maure

I Checked First, Alright?

205 posts in this topic


From this (and other) posts I can see that you have an emotional attachment to the topic. Not being a supporter of any driver, I approach this purely from a statistical point of view.

While I agree that team orders are always a dissappointing way to end a race and somewhat cheapen the championship and F1 as a whole, I am simply pointing out that Red Bull would have had more chance of winning the WDC had they switched the cars in Brazil. That is all. To assume the opposite is statistically incorrect.

I'll give you this though -

If Red Bull do win the WDC without using team orders, they should be very proud of themselves - it would be a pleasure to see.

Yes, it is no secret I do support Vettel, but really, steeping aside from my alliances for a moment I feel that it would be a very anti-climactic moment for what has otherwise been a stunning year for the sport if Vettel moved over for Mark.

I recognise that team order have always existed in F1, but it wouldn't exactly be a very exciting finish, don't you think?

I am a Webber fan and have supported the idea of team rules, however depite how much it pains me to say, Vettal still has a good shot of taking the title.

I dont think Webber has done himself any real favour with recent comments. If it is left to Vettel to make the choice if required, will he actually let Webber through. I am sure his growing dislike for Webber and his ego in that he would hate to be number 2 in the team, may cause his to be irrational (as we have seen on the track) and make the decision not to let Webber through.

I would hate to be in the Red Bull garage if they dont win the WDC.

I agree with that, but Mateschitz seems totally comfortable at the prospect of losing the driver's championship. Now that they have won the constructor's championship and the trophy will say "2010-Red Bull Racing", (as well as getting the money), it seems as if he's not that bothered if the drivers run into each other or not. As I say, it is a refreshing way to go racing, so good on him for being so horizontal about it.

I have to agree with you. I mean, can't Mark Webber win the championship by himself??? Why does he need teammates to help him like that underserving donkey driver. There's already talk that Vettel will be in the lead in A.D. and he must move over... For god sake Mark Webber do it by your flippin self and earn some respect!

Yeah, but I guess the flipside to thata rgue is why did Massa have to move over for Alonso in Germany when they were both still mathematically in with a chance. I guess you could say on previous races to Germany Alonso had been the better performer, but that's a harsh call on Massa, especially when Fernando's made quite a lot of mistakes himself.

I'm all for a fight between the two RBR drivers at Abu Dhabi, but somehow I don't think we'll see it.

Actually, being a Mark Webber fan and loitering around Webber forums, the general feel is that we don't want things handed over to him. I (we) believe in fair play. As long as RBR don't screw Mark over (blaming him for a crash that was clearly Vettel's fault or ripping off his nose cone to give to golden boy) then it's "the best man wins" as far as we are concerned. We are disappointed that in the last third of the season, Webber just keeps getting pipped by Vettel, usually less then a tenth in Q3. We like to see Mark kick a$ - but it hasn't been the case. His reflexes just aren't the same anymore. But Mark deserves credit for being able to keep Vettel honest. Vettel was suppose to trounce Webber this year, but some stunning drives from Webber have left golden boy feeling a tad discombobulated. Just look at the pairings: Alonso/Massa, Hamilton/Kova, Alonso/Fiscichella, etc. Mark has earned his stripes and deserves respect!

As for DM, yes he has a strong moral stand point on team orders, but seriously, I wonder if it is just a media ploy. I mean, it makes DM look good and perhaps provides a red herring to the team orders that WILL BE PUT IN PLACE if the need arises. No one in their right mind would want to see the WDC go to another team, let alone if it came down to principles. Especially after Ferrari have been geeing up Horner and gang ("we would have wrapped up the WDC by now").

Horner, Marko and even Seb have said they know what is the right thing to do for the team. They may not love Mark all that much, but they sure as hell love Alonso and Ferrari even less.

Stating Horner: "The Team comes first" - now where have I heard that?

Horner in the back room to Sebastian:

H: "Sebastian, you know what to do."

S: "Yeah, I know what to do."

Technically, no team orders have been given. But we all know what will happen IF the need arises.

