[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

Do I really need to repost ....

The only thing you need to repost is the post where I allegedly/supposedly promised "gotcha evidence for FIA" like you stated in this post

Or of course admit that you were wrong with your statement

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

The only thing you need to repost is the post where I allegedly/supposedly promised "gotcha evidence for FIA" like you stated in this post

Or of course admit that you were wrong with your statement

Ignore everything else, textbook fanboy.

You may not have directly said but you definitely supported it. A distinction without a difference I believe is the term.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

Ignore everything else, textbook fanboy.

everything else already had it's answer.... multiple times

A distinction without a difference I believe is the term.

No, lying is the term.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

everything else already had it's answer.... multiple times




No, lying is the term.

to both.

Let’s end this, I’ll just ask you directly. Did you support RB trying to get a more severe penalty against Lewis?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

Did you support RB trying to get a more severe penalty against Lewis?

I didn't think it would be possible.
I think the FIA would only revoke their decision if intent was at play (so intent to cause a crash, which is different to take risks that might cause a crash).
For that RB has to prove that HAM would have caused the crash on purpose.

First of all I don't think that's the case, something I said way before last thursday, namely here:
https://www.zpost.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=282

And secondly, something like that is virtually impossible to prove, unless they had something like records of a MERC meeting where that was said (which is virually impossible).
Of course no one exactly knows what RB had which they thought would be aggravated circumstances to change the FIA's mind and result in a more severe penalty.

The only penalty that would have helped VER would be a penalty where either HAM points would be taken away or HAM being disqualified for the next race, but I think that the FIA only considers such penalties when intent is at play.
HAM crashing into VER wasn't intent imho, it was more of a 'now or never' action.
He came into that corner way too fast, couldn't hold the racing line, couldn't dive into the gap VER left him on the inside, and crashed into VER.
HAM came in too hard because he knew that if he didn't try at Copse in that lap, he would never see VER again.

But here you're also saying something distinctively different.
Here you're saying "support RB trying to get a more severe penalty" which is not the same as "where was the evidence you guys were promising"
Supporting something is something completely different to supplying evidence.

I support everyone to follow the channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I didn't think it would be possible.
I think the FIA would only revoke their decision if intent was at play (so intent to cause a crash, which is different to take risks that might cause a crash).
For that RB has to prove that HAM would have caused the crash on purpose.

First of all I don't think that's the case, something I said way before last thursday, namely here:
https://www.zpost.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=282

And secondly, something like that is virtually impossible to prove, unless they had something like records of a MERC meeting where that was said (which is virually impossible).
Of course no one exactly knows what RB had which they thought would be aggravated circumstances to change the FIA's mind and result in a more severe penalty.

The only penalty that would have helped VER would be a penalty where either HAM points would be taken away or HAM being disqualified for the next race, but I think that the FIA only considers such penalties when intent is at play.
HAM crashing into VER wasn't intent imho, it was more of a 'now or never' action.
He came into that corner way too fast, couldn't hold the racing line, couldn't dive into the gap VER left him on the inside, and crashed into VER.
HAM came in too hard because he knew that if he didn't try at Copse in that lap, he would never see VER again.

So yes?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

So yes?

I added this to my post:


But here you're also saying something distinctively different.
Here you're saying "support RB trying to get a more severe penalty" which is not the same as "where was the evidence you guys were promising"
Supporting something is something completely different to supplying evidence.

I support everyone to follow the channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.


So no, I never promised any evidence (this answers your statement)
And yes I support everyone to follow the channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I added this to my post:


But here you're also saying something distinctively different.
Here you're saying "support RB trying to get a more severe penalty" which is not the same as "where was the evidence you guys were promising"
Supporting something is something completely different to supplying evidence.

I support everyone to follow the channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.


So no, I never promised any evidence (this answers your statement)
And yes I support everyone to follow the channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.

Ok, I apologize, you never specifically said you promised evidence etc. But you were supporting RBs move for a stiffer penalty and secretly hoping that they had something? Amiright?

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

Agree. Let Politicians stick to Politics, they don't ask to drive F1 cars, do they. When I watch an F1 Race, all I want to see is racing. There is already more than plenty of politics outside of racing.

I agree completely . It's a F* Muppet Show !

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

Ok, I apologize, you never specifically said you promised evidence etc. But you were supporting RBs move for a stiffer penalty and secretly hoping that they had something? Amiright?

