Comment deleted by Site Moderator
MA. Why can't you read and understand what people say. I NEVER said Rosberg aimed his fragile little wing at hamiltons big round rubbery thing did I?
I said he deliberately left his car in a position where the likelihood would be an accident.
As for the issue of laptimes improved on SOME cars this year when they had lost part of their wing, this isn't something I made up, it is a FACT. If you had watched F1 this year you would have seen and heard the evidence yourself. The fact that you continue to argue tells me you either don't watch the races or you are incapable of understanding what the commentary team say.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
MA. Why can't you read and understand what people say. I NEVER said Rosberg aimed his fragile little wing at hamiltons big round rubbery thing did I?
I said he deliberately left his car in a position where the likelihood would be an accident.
As for the issue of laptimes improved on SOME cars this year when they had lost part of their wing, this isn't something I made up, it is a FACT. If you had watched F1 this year you would have seen and heard the evidence yourself. The fact that you continue to argue tells me you either don't watch the races or you are incapable of understanding what the commentary team say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what are we actually arguing about then --- if rosberg did not purposely aim his wing at somebodys tyre which clearly he did not it was nothing more than a racing accident , the like of which we have all seen many times before -
sorry i dont believe that losing a big lump of wing / downforce improves anybodys lap times as it affects the whole aerodynamic efficiency of the car which is ultimately going to slow the car down --
if losing part of his wing was so beneficial to rosberg why did they bother to replace it at spa , why didnt merc just leave it as it was ?
----------- for that matter why does any driver that loses part of a wing ever bother to have the wing changed if losing said wing is beneficial ?
The point about Rosberg was he deliberately (at his own admission) put his car into a position where Hamilton would hit him IF he kept to the racing line. On the previous lap Vettell had also tried to pass Hamilton at the same place, but he bailed out and went off the circuit. Rosberg could have done the same but chose not to. Therefore he caused an avoidable accident, the consequences of which was the retirement of his closest championship rival.
I still cannot understand how he wasn't given at least a drive through.
With respect to the damage to front wings, are you seriously telling me that you haven't seen it this year when on occasions cars with damaged front wings has had a reduction in lap times. And on those occasions they have NOT bothered to replace it. If you haven't seen this I am honestly shocked MA.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 26 minutes ago
The point about Rosberg was he deliberately (at his own admission) put his car into a position where Hamilton would hit him IF he kept to the racing line. On the previous lap Vettell had also tried to pass Hamilton at the same place, but he bailed out and went off the circuit. Rosberg could have done the same but chose not to. Therefore he caused an avoidable accident, the consequences of which was the retirement of his closest championship rival.
I still cannot understand how he wasn't given at least a drive through.
With respect to the damage to front wings, are you seriously telling me that you haven't seen it this year when on occasions cars with damaged front wings has had a reduction in lap times. And on those occasions they have NOT bothered to replace it. If you haven't seen this I am honestly shocked MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just think rosberg bailed out of the passing maneuver he had maybe thought of and the result was the slightest of touches , on a different day both drivers would have got away with it ,
--------- just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg nothing more
----- see below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfMGDY-LgwY
no i cant remember wings coming off and not being replaced , not saying it has not happened but i cant believe it aids lap time or downforce when a chunk of wing is lopped off a car -
----------- logically you have to ask yourself if losing a chunk of wing is a performance aid why is it on there in the first place
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 37 minutes ago
-- logically you have to ask yourself if losing a chunk of wing is a performance aid why is it on there in the first place
Again did you read ANY of my posts? Let me remind you.
=========================================
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 2 days ago
I didn't say he did, did I? AND WHILST BY ALL RIGHTS IT SHOULDN'T IMPROVE PERFORMANCE haven't you watched any F1 the last two seasons? There have been numerous occasions when a driver has lost part of his wing, and his times have improved.
===================================
I have capitalised the relevant part to help you.
And also when did I say, "wings coming off and not being replaced"?
I didn't did I?
I was referring to parts of the wings getting damaged, losing an end plate, or some of those funny technical bits near the end plates.