But there won't be a need because Alonso will win in Abu Dhabi and will take the WDC. The End. :king::naughty:

Kudos to Webber for sure he's driven superbly, but I personally believe (just my personal belief) that if it hadn't been for Vettel's many mechanical gremlins then the roles might be very different coming into this last race. The spark plug at Bahrain when in the lead, the brake failure at Australia when in the lead, the loose wheel thing at Barcelona, the glitch in Monza that lost him track position, the engine failure at Korea when....in the lead....that's a heck of a lot of points he's lost through no fault of his driving.

Yeah, he's made a lot of mistakes (Turkey, Silverstone and Spa spring to mind) but you have to admit, Webber's had the better luck in terms of reliability. Whatever, you make your own luck I guess and there are a lot of ifs involved with my opinion. If I was a millionaire I wouldn't be living how I am at the moment...

Edited by JHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed (almost). James speaks the truth in every way apart from here...

That is incorrect. The 2 chances added together still have less probability of occuring than the 1 chance they could have had with Webber winning Brazil.

There has been a mistaken inflation of statistical improbabilities in the Red Bull garage which has adversly affected the actual probability of them taking the WDC.

Never mind - anything could happen.

F1 is not like throwing dice.

In F1, you might have a dice going DNF on you.

Two drivers with a chance is just as good as one driver a point behind, the point system being what it is. I reckon the chances that the championship is decided by Vettel crashing/retiring while Webber and Alonso finish 8th and 9th (respectively) are astronomically slim.

Besides, this way Vettel is happy and that makes RBR happy. Fools. Drivers should be hungry, that is, desperate and unhappy.

Actually, being a Mark Webber fan and loitering around Webber forums, the general feel is that we don't want things handed over to him. I (we) believe in fair play. As long as RBR don't screw Mark over (blaming him for a crash that was clearly Vettel's fault or ripping off his nose cone to give to golden boy) then it's "the best man wins" as far as we are concerned. We are disappointed that in the last third of the season, Webber just keeps getting pipped by Vettel, usually less then a tenth in Q3. We like to see Mark kick a$$ - but it hasn't been the case. His reflexes just aren't the same anymore. But Mark deserves credit for being able to keep Vettel honest. Vettel was suppose to trounce Webber this year, but some stunning drives from Webber have left golden boy feeling a tad discombobulated. Just look at the pairings: Alonso/Massa, Hamilton/Kova, Alonso/Fiscichella, etc. Mark has earned his stripes and deserves respect!

As for DM, yes he has a strong moral stand point on team orders, but seriously, I wonder if it is just a media ploy. I mean, it makes DM look good and perhaps provides a red herring to the team orders that WILL BE PUT IN PLACE if the need arises. No one in their right mind would want to see the WDC go to another team, let alone if it came down to principles. Especially after Ferrari have been geeing up Horner and gang ("we would have wrapped up the WDC by now").

Horner, Marko and even Seb have said they know what is the right thing to do for the team. They may not love Mark all that much, but they sure as hell love Alonso and Ferrari even less.

Stating Horner: "The Team comes first" - now where have I heard that?

Horner in the back room to Sebastian:

H: "Sebastian, you know what to do."

S: "Yeah, I know what to do."

Technically, no team orders have been given. But we all know what will happen IF the need arises.

But there won't be a need because Alonso will win in Abu Dhabi and will take the WDC. The End. :king::naughty:

It's true that I haven't checked with the Webberserkians and what n-tuple standards they have built for themselves to now claim whatever bullsht about team orders. Honestly, who knows, who cares.

It's all nonsense.

No matter how you get the championship, you get it or you don't. That's what's recorded. Only a few farts remember _how_ championships were won and even fewer know the full story behind what immoral/criminal stratagems were used and by whom.

In F1, there is no honor among gentlemen because there are no gentlemen. There are cars and racers. You should know the bit, "when I see another car crash, I step on the gas". It's always been like this. That FIA has raised the criminal to an art, institutionalizing race fraud, does not change it one bit.

Summing up, I don't give a rats arse how Webber beats Alonso and gets the championship. I would always prefer to hear the hypocrite, ignorant infants rattle on about how he didn't "deserve" it than have Webber go home with naught... and see Vettel compromise the Hamilton way.

