Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Plenty of other passes were made on the outside on that same corner. Plenty of other drivers managed to fight hard and fair there and not get tangled up with each other like retards. So why was Maldonardo never going to make it???

Simple. Because of the obstinant bloke he was trying to pass - we all knew Lewis was going to run him off the road if he tried to go round the outside - because he tried the same to Kimi the lap before. But Kimi has the experience to know Lewis is a tard and just drove past him up the inside instead. Lewis' tyres were that bad Kimi had time to almost stop mid corner and just cruise past him on the other side anyway! Maldonardo on the other hand is as obstinant as Lewis, and when he started getting squeezed he dug in his heels and pushed the issue around the outside. They're both as bad as each other, and put two dicks in tha situation at that stage of the race and the inevitable happened... All I'm saying is its a bit harsh penalising the bloke who got run off the road as if he's entirely to blame for that crash, when there's a clear rule that says you can't deliberately crowd someone off the road.

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ham should be penalised, as the crowding a car off the track says. Just ask Alonso...''All the time you have to leave a space."

But as above ^ they are both as bad as one another, in a way it's good for Maldonado as Ham now knows he's not gonna be f**ked with.

i'm with harry too.

There were a few other passes, same line as maldo.

I loved it everytime as well.

But, i'm not sure what the rules are for when another driver is "off track".

What if there was grass there?

Plenty of other passes were made on the outside on that same corner. Plenty of other drivers managed to fight hard and fair there and not get tangled up with each other like retards. So why was Maldonardo never going to make it???

Simple. Because of the obstinant bloke he was trying to pass - we all knew Lewis was going to run him off the road if he tried to go round the outside - because he tried the same to Kimi the lap before. But Kimi has the experience to know Lewis is a tard and just drove past him up the inside instead. Lewis' tyres were that bad Kimi had time to almost stop mid corner and just cruise past him on the other side anyway! Maldonardo on the other hand is as obstinant as Lewis, and when he started getting squeezed he dug in his heels and pushed the issue around the outside. They're both as bad as each other, and put two dicks in tha situation at that stage of the race and the inevitable happened... All I'm saying is its a bit harsh penalising the bloke who got run off the road as if he's entirely to blame for that crash, when there's a clear rule that says you can't deliberately crowd someone off the road.

Well I totally disagree. Its racing, its important and every point mattered with less than 2 laps to go. Why should Ham have accepted defeat and just let pasta past?

Agree to disagree?

Silverstone... mhmm

Well I totally disagree. Its racing, its important and every point mattered with less than 2 laps to go. Why should Ham have accepted defeat and just let pasta past?

all those things are true, but it doesn't mean you can run another car off the road just because you want the points and refuse to accept that another car may have actually passed you.

Whitmarsh reckons Hamilton could have been more cautious against Maldonado

McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh believes Lewis Hamilton should have been more cautious in handling his battle with Pastor Maldonado in the closing stages of the European Grand Prix.

Hamilton crashed out of the Valencia event after a clash with the Venezuelan driver as they battled for third on the penultimate lap - losing him vital points in the world championship standings.

Although the stewards said that Maldonado was to blame for the incident, and handed him a 20-second time penalty in lieu of a drive-hrough for what happened, that brought little consolation to Hamilton or his McLaren team.

But judging by the difficulties that Hamilton was having at the time of the incident with his tyres, and knowing how aggressive Maldonado is as a driver, Whitmarsh suspects that his man would have been better off giving his rival more room than other rivals he had fought with earlier in the event.

When asked if he thought Hamilton should have defended so hard, Whitmarsh said: "Clearly not, but you are dragging me into the conversation.

"In my mind, you saw him defend with [Romain] Grosjean and with [Kimi] Raikkonen, and he didn't do anything different with Maldonado. It was a different outcome, but he didn't do anything different with those drivers.

"My own view is that it was Maldonado's fault, and it is deeply frustrating – but he is a racing driver and that is it. I am sure in hindsight you have to say that dealing with someone like that you have to take a different approach, but you cannot anticipate it."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100724

all those things are true, but it doesn't mean you can run another car off the road just because you want the points and refuse to accept that another car may have actually passed you.

