Formula 1??????

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes"
> wrote:

> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.

I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're
fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of
money...

Cheers!

Remco

Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here.

The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option.

See here -
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/1...or-f1-in-2010/

"This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial
information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical
regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince me
that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company announces it
wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent £200m on research and
development in 2010?"

So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they are
now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to spend 30 or
so? The entire proposal is idiotic.

And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and
facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just **** it
all away?

The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in
the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more idiotic!


It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory - it
is an option.
"Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes"
> > wrote:
>
>> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.
>
> I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're
> fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of
> money...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Remco
>
>

Mr T > wrote in
:

>> So a combination of a Brit doing well, and newly improved coverage in
>> the UK (with no ads!) is allowing me to ignore some of the messy rule
>> changes. And I'm sure I could get pretty annoyed if I spent too long
>> contemplating the whole KERS mess.
>>
>> Andrew McP
>
> No ads? We are jealous now. In Australia we get ads plus additional
> comments from Aussy people who have no idea what they're talking
> about. The last race in China they had Darryl Beattie (an ex-motorcyle
> star) making comments 'cause they couldn't get the usual V8 supercar
> guy.
>
Oh, so you don't get NASCAR people. Well that's an improvement. North of
the land of the great burger, we get two choices: SPEED - a 24/7 NASCAR
and NHRA channel and TSN - the Canadian hockey channel. The latter gets
the BBC feed, but cuts the first 1/2 hour and the interviews. The Podium
you *might* get to see if you're lucky. SPEED on the other hand has
decided that anything but the sole practice carried is not available up
here, because they have competition. Rebroadcasts later in the week are
fine. But then you have to put up with Bob Varsha. One of the
aforementioned acronym crowd.

To be fair to SPEED, they *are* carrying ALMS - missed the last race, but
carrying one this weekend and carrying GT2 - at 2:00 a.m. Sunday moring.

> So a combination of a Brit doing well, and newly improved coverage in the UK (with
> no ads!) is allowing me to ignore some of the messy rule changes. And I'm sure I
> could get pretty annoyed if I spent too long contemplating the whole KERS mess.
>
> Andrew McP

No ads? We are jealous now. In Australia we get ads plus additional
comments from Aussy people who have no idea what they're talking
about. The last race in China they had Darryl Beattie (an ex-motorcyle
star) making comments 'cause they couldn't get the usual V8 supercar
guy.

Mike.

(Mr T) wrote:

> No ads? We are jealous now.

The BBC got the contract back this year after ten years or so of ads with ITV. But
I still find myself listening to Martin Brundle's voice (the BBC brought him across
from the ITV coverage) and expecting an advert to kick in at any time.

Fingers crossed the BBC will be able to afford to keep the contract, though I
expect Bernie extracted several dozen pounds of flesh from them for the pleasure.

Andrew McP

And now this -
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...get_cap .html

Now we're excluding driver's salaries - the wheels are falling off
already. LOL

Good old Maxy baby aye - he thinks he needs to invite the manufacturers
to join the cap. Does he really think he needs to? Does he really think
they'll spend $500M when they can build the same for about $70? Mosley and
Ecclestone are ****ed - they've completely lost the plot!

I wonder if Bernie's Mrs left because she knew that or if he lost the
plot after she left. As for the FIA - well what would you expect from an
?organization? that allows itself to be headed up by a caned arse freak?

Pitiful!


"Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here.
>
> The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option.
>
> See here -
> http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/1...or-f1-in-2010/
>
> "This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial
> information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical
> regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince
> me that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company announces
> it wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent £200m on research
> and development in 2010?"
>
> So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they
> are now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to spend
> 30 or so? The entire proposal is idiotic.
>
> And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and
> facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just **** it
> all away?
>
> The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in
> the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more
> idiotic!
>
>
> It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory - it
> is an option.
> "Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.
>>
>> I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're
>> fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of
>> money...
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Remco
>>
>>
>

And more on this -
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...ro lling.html

So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish.

For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in
Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during) they
asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently under
instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever reason.

Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question
anyway!

This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you
no lies!


"Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
...
> And now this -
> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...get_cap .html
>
> Now we're excluding driver's salaries - the wheels are falling off
> already. LOL
>
> Good old Maxy baby aye - he thinks he needs to invite the manufacturers
> to join the cap. Does he really think he needs to? Does he really think
> they'll spend $500M when they can build the same for about $70? Mosley and
> Ecclestone are ****ed - they've completely lost the plot!
>
> I wonder if Bernie's Mrs left because she knew that or if he lost the
> plot after she left. As for the FIA - well what would you expect from an
> ?organization? that allows itself to be headed up by a caned arse freak?
>
> Pitiful!
>
>
> "Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ok, let's make sure we're on the same page here.
>>
>> The FIA are not proposing a cap for everyone - it is an option.
>>
>> See here -
>> http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/03/1...or-f1-in-2010/
>>
>> "This 'two-tier' solution where teams volunteer their financial
>> information in exchange for being able to run to more liberal technical
>> regulations may resolve that problem. But it does not completely convince
>> me that budget capping will work. For example, what if a company
>> announces it wishes to compete in F1 in 2011, having already spent £200m
>> on research and development in 2010?"
>>
>> So back to my point - why even allow anyone to continue the way they
>> are now. Why would you spend multiple millions when you only need to
>> spend 30 or so? The entire proposal is idiotic.
>>
>> And as mentioned in the above, what about the years of research and
>> facilities set up by the manufacturers over the years - let's just ****
>> it all away?
>>
>> The cap idea is ridiculous. The idea of having capped teams running in
>> the same series as uncapped teams (hamstrung by rules) is even more
>> idiotic!
>>
>>
>> It is my present understanding that the $20M cap is not compulsory -
>> it is an option.
>> "Remco Moedt" <no@email> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:43:37 +1000, "Byron Forbes"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean - I think one of us is missing the point.
>>>
>>> I guess he means that the present manufacturers now can prove they're
>>> fast because they're clever, not just because they spent a lot of
>>> money...
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> Remco
>>>
>>>
>>
>

"Byron Forbes" > wrote in
:

> And more on this -
> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...marsh_letter_k
> eeps_lie_gate_rolling.html
>
> So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter
> rubbish.
>
> For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow
> in
> Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during)
> they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently
> under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever
> reason.
>
Actually Trulli went off onto a grassy area where the oncoming Hamilton
couldn't have seen him - except by his absence in front on the track.
Hamilton then passed him naturally. While Trulli was still in the grass.
After which Hamilton decided to be nice and let Trulli past, Trulli did
pass, was penalized for passing under the yellow. Then the insanity
ensued.

"Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
...
> And more on this -
> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...ro lling.html
>
> So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish.
>
> For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in
> Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during)
> they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently
> under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever
> reason.
>
> Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question
> anyway!
>
> This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you
> no lies!
>
The whole incident is nuts. Even Nascar can get the cars in position behind
a pace car before a restart. Now they are talking about 30 race points
and/or a possible 2 race suspension for something so crazy. Whether Hamilton
let Trulli pass or not isn't the main issue IMO. FIA, with all their
technology could have just told Trulli to fall back behind Hamilton and all
this crap would be moot.

Ed

"Ed Medlin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And more on this -
>> http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/...ro lling.html
>>
>> So it seems large penalties may be handed out over this utter rubbish.
>>
>> For those who might not know, Hamilton slowed way down under yellow in
>> Australia and Trulli went around him. After the race (and maybe during)
>> they asked Hamilton if he let Trulli past or not. Hamilton, apparently
>> under instruction over the radio lied and said he didn't for whatever
>> reason.
>>
>> Again I challenge anyone to explain why Lewis was asked this question
>> anyway!
>>
>> This is like the ultimate example of ask me no questions I'll tell you
>> no lies!
>>
> The whole incident is nuts. Even Nascar can get the cars in position
> behind a pace car before a restart. Now they are talking about 30 race
> points and/or a possible 2 race suspension for something so crazy. Whether
> Hamilton let Trulli pass or not isn't the main issue IMO. FIA, with all
> their technology could have just told Trulli to fall back behind Hamilton
> and all this crap would be moot.
>
FIA need to follow the example of Rigby Union Football, where the referee
tells the player what to be to avoid being penalised. Wouldn't be hard, just
have steward watching each driver.