Honestly, how many of the top teams can we afford to lose anymore? Only Ferrari has it as it is. McLaren is a goner, its driver line up locked up without good reason. And, now, RBR is going that way too.

EDIT: typos

Edited by maure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I guess the flipside to thata rgue is why did Massa have to move over for Alonso in Germany when they were both still mathematically in with a chance.

Why did Kova had to move over for Hamiton for _TWO_ years when they "when they were both still mathematically in with a chance"?

Even better, why does no one talk about it?

Because, ironically, hypocrisy trumps team-orders any day. That's F1 for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually FIA does not have the moral to punish anyone who decide to use team order as they didn't punish Ferrari so, the predecent have been already stablish and therefore this thread is useless and senseless, and I am not going to talk about the timing of the team order, just what FIA did with Ferrari is enough reason to let this thread die, enjoy the race. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Kova had to move over for Hamiton for _TWO_ years when they "when they were both still mathematically in with a chance"?

Even better, why does no one talk about it?

Because, ironically, hypocrisy trumps team-orders any day. That's F1 for you.

Very true. I remember in an episode of AUTOSPORT after the Germany "scandal" there were some other examples involving Renault and McLaren that went unnoticed, such as Fisi moving over for Alonso in China '06, I seem to remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON TEAM ORDERS (random thoughts, and nothing new)

- Bored with brilliant ideas to let (excuse) the use for other teams (and Ferrari, was well) use team orders when in need. All the ideas uttered in the name of "fairness" or "good spectacle" are as fraudulent as the order's ban. Peoople might feel proud of their workarounds. Teams might bask in their snactimoniousness. But it will be just hollow talk. Any of you feel that "ok, team orders as used by Ferrari were bad, but this time they would be fair, so what if we rephrase the rules to allow TO only when it is mathematically impossible for one of the driovers to win?" Brilliant, huh? Or any other idea ("TO only valid at the beginning/end of the season") or something like that. Go ahead. Word that rule. Haven't you noticed the problem? Let me phrase it for you: WHAT IF A TEAM USES TEAM ORDERS IN BREACH OF THAT RULE? Example: the "mathematically impossible" rule: What if next year, again, Ferrari uses team orders, only this time at the very first race? What will be the difference with this year? FIA will still not be able to prove it anymore that they proved it this year. And as powerless to punish it. The problem is not how or when to use them. The problem is how to ban them at ANY GIVEN MOMENT. They can't. So we either live with them, ugly as they are, or we change the sport so they become meaningless. Everything else is just people justifying they love or hatred for their team or driver.

- What is a team order? This is even more fundamental. First, whatever the benefited driver says is obviously not a team order. Alonso venting up his frustration at another driver (as usual) and saying "This is ridiculous" can only be considered part of a team order in delusional or simply stupid people. Let's go back a few races BEFORE Hockenheim. Turkey. Lewis "If I slow down, will Jenson pass me?". Pitwall: "No, Lewis, no". Isn't that more suspicious than "This is ridiculous?". No, of course no. That is different. Because he was in front. Because those cars weren't red. Because whatever. It's the same!!!. There were talks about team orders being issued then, but of course that was conveniently forgotten. And rightly so because never in your life you can prove that any order was issued! "Jenson, save fuel". "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you". "We took Mark's wing and put it in Seb's car". Are any of those really Team orders??? RBRs are now talking that they won't issue any team orders while at the same time putting enormous pressure on Seb to let Mark through without saying it, with the detrimental effect that it could be read either as supporting Seb or supporting Mark. But Newey urged Vettel to be "magnanimous" and let Webber through. Isn't that a team order? When is it a suggestion? When a gentlemen's agreement? When a team order?

