The Official 2008 F1 Series Thread

[E30Kaiser]

No to all.

[dinanm3atl]

Qualified ahead of Kubica and got unlucky during the race with Heikki is where he was before that. But we have already had the whole Nick Heidfeld sucks string of posts so no need to start it again until next race.

Kubica lost out a full day due to having been given a car that was setup for him.

Meh, I still say that Hamilton capitalized off of his near-miss. He made up ground on Räikkönen with his off-course excursion. That said, a penalty was certainly in order, a drive through or 5 grid spot penalty at Monza would have been adequate though.

My main gripe is not with Hamilton's late braking, it was with his end reaction to the off. If he had taken the same line as Räikkönen coming out of Blanchimont, he would have been one or two car lengths behind him. Instead, Hamilton gets right beside of him, backs off, and then swoops right past him. To say that he didn't "make the most of that moment" is complete BS.

In regards to Schumacher's Monaco "trick," he pulled many questionable moves in 2006, none of which would be good examples (with the Ferrari/FIA lovefest that was more than evident that year.)

Agreed.

As I said before, penalty was a bit harsh but I believe they were saying a drive through penalty will be ~25sec and by the time they look over tape and the replays the race was over.

[BigD]

No offense, but I'm glad your not Bernie. Rain causes some of the most exciting F1 races.

None taken, just rambling.

But I do agree with you. There's just a line between exciting and dangerous (it's exciting when your guy is winning, until he hits a wall. One, I don't want to see anyone trying to limp it home on slicks in the rain - teams and drivers not sensible enough need to be ruled into doing it, plus if everyone does it then it won't affect the running order. And if it's like last year at Silverstone, that's not exciting that's just fucking dangerous. No one is willing to stop because there's too much at stake.

[Dave]

None taken, just rambling.

But I do agree with you. There's just a line between exciting and dangerous (it's exciting when your guy is winning, until he hits a wall. One, I don't want to see anyone trying to limp it home on slicks in the rain - teams and drivers not sensible enough need to be ruled into doing it, plus if everyone does it then it won't affect the running order. And if it's like last year at Silverstone, that's not exciting that's just fucking dangerous. No one is willing to stop because there's too much at stake.

Dangerous is unlimited tires and engines. Those cars get much faster and drivers will be dying with great regularity.

[BigD]

Dangerous is unlimited tires and engines. Those cars get much faster and drivers will be dying with great regularity.

If you say so. The 917s had 5.4 V12s with over 1500hp, 0-60 in 1.9, 0-100 in 3.9 over 250 top speed and tires 2x wider than F1 today. The only safety features they had in common with modern cars were seatbelts, helmets and nomex. There were no rampant fatalities then, I don't think there will be any now. Like Senna always said (or implied to Prost whenever he tried whining), motor racing is not for pussies.

[Charlie]

There were no rampant fatalities then,

Are you kidding? The Can-Am/WSC era had numerous driver fatalities. F1 from 1960-to the late 70's had at least 2 guys get killed each year. Look at the group B rally cars in the 80's.

-Charlie

[BigD]

Are you kidding? The Can-Am/WSC era had numerous driver fatalities. F1 from 1960-to the late 70's had at least 2 guys get killed each year. Look at the group B rally cars in the 80's.

-Charlie

Eggzachary. There were numerous fatalities in all motorsports back then, including nascar - there are almost none now (except for some stupid rednecks who insist that safety devices are for idiots). Can-Am had the most powerful cars yet they didn't have any exceptional number of deaths like the previous post would suggest. The speed is only one factor. Most of today's crashes in F1 and elsewhere would have been fatal in the 70s - and not just due to the advances in car safety, but track safety as well.

[Jugdish]

EDIT: No source, was taken from another forum and I figured they had a source since he is a reputable poster. Validity is questionable.

Well it looks like Kimi agrees that it was BS.

