It’s not my problem that you are unable to differentiate between the events that were simply reported and the author’s editorialization. Even William could admit that’s what happened, even if he saw nothing wrong with it.
Believe what you want, you’ve already made up your mind. PS. None of this is anyone’s “problem”. You have an agenda, no problem. No need to get personal…”lobotomized”? Come on
You've been very open about not having been to a race in a very long time. Go to one. And you will smell it.
F1 would not have these credibility issues if all the cars were checked or even if all of the point scoring cars were checked immediately after the race. It might be difficult to do for the top three as they are generally arrayed in front of the podium area but why not do so while the drivers are being interviewed or are in the cool down room. There are only 4 measuring points so two people with dial calipers could do a car in less than a minute. Either that or eliminate the rule.
Even though I think all cars should be checked, they should really only need to check the top 10 as those are the points scoring cars. If one fails, then the next driver's car that inherits the points gets checked too. Car roles up onto a weigh bridge to check minimum weight and weight distribution. Check DRS slot gap. Take 1L of required fuel for the sample. Perhaps there is a simple load test device for front and rear wing deflection. Spot check any illegal ballast added. Raise the car up, a template is used to check plank wear. Move on. A team of 3 or 4 inspectors could have this done in 15 minutes per car.
Oh, I like that. It looks very efficient. I think the FIA should hire you !! Joke apart, I agree, only the top 10 cars need to be scrutinized post race. At the moment, checks are a joke by the sound of it. No wonder teams become ... complacent.
That's fine. I'll do that while you continue to live in a fantasy land where Wolff didn't get the rules changed and wasn't called on it by Horner. Pot, meet kettle. Don't be surprised when snark is met with snark.
Hmmm Hambone 3rd and Georgie 8th…. Max a better driver this year? Prolly, Checo? no Ricky Bobby did state truth about second place…
The only snark is being spewed by you. You’re not the only person who’s followed F1 for years. PS. You’re allowed your opinion, but not your facts.
What the heck does that mean? Someone isn't allowed to present facts? Probably the most honest thing said from a Mercedes/Lewis fan.
[QUOTE="Giallo 550, post: 149372481, member: 228721" Even William could admit that’s what happened, even if he saw nothing wrong with it.[/QUOTE] And I still don't. Accusation of conspiracy have never been officially made by any the 9 other teams. Some complained to the media but never bothered using the proper channels. No case to answer. Lobbying is acceptable; corruption isn't. The former occured, but never any proof has been brought up for the later
You don't think there might be concerns over retribution if any of the teams formerly spoke out against corruption? You don't think it's a little strange that one team gets what they want against the collective wishes of the other nine?
I think a team that raise a serious concern to the FIA is listened to. In any case, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Here we go again. If the concern was that serious, they would've raised their car or withdrawn the car until it was fixed. Instead, they lobbied the FIA, so now all teams were affected.
And you, of course, can provide actual proof that the other nine's collective wishes were ignored in favor of M-B. Note I said proof, not some article with maybe, could be, if, etc. If a writer has PROOF, he/she doesn't resort to implication. They resort to time/date/location of the crime. All I hear from you guys is "Well, everybody knows". Prove it or keep chasing implications.
