Formula 1 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gui22a @ Apr 7 2008, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I say only that team's treatment with Felipe is totally crap compared to Kimi. Kimi's salary is 6 or 7 times Felipe's.

Every effort is for Kimi, only for him. In Ferrari's point of view, let Massa and his engineers playing alone on their own, but always focusing the championship.

the matter of salary is discussed by the driver, their manager, and the team. if massa agreed to sign up with this certain amount of money, then he and his manager must have a good reason for doing so. signing a contract means agreeing in all clauses mentioned in it, which includes the salary. it doesn't have anything to do with another driver's salary, coz that part involves only the parties involved. and i think, comparing the stats before these two drivers joined ferrari, it is understandable that kimi would have a higher salary.

as with the treatment, we can go on all day but i will stand by with my opinion and with my confusion with your point. i'll be getting nowhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gui22a @ Apr 7 2008, 12:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Only Renault interested? Did you ever read a news about F1?

There were "only" Red Bull, Renault, Honda, Toyota and BMW interested on him and Ferrari "wasn't" interested just because they could not keep two number one drivers in the same team, but Todt NEVER hidden the interest in Fernando. They simply couldn't kick Kimi's ... just after he won a tittle (by pure lucky, really..).

Don't believe everthing you read. You say he was wished if so, why didn't the teams you mentioned go all out to get his signature? Especially teams like BMW and Red Bull who have stronger cars.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gui22a @ Apr 7 2008, 03:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't say Ferrari mess the cars directly, I say only that team's treatment with Felipe is totally crap compared to Kimi. Kimi's salary is 6 or 7 times Felipe's. Obviously they want Kimi with the crowd.

Every effort is for Kimi, only for him. In Ferrari's point of view, let Massa and his engineers playing alone on their own, but always focusing the championship.

There is much thing we don't know friend, Formula one is not as beautiful as it likes. Today it is different, but in the past, that histories of Nelson Piquet is true, he slep into the car many times to avoid someone messing it. And that happened a lot of times. Today they change the manner of messing, in a simple pit stop they can put a tire a little bit colder and resolve the race with ease. In Malaysia Massa's car was faster before the 1st pit. After the 1st pit stop - a pit stop totally favoring Kimi, 1.5 second faster than Massa's, enough to put Kimi in the 1st place - "magically" Massa's car lost performance and that was enough to keep the "champion" ahead and the "shield" in second. For sure Massa didn't couple with that and pushes hard to try the victory in a track that him was the fastest all the time.

You're using Malaysia as an example which is pretty lame, I guess you never noticed the in laps and out laps Kimi done to get ahead of Massa but then again i'm not suprised as your conspiracy theories are clouding your judgement. You do realise that the strategy used in Malaysia was down to Massa himself, so it was his own doing that Kimi got ahead of him, Massa didn't get the job done, simple as.

Oh and another fact, race drivers in the same team know their fuel loads, so obviously Kimi knew he had more fuel than Massa which is why he put in some fast laps before his 1st pit stop.

The only time Ferrari favoured Kimi was at Brazil.

Feel free to bring up more delusional theories

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Apr 7 2008, 05:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the matter of salary is discussed by the driver, their manager, and the team. if massa agreed to sign up with this certain amount of money, then he and his manager must have a good reason for doing so. signing a contract means agreeing in all clauses mentioned in it, which includes the salary. it doesn't have anything to do with another driver's salary, coz that part involves only the parties involved. and i think, comparing the stats before these two drivers joined ferrari, it is understandable that kimi would have a higher salary.

as with the treatment, we can go on all day but i will stand by with my opinion and with my confusion with your point. i'll be getting nowhere.
I feel the same