- Wait, you Alonsosteric! You KNOW that Ferrari is a shady team, and that what happened at Hockenheim was a TO, and that it was awful to watch. Correct on all accounts. It didn't made me any more of a Ferrari fan, I still think that they love their underhand tactics. I know it was awful (although credit goes to Smnedley, the wording was not for Massa's benefit, but for Ferrari's humiliation. Their fault for letting Massa's best half to comunicate the bad news. And nowadays all they are way too conscious of the TV airing of pit radio communications. I don't like them. I think that if again Webber can't beat Vettel on track the title will have a dent in its armour if won by means of Vettel letting him through, that dent being proportional with the level of challenge Webber can pose on Vettel's pace. I reckon Alonso's title should he win it will have the Hockenheim dent in it (although that is not the same as saying that it was "undeserved" but the thoughts about deserved wins will come some other time). It is interesting, though, that most people and journos aren't saying "Ferrari did it, so RBR go ahead and do it" which will sound bad and resentful, but at least will have a point in its favor. People and journos are saying "RBR would be stupid/suicidal" if they don't use TOs. Wait, so suddenly there are no morals involved? It is "the right thing to do"? Careful then, when feeling so sanctimonious.

- But what about manipulating the sport or "bringing the sport into disrepute"? Yeah, what about that? What about using wings that flex when tey are banned? Stop there, bald man! Those wings did pass the FIAs test so they are not illegal. So, FIA and us know/think they flex (which is what they intended to forbid) but the test/rules don't give any way to prove it? Then why not fine RBR with $100,000? :whistling: That's exactly what happened with Ferrari. Everybody knows/thinks Ferrari issued TOs. They are impossible to prove. So they were fined with $100,000 for...nothing. Did they get scot free? Au contraire, mon ami. It was the harshest punishment ever imposed! :P

-So, what do I propose? I don't know. I don't like things like Hockenheim. But even so, we will all be moaning if there's a ****up at any of their pitstops, or some moment off track, or heating issues or "turn your revs down"...anything will have us running for our tinfoil hats, and who could blame us. We must understand that these are teams. And teams will have their strategies. I can't see many other options except one car per team or banning of pit radios (but if then they give a driver an order before the race...then what?). I am not writing to give a solution, but to pose questions.

(Don't you love my huge text walls? I am worse than spam!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- What is a team order? This is even more fundamental. First, whatever the benefited driver says is obviously not a team order. Alonso venting up his frustration at another driver (as usual) and saying "This is ridiculous" can only be considered part of a team order in delusional or simply stupid people. Let's go back a few races BEFORE Hockenheim. Turkey. Lewis "If I slow down, will Jenson pass me?". Pitwall: "No, Lewis, no". Isn't that more suspicious than "This is ridiculous?". No, of course no. That is different. Because he was in front. Because those cars weren't red. Because whatever. It's the same!!!. There were talks about team orders being issued then, but of course that was conveniently forgotten. And rightly so because never in your life you can prove that any order was issued! "Jenson, save fuel". "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you". "We took Mark's wing and put it in Seb's car". Are any of those really Team orders??? RBRs are now talking that they won't issue any team orders while at the same time putting enormous pressure on Seb to let Mark through without saying it, with the detrimental effect that it could be read either as supporting Seb or supporting Mark. But Newey urged Vettel to be "magnanimous" and let Webber through. Isn't that a team order? When is it a suggestion? When a gentlemen's agreement? When a team order?

I completely agree, the wing saga and the turning up of Vettel's engine and turning down of Mark's in Turkey could be seen as equally bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. I remember in an episode of AUTOSPORT after the Germany "scandal" there were some other examples involving Renault and McLaren that went unnoticed, such as Fisi moving over for Alonso in China '06, I seem to remember.

Hey, if you can't see something that _EVIDENTLY_ went on for _TWO_ years, you cannot be expected to see anything at all... for instance, who the number one at Ferrari was in 06 and what that meant for Schumacher's title bid. Similarly, you cannot be expected to see that, actually, Alonso had to fight his teammates both times he won a championship...