In a sensational turnaround, a flash from La Gazzetta dello Sport quotes defending World Champion Kimi Raikkonen as being prepared to testify on behalf of arch rival Lewis Hamilton at the FIA hearing that will result from Vodafone McLaren Mercedes' protest of the penalty imposed on Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix. "I don't care what the stewards said, as far as I was concerned, Hamilton let me by as we passed the pits", said Raikkonen in Geneva today. "I got ahead, I tried to defend the position and the race was on again. My car was for sure very difficult on the prime tyres in the rain and Lewis got by me into the hairpin. That was that."

Raikkonen went on, "For sure, I don't like to lose but I don't like to win through stupid decisions. People say I have lost the love (for F1) but yesterday I showed that second was not what I wanted. There are five races to go and I plan to win them all. I'm not the sort to give up that easily."

Asked if he was prepared to testify to that effect if the McLaren protest goes to the FIA, Raikkonen simply said, "Yes, why not."

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali declined to comment on Raikkonen's statement but technical director Aldo Costa admitted the Scuderia was not pleased. "Our driver has a view but the team believes the stewards and the FIA have all the information they need. We will be talking to our driver during the week," Costa told Gazzetta dello Sport.

[TDE30]

Eggzachary. There were numerous fatalities in all motorsports back then, including nascar - there are almost none now (except for some stupid rednecks who insist that safety devices are for idiots). Can-Am had the most powerful cars yet they didn't have any exceptional number of deaths like the previous post would suggest. The speed is only one factor. Most of today's crashes in F1 and elsewhere would have been fatal in the 70s - and not just due to the advances in car safety, but track safety as well.

Easy there, cowboy. I dislike NASCAR as much as the next guy, but that was totally uncalled for.

Sure there have been numerous advances in safety (both car and track,) and crash reduction, but the FIA has chosen to focus more on decreasing the astronomical amounts of money thrown around by teams each year. They are trying to level the playing field so that the race becomes a race won by drivers and the team (especially the strategists,) and not wholly because of the motor and tire packages. I like it, they are trying to make the sport more of a sport, and not just a battle of the engines.

Your request list for Bernie sounds ridiculous and fairlyland-ish. Some of them are valid points (e.g. protecting pit workers, no tire manufacturer restrictions,) but you lost me with "This is F1, I want cool, fast and expensive."

[blck325is]

Wow if Kimi is willing to testify that should show the marshalls just how retarded the decision is. Some argue he took advantage then slowed down to pass him, but in all honestly he did what he should have done in order to save the car and maintain some sort of a shot at the flag. I hope they do something about the cockup...

[TDE30]

Well it looks like Kimi agrees that it was BS.

Wow, that surprises me. Not that the outcome would have been any different, but surely Kimi realized that Hamilton made up at least a little bit of ground after his off.

The FIA is stubborn though, they won't change their minds.

[BigD]

Easy there, cowboy. I dislike NASCAR as much as the next guy, but that was totally uncalled for.

How was it uncalled for? Earnhardt was the only guy on the circuit who didn't wear a HANS device, in fact protesting it. And he died how? FROM HAVING HIS HEAD RIP OFF HIS NECK!!! That's the Darwin award right there.

[TDE30]

Referring to someone who had a history like his with that sport as a "stupid redneck" is hardly tactful.

I guess when you come to power and have your F1 with rocket powered cars and ejector seats, the driver will just eject themselves when presented with the same scenario. :roll:

[Dave]

Umm, at the time, he was not the only guy running without it.

And as far as safety - its not just impact injury. At such high speeds and G loading, you are looking at guys blacking out or having internal injuries - which of course, might lead to crashes.

[Charlie]

How was it uncalled for? Earnhardt was the only guy on the circuit who didn't wear a HANS device, in fact protesting it. And he died how? FROM HAVING HIS HEAD RIP OFF HIS NECK!!! That's the Darwin award right there.

Wrong.

Only a handful of drivers were running a HANS device prior to Earnhardt's death. We're talking like 3-4 guys. They weren't mandated, and he didn't "protest" it. He also wasn't the only guy to die due to a basal skull fracture. Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin, John Nemechek and Tony Renna all died of BSF in the 2 years prior to Earnhardt's death.

Earnhardt refused to wear a closed face helmet, as did a lot of the other "old guard' drivers.

-Charlie