You keep embellishing other peoples comments to make out they are talking nonsense, yet you make yourself look silly because you claim they have said things they clearly hadn't.
Also that video you posted (ironic that), how does it show him ultimately bailing OUT of a passing maneuver?
He tries to pass, realises he isn't going to make it and starts to bail out by steering left, as Vettel had on the previous lap. But then he turned right again and effectively back towards the racing line. Unfortunately for Hamilton that line was already taken.
IF he had continued to bail out he would have gone across the run off area, again like Vettel did on lap one. No damage would have been sustained on either car. But he didn't, and quite clearly steered back into Hamilton.
Can you see that? Or is the video which you posted too small to see small movements of the steering wheel, which in fact were anything but small.
GC
you are missing the very , very , very , screamingly obvious point GC ,
when a driver loses part of a wing whatever he does in the short term ultimately he will be slower during the course of a race because he would have lost downforce somewhere on the car otherwise that part of the wing would not be there in the first place -
whatever rosberg did or didnt do with the steering wheel it was nothing more than a clumsy error on his part , on a different day both drivers would have got away with it because we are talking about mere millimetres between touching and not touching -
-------------nothing more than a racing accident that we have all seen many times over the yrs and will continue to see many times more -
------------------------- simple as that
Again MA you missed the point I was making.
There have been numerous occasions this year when drivers have sustained damage to their front wing, and they have had no significant increase in laptimes, and sometimes their laptimes have improved, FACT. They have not bothered to change their wing, as the time taken to do so would exceed any time lost due to any drop off in performance. The teams take a view and decide the fastest option.
Rosberg MAY have thought that if that happened he may have got away without having to change the wing at all. After all he didn't actually RAM his car into Hamilton, just got close enough to touch him. Deliberate contact?
Well in my opinion, I think it was a deliberate act of 'lets see what happens',
Maybe not to puncture Hamiltons big rubbery thing but to let him know he wasn't going to be bossed about. And if this happened to break a bit off his wing it may not affect his performance THAT much, and if it did happen to burst Hamiltons tyre all the better. Just my opinion mind to which I am entitled.
What do I base my opinion on? The video you posted.
Do you agree that far from bailing out Rosberg turned into Hamilton. Can you see that?
Clumsy novice error? What to change direction from safety into a possible accident. Hmmmm I don't think so.
And to call Rosberg a Novice after he has been in F1 for 8 years! You're having a laugh. How many more years does he need to become an experienced driver.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 20 hours, 18 minutes ago
Again MA you missed the point I was making.
There have been numerous occasions this year when drivers have sustained damage to their front wing, and they have had no significant increase in laptimes, and sometimes their laptimes have improved, FACT. They have not bothered to change their wing, as the time taken to do so would exceed any time lost due to any drop off in performance. The teams take a view and decide the fastest option.
Rosberg MAY have thought that if that happened he may have got away without having to change the wing at all. After all he didn't actually RAM his car into Hamilton, just got close enough to touch him. Deliberate contact?
Well in my opinion, I think it was a deliberate act of 'lets see what happens',
Maybe not to puncture Hamiltons big rubbery thing but to let him know he wasn't going to be bossed about. And if this happened to break a bit off his wing it may not affect his performance THAT much, and if it did happen to burst Hamiltons tyre all the better. Just my opinion mind to which I am entitled.
What do I base my opinion on? The video you posted.
Do you agree that far from bailing out Rosberg turned into Hamilton. Can you see that?
Clumsy novice error? What to change direction from safety into a possible accident. Hmmmm I don't think so.
And to call Rosberg a Novice after he has been in F1 for 8 years! You're having a laugh. How many more years does he need to become an experienced driver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not quite sure why or how we got round to disagreeing about whether or not losing a wing improves lap time in the short term or whether it is even relative to anything -
---------------- the bottom line is two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car --
you saw the rosberg clip GC -- you seriously cant see it was just a sloppy error by rosberg , after hamilton won the corner rosberg had no option but to back off which is what he done but misjudged the distance to the back of the lead car by a couple of millimetres -- hence the slight contact -
---------- and my novice comment was referring to the incompetence of the maneuver not the experience of the driver ----- come on GC do i really have to spell out everything i say abc fashion for you
You posted the Rosberg clip, you seriously can't see he steered sharply away from Hamilton and almost as sharply back again. When you see other views it wasn't as if he was correcting any oversteer.
