Anjobe wrote: » Do you have a source for that info?
AMKC wrote: » I... Who knows maybe Vertel would have been leading the Chamionship now and be giving it 120 per cent every weekend instead he just looks like someone who does not want to be there and shos heart is not in it anymore. He knows he can not beat the Mercs now as there car is just not good enough so why bother.
quokula wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/mar/05/fia-says-it-could-not-prove-ferraris-engine-operated-outside-rules-in-2019https://www.essentiallysports.com/f1-news-thats-the-reason-were-not-keen-to-do-it-ferrari-explains-why-its-so-secretive-about-its-fia-engine-settlement/ Actually I can only find references to protecting their IP now. I'm sure I read previously that they wanted to protect the IP because it was relevant to their road cars, but I can't find that now. In any case, there are ample articles to be found confirming that the FIA tried and failed to find anything illegal with the engine.
quokula wrote: » It's worth pointing out that the FIA looked and failed to find any evidence to prove that the Ferrari engine was illegal. Ferrari agreed to stop running it in return for privacy because they didn't want technology that they also use in their road cars to be made public.
ThewhiteJesus wrote: » I've been an F1 fan for along long time, and the last couple of years have been the worst ever for the sport. Probably since these new silent crappy cars. I long for the days of refueling, sound and tactics. And funnily enough, actual racing.
Anjobe wrote: » So the notion that Ferrari were protecting their IP comes directly from Ferrari themselves, so we can't rule out that being a self-serving misdirection. The FIA statements quoted in the Guardian article are the reason why people find the whole affair so unsatisfactory. There is nothing we can conclusively say about it without knowing what was in the secret agreement they concocted between themselves, but Ferrari protecting IP used in their road cars sounds unlikely. Any competitor could get their hands on one of the cars and reverse engineer it, the only protection from that would be patents I would think.
BikeRacer wrote: » Do you think their engine performance going off a cliff the second the FIA introduced a second encrypted fuel flow sensor is a coincidence?
quokula wrote: » But that's a bit of a catch 22 isn't it? We have no evidence whatsoever that you're cheating, but we won't accept that you're not unless you open up your engine for all your competitors to see and copy? I've yet to see anyone credibly point to anything in the rulebook and say that is the rule that Ferrari broke. The UK media (which is what we all consume for F1 coverage) have been openly hostile to Ferrari for decades because it's a foreign team so they always report things in a certain way, but these things should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
quokula wrote: » But that's a bit of a catch 22 isn't it? We have no evidence whatsoever that you're cheating, but we won't accept that you're not unless you open up your engine for all your competitors to see and copy?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Completely agree with that. Hamilton is a great driver and rarely makes mistakes. But you're completely right to avoid the interviews. Total PR, copy and paste jobs. I find him so Inarticulate and boring to listen to. He was describing the last lap of Silverstone, driving with a burst tyre and Max closing in rapidly and managed to be boring talking about it. In the car he's probably a genius. Out of the car he's a bore and a dope and saddest of all, a try-hard
Adamocovic wrote: » Saw Hulk is on standby while they await the Perez decision. Would be gutting if he couldn't take the car onto the track for race day.
Gintonious wrote: » Is Perez not stuck in quarantine?
“There was a little bit of confusion because it was on that cusp,” he said. “The inconclusive test was only inconclusive by FIA standards. By [Public] Health England standards that inconclusive test on Wednesday would have been a positive. “So you could look at it and say, well, it’s the [Public] Health England standards and therefore a positive on Wednesday already. On Wednesday you had to quarantine for seven days. The 10 days that came in the following day may or may not be retroactive. That’s the bit I don’t know. “So we’ll ask that question of [Public] Health England and whatever they say, that’s what we’ll do. We will comply with whatever they deem is right in this situation. But I think the ambiguity comes in because it was just on that transition.”
pjohnson wrote: » Paul di Resta has had a seat fitting and is now McLaren's reserve driver while Stoffel is in Germany.
pyramuid man wrote: » I wonder is it the race that he filled in for Massa a few years ago that has kept his super license?
pyramuid man wrote: » Heard a rumour /conspiracy theory that Hulkenburg was sabotaged so he wouldn't outperform young Stroll. Sound daft but not really bound the realms of possibility really.
Infoanon wrote: » Basically - though to be more precise it means that he does not need to do 300km in a modern car before participating in a race. Turns out Esteban does not have those 300km so although he processes a super licence he is ineligible to step in for eg Sergio or Lewis etc if needed !
pjohnson wrote: » It seems a complete oversight by Mercedes but they plan on getting him the run time ASAP but aren't able to until the next break in races. (By which stage Stoffel will be free anyway)
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » He wasn't quicker than Stroll all weekend. If they were sabotaging him all weekend then they were doing a grand job without stopping him from competing in the race. And Perez outperforms Stroll most of the time anyway. I'd wouldn't mind that idea that they sabotaged him. Most plausible explanation is that hulk is out of practice and hasn't had any time in the car. He wasn't exactly top drawer anyway so it's not like he'd be beating stroll by half a second if he had loads of practice since the start anyway. He'd probably beat Stroll over a season.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » He wasn't quicker than Stroll all weekend.
quokula wrote: » Not convinced by the statement Hamilton rarely makes mistakes. In the last five races he’s crashed into Albon twice, he cost himself the first race of this season by earning a penalty in qualifying, and he spun off in qualifying for the last race, which could have cost him badly had it not resulted in a red flag and allowed them to get the car prepared for another run. It’s easy to make few mistakes when you have the best car by miles and never have to push more than 90%. He had a reputation for making frequent mistakes back when he was at McLaren - that is the main reason Button beat him in their time as teammates. Not making mistakes in the Merc is pretty easy. Bottas hasn’t made a single mistake so far this year. He won when Hamilton screwed up, and he did exactly what the team wanted in staying comfortably in second and not challenging Hamilton in the other races, right down to slamming on the brakes into turn 1 at Silvestone after he made a superior start to Lewis.
quokula wrote: » ...Bottas hasn’t made a single mistake so far this year. He won when Hamilton screwed up, and he did exactly what the team wanted in staying comfortably in second and not challenging Hamilton in the other races, right down to slamming on the brakes into turn 1 at Silvestone after he made a superior start to Lewis.
Joeface wrote: » Renault bringing some updates which they say should bring them in line with Mclaren or just a head (if they work ) Was impressed with Renaults pace at the end of the last race Dani Ric made some serious progress.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » You don't think bottas is trying to overtake Hamilton at the starts? I'd say bottas is doing his best and coming up short. Same as Vettel against his teammate and Latifi against his teammate and Kimi against his teammate. I don't buy that any of them are holding back. They're just not as quick.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b9d7cf56a75eee6d7dd35aa28294f673.svg)
