Crash.Net User: 1Jez

Comments rating: 752
Position in rating: 199

Show Comments on:


July 31, 2014 5:09 AM
Last Edited 217 days ago

F1 » Caterham set to counter-sue employees

Caterham's statement is written in a language similar to English, called Legalese. I'm not fluent, but I'll try to translate a little - "Caterham F1 Team's staff are employed by a company that is a supplier to the company that holds its F1 licence, the licence that allows it to compete in the Formula 1 World Championship. "Additionally, the team has read claims that its staff were not paid in July - again, this is wholly untrue. Every individual currently employed by Caterham F1 Team was paid their July salary..." This loosely translates to "those who were let go were not let go by the Team, because they don't work for the Team so don't blame us. Those who do work for the Team were paid for July, but that may not include those who do not work for the Team as aforementioned."


July 29, 2014 5:18 AM

F1 » ‘He still managed to crash in to Jules’

Oh, how this man infuriates me. Never in the field of Formula 1 has the misfortune of so many been caused by so few. No driver has been penalised more often in one season than Maldonado. Why he still holds a super licence is beyond me. Take the decision to hire him out of desperate, cash-strapped teams' hands. Actually, I think I'd rather see him retain his super licence and the teams be given a greater share of the profit by FOM. That way he can be shown the door based on his lack of skill alone and he will have no-one to blame but himself.


July 17, 2014 2:53 AM

F1 » Renault expecting performance boost in Germany

107SS2009: The actual ICE (internal combustion engine) produced by Mercedes, FERRARI and Renault this year are remarkably close in performance (ICE power output), Mercedes big advantage comes from the hybrid areas
This seems counter intuitive given that the output of the electric motor is capped by the regulations, whereas the ICE output is not. Your comments regarding consistency in harvesting energy and testing make sense, but I'm struggling with the quoted bit.


May 15, 2014 4:31 PM

F1 » Maldonado dreaming of Monaco podium

Don't get ahead of yourself, Pastor. Dream is right - perhaps some points would be a more appropriate target before you start thinking of podiums, particularly at Monaco. We all know that testing times mean very little, if anything at all. Chilton going quickest on day one clearly demonstrates this point. With Mercedes well in front of everyone, Red Bull clearly the best of the rest, then Ferrari, Williams and Force India scrapping for third best team, I just can't see Lotus being anywhere near the podium - especially Maldonado. Maldonado will be lucky to finish the race (he has never finished a race at Monaco in F1), let alone get in the points (for the first time this season, don't forget), let alone get on the steps of the royal box.


May 14, 2014 7:47 AM

F1 » Spain F1 test results - day one: 13 May

Sprulz, Hairy Luthier, Russell13 - there is a whole race weekend's worth of Pirelli F1 rubber laid on the track now, that's why the times are so much quicker. Not to mention a day's testing as well - the race was 66 laps yet most teams are doing more than that in a testing day. Ever heard of the term "rubbered in"? Testing after a race meeting at the same track is an extreme example of it. I'd be surprised if the fastest testing times WEREN'T significantly faster than quali.


April 23, 2014 3:54 AM

F1 » Horner: You can see why McLaren need Fallows…

Snottub: I am the guy that they turn to to execute the actual case in court.
So you're a barrister and familiar with the details of the relevant contracts? The former may well be true, however I doubt very much that the latter is. If you were familiar with the contracts in question, you wouldn't be bleating about it on the internet.
Snottub: Ron Dennis will win this one despite what all you strange people are wishing for. The law is the law and Mclaren are in the legal right. Your assumption as to my legal qualifications is typically wide of the mark for a narrow thinker like yourself.
You're making concrete predictions, without all the facts, about the outcome of potential (not even confirmed yet) litigation and I'M the narrow thinker?

Page 2 of 29
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  »

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.