The thing is, IF Massa is really the ''2nd driver'' and IF he's not allowed to win titles, then why the hell does he stay at a team that is favouring his teammate?? It doesn't make sense. Because he must know whether he's hired as a puppet or as a driver who will get the same treatment, right?? Or do you think the people at Ferrari are lying to him about that, and Massa is just too blind to figure it out?? I don't get your point, Guilherme. Because if he doesn't know he's the ''2nd driver'' (according to your theories) he's not the most smartest person, and if he DOES know he is the ''2nd driver'' then he agrees in that role by staying at that team, so either way, it really doesn't make any sense what you are saying. I personally think that Massa is a good driver, and he obviously can win races, that's a fact, and he has a car to win titles. The only thing he has to do is beat his opponents (Kimi and McLaren). It's all up to him, so don't start about the team doesn't want him to win. And you still didn't tell me why you rate Massa higher than Kimi..?????

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pacman @ Apr 7 2008, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Don't believe everthing you read. You say he was wished if so, why didn't the teams you mentioned go all out to get his signature? Especially teams like BMW and Red Bull who have stronger cars.

You're using Malaysia as an example which is pretty lame, I guess you never noticed the in laps and out laps Kimi done to get ahead of Massa but then again i'm not suprised as your conspiracy theories are clouding your judgement. You do realise that the strategy used in Malaysia was down to Massa himself, so it was his own doing that Kimi got ahead of him, Massa didn't get the job done, simple as.

Oh and another fact, race drivers in the same team know their fuel loads, so obviously Kimi knew he had more fuel than Massa which is why he put in some fast laps before his 1st pit stop.

The only time Ferrari favoured Kimi was at Brazil.

Feel free to bring up more delusional theories
+1.

Someone gets it!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gui22a @ Apr 7 2008, 02:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Maybe coz this weekeend Massa was far superior than Kimi and Ferrari take the point, Ferrari knows that messing too hard with Massa today could cause him to "commit a mistake" again by forcing him to pushing hard in a moment of pure angry. It's hard to keep two number ones and Massa maybe is not accepting so easy the idea of being a shield. I think he can leave Ferrari in the end of the season, I hope for this, Massa should come back to Sauber. Ferrari has only one seat, the seat of the champion. The other, unfortunately is one more guy to help him.

Nelson Piquet father told us, many times he slept inside the car in last night before the race coz his team messed up his car to favor the number one, and he knows it, that is true it's not a joking. We saw last year Mclaren clearly favoring Hamilton over Alonso, why is so difficult for some too accept this?
Sauber

Think you're far too keen on the conspiracy theories. One No1 driver was true for Ferrari in MS's era, but many things have changed since then. No MS, no Ross Brawn, no Rory Byrne, no Jean Todt.

Piquet - I remember when he was at Williams his car seemed much more reliable than Mansell's, so that doesn't help your (unsupported by evidence) theories either.

As far as last year at McLaren - why would a team famous for not giving preferential treatment to drivers decide to change their spots. Especially as that led them to lose the WC by 1 pt for both Hamilton and Alonso (both on 109 to Raikonnen's 110). Does imply no conspiracy, rather business as usual for McLaren.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 6 2008, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here come the "should ofs" Because those world championhip points the drivers spend all that time trying to achieve are meaningless compared to your discretion, why don't you just pick the world champion each year and screw what actually happens
Why are you so hung up on WC points? You make similar comments in the Motogp thread.

There has to be a method of determining the WC, and do not forget that this method has changed over the years, especially in F1, but at the end of the day the points are a only statistic to be repeated in the history books.

They cannot tell the complete story, nor should they be expected to do so.

If racer A (2 or 4 wheels) has a series of X vehicle failures and Y points scored then viewing the points only would lead to the conclusion that his ability was identical to racer B who has a series of X at-fault crashes and Y points scored.

I would strongly disagree that the two were equivalent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 6 2008, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>well two world titles and a 3rd (with 18 wins) is considerably better than one world title, a 2nd and a 5th (with 13 wins)
Try applying this theory to some of your comments in the Motogp threads.

You don't seem to think that Rossi is better than Stoner or Pedrosa despite their compared stats.

