Crash.Net User: Googolplex

Comments rating: 5527
Position in rating: 18

Show Comments on:


March 08, 2015 12:35 PM

F1 » Ricciardo excited for homecoming in Formula 1 opener

I think there is something to be said for Sunny's view that the disagree button ought be removed. Richy, as he rightly observes, will be the prime beneficiary of such a change. If someone makes an intelligent contribution, you can agree, otherwise you should take up the debate with a response. Then we can see and judge those disagrees for what they are. Some of the justifying explanations above provide a useful demonstration of the rather sad mindset of the disagreers.


February 09, 2015 8:39 AM

F1 » F1: McLaren ‘can start 2015 where it finished 2014’

107SS2009: Every team that make use of a wind tunnel facility will have their aero numbers which means that they know exactly if their aero numbers are better or not than their previous model. As to the PU output (dyno numbers) PU manufacturers will not only have their own numbers but will for sure calculate others output (numbers) to a reasonably accurate Guesstimation. As to us followers of the sports there is no way we will ever know any of the true said numbers other than those deemed fit to be feed to us or those perceived up by some self appointed expert.
As usual Sunny, you are a wealth of insights and information.


January 29, 2015 1:43 PM
Last Edited 105 days ago

F1 » Horner: Vettel nearly quit F1

107SS2009: Rob, you will be surprised at the collection of cups/hats I have accumulated over time, last one given me was a Lulu cup when he came over to give a driving demonstration, and I even spoke to him in person although briefly.
Sunny, Have you got your Ricciardo cap yet? Perhaps you or Rob might be interested in my signed Webber cap. It will float your boat.


March 09, 2015 1:16 PM

F1 » Van der Garde legal decision with Sauber delayed

Sunny, If the Victorian Supreme Court upholds VDG's action for an order requiring Sauber to make one of the cars available for VDG, that will almost certainly be determinative of the issue for the Melbourne race. The other two drivers had a QC representing them at the hearing, who was separate from Sauber's QC, so their counter arguments are already under consideration. I cannot see how the Court could order Sauber to run a car that the team is not satisfied will be safe. So if the Court does order one of the cars be made available for VDG, I expect we may well see that car being withdrawn on safety grounds by Sauber.


March 08, 2015 12:48 PM

F1 » Ricciardo excited for homecoming in Formula 1 opener

richard: oh well. i am the one who gets the most disagrees! that causes a problem now, will those plonkers now disagree with that comment! :D haha. i see that two have already fallen into the trap. so they disagree that i get the most disagrees! i wonder who does?
They were disagreeing with the proposition that you getting the most disagrees causes a problem. Your record is richly deserved and I have no problem with it.


March 12, 2015 7:11 AM
Last Edited 105 days ago

F1 » van der Garde wins seat as Sauber appeal rejected

The Crash article seems to impliedly suggest that the Court should have had regard to the financial consequences of its ruling for Sauber. Not even Sauber argued that was a relevant consideration at the Court hearing. Justice Whelan told Sauber's QC that he should stop looking at him as if he were a dill. Must have been quite a tense hearing. The Court also said that whether or not it was too dangerous for Sauber to allow GVDG to drive was a matter for the regulators of the sport, and it was not a matter that the Court could rule upon.


March 11, 2015 11:58 AM
Last Edited 105 days ago

F1 » Sauber appeal against van der Garde court decision

Justice Crofts decision is no easy read. Essentially he found there was no valid ground to refuse to enforce the Arbitrators decision. He noted that the Arbitrator ordered that Sauber take no actions to deprive GVDG of his right to drive for Sauber this season, but he also said that does not mean they were required to act in a way that would create an unreasonably dangerous situation or vitiate their insurance. It will be very interesting to see what the Court of Appeal does with this.

Page 8 of 197
« 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  »

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 - 2015 Crash Media Group

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