So why did he change his mind from steering left to try to avoid the accident, as Vettel had on lap 1, and then turn back into a position where an accident was almost inevitable?
Your words were EXACTLY this "just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg"
That looks exactly like you were saying Rosberg made a novice mistake to me. What sys everyone else?
Apologies if you didn't mean that but hey, I'm not a mind reader.
So maybe yes, when you make vague statements which clearly mean one thing yet you mean something different, you should spell it out to everyone ABC fashion. Maybe then we wouldn't have these long drawn out 'misunderstandings'.
Oh and "two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car" isn't true when the second car has got a burst tyre caused by the slight contact, and has to drive 3/4 of the way round the circuit, causing untold damage to the floor. Whilst the car with a damaged wing can drive around for a few laps until a scheduled tyre stop. Strange that..
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 1 minute ago
You posted the Rosberg clip, you seriously can't see he steered sharply away from Hamilton and almost as sharply back again. When you see other views it wasn't as if he was correcting any oversteer.
So why did he change his mind from steering left to try to avoid the accident, as Vettel had on lap 1, and then turn back into a position where an accident was almost inevitable?
Your words were EXACTLY this "just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg"
That looks exactly like you were saying Rosberg made a novice mistake to me. What sys everyone else?
Apologies if you didn't mean that but hey, I'm not a mind reader.
So maybe yes, when you make vague statements which clearly mean one thing yet you mean something different, you should spell it out to everyone ABC fashion. Maybe then we wouldn't have these long drawn out 'misunderstandings'.
Oh and "two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car" isn't true when the second car has got a burst tyre caused by the slight contact, and has to drive 3/4 of the way round the circuit, causing untold damage to the floor. Whilst the car with a damaged wing can drive around for a few laps until a scheduled tyre stop. Strange that..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said it was just a sloppy piece of driving from rosberg as the corner was lost and hamilton was thru and gone and in the lead
------------ from rosbergs perspective what was the benefit to turn into hamiltons rear after hamilton was thru and past -
-------------- just poor driving simple as that --
no problem with my novice comment -- but seriously GC i really cant be bothered and i dont have the patience to spell out everything for people on here
-- did you really think that somebody with my knowledge of F1 from the mid 80s onwards thought rosberg was a novice -
you have now completely lost me on what is it you are trying to prove with the wingless car being quicker when you talk about punctures and god knows what else -
----------- what exactly is your point because you have lost me GC --
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
Simple this really
The world believes - rosbergs act wasnt an act of silly novice driving, but a deliberate act safe in the knowledge it could cause a collision. This is further endorsed bu rosbergs own comments
Martials opinion - silly novice mistake, which is ridiculous to think was a deliberate act
Look, thats it, nothing more to say.
The forum moron has his opinion, which never conforms to logic or generally accepted levels of common sense, or cold hard fact
Everyone else has there opinion, whilst generally well thoiggt out, can occasionally be swayed by personal bias etc
Stop engaging with the forum moron. It is a waste of time
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 9 minutes ago
Simple this really
The world believes - rosbergs act wasnt an act of silly novice driving, but a deliberate act safe in the knowledge it could cause a collision. This is further endorsed bu rosbergs own comments
Martials opinion - silly novice mistake, which is ridiculous to think was a deliberate act
Look, thats it, nothing more to say.
The forum moron has his opinion, which never conforms to logic or generally accepted levels of common sense, or cold hard fact
Everyone else has there opinion, whilst generally well thoiggt out, can occasionally be swayed by personal bias etc
Stop engaging with the forum moron. It is a waste of time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you think rosberg aimed his delicate wing at hamiltons hard tyre on purpose -----
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
Here i am engaging with the fool.