Maybe Alonso is just getting old and past it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 7 2008, 04:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sauber

Think you're far too keen on the conspiracy theories. One No1 driver was true for Ferrari in MS's era, but many things have changed since then. No MS, no Ross Brawn, no Rory Byrne, no Jean Todt.

Piquet - I remember when he was at Williams his car seemed much more reliable than Mansell's, so that doesn't help your (unsupported by evidence) theories either.

As far as last year at McLaren - why would a team famous for not giving preferential treatment to drivers decide to change their spots. Especially as that led them to lose the WC by 1 pt for both Hamilton and Alonso (both on 109 to Raikonnen's 110). Does imply no conspiracy, rather business as usual for McLaren.
Yeah, if McLaren really favoured someone they would have taken the title, but they didn't, and Kimi was the one who took it in the end (when nobody even thought he stood a chance).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why are you so hung up on WC points? You make similar comments in the Motogp thread.

There has to be a method of determining the WC, and do not forget that this method has changed over the years, especially in F1, but at the end of the day the points are a only statistic to be repeated in the history books.

They cannot tell the complete story, nor should they be expected to do so.

If racer A (2 or 4 wheels) has a series of X vehicle failures and Y points scored then viewing the points only would lead to the conclusion that his ability was identical to racer B who has a series of X at-fault crashes and Y points scored.

I would strongly disagree that the two were equivalent.
Good example

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 7 2008, 04:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Try applying this theory to some of your comments in the Motogp threads.

You don't seem to think that Rossi is better than Stoner or Pedrosa despite their compared stats.

Maybe Alonso is just getting old and past it.
Well obviously Rossi is better than both Stoner and Dani. Tom knows it, and the rest of the world knows it too

Dani didn't even win a title yet, and Stoner won only one title, hardly anything compared to the results of the Doctor!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Apr 7 2008, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well obviously Rossi is better than both Stoner and Dani. Tom knows it, and the rest of the world knows it too
The question of whether he was better in the past or is likely to be rated better overall at the end of their respective careers has an obvious answer. Whether he is better this year is yet to be decided; I believe that is why they hold the motogp world championship, at least partly . I think the argument is less clear with alonso and raikkonen, although alonso has an edge on past record up to now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 7 2008, 05:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The question of whether he was better in the past or is likely to be rated better overall at the end of their respective careers has an obvious answer. Whether he is better this year is yet to be decided; I believe that is why they hold the motogp world championship, at least partly . I think the argument is less clear with alonso and raikkonen, although alonso has an edge on past record up to now.
Yeah, it's hard to say.

Tom says FA is better, and that it's easy to tell, because FA has 2 titles, Kimi has one..ok fair enough. Then Hayden is also better than Dani, because Hayden won a title, and Dani hasn't. Rossi has 5 moto titles, and Stoner has 1, so Vale is better. I'm just using Tom's logic. He did say that FA is better than KR, because FA won more, ok, fair enough, but when I said Hayden is better (not that I actually think that) than Dani, he said we cant say because they're still racing, and that we can only say (if it stays like this) that Hayden ''achieved'' more. Well Rossi is still racing, so are Kimi and Fernando, so we can't say who's better then?? Only who ''achieved'' the most..?? I'm personally not a fan of this kind of logic. Stats are stats (they never tell the whole tory), but if Tom wants to use stats only, then Stoner and Dani are not better than Rossi, and Dani isn't as good as Hayden..

..Obviously that's crp!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Apr 8 2008, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, it's hard to say.

