The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Oh dear.
Page:
You can see it now.
F1 = "Ferrari One"
F1 = "Ferrari One"
Why not, before this season that's what it had been with guest appearances from BAR every now and then :-D
Yeah, I was actually quite enjoying this season
Kimi Raikkonen is a brilliant driver
Kimi Raikkonen is a brilliant driver
Marzman wrote:
> Are you for real? If you had beenpaying attention to the season, you
> would have seen what had been happening (alonso leading with kimi
> catching fast)
Not sure about the catching fast thing, despite him winning the last race. Since there are a fairly large number of races this season when compared to the last decade, losing one race changes nothing for them. In the next race, they can just start where they left off, nothing lost. That in itself can be entertaining, all I said (and to use your words) if you had beenpaying attention, was that the US Grand Prix, as an event, was quite interesting to watch. Not for the racing, but for the controversy.
> and you would also understand that the ferrari 1-2
> means 3 and 4th in the championship. Michael had next to no chances
> of winning his title back but now he's a few points behind raikonen
> (correct spelling?) [no].
Then that sounds like a good thing... the more drivers there are in the hunt for the championship, the better the spectacle and tension. When Schumacher was dominating, people complained that it wasn't interesting. Now that there are at least 3 drivers in contention, you're saying that's bad too?
On top of that, if you read down the topic, look for a post by Ant. He pointed out that (as Martin Brundle said) Schumacher had to stop a race after tyre problems earlier in the race. The Michelin group had no sympathy, so why should Ferrari not make use of the points now?
As for Ferrari voting against the chicane, that's untrue. They just didn't agree *not* to race if a chicane wasn't put in. Whilst this does put partial blame on them, its minor when you consider that they would no doubt have still raced had the FIA put the chicane in anyway (this point also made earlier in the topic, I think by Ant).
Isn't the fact that we're still talking about it now an indication that this was an important and interesting tv moment?
> Are you for real? If you had beenpaying attention to the season, you
> would have seen what had been happening (alonso leading with kimi
> catching fast)
Not sure about the catching fast thing, despite him winning the last race. Since there are a fairly large number of races this season when compared to the last decade, losing one race changes nothing for them. In the next race, they can just start where they left off, nothing lost. That in itself can be entertaining, all I said (and to use your words) if you had beenpaying attention, was that the US Grand Prix, as an event, was quite interesting to watch. Not for the racing, but for the controversy.
> and you would also understand that the ferrari 1-2
> means 3 and 4th in the championship. Michael had next to no chances
> of winning his title back but now he's a few points behind raikonen
> (correct spelling?) [no].
Then that sounds like a good thing... the more drivers there are in the hunt for the championship, the better the spectacle and tension. When Schumacher was dominating, people complained that it wasn't interesting. Now that there are at least 3 drivers in contention, you're saying that's bad too?
On top of that, if you read down the topic, look for a post by Ant. He pointed out that (as Martin Brundle said) Schumacher had to stop a race after tyre problems earlier in the race. The Michelin group had no sympathy, so why should Ferrari not make use of the points now?
As for Ferrari voting against the chicane, that's untrue. They just didn't agree *not* to race if a chicane wasn't put in. Whilst this does put partial blame on them, its minor when you consider that they would no doubt have still raced had the FIA put the chicane in anyway (this point also made earlier in the topic, I think by Ant).
Isn't the fact that we're still talking about it now an indication that this was an important and interesting tv moment?
Can anyone tell me what penalty the teams would have incurred if they had changed tyres to the batch that had been flown out of France (or were going to be flown out)?
I think that it's obvious that Michelin messed big style.
However, as F1 has been trying (relatively unsuccesfully) to crack America for years, the FIA were stupid to let the "race" go ahead as it did.
Christ, it would have been better to let the Michelin runners change tyres but start them off with a 5 lap deficit or something. At least that way there would have been action on track, and the sport wouldn't have let down all the sponsors and fans.
As it is it's a complete farce.
On a side note, ITV have the finishers up, and have Trulli finishing 7th, and DC last. However, surely Trulli retired first, as he was leading the parade lap?
This could mean an interesting order for qualifying in France, with an interesting grid....
However, as F1 has been trying (relatively unsuccesfully) to crack America for years, the FIA were stupid to let the "race" go ahead as it did.
Christ, it would have been better to let the Michelin runners change tyres but start them off with a 5 lap deficit or something. At least that way there would have been action on track, and the sport wouldn't have let down all the sponsors and fans.
As it is it's a complete farce.
On a side note, ITV have the finishers up, and have Trulli finishing 7th, and DC last. However, surely Trulli retired first, as he was leading the parade lap?
This could mean an interesting order for qualifying in France, with an interesting grid....
Afternoon, Your Honour! Howdy again. Absolutely right on the grid order for next race - it could be interesting! I wondered about the order they finished as well, thinking that they might be in reverse order next time, but my guess is that when two cars retire on the same lap, the "winner" is deemed to be the one that got their first, so Trulli would be 7th.
Either way, qualifying next time could lead to unexpected results, but Alonso and Raikkonen are still far enough up the order to stand an excellent chance of pole.
Either way, qualifying next time could lead to unexpected results, but Alonso and Raikkonen are still far enough up the order to stand an excellent chance of pole.
Ineedsleep wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what penalty the teams would have incurred if they
> had changed tyres to the batch that had been flown out of France (or
> were going to be flown out)?
From what I understand the regulations to be, the change of tyres would have breached 6 regulations so the penalties would probably be severe.
> Can anyone tell me what penalty the teams would have incurred if they
> had changed tyres to the batch that had been flown out of France (or
> were going to be flown out)?
From what I understand the regulations to be, the change of tyres would have breached 6 regulations so the penalties would probably be severe.
Heloo mate! How goes it?
Thought I'd seen you around a few weeks back. Said hello, but then couldn't remember which thread it wa so had no idea if you'd replied :-)
I see what you mean about the retiring, but surely Trulli retired first? Ah well, I'm sure it will all become clear as mud over the next couple of weeks.
If ever there was an event that would make F1 switch back to single tire manufactureres again, this is it...
Thought I'd seen you around a few weeks back. Said hello, but then couldn't remember which thread it wa so had no idea if you'd replied :-)
I see what you mean about the retiring, but surely Trulli retired first? Ah well, I'm sure it will all become clear as mud over the next couple of weeks.
If ever there was an event that would make F1 switch back to single tire manufactureres again, this is it...
Grandprix wrote:
> From what I understand the regulations to be, the change of tyres
> would have breached 6 regulations so the penalties would probably be
> severe.
And that's assuming that each team would have enough tires. If they had to be changed every 10 laps, then they would have needed 8 sets of tires. Which I very much doubt they would have had.
> From what I understand the regulations to be, the change of tyres
> would have breached 6 regulations so the penalties would probably be
> severe.
And that's assuming that each team would have enough tires. If they had to be changed every 10 laps, then they would have needed 8 sets of tires. Which I very much doubt they would have had.
Page: