|
|
Formula 1
Dec 14, 2021 1:36:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bestie on Dec 14, 2021 1:36:50 GMT
If Hamilton had pitted under the safety car then Verstappen would have stayed out and Hamilton would have lost anyway. Once they let the lapped cars through there was only one result. And Bestie please don’t call me a fanboy or a Scouser…I am neither and I greatly resent the descriptions… Appealing a decision because they lost and then appealing the appeal being rejected, because the other guy gambled and won? One hundred percent Scouse. Not to mention the last person/team to attempt to win the Driver's Championship by default instead of on the track ... Put it like this: If Hamilton had been ultra aggressive and pitted, the theory is Max would have done the opposite. So Michael Masi makes his decision and suddenly roles are reversed - Max is being chased down by Hamilton on a younger, soft tire, and loses. Would Mercedes/Toto Wolff be bringing in Barristers to get the result overturned 'because that isn't the expected regulation'? Absolutely not. So any attempt to justify that, or cry foul because the 'wrong' guy won, is utter hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by kstandhand on Dec 14, 2021 8:03:24 GMT
I'm far from a fan & only saw the last 15 or so laps because I was having a beer with friend's that do follow it.
Surely the rules need to be firmed up,how a set of rules can be applied to any competition that all competitors have to abide by with the exception that the ref can overide them if he chooses too at time,seems nuts to me in any form of sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratbag on Dec 14, 2021 9:02:46 GMT
If Hamilton had pitted under the safety car then Verstappen would have stayed out and Hamilton would have lost anyway. Once they let the lapped cars through there was only one result. And Bestie please don’t call me a fanboy or a Scouser…I am neither and I greatly resent the descriptions… Appealing a decision because they lost and then appealing the appeal being rejected, because the other guy gambled and won? One hundred percent Scouse. Not to mention the last person/team to attempt to win the Driver's Championship by default instead of on the track ... Put it like this: If Hamilton had been ultra aggressive and pitted, the theory is Max would have done the opposite. So Michael Masi makes his decision and suddenly roles are reversed - Max is being chased down by Hamilton on a younger, soft tire, and loses. Would Mercedes/Toto Wolff be bringing in Barristers to get the result overturned 'because that isn't the expected regulation'? Absolutely not. So any attempt to justify that, or cry foul because the 'wrong' guy won, is utter hypocrisy. Sorry mate but you are talking bollocks... I really don’t care about the appeal etc., so we can put the scouse thing to bed... Max was on relatively fresh tires so wouldn’t need to pit if Lewis did...the track position he would have gained by staying out on pretty decent tires meant that Lewis would never have been able to chase him down in the same way...Max had nothing to lose and Lewis had everything... Masi also changed his mind (partially) about the lapped cars after pressure from Horner...that allowed Max to close right up on Lewis...he should have also done the same with the other lapped cars, which would have allowed Sainz the opportunity of attacking Max but he didn’t... Anyway whatever... I am tired of the way things have got personal... I am out of here... |
|
|
|
Formula 1
Dec 14, 2021 9:35:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bestie on Dec 14, 2021 9:35:55 GMT
Appealing a decision because they lost and then appealing the appeal being rejected, because the other guy gambled and won? One hundred percent Scouse. Not to mention the last person/team to attempt to win the Driver's Championship by default instead of on the track ... Put it like this: If Hamilton had been ultra aggressive and pitted, the theory is Max would have done the opposite. So Michael Masi makes his decision and suddenly roles are reversed - Max is being chased down by Hamilton on a younger, soft tire, and loses. Would Mercedes/Toto Wolff be bringing in Barristers to get the result overturned 'because that isn't the expected regulation'? Absolutely not. So any attempt to justify that, or cry foul because the 'wrong' guy won, is utter hypocrisy. Sorry mate but you are talking bollocks... I really don’t care about the appeal etc., so we can put the scouse thing to bed... Max was on relatively fresh tires so wouldn’t need to pit if Lewis did...the track position he would have gained by staying out on pretty decent tires meant that Lewis would never have been able to chase him down in the same way...Max had nothing to lose and Lewis had everything... Masi also changed his mind (partially) about the lapped cars after pressure from Horner...that allowed Max to close right up on Lewis...he should have also done the same with the other lapped cars, which would have allowed Sainz the opportunity of attacking Max but he didn’t... Anyway whatever... I am tired of the way things have got personal... I am out of here... To me, Mercedes appealing multiple times is a very Liverpool-esque thing to do. (Failing to qualify for the European Cup in 2006 and getting dispensation, appealing the Suarez ban as examples.) It isn't intended to be personal bud. Without rehashing the end of the race again - the suggestion I have seen seems to be that Red Bull brought Verstappen in on the second safety car, which is when he put on the fresher soft compound tires. But he only came in because Hamilton didn't (theory being it Hamilton pitted to change tires Verstappen could have gone into P1). So it was always a case of one or the other pitting and whomever was chasing would be on the better tires. My point is that Hamilton played safe, and Masi pulled the rug, while Verstappen gambled (because he had to) and was rewarded. I can see why there is a bit of controversy but making out like Hamilton was robbed, I think, paints an unsure and inaccurate picture. What is bollocks about that please? |