But it is ok to rejoin the circuit & fire into the side of another car?

If anyone cares to look see what happened on lap 2 to Kimi. Same corner, slightly different result.

where did I say that? i said they're both to blame. But if you actually look, he was beached on the kerb after lewis ran him off the road, turned the wheel but nothing much happened. He didn't just fire it into the side of Lewis' car on purpose. Can't say the same for Lewis running him off the road in the first place. That was certainly intentional. If Lewis didn't put him off the track, he wouldn't have been on the kerb and wouldn't have hit Lewis. Cause and effect...

Edited by hrd-hr30

Pretty sure the rules say you are entitled to the racing line if your on it after the braking zone, and that's why Lewis placed his car there he had every rite too good "robust" defending pasta should have backed out of it as he would have if there was sand or turf or a barrier there.

Ultimately LH suffered the ultimate penalty with a DNF and no points.

and for not biding his time, Pasta goes from a very likely 3rd or at least guaranteed 4th, to 10th then to a big fat zero in the end

tops effort muppet head :thumbsup:

where did I say that? i said they're both to blame. But if you actually look, he was beached on the kerb after lewis ran him off the road, turned the wheel but nothing much happened. He didn't just fire it into the side of Lewis' car on purpose. Can't say the same for Lewis running him off the road in the first place. That was certainly intentional. If Lewis didn't put him off the track, he wouldn't have been on the kerb and wouldn't have hit Lewis. Cause and effect...

So was he off the track or on the kerb? Or just off the track before he drove onto the kerb & shortly after in the side of Hamilton?

Kimi managed to avoid the same fate in the same spot on lap 2 trying to get past the Williams. Maldanado took the same line that Hamilaton did later on.

post-5134-0-34928700-1340682645_thumb.jpg

Edited by djr81

So was he off the track or on the kerb? Or just off the track before he drove onto the kerb & shortly after in the side of Hamilton?

he was on the track till he got run off the track, then over the kerb as he tried to rejoin where he beached it and couldn't turn. but you already know all that.

Kimi managed to avoid the same fate in the same spot on lap 2 trying to get past the Williams. Maldanado took the same line that Hamilaton did later on.

and plenty of drivers managed to not run people off the road there once they'd established position alongside them on the outside. Again, its both drivers not willing to give an inch that caused the crash, not just Maldonardo. Yes, he failed to rejoin safely and was penalised for that, but there were extenuating circumstances.

Renault Sport has promised to do a thorough investigation into the alternator problems that cut short Sebastian Vettel and Romain Grosjean's races in Valencia.

"We do need to hold our hands up and apologise to both Red Bull and Lotus on the problems on the sister cars of Sebastian and Romain," he said.

"Both suffered alternator failures, although it seems for different reasons at this point in time. Sebastian's overheated and the engine shut down, while Romain's alternator failed and the electrical power to the engine stopped.

"We will of course thoroughly investigate the reasons for this when we get the units back to Viry to try and ensure that Red Bull and Lotus, plus our other partners, do not have the same issue in the future.

Similarly, we will also work to understand the reasons for Heikki [Kovalainen]'s KERS failure - there is a lot of work to be done between now and Silverstone but we have a strong team and resources in the factory."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/7842715/Renault-apologises-to-Red-Bull-and-Lotus

McLaren insist they have made big strides when it comes it pit stops, pointing out that one of their stops in Valencia was the "fastest stationary pit stop in motor racing history".

'They claim that data from the race shows that the 2008 world champion's first stop in Valencia was actually the "fastest stationary pit stop in motor racing history" at 2.6sec,' the paper said.

Adding: 'McLaren had the two fastest pit-lane times during Sunday's race - a 19.36sec for Hamilton and a 19.64sec for Jenson Button - while their average stationary pit-stop time, discounting the one which arguably cost Hamilton the chance to fight for victory, was a sprightly 2.95 seconds.

'Mercedes were the previous record holders of the fastest stationary pit stop, achieving a time similar to McLaren's 2.6secs in Korea last year. But the Woking team believe they were just quicker.'

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/7842756/-McLaren-set-new-pit-stop-record-

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...