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what i mean folks. The guy is mentally disturbed.
I jave actually considered that he is employed by ja606 to increase comments on here. Perhaps admin1 could confirm. I wonder if admin1 would be concerned of that most people would leave this forum because one person is so irritating and ruinous to the threads
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy n paste where i said it. U clearly cant read
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what i mean folks. The guy is mentally disturbed.
I jave actually considered that he is employed by ja606 to increase comments on here. Perhaps admin1 could confirm. I wonder if admin1 would be concerned of that most people would leave this forum because one person is so irritating and ruinous to the threads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are the one that has joined the thread tonight hurling your usual infantile insults because i dont agree with you
------ nobody else here is behaving in such a childish way
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy n paste where i said it. U clearly cant read
----------------------------------------------------------------------
go back to your original post -- you said it was deliberate by rosberg which is the same as saying rosberg aimed his car at hamiltons tyre --
MA, I don't think ANYONE has said Rosberg AIMED his car at Hamiltons tyre. We have ALL said he put his car in a situation where an accident was almost inevitable. He even admitted doing so, probably why he received an undisclosed penalty from Mercedes.
Sign in if you want to comment
Why are the Irish so good?
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 27/10/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/10/14
MA. Why can't you read and understand what people say. I NEVER said Rosberg aimed his fragile little wing at hamiltons big round rubbery thing did I?
I said he deliberately left his car in a position where the likelihood would be an accident.
As for the issue of laptimes improved on SOME cars this year when they had lost part of their wing, this isn't something I made up, it is a FACT. If you had watched F1 this year you would have seen and heard the evidence yourself. The fact that you continue to argue tells me you either don't watch the races or you are incapable of understanding what the commentary team say.
posted on 27/10/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
MA. Why can't you read and understand what people say. I NEVER said Rosberg aimed his fragile little wing at hamiltons big round rubbery thing did I?
I said he deliberately left his car in a position where the likelihood would be an accident.
As for the issue of laptimes improved on SOME cars this year when they had lost part of their wing, this isn't something I made up, it is a FACT. If you had watched F1 this year you would have seen and heard the evidence yourself. The fact that you continue to argue tells me you either don't watch the races or you are incapable of understanding what the commentary team say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what are we actually arguing about then --- if rosberg did not purposely aim his wing at somebodys tyre which clearly he did not it was nothing more than a racing accident , the like of which we have all seen many times before -
sorry i dont believe that losing a big lump of wing / downforce improves anybodys lap times as it affects the whole aerodynamic efficiency of the car which is ultimately going to slow the car down --
if losing part of his wing was so beneficial to rosberg why did they bother to replace it at spa , why didnt merc just leave it as it was ?
----------- for that matter why does any driver that loses part of a wing ever bother to have the wing changed if losing said wing is beneficial ?
posted on 27/10/14
The point about Rosberg was he deliberately (at his own admission) put his car into a position where Hamilton would hit him IF he kept to the racing line. On the previous lap Vettell had also tried to pass Hamilton at the same place, but he bailed out and went off the circuit. Rosberg could have done the same but chose not to. Therefore he caused an avoidable accident, the consequences of which was the retirement of his closest championship rival.
I still cannot understand how he wasn't given at least a drive through.
With respect to the damage to front wings, are you seriously telling me that you haven't seen it this year when on occasions cars with damaged front wings has had a reduction in lap times. And on those occasions they have NOT bothered to replace it. If you haven't seen this I am honestly shocked MA.
posted on 27/10/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 26 minutes ago
The point about Rosberg was he deliberately (at his own admission) put his car into a position where Hamilton would hit him IF he kept to the racing line. On the previous lap Vettell had also tried to pass Hamilton at the same place, but he bailed out and went off the circuit. Rosberg could have done the same but chose not to. Therefore he caused an avoidable accident, the consequences of which was the retirement of his closest championship rival.
I still cannot understand how he wasn't given at least a drive through.