|
|
|
Post by ratbag on Dec 14, 2021 11:25:28 GMT
Sorry mate but you are talking bollocks... I really don’t care about the appeal etc., so we can put the scouse thing to bed... Max was on relatively fresh tires so wouldn’t need to pit if Lewis did...the track position he would have gained by staying out on pretty decent tires meant that Lewis would never have been able to chase him down in the same way...Max had nothing to lose and Lewis had everything... Masi also changed his mind (partially) about the lapped cars after pressure from Horner...that allowed Max to close right up on Lewis...he should have also done the same with the other lapped cars, which would have allowed Sainz the opportunity of attacking Max but he didn’t... Anyway whatever... I am tired of the way things have got personal... I am out of here... To me, Mercedes appealing multiple times is a very Liverpool-esque thing to do. (Failing to qualify for the European Cup in 2006 and getting dispensation, appealing the Suarez ban as examples.) It isn't intended to be personal bud. Without rehashing the end of the race again - the suggestion I have seen seems to be that Red Bull brought Verstappen in on the second safety car, which is when he put on the fresher soft compound tires. But he only came in because Hamilton didn't (theory being it Hamilton pitted to change tires Verstappen could have gone into P1). So it was always a case of one or the other pitting and whomever was chasing would be on the better tires. My point is that Hamilton played safe, and Masi pulled the rug, while Verstappen gambled (because he had to) and was rewarded. I can see why there is a bit of controversy but making out like Hamilton was robbed, I think, paints an unsure and inaccurate picture. What is bollocks about that please? OK, last post from me on this... I have already said, I don't give a toss about the appeal, whichever way it goes (and any appeal is going to fail imo)...so let's dispense with the scouse references as far as I am concerned... As soon as Latifi crashed, it was probably all over for Hamilton whatever happened... He was on old, hard compound tyres but he was away down the road and cruising to a (deserved?) win...so his tyres didn't matter... Once the safety car was deployed Hamilton was screwed...as we have already agreed(?) if Hamilton had pitted, Max would have stayed out and gained track position with some relatively new tyres and Lewis would never have been able to hunt him down...so he stayed out and was fucked the other way... His only chance was either finishing under the safety car or having a few cars between himself and Max... Both of the options were removed by Masi...and Masi has form when making crucial decisions...there has been a (quite possible) suggestion that Masi did it so that there would be some 'exciting' action at the end of the race rather than finish under the safety car and that's why he did what he did...I don't know and I really don't care any more...it isn't worth the thought process to argue the toss any further than we already have... I will only say what someone else somewhere else said...whoever won the championship deserved it...they were both superb during the season and next season promises to be pretty tasty... |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Dec 14, 2021 11:52:15 GMT
To me, Mercedes appealing multiple times is a very Liverpool-esque thing to do. (Failing to qualify for the European Cup in 2006 and getting dispensation, appealing the Suarez ban as examples.) It isn't intended to be personal bud. Without rehashing the end of the race again - the suggestion I have seen seems to be that Red Bull brought Verstappen in on the second safety car, which is when he put on the fresher soft compound tires. But he only came in because Hamilton didn't (theory being it Hamilton pitted to change tires Verstappen could have gone into P1). So it was always a case of one or the other pitting and whomever was chasing would be on the better tires. My point is that Hamilton played safe, and Masi pulled the rug, while Verstappen gambled (because he had to) and was rewarded. I can see why there is a bit of controversy but making out like Hamilton was robbed, I think, paints an unsure and inaccurate picture. What is bollocks about that please? OK, last post from me on this... I have already said, I don't give a toss about the appeal, whichever way it goes (and any appeal is going to fail imo)...so let's dispense with the scouse references as far as I am concerned... To be clear - I'm calling Mercedes (especially Toto Wolff) Scouse. Not you. |
|
|
|
Post by Reduntildeath on Dec 14, 2021 18:53:16 GMT
Looking forward to ‘ground effect’ cars coming back next year-first time since the 80’s! along with 18” tyres, ,no barge boards, a stiffer rear wing, and only 4 slits per side on the front. ‘Dirty air’ should be reduced with cars getting a better tow as a result.
