Crash.Net User: Googolplex

Comments rating: 5091
Position in rating: 12

Show Comments on:


March 22, 2014 1:13 PM

F1 » Kate Walker: Fuel madness

As I see it, Sunny's point is that if the Umpire blows the whistle, the players can't ignore him otherwise you have the players not the umpire ruling the game. I totally agree with that. However, if you carefully scrutinise the text of Stewards reasons they did not actually DQ car 3 for not obeying the umpire even though they mentioned it and were obviously not happy, but rather car 3 was expressly disqualified for purportedly breaking a rule which RBR might just prove they didn't break.


March 22, 2014 7:18 AM

F1 » Kate Walker: Fuel madness

107SS2009: Anybody that remotely believes that a team that goes racing have a right or is right to ignore requests/instructions by race control while the race is in progress regardless of the potential rights or wrongs is a total disgrace to F1 and not worthy of being on this forum.
Sunny, Nobody could accuse you of lacking passion or the courage of you're own convictions.


March 24, 2014 8:57 AM
Last Edited 125 days ago

F1 » Red Bull appeal date set

Sunny and Rob01, Your opinions are strongly held. As I see it you both consider Red Bull's actions in this matter to have been totally misconceived and lacking in any understanding of the fundamental rules that govern F1. However, given that they have been the most successful F1 team of the current decade, surely you might excuse some of us for trying to reason why they might be taking the actions that they are. PS EEE ORR


March 21, 2014 6:17 AM
Last Edited 131 days ago

F1 » Red Bull to appeal Ricciardo exclusion

I said earlier on the original thread, Car 3 was disqualified for breaching Art 3.2 Sporting Regs and Art 5.1.4 Technical Regs. It was not disqualified for failing to comply with a technical directive given albeit that was clearly a matter the Stewards expressed dissatisfaction about in their determination. Art 3.2 says you must comply with the conditions of eligibility, the relevant condition in this instance being compliance with Art 5.1.4 of Tech Regs, which says fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h. Articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4, which provide for one homologated FIA approved sensor to be fitted which, inter alia, measures fuel flow and which provides for that information to go to the FIA, does not deem the readings on those sensors to be accurate. There is no doubt a strong presumption the homologated sensor is accurate, but that presumption (as a matter of legal analysis) must be able to be displaced by evidence to the contrary.

Page 16 of 177
« 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  »

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.