawn. They wanted this 1-2 fairytale to turn into reality. At the same time they couldn't stand Hamilton getting podium from 18th on the grid. He is too outspoken and arrogant for that. The truth is if it was Rubens or Button who did what Hamilton done then the initial ruling would never of been overturned.

You can either be (a) understanding OR (b) strict. You cannot be both because inconsistancy is criminal in sport. In a sport like F1 you should be strict. It is too dangerous for it to be any other way. And they are strict. Well at least against the teams they dislike. Yet they are understanding when they are supporting a team OR when a team is so well supported (Ferrari) that they fear the wrath of its fans.

I watch ALOT of sports and F1 is inconsistant like no sport I've ever seen. It is a real shame really...

And I am no Hamilton lover - I said during Spa that he deserved his penalty. Dig it up.

Vettel ruined Kubica's race or vice versa, matter of facts, a few drivers got their races ruined in the first corner, none (except Vettel) was penalized because its a RACING INCIDENT. There are strict guildlines and rules under a safety car to protect the safety car, can you honestly say what happened between Truilli and Hamilton was a "racing incident" or a breach of the rules?? Remember, Truilli was the one PENALIZED for the infraction not Hamilton, but Toyota appealed, it was provened that Truilli was innocent but there can't be two innocent people on a infraction, someone had to cause the infraction, who could that be??

[darwin dali]

He is too outspoken and arrogant for that.

Outspoken? This remark alone disqualifies your post. He's a McLaren PR robot and rarely says anything other than what corporate management approves. And the few times he speaks freely he gets burned (like just seen in his Speed interview in Australia).

youre basing that assumption on.....? do you follow his every media move?

Do you think if he appeared outspoken in a particular interview, the British press wouldn't plaster the internet with it? So, yes, I base it on my observation (or evidence or lack thereof in the press) that he's NOT outspoken, holds back with opinions unlike, e.g., an FA or even SV.

[bud]

SV outspoken? i know he is your new loverboy but come on!

[jackarse]

Vettel ruined Kubica's race or vice versa, matter of facts, a few drivers got their races ruined in the first corner, none (except Vettel) was penalized because its a RACING INCIDENT. There are strict guildlines and rules under a safety car to protect the safety car, can you honestly say what happened between Truilli and Hamilton was a "racing incident" or a breach of the rules?? Remember, Truilli was the one PENALIZED for the infraction not Hamilton, but Toyota appealed, it was provened that Truilli was innocent but there can't be two innocent people on a infraction, someone had to cause the infraction, who could that be??

Again no consistancy. You contradict yourself. And this is what I mean when I say that the whole of F1 are too loose with some incidents but really stern on others. In the first corner you say no one is is to blame because basically it happened on the first corner and at full speed. You completely rule out that some drivers got greedy and pushed far too hard and ruined other peoples races as a result. I'm sorry but if that collision was avoidably it deserves to be punished. I think it deserves to be punished purely because we should encourage drivers to be careful in relation to other drivers races.

If someone had to of caused the Hamilton/Truilli infraction, how come no one caused the first corner incident? If there always have to be culperates

[bmwpower]

Vettel ruined Kubica's race or vice versa, matter of facts, a few drivers got their races ruined in the first corner, none (except Vettel) was penalized because its a RACING INCIDENT. There are strict guildlines and rules under a safety car to protect the safety car, can you honestly say what happened between Truilli and Hamilton was a "racing incident" or a breach of the rules?? Remember, Truilli was the one PENALIZED for the infraction not Hamilton, but Toyota appealed, it was provened that Truilli was innocent but there can't be two innocent people on a infraction, someone had to cause the infraction, who could that be??

Again no consistancy. You contradict yourself. And this is what I mean when I say that the whole of F1 are too loose with some incidents but really stern on others. In the first corner you say no one is is to blame because basically it happened on the first corner and at full speed. You completely rule out that some drivers got greedy and pushed far too hard and ruined other peoples races as a result. I'm sorry but if that collision was avoidably it deserves to be punished. I think it deserves to be punished purely because we should encourage drivers to be careful in relation to other drivers races.