Roll on testing in February!
|
|
|
|
Formula 1
Dec 14, 2021 20:06:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by ratbag on Dec 14, 2021 20:06:54 GMT
Looking forward to ‘ground effect’ cars coming back next year-first time since the 80’s! along with 18” tyres, ,no barge boards, a stiffer rear wing, and only 4 slits per side on the front. ‘Dirty air’ should be reduced with cars getting a better tow as a result. Roll on testing in February! If the changes work then it could make F1 properly exciting again and I can’t wait… |
|
|
|
Formula 1
Dec 14, 2021 20:08:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by ratbag on Dec 14, 2021 20:08:49 GMT
OK, last post from me on this... I have already said, I don't give a toss about the appeal, whichever way it goes (and any appeal is going to fail imo)...so let's dispense with the scouse references as far as I am concerned... To be clear - I'm calling Mercedes (especially Toto Wolff) Scouse. Not you. Thanks for that clarification. Now all you need to do is to take back the fanboy accusation and we are good!! 😎 Peace brother… |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Dec 14, 2021 22:23:52 GMT
To be clear - I'm calling Mercedes (especially Toto Wolff) Scouse. Not you. Thanks for that clarification. Now all you need to do is to take back the fanboy accusation and we are good!! 😎 Peace brother… They're on Twitter and it's the ones who try to pretend Verstappen cheated and didn't deserve to win at all or some shite. We're good bud. 👊🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by Diablo Rouge on Dec 16, 2021 10:55:08 GMT
Suck it up Lewis.
|
|
|
|
Post by caino on Dec 16, 2021 11:23:37 GMT
was lewis that told them to drop it. regardless of how the season went, in that last race he was robbed. if only Lewis was a party animal play boy he might be respected more.........  |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Dec 16, 2021 12:16:47 GMT
I really don't think he's been complaining about it. All the salt's coming from Toto. |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Dec 16, 2021 12:17:38 GMT
was lewis that told them to drop it. regardless of how the season went, in that last race he was robbed. if only Lewis was a party animal play boy he might be respected more......... Wasn't robbed he just got unlucky. The way the tide turned all of a sudden was too fast for him to react to and that's about it imo. |
|
|
|
Post by caino on Dec 16, 2021 12:27:10 GMT
was lewis that told them to drop it. regardless of how the season went, in that last race he was robbed. if only Lewis was a party animal play boy he might be respected more......... Wasn't robbed he just got unlucky. The way the tide turned all of a sudden was too fast for him to react to and that's about it imo. was cruising out in the lead by 27s and VSC changed all that. the fact is, they let some back markers overtake and not all, not in line with the rules, but i guess it doesn't matter if your happy with the result and it makes a great show. Mercedes should have also brought lewis in under VSC when they had chance so theyre partly to blame. i do like Max ive liked him since he broke on to the scene, but i cant stand Horne. seams a proper slimy snake. Next year is going to be top drawer with the brand new car designs |
|