EDIT: topy

Edited by maure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON TEAM ORDERS (random thoughts, and nothing new)

- Bored with brilliant ideas to let (excuse) the use for other teams (and Ferrari, was well) use team orders when in need. All the ideas uttered in the name of "fairness" or "good spectacle" are as fraudulent as the order's ban. Peoople might feel proud of their workarounds. Teams might bask in their snactimoniousness. But it will be just hollow talk. Any of you feel that "ok, team orders as used by Ferrari were bad, but this time they would be fair, so what if we rephrase the rules to allow TO only when it is mathematically impossible for one of the driovers to win?" Brilliant, huh? Or any other idea ("TO only valid at the beginning/end of the season") or something like that. Go ahead. Word that rule. Haven't you noticed the problem? Let me phrase it for you: WHAT IF A TEAM USES TEAM ORDERS IN BREACH OF THAT RULE? Example: the "mathematically impossible" rule: What if next year, again, Ferrari uses team orders, only this time at the very first race? What will be the difference with this year? FIA will still not be able to prove it anymore that they proved it this year. And as powerless to punish it. The problem is not how or when to use them. The problem is how to ban them at ANY GIVEN MOMENT. They can't. So we either live with them, ugly as they are, or we change the sport so they become meaningless. Everything else is just people justifying they love or hatred for their team or driver.

- What is a team order? This is even more fundamental. First, whatever the benefited driver says is obviously not a team order. Alonso venting up his frustration at another driver (as usual) and saying "This is ridiculous" can only be considered part of a team order in delusional or simply stupid people. Let's go back a few races BEFORE Hockenheim. Turkey. Lewis "If I slow down, will Jenson pass me?". Pitwall: "No, Lewis, no". Isn't that more suspicious than "This is ridiculous?". No, of course no. That is different. Because he was in front. Because those cars weren't red. Because whatever. It's the same!!!. There were talks about team orders being issued then, but of course that was conveniently forgotten. And rightly so because never in your life you can prove that any order was issued! "Jenson, save fuel". "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you". "We took Mark's wing and put it in Seb's car". Are any of those really Team orders??? RBRs are now talking that they won't issue any team orders while at the same time putting enormous pressure on Seb to let Mark through without saying it, with the detrimental effect that it could be read either as supporting Seb or supporting Mark. But Newey urged Vettel to be "magnanimous" and let Webber through. Isn't that a team order? When is it a suggestion? When a gentlemen's agreement? When a team order?

- Wait, you Alonsosteric! You KNOW that Ferrari is a shady team, and that what happened at Hockenheim was a TO, and that it was awful to watch. Correct on all accounts. It didn't made me any more of a Ferrari fan, I still think that they love their underhand tactics. I know it was awful (although credit goes to Smnedley, the wording was not for Massa's benefit, but for Ferrari's humiliation. Their fault for letting Massa's best half to comunicate the bad news. And nowadays all they are way too conscious of the TV airing of pit radio communications. I don't like them. I think that if again Webber can't beat Vettel on track the title will have a dent in its armour if won by means of Vettel letting him through, that dent being proportional with the level of challenge Webber can pose on Vettel's pace. I reckon Alonso's title should he win it will have the Hockenheim dent in it (although that is not the same as saying that it was "undeserved" but the thoughts about deserved wins will come some other time). It is interesting, though, that most people and journos aren't saying "Ferrari did it, so RBR go ahead and do it" which will sound bad and resentful, but at least will have a point in its favor. People and journos are saying "RBR would be stupid/suicidal" if they don't use TOs. Wait, so suddenly there are no morals involved? It is "the right thing to do"? Careful then, when feeling so sanctimonious.

- But what about manipulating the sport or "bringing the sport into disrepute"? Yeah, what about that? What about using wings that flex when tey are banned? Stop there, bald man! Those wings did pass the FIAs test so they are not illegal. So, FIA and us know/think they flex (which is what they intended to forbid) but the test/rules don't give any way to prove it? Then why not fine RBR with $100,000? :whistling: That's exactly what happened with Ferrari. Everybody knows/thinks Ferrari issued TOs. They are impossible to prove. So they were fined with $100,000 for...nothing. Did they get scot free? Au contraire, mon ami. It was the harshest punishment ever imposed! :P

-So, what do I propose? I don't know. I don't like things like Hockenheim. But even so, we will all be moaning if there's a ****up at any of their pitstops, or some moment off track, or heating issues or "turn your revs down"...anything will have us running for our tinfoil hats, and who could blame us. We must understand that these are teams. And teams will have their strategies. I can't see many other options except one car per team or banning of pit radios (but if then they give a driver an order before the race...then what?). I am not writing to give a solution, but to pose questions.