Tom says FA is better, and that it's easy to tell, because FA has 2 titles, Kimi has one..ok fair enough. Then Hayden is also better than Dani, because Hayden won a title, and Dani hasn't. Rossi has 5 moto titles, and Stoner has 1, so Vale is better. I'm just using Tom's logic. He did say that FA is better than KR, because FA won more, ok, fair enough, but when I said Hayden is better (not that I actually think that) than Dani, he said we cant say because they're still racing, and that we can only say (if it stays like this) that Hayden ''achieved'' more. Well Rossi is still racing, so are Kimi and Fernando, so we can't say who's better then?? Only who ''achieved'' the most..?? I'm personally not a fan of this kind of logic. Stats are stats (they never tell the whole tory), but if Tom wants to use stats only, then Stoner and Dani are not better than Rossi, and Dani isn't as good as Hayden..

..Obviously that's crp!!

ohh, somebody had a very very VERY good night's rest

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Apr 7 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, it's hard to say.

Tom says FA is better, and that it's easy to tell, because FA has 2 titles, Kimi has one..ok fair enough. Then Hayden is also better than Dani, because Hayden won a title, and Dani hasn't. Rossi has 5 moto titles, and Stoner has 1, so Vale is better. I'm just using Tom's logic. He did say that FA is better than KR, because FA won more, ok, fair enough, but when I said Hayden is better (not that I actually think that) than Dani, he said we cant say because they're still racing, and that we can only say (if it stays like this) that Hayden ''achieved'' more. Well Rossi is still racing, so are Kimi and Fernando, so we can't say who's better then?? Only who ''achieved'' the most..?? I'm personally not a fan of this kind of logic. Stats are stats (they never tell the whole tory), but if Tom wants to use stats only, then Stoner and Dani are not better than Rossi, and Dani isn't as good as Hayden..

..Obviously that's crp!!
I agree . This line of argument becomes fairly circular.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Apr 7 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ohh, somebody had a very very VERY good night's rest


Well actually I didn't sleep well at all
I woke up with a terrible headache (I blame Tom ).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 7 2008, 06:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree . This line of argument becomes fairly circular.
Yeah, and with stats on your side you can't be wrong

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Apr 8 2008, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well actually I didn't sleep well at all
I woke up with a terrible headache (I blame Tom ).

oh, now i know...




that's okay sis. a good rest always gives us a good temper




well seriously, take a rest will you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Apr 7 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>oh, now i know...




that's okay sis. a good rest always gives us a good temper




well seriously, take a rest will you?
Yeah, I will. Today I will go to bed early (I've been saying that for months now!!)

I rather talk about f1 though, even with people who are so wrong

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Apr 8 2008, 12:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I rather talk about f1 though, even with people who are so wrong

well of course! we two have always believed we are meant to make people see the error of their ways

you go to sleep now sis

I see you guys were busy here, took me hours to read all (but I'm not going to continue)

Decent race, entertaining start and first few laps, and then nothing special.
Well done Massa, Kubica (I hope he wins soon), loved Kimi's move on... who was that... Heikki? (....... short memory)... Toyotas seemed better, allso Weber, and Fisichella.

Am I the only one who was annoyed with Hamilton's waving to drivers he passed? He really hates to be stuck with "monkeys on the back" (copyright: Lewis himself)

I fell asleep after the commentators said it was a fascinating race for the lead when there was 4 seconds between them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (memento @ Apr 8 2008, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Decent race, entertaining start and first few laps, and then nothing special.
Well done Massa, Kubica (I hope he wins soon), loved Kimi's move on... who was that... Heikki? (....... short memory)... Toyotas seemed better, allso Weber, and Fisichella.
I loved it too, and it was his move on Kubica. I think he made a pass on Heikki as well, but I didn't see that one.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (memento @ Apr 8 2008, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Am I the only one who was annoyed with Hamilton's waving to drivers he passed? He really hates to be stuck with "monkeys on the back" (copyright: Lewis himself)
No, I was a bit annoyed too, both him and FA ''waved'' to other drivers when it wasn't necessary, but I guess these things can happen in the heat of the moment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Son of Doohan @ Apr 8 2008, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I fell asleep after the commentators said it was a fascinating race for the lead when there was 4 seconds between them.


But you did watch 1 or 2 laps then?? That's quite the accomplishment!!