With respect to the damage to front wings, are you seriously telling me that you haven't seen it this year when on occasions cars with damaged front wings has had a reduction in lap times. And on those occasions they have NOT bothered to replace it. If you haven't seen this I am honestly shocked MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just think rosberg bailed out of the passing maneuver he had maybe thought of and the result was the slightest of touches , on a different day both drivers would have got away with it ,
--------- just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg nothing more
----- see below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfMGDY-LgwY
no i cant remember wings coming off and not being replaced , not saying it has not happened but i cant believe it aids lap time or downforce when a chunk of wing is lopped off a car -
----------- logically you have to ask yourself if losing a chunk of wing is a performance aid why is it on there in the first place
posted on 27/10/14
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 37 minutes ago
-- logically you have to ask yourself if losing a chunk of wing is a performance aid why is it on there in the first place
Again did you read ANY of my posts? Let me remind you.
=========================================
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 2 days ago
I didn't say he did, did I? AND WHILST BY ALL RIGHTS IT SHOULDN'T IMPROVE PERFORMANCE haven't you watched any F1 the last two seasons? There have been numerous occasions when a driver has lost part of his wing, and his times have improved.
===================================
I have capitalised the relevant part to help you.
And also when did I say, "wings coming off and not being replaced"?
I didn't did I?
I was referring to parts of the wings getting damaged, losing an end plate, or some of those funny technical bits near the end plates.
You keep embellishing other peoples comments to make out they are talking nonsense, yet you make yourself look silly because you claim they have said things they clearly hadn't.
Also that video you posted (ironic that), how does it show him ultimately bailing OUT of a passing maneuver?
He tries to pass, realises he isn't going to make it and starts to bail out by steering left, as Vettel had on the previous lap. But then he turned right again and effectively back towards the racing line. Unfortunately for Hamilton that line was already taken.
IF he had continued to bail out he would have gone across the run off area, again like Vettel did on lap one. No damage would have been sustained on either car. But he didn't, and quite clearly steered back into Hamilton.
Can you see that? Or is the video which you posted too small to see small movements of the steering wheel, which in fact were anything but small.
posted on 27/10/14
GC
you are missing the very , very , very , screamingly obvious point GC ,
when a driver loses part of a wing whatever he does in the short term ultimately he will be slower during the course of a race because he would have lost downforce somewhere on the car otherwise that part of the wing would not be there in the first place -
whatever rosberg did or didnt do with the steering wheel it was nothing more than a clumsy error on his part , on a different day both drivers would have got away with it because we are talking about mere millimetres between touching and not touching -
-------------nothing more than a racing accident that we have all seen many times over the yrs and will continue to see many times more -
------------------------- simple as that
posted on 28/10/14
Again MA you missed the point I was making.
There have been numerous occasions this year when drivers have sustained damage to their front wing, and they have had no significant increase in laptimes, and sometimes their laptimes have improved, FACT. They have not bothered to change their wing, as the time taken to do so would exceed any time lost due to any drop off in performance. The teams take a view and decide the fastest option.
Rosberg MAY have thought that if that happened he may have got away without having to change the wing at all. After all he didn't actually RAM his car into Hamilton, just got close enough to touch him. Deliberate contact?
Well in my opinion, I think it was a deliberate act of 'lets see what happens',
Maybe not to puncture Hamiltons big rubbery thing but to let him know he wasn't going to be bossed about. And if this happened to break a bit off his wing it may not affect his performance THAT much, and if it did happen to burst Hamiltons tyre all the better. Just my opinion mind to which I am entitled.
What do I base my opinion on? The video you posted.
Do you agree that far from bailing out Rosberg turned into Hamilton. Can you see that?
Clumsy novice error? What to change direction from safety into a possible accident. Hmmmm I don't think so.
And to call Rosberg a Novice after he has been in F1 for 8 years! You're having a laugh. How many more years does he need to become an experienced driver.
posted on 28/10/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 20 hours, 18 minutes ago
Again MA you missed the point I was making.
There have been numerous occasions this year when drivers have sustained damage to their front wing, and they have had no significant increase in laptimes, and sometimes their laptimes have improved, FACT. They have not bothered to change their wing, as the time taken to do so would exceed any time lost due to any drop off in performance. The teams take a view and decide the fastest option.