I didn't expect them to have anything that would change the FIA's mind. (like I already said almost 2 weeks ago)
But if they had, the FIA should know about it don't you think?
And I support everyone to follow the proper channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.
And imho that's what RB did.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I didn't expect them to have anything that would change the FIA's mind. (like I already said almost 2 weeks ago)
But if they had, the FIA should know about it don't you think?
And I support everyone to follow the proper channels set to make their statement to the FIA in any matter.
And imho that's what RB did.

Now you aren’t answering the question. Did you mean to link that post or a different one? All that said was more defense of Max/RB.

If you didn’t think they had any kind of a chance I don’t recall you saying so. Maybe you did and I missed it but you are generally very quiet when comes to criticizing RB or Max in anyway.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

If you didn’t think they had any kind of a chance I don’t recall you saying so.

So?
Do I need to talk about everything at all times?

The way I see it, if I was hoping that RB would have evidence that would result in HAM getting a heavier punishment, which would only be possible if he caused that crash with intent (like I already said almost 2(!) weeks ago), that would mean that one of the drivers in the field doesnt have a problem with intentional creating crashes that could have a lethal result (I mean Copse is the fastest corner in the F1 season after all).
In any scenario that is way worse than this crash being non intentional. Mainly for the sport of F1.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

So?
Do I need to talk about everything at all times?

The way I see it, if I was hoping that RB would have evidence that would result in HAM getting a heavier punishment, which would only be possible if he caused that crash with intent (like I already said almost 2(!) weeks ago), that would mean that one of the drivers in the field doesnt have a problem with intentional creating crashes that could have a lethal result (I mean Copse is the fastest corner in the F1 season after all).
In any scenario that is way worse than this crash being non intentional. Mainly for the sport of F1.

So I am right and no you don’t but nearly every time you do here it is in defense of RB and Max. So why all this drama and just admit it posts ago, what’s the big deal? It’s pretty clear you aren’t impartial.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

It’s pretty clear you aren’t impartial.

No one here is impartial.
But that doesn't mean I'd rather see HAM pushing off VER on purpose resulting in a heavier penalty than non intentional as a result of wanting to overtake too eagerly resulting in no change in penalty.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Gearbox change for Max and he can keep the engine as it's working fine.
https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/90375...one-crash.html

[chuckthis]

lol....they've speculated rain already this year with no result. Would be great to finally happen but I'm not holding my breath.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

And HAM has a lot more points on his superlicense than VER.

Negative when you look overall. VER has a shorter career and has racked up more points than anyone else. He topped the most points of any driver in two seasons, 2015 and 2018.

Max has (21) over his shorter career than vs Lewis (12).

The only reason Max has less in the last few years is because everyone at the front of the Grid knows to avoid him or there will be a crash.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

No penalty on new gearbox and lets hope it makes a difference in FP3 before quali, Max should have an advantage...be nice to have a RB 1-2 on the starting grid

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by tdott

Negative when you look overall. VER has a shorter career and has racked up more points than anyone else. He topped the most points of any driver in two seasons, 2015 and 2018.

Points expire. The points on the superlicense are the points that haven't expired yet.
And VER has less points on his superlicense than HAM.
In fact he has 0 points on his superlicense.
You do know how that system works don't you?
Drivers get judged by the FIA on the amount of points they have NOW, so that is the only point of concern drivers and teams have.
Expired points play no role whatsoever in that. No team, driver or FIA steward loses sleep over that.

[Killed by Death]

Thought Ferrari might do better on a hot twisty track

[Bubbles]

It will be interesting to see the actual petition. I’m speculating that, RBR may have called out Toto for influencing the stewards decision process. Masi dropped the ball and should have never open the door to the stewards before a decision was made. Masi needs to step up his game, which means he can no longer buddy up with any team principal. He is the top cop, perception of being in any teams pocket is bad for the game.

Checo needs to step up, otherwise Bottas could be a good pairing for Max. He would bring significant intel from Merc.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

It will be interesting to see the actual petition. I’m speculating that, RBR may have called out Toto for influencing the stewards decision process. Masi dropped the ball and should have never open the door to the stewards before a decision was made. Masi needs to step up his game, which means he can no longer buddy up with any team principal. He is the top cop, perception of being in any teams pocket is bad for the game.

Checo needs to step up, otherwise Bottas could be a good pairing for Max. He would bring significant intel from Merc.

I've always said that Masi is the wrong person to be director of races, everything he does seems always to favor merc,advising stewards in giving the minimum penalty for Hamilton in such cases as happened at silverstone.
Ferrari have now come up and gave some support of continuing to having petitions in such cases and having a more objective outlook than the lukewarm one shown by the gov'g body so far. Other teams should follow suit also instead of keeping quiet out of fear especially customer teams that use Merc engines.