Or a one word answer.
We need Raikkonen back in F1. He's doing nothing at the momment.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRIq3UhoB-M[/youtube]richard_leeds wrote:If you are Finnish the answer is "having a ---"
Incident in traffic right after the start, no agression or passing attempt.sAx wrote: Schumacher breaks of Lewis' diffuser endplate at St Devote - avoidable? penalty?
Massa hits Rosberg in back on climb up the hill from St Devote - avoidable? penalty?
Massa on turn-in sharply at Loews to cut-off Hamilton and hits Webber at the rear - avoidable? penalty?
Di Resta hits D'Ambrosio at Loews (after the Alguersuari coming together)and damages his wing - avoidable? penalty?
Kobayashi hits Sutil at Mirabeau - avoidable? penalty?
These are the...'is it co's i iz....' that I believe Lewis hints at.
sAx
[...] I guess that means hitting another car does not count as an avoidable accident!Mandrake wrote:Incident in traffic right after the start, no agression or passing attempt.sAx wrote: Schumacher breaks of Lewis' diffuser endplate at St Devote - avoidable? penalty?
Massa hits Rosberg in back on climb up the hill from St Devote - avoidable? penalty?
Massa on turn-in sharply at Loews to cut-off Hamilton and hits Webber at the rear - avoidable? penalty?
Di Resta hits D'Ambrosio at Loews (after the Alguersuari coming together)and damages his wing - avoidable? penalty?
Kobayashi hits Sutil at Mirabeau - avoidable? penalty?
These are the...'is it co's i iz....' that I believe Lewis hints at.
sAx
Massa damaged only his car. Had the tyre gotten a flatspot caused by this, it wouldn't be bulletproof evidence it was caused by the wing.
etc. etc.
Thos are minor incidents....remember the parts flying around in the HAM situations, those were much harder impacts, leading to the ultimate crash of at least one of them.
It's quite amusing really, because you're exactly like Hamilton. You think all of us are wrong!Diesel wrote:It's quite amusing really, because you guys are all exactly like Hamilton. You think everyone else is in the wrong!
I'm always on the faulty logic bandwagon, whether their faulty logic supports my point of view or not.HampusA wrote:Wait a minute.. i thought you two were on the same bandwagon?
Paul wrote:How could you forget the Gronholm classic? =D>
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQhQSbe6fw[/youtube]