Rosberg MAY have thought that if that happened he may have got away without having to change the wing at all. After all he didn't actually RAM his car into Hamilton, just got close enough to touch him. Deliberate contact?
Well in my opinion, I think it was a deliberate act of 'lets see what happens',
Maybe not to puncture Hamiltons big rubbery thing but to let him know he wasn't going to be bossed about. And if this happened to break a bit off his wing it may not affect his performance THAT much, and if it did happen to burst Hamiltons tyre all the better. Just my opinion mind to which I am entitled.
What do I base my opinion on? The video you posted.
Do you agree that far from bailing out Rosberg turned into Hamilton. Can you see that?
Clumsy novice error? What to change direction from safety into a possible accident. Hmmmm I don't think so.
And to call Rosberg a Novice after he has been in F1 for 8 years! You're having a laugh. How many more years does he need to become an experienced driver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not quite sure why or how we got round to disagreeing about whether or not losing a wing improves lap time in the short term or whether it is even relative to anything -
---------------- the bottom line is two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car --
you saw the rosberg clip GC -- you seriously cant see it was just a sloppy error by rosberg , after hamilton won the corner rosberg had no option but to back off which is what he done but misjudged the distance to the back of the lead car by a couple of millimetres -- hence the slight contact -
---------- and my novice comment was referring to the incompetence of the maneuver not the experience of the driver ----- come on GC do i really have to spell out everything i say abc fashion for you
posted on 28/10/14
You posted the Rosberg clip, you seriously can't see he steered sharply away from Hamilton and almost as sharply back again. When you see other views it wasn't as if he was correcting any oversteer.
So why did he change his mind from steering left to try to avoid the accident, as Vettel had on lap 1, and then turn back into a position where an accident was almost inevitable?
Your words were EXACTLY this "just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg"
That looks exactly like you were saying Rosberg made a novice mistake to me. What sys everyone else?
Apologies if you didn't mean that but hey, I'm not a mind reader.
So maybe yes, when you make vague statements which clearly mean one thing yet you mean something different, you should spell it out to everyone ABC fashion. Maybe then we wouldn't have these long drawn out 'misunderstandings'.
Oh and "two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car" isn't true when the second car has got a burst tyre caused by the slight contact, and has to drive 3/4 of the way round the circuit, causing untold damage to the floor. Whilst the car with a damaged wing can drive around for a few laps until a scheduled tyre stop. Strange that..
posted on 28/10/14
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
posted on 28/10/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 1 minute ago
You posted the Rosberg clip, you seriously can't see he steered sharply away from Hamilton and almost as sharply back again. When you see other views it wasn't as if he was correcting any oversteer.
So why did he change his mind from steering left to try to avoid the accident, as Vettel had on lap 1, and then turn back into a position where an accident was almost inevitable?
Your words were EXACTLY this "just clumsy novice mistake by rosberg"
That looks exactly like you were saying Rosberg made a novice mistake to me. What sys everyone else?
Apologies if you didn't mean that but hey, I'm not a mind reader.
So maybe yes, when you make vague statements which clearly mean one thing yet you mean something different, you should spell it out to everyone ABC fashion. Maybe then we wouldn't have these long drawn out 'misunderstandings'.
Oh and "two identical cars -- the one with the wing missing is always going to be slower over a race distance than the healthy car" isn't true when the second car has got a burst tyre caused by the slight contact, and has to drive 3/4 of the way round the circuit, causing untold damage to the floor. Whilst the car with a damaged wing can drive around for a few laps until a scheduled tyre stop. Strange that..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said it was just a sloppy piece of driving from rosberg as the corner was lost and hamilton was thru and gone and in the lead
------------ from rosbergs perspective what was the benefit to turn into hamiltons rear after hamilton was thru and past -
-------------- just poor driving simple as that --
no problem with my novice comment -- but seriously GC i really cant be bothered and i dont have the patience to spell out everything for people on here
-- did you really think that somebody with my knowledge of F1 from the mid 80s onwards thought rosberg was a novice -
you have now completely lost me on what is it you are trying to prove with the wingless car being quicker when you talk about punctures and god knows what else -
----------- what exactly is your point because you have lost me GC --
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
posted on 28/10/14
Simple this really
The world believes - rosbergs act wasnt an act of silly novice driving, but a deliberate act safe in the knowledge it could cause a collision. This is further endorsed bu rosbergs own comments
Martials opinion - silly novice mistake, which is ridiculous to think was a deliberate act
Look, thats it, nothing more to say.