(Don't you love my huge text walls? I am worse than spam!)

The truth is that "Hockenheim" happens all the time. The only difference is whether or not someone brings it up. As proof, consider that this year's Hockenheim (the one everyone is all nuts about now) also happened a couple of years back _in_the_very_same_curve_ when Kova was forced to let Hamilton by. Not a soul said anything then. FIA didn't investigate anything. There were no fines.

In other words, Hamilton's favoritism at McLaren is considered acceptable even more deeply than Schumacher's favoritism at Ferrari (in his time) ever was.

Why bother cogitating on "rules" or on what's "moral"? The fact is that the surreal is accepted day in day out no matter if it breaks the rules, if it is immoral, or if it is both. It is just a matter of _who_ screams murder not whether or not there is a dead body in plain view, its death brought about by natural, circumstantial, or criminal events.

Thus, the most interesting questions are as follows. _WHY_ the blatant hypocrisy? _WHY_ the denial and _WHY_ this profound need for self-deceit? The answer has nothing to do with F1 and everything to do with the psychology of humor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maure, this was an AWESOME rant!!! Believe me, I'm an expert on rants!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made myself laugh out loud... nothing unusual.

Hold on.

Yep, I made myself laugh out loud again.

All of this because of the idea, the hope really, that Webber wins the race but Massa (in 2nd place, last lap) lets Alonso by for the championship. It's even more amusing when once realizes that if Vettel lets Webber by in the same circumstances, the bigots will not btch as much.

The hatred some folk have for Alonso is one of the most attractive aspects of the F1 show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is no secret I do support Vettel, but really, steeping aside from my alliances for a moment I feel that it would be a very anti-climactic moment for what has otherwise been a stunning year for the sport if Vettel moved over for Mark.

I recognise that team order have always existed in F1, but it wouldn't exactly be a very exciting finish, don't you think?

I think you need to read my posts more carefully. I've already agreed with all this.

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying.

I'm not saying Team orders are good, I'm not saying I want the WDC decided with team orders. I've said that team orders cheapen F1 several times now.

I'm only saying that Red Bull would statistically have more chance of winning the WDC had they swapped places in Brazil.

Please READ.

Blimey - what do they teach kids in school these days? If you think that disagreeing on one point means we disagree on every point then it follows that if you don't believe in ghosts I'd have to claim to see dead people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only saying that Red Bull would statistically have more chance of winning the WDC had they swapped places in Brazil.

This is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In F1, you might have a dice going DNF on you.

Two drivers with a chance is just as good as one driver a point behind, the point system being what it is. I reckon the chances that the championship is decided by Vettel crashing/retiring while Webber and Alonso finish 8th and 9th (respectively) are astronomically slim.

You're mixing up the frequency of anomalous results with the probability of the different results themselves. Common error.

Hulk's pole in Brazil does not make it more likely that HRT will win in Abu Dhabi.

Or... If you flip an eveny balanced coin 20 times and get 20 heads, the chance of getting a head on the 21st throw is still 50/50. (At least that's what clippo tells me.)

So... Even if F1 throws up a lot of freaky results, the chance of Red Bull winning the WDC would still have been greater had they swapped places in Brazil.

Besides, this way Vettel is happy and that makes RBR happy. Fools. Drivers should be hungry, that is, desperate and unhappy.
True

Anyway - You did better than JHS. Bravo.

EDIT typo

Edited by snorrisstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good argument. You win.

I statistically have more chance of winning... mainly because I don't give a fvck since I don't recognize either "win" or "lose" as worthy states of consideration.

But, it doesn't matter. Your argument is not solid. Contrariwise, what you call "anomalous" is actually "nomalus" as the probability of such a nomality is rather high in F1. Check the historical data.

Now, were F1 to be not "anomalous" but "nomalus", your case would remain weak but would have a better probability. This being not the case, it is not the case... as I already pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you flip an eveny balanced coin 20 times and get 20 heads...

I missed it because of the typo.

Nothing is evenly balanced about F1.

Besides, and needless to say, flipping coins has nothing to do with F1 in the manner you refer. Coin flipping remains at 50/50 on account of the possibility of _infinite_ throws. F1 is not infinite.