If someone had to of caused the Hamilton/Truilli infraction, how come no one caused the first corner incident? If there always have to be culperates

Contradiction?? I gave two examples of what could and did happened in a race and how the rules are applied differently to each incident. First corner mayhem is usually expected in an F1 race, cars will be pinched in, boxed down as they FIGHT (Keyword) for positions, when you put 20+cars into a corner, someone will lose out. Racing incidents can be intreperted many ways and can be inconsistent. In a safety car deployment the rules are clear and defined and it can only be intrepered one way only, it is no longer a RACING incident because you are not ALLOWED to RACE or FIGHT for positions. The rules are very clear to protect the safety car and other drivers, you are not allowed to pass and will only do so if instructed by the safety car. Yet, you still haven't answered my question, what happened during the safety car was a "racing incident" or a "breach of the rules"??

[Jensonb]

What I need to know is how can Rubens ruin two or three peoples races at the start and get away without any penalty, yet one of Hamilton or Trulli made a harmless mastake but still one of the two must get a penalty?

Get your facts straight, Rubens was hit from behind and had nowhere to go.

[texasmr2]

Vettel ruined Kubica's race or vice versa, matter of facts, a few drivers got their races ruined in the first corner, none (except Vettel) was penalized because its a RACING INCIDENT. There are strict guildlines and rules under a safety car to protect the safety car, can you honestly say what happened between Truilli and Hamilton was a "racing incident" or a breach of the rules?? Remember, Truilli was the one PENALIZED for the infraction not Hamilton, but Toyota appealed, it was provened that Truilli was innocent but there can't be two innocent people on a infraction, someone had to cause the infraction, who could that be??

Again no consistancy. You contradict yourself. And this is what I mean when I say that the whole of F1 are too loose with some incidents but really stern on others. In the first corner you say no one is is to blame because basically it happened on the first corner and at full speed. You completely rule out that some drivers got greedy and pushed far too hard and ruined other peoples races as a result. I'm sorry but if that collision was avoidably it deserves to be punished. I think it deserves to be punished purely because we should encourage drivers to be careful in relation to other drivers races.

If someone had to of caused the Hamilton/Truilli infraction, how come no one caused the first corner incident? If there always have to be culperates

Contradiction?? I gave two examples of what could and did happened in a race and how the rules are applied differently to each incident. First corner mayhem is usually expected in an F1 race, cars will be pinched in, boxed down as they FIGHT (Keyword) for positions, when you put 20+cars into a corner, someone will lose out. Racing incidents can be intreperted many ways and can be inconsistent. In a safety car deployment the rules are clear and defined and it can only be intrepered one way only, it is no longer a RACING incident because you are not ALLOWED to RACE or FIGHT for positions. The rules are very clear to protect the safety car and other drivers, you are not allowed to pass and will only do so if instructed by the safety car. Yet, you still haven't answered my question, what happened during the safety car was a "racing incident" or a "breach of the rules"??

Hey bro please do us all a favor and use paragraphs, your post will be ALOT more legible.

tex

[Gilles 27]

Was Rubens really hit? From the onboard it it didn't look like it. I have no idea how he escaped that race without a penalty!

As for Hamilton, he is a media robot but he comes out with some arrogant stuff sometimes. i think this is to do with the environment McLaren have created fro him, they know he is at his best when his confidence is up so they shield him from his own shortcomings and this has an undesirable effect on his ego. McLaren have done this with other drivers in the past but I think this latest drama with Lewis could really dent his confidence and that could be a real worry.

imo, Webber, Vettel, Alonso and Kimi are the only guys in the field with the balls to tell it like it is, and you still can't rely on them to do it. Corporate entities pay the bills and corporate entities are by nature extremely conservative.

[bud]

i dunno Lewis has said alot of stupid things sometimes. i wouldnt really call some of them PR propaganda just spare of the moment feelings.

i was watching the 08 season review on the way to Melbourne and i did like his comment about the FIA after his Spa penalty and how the appeal will go! " ah you know what theyre like" that took some big "balls" i felt

[Gilles 27]

i liked his comment before Spa when he said 'no one overtakes me on the outside' only to be taken on the outside by Kimi about 3 laps into the race...