The forum moron has his opinion, which never conforms to logic or generally accepted levels of common sense, or cold hard fact
Everyone else has there opinion, whilst generally well thoiggt out, can occasionally be swayed by personal bias etc
Stop engaging with the forum moron. It is a waste of time
posted on 28/10/14
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 9 minutes ago
Simple this really
The world believes - rosbergs act wasnt an act of silly novice driving, but a deliberate act safe in the knowledge it could cause a collision. This is further endorsed bu rosbergs own comments
Martials opinion - silly novice mistake, which is ridiculous to think was a deliberate act
Look, thats it, nothing more to say.
The forum moron has his opinion, which never conforms to logic or generally accepted levels of common sense, or cold hard fact
Everyone else has there opinion, whilst generally well thoiggt out, can occasionally be swayed by personal bias etc
Stop engaging with the forum moron. It is a waste of time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you think rosberg aimed his delicate wing at hamiltons hard tyre on purpose -----
posted on 28/10/14
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
posted on 28/10/14
Here i am engaging with the fool.
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
posted on 28/10/14
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what i mean folks. The guy is mentally disturbed.
I jave actually considered that he is employed by ja606 to increase comments on here. Perhaps admin1 could confirm. I wonder if admin1 would be concerned of that most people would leave this forum because one person is so irritating and ruinous to the threads
posted on 28/10/14
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy n paste where i said it. U clearly cant read
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lets get one thing clear
To sometimes lose a bit of a wing or any part of a car can in rare but not unknown circumstances cause improvements to performance.
The notion that if the lost piece wasnt required, theb it wouldnt be there in the first place. That assumption would only work if its also assumed that the cars are perfect, and also the only way to improve a car is to add on bits and not takeaway.
Sometimes the loss of a part of a wing and or anyother part of a car can, on rare circumstances cause increased performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
load of rubbish -- how can a loss of a wing or part of a wing which effectively means a loss of downforce make that car quicker than a healthy identical car over a race distance
-------------- complete and utter bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u flucking halfwit moron.
Here is a perfect example.
Car setup a at monza, typically low downforce. Track expected to be damp, potentially wet. Cars setup with extra downforce than normal.
Race day is great weather, not what forecasters predicted. Lap 1 into the first chicane, rosberg clips massa rear tyre, rosberg loses a small fraction of wing, reducing overall downforce, giving him much better straight line speed as compared with his rivals. A track where a premium is put on straight line speed.
Does that compute moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fluck me ----- harry potter would have been proud of that one -
--------------- got anymore little fairytales like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what i mean folks. The guy is mentally disturbed.
I jave actually considered that he is employed by ja606 to increase comments on here. Perhaps admin1 could confirm. I wonder if admin1 would be concerned of that most people would leave this forum because one person is so irritating and ruinous to the threads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are the one that has joined the thread tonight hurling your usual infantile insults because i dont agree with you
------ nobody else here is behaving in such a childish way
posted on 28/10/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 4 minutes ago
Please quote where i said that. Can u read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read you own words --- you just said it --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy n paste where i said it. U clearly cant read
----------------------------------------------------------------------
go back to your original post -- you said it was deliberate by rosberg which is the same as saying rosberg aimed his car at hamiltons tyre --
posted on 29/10/14
MA, I don't think ANYONE has said Rosberg AIMED his car at Hamiltons tyre. We have ALL said he put his car in a situation where an accident was almost inevitable. He even admitted doing so, probably why he received an undisclosed penalty from Mercedes.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7