- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
We should rarther blame Ferrari and other 9 teams for the lack of competition, not McLaren.DaveKillens wrote:Most of us have to save for a few months, and make time to attend a Grand Prix event. It costs a lot of dough to attend and participate in all the festivities of a Formula One weekend. But what most come for is to see "racing", where the best drivers in the world, in the best race cars in the world, strap on their spurs and engage in wheeled combat. It is supposed to be fierce, competitive, hard and engaging. And that's what the fans expect and pays for. To go to a race and learn that the outcome is pre-arrainged, and that there is very little hardcore competition on the track is to learn you have been ripped off.
(it was not on here as i posted it)Constructors championship is just as important as Drivers championship. Go ask any team manager/owner.captainmorgan wrote:Hamilton's fuel load is a valid point, I'll admit. If he did have 6 laps on Alonso, then he could conceivably have caught up to Alonso and maybe passed at the first pit stop. However I doubt this for several reasons. Mostly because Hamilton was I think around 5 (or was it 10) seconds behind Alonso when the latter pitted. Would Hamilton have been able to push a 10 second gain in those 6 laps? Alonso saved some fuel, so it may even have been less of a gap. The problem with this is that Alonso pushed just as hard on his out- and subsequent laps that might have made a pass even more unlikely or costly.
Even if that isn't accurate (I don't know where to find laptime data), the question that I think the FIA, British media, and the remarkably consistently red-icon-ed forum members on F1T have to answer is: Why on earth would Ron Dennis issue team orders that would benefit Alonso rather than Hamilton, if it wasn't based on either Q2 or Q3 performance? Team orders are usually for the leader in WC points, and that was Hamilton before the race.
Furthermore, why would RD give Hamilton a heavier load in Q3 at all? The only two explanations that make sense are that RD determined that the actual race would be Q2 (or that this ended up being the situation when both drivers started risking their cars). The alternative explanation is that RD has committed to Alonso winning the WC. McLaren's history and reputation, and Hamilton's pre-Monaco WC points argue against the latter
DaveKillens wrote:That's the problem... does this arrogant declaration of ordering the drivers to maintain station constitute affecting the outcome? Not really, it's my personal belief that if Hamilton had launched a true challenge, then Alonso would have been able to respond. So barring the drivers colliding, we most likely would have seen Alonso 1st, Hamilton 2nd .... AND an extra boring race (exactly why Bernie is so tough on this situation) anyways.nae wrote:it is splitting hairs but then again when you have a rule that is as vague as this one what else should we expect.
So according to the current rules.. not guilty. But in reality, they were under orders.... my head hurts, I think I'll order whatever Ciro is drinking...
Bernie really said that? He can't have been serious, I think he was just trying to stir up the media. Having heard so much about Bernie (from Watkin's and Brundle's books) I'm quite sure there was a money making motive for doing this, he's a very shrewd and clever man and clearly this kind of person does not go shouting out such ridiculous opinions with no personal gain.I think Bernie Ecclestone is also overreacting by saying that McLaren should be banned from the sport!!
Totally 100% agree with that!! What Mclaren did was in the rules what Ferrari did was damn right unfair.manchild wrote:If Bernie thinks that Mclaren should be banned because of what "happened" in Monaco than Ferrari should have been shot, hanged, slaughtered, burned and chopped for what they've been doing from 1996 to 2006.