But I would say your main error is to be found in that you only want to see a portion of the situation. After all, there are a lot more statistics one can throw at it to swing it one way or another. Consider for instance the results from the last half of the season. RBR has. You must be able to understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I statistically have more chance of winning... mainly because I don't give a fvck since I don't recognize either "win" or "lose" as worthy states of consideration.

But, it doesn't matter. Your argument is not solid. Contrariwise, what you call "anomalous" is actually "nomalus" as the probability of such a nomality is rather high in F1. Check the historical data.

Now, were F1 to be not "anomalous" but "nomalus", your case would remain weak but would have a better probability. This being not the case, it is not the case... as I already pointed out.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed it because of the typo.

Nothing is evenly balanced about F1.

Besides, and needless to say, flipping coins has nothing to do with F1 in the manner you refer. Coin flipping remains at 50/50 on account of the possibility of _infinite_ throws. F1 is not infinite.

But I would say your main error is to be found in that you only want to see a portion of the situation. After all, there are a lot more statistics one can throw at it to swing it one way or another. Consider for instance the results from the last half of the season. RBR has. You must be able to understand this.

:clap3::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This stuffs great!

Yes - It's all about the possibility of _infinite_ throws! You're right! Why on Earth didn't I figure that out. It's so obvious now I think about it!

Priceless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to read my posts more carefully. I've already agreed with all this.

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying.

I'm not saying Team orders are good, I'm not saying I want the WDC decided with team orders. I've said that team orders cheapen F1 several times now.

I'm only saying that Red Bull would statistically have more chance of winning the WDC had they swapped places in Brazil.

Please READ.

Blimey - what do they teach kids in school these days? If you think that disagreeing on one point means we disagree on every point then it follows that if you don't believe in ghosts I'd have to claim to see dead people.

I read your post really carefully and I think it's disgusting that you're all in favour of team orders and that you would like the WDC decided by them. However, the real issue is that you see dead people. Seriously??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tsk...tsk...Adam as usual, supporting team orders and opposing equal rights for zombies. Sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are zombies dead people too?

If they are, then I should be seeing them. If they are undead, then I should be seeing them too.

Since there's a high probability that there is no such thing as zombies, but in matters of zombies there's as an _infinite_ number of possible zombie-related anecdotes, the likelihood of me seeing them must be inversely proportional to the amount of basic maths people on TF1 don't understand and directly correlated to the amount of utter bullshit they're willing to type in a futile (but extremely entertaining) attempt to disguise their willful ignorance.

Ergo - Long live team orders as long as zombies are the number 2 drivers.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a twatface.:mf_tongue:

The end.

EDIT - poo

Edited by snorrisstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FURTHER ON TEAM ORDERS

As said before, the main problem is that there is no actual definition of what constitutes a team order. Newey asked Vettel to be magnanimous and let Mark pass. Is it a team order? (Remember that Felipe was just told that Alonso was faster, not demanded to move through). What if they say "Move over and let Mark through...please" Will it be a team order, considering that RBR only asked him nicely? These are idiotic examples, granted, but they show that the rule was always broken and it took Ferrari's lack of subtletly to trigger this crisis.

Basically, there is no wording that can rule something like Hockenheim from happening again. Not if we keep focusing on team orders, at least. Again, and despite all the hollier-than-thou talk from RBR (laughable) and McLaren *cough Stepney cough* we all know that the problem was that Hockenheim was blatant, not that the other guys are really "sportsmen".

Well, blatant is easier to avoid. What about erasing any mention of team orders altogether from the rules and replace them with requirements of relative pace to be maintained throughout the track? Those can be easily observed on the telemetry (it was what they used at Hockenheim to judge the case, after all). You cannot prove that Rob's phrase was a team order. You can prove that Felipe braked way below his pace before and after that without proper justification. Just request that any of these cases should be subject to proper justification or punished otherwise and at least the most blatant cases will have to disappear. This WON'T solve the usual other tactics for "number 2 drivers" (botched pitstops, imprmptu changes of strategies, etc.) There will always be number 2 drivers (and there has always been) if the teams want them to be like that. Sadly, but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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