Crash.Net User: DennisKwok

Comments rating: 243
Position in rating: 454

Show Comments on:


April 09, 2014 2:27 PM
Last Edited 173 days ago

F1 » Hamilton 3s clear on second morning

The Brawn GP car didn't enjoy anywhere near the same advantage at any point in 2009 that the Mercedes currently has over the rest of the field. Look at the facts: The Mercedes cars pulled 2 seconds a lap over everyone else at Bahrain. They are an easy second or more ahead of everyone else in dry qualifying and practice. Nobody is making any impression into their advantage. Hammer down, their advantage is huge. They left the field for dead in the last race as they were pushing hard to beat each other. The Brawn GP car could only pull tenths out on the rest per lap. By the third race of the season, they were off the front row and blown away by Red Bull in the wet race. In the fourth race, they were off the front row again and they made the best with what they had from that moment on. Some of you have some strange ideas of what actually happened in the 2009 season.


April 03, 2014 7:57 PM

F1 » Sutil: I don’t even have a water bottle…

I find it crazy that any F1 team would deliberately withold their driver from having a drinks bottle, just in order to save a kg. A badly dehydrated driver will lose far more time per lap than the couple of tenths of a second a drinks bottle (with fluid) would cost. A saving of a kg isn't worth a lot when the car has been stuffed into a barrier because the driver has lost concentration. F1 teams are not stupid and not one of them would jeopardise the safety of a driver in such a way, for such a small increase in performance. I am taking what Sutil is saying with a very large pinch of salt. If he is indeed driving without a drinks bottle, you can be sure that it would be down to his decision and not being forced upon him by the team.


March 24, 2014 6:55 PM

MotoGP » Silverstone wants halt to Circuit of Wales funding

The issues here are greater than you think. Silverstone has had zero direct financial input and has had to go it alone, despite the constant threats of Bernie taking his toys elsewhere over the past decade. They have had to invest via private ventures in bringing the facility up to date. You say that the circuit is featureless, but it's a damn sight more interesting than 90% of the Tilke tracks and it's the best fans in the world which make it what it is. It would simply be unfair for state funding to be used to build a facility in direct competition with Silverstone. Brands, Cadwell and Donnington simply do not have the space available to bring them up to Bernie spec. Silverstone is also the hub of a motorsport and engineering infrastructure and taking away business and attention away from it, could damage it. However, I would not be adverse to F1 / MotoGP et al having more than one regular venue in the UK. None of this swapping alternate venues nonsense.


August 28, 2013 9:38 PM
Last Edited 399 days ago

F1 » Michelin tempers F1 rumours

107SS2009, I'm sure by now that you understand that the larger diameter tube A would be easier to break by squeezing, although I know you will not admit it. But hey, that's ok. When people have harboured a misconception for a long time, they still refuse to believe it even when the evidence is staring them in the face. Such mental conflict is perfectly natural and all part of the constructivist process. Yes, you are coming around nicely. The only way to make the larger diameter tube as resistant to crushing as the smaller one, is to either change the material or add more material. This is why an 18'' wheel is exponentially heavier than a 13'' wheel, due to the additional material required to bring its strength back up to an acceptable level. Here endeth the lesson. I hope you were paying attention at the back.


August 28, 2013 9:02 PM
Last Edited 399 days ago

F1 » Michelin tempers F1 rumours

'I couldn't be bothered answering your question about vulcanisation as you seem to be unaware of its use in the lay up and moulding of a tyre.' That's awfully convenient for you richard. You say that you couldn't be bothered, yet you took the time and effort to look up wheel/tyres weights for F1, IRL and LMPs in an effort to try and prove me wrong. Hmmmmm.....that doesn't really add up now, does it? You had plenty of opportunities to explain yourself before, but chose to dodge them. I fully understand what vulcanisation is and how it is of use to the tyre industry. Which is why I know that 'vulcanising failure' is a term that simply doesn't exist. Did you mean to say 'devulcanisation' as that does exist, but is something else altogether and not a process than can happen to a tyre when in use! At least we are agreed on one thing, discussing this with you is indeed, pointless. In fact, I already said that in a number of posts previous.

Page 3 of 8
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  »

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.