-a... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
-a-a... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
Did you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in every situation.
but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in every situation.
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
but I also acknowledge that it is very difficultYa i can see you have no
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in every situation.
problem with cheating in auto racing.
Seen it over and over.
Your lap times at your go cart
probably involve cheating too.
You have no credibility.
So fuck off asshole.
On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
-a-a... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe >>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
Did you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the racing regulations on the spot.
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Not the subject in question.
Just checking.
No, diverting.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
rule should be OK ?
On 2021-12-15 8:44 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
-a-a... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
Did you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
the race that it would be a priority to get the race going
again, should the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36
into the video)?
Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the
racing regulations on the spot.
I see, so his conclusions you'll trust...
...but not his statements of fact.
And it's "hearsay"
On 2021-12-15 8:44 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
-a-a... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
Did you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the
racing regulations on the spot.
I see, so his conclusions you'll trust...
...but not his statements of fact.
And it's "hearsay"; one word.
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Not the subject in question.
Relevant to the whole question of who was gifted what and what
regulations weren't followed.
Just checking.
No, diverting.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
rule should be OK ?
Nope.
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoffDid you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in every situation.
And it's "hearsay"; one word.
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybeDid you miss the part where he says:
select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
every situation.
It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
a SC period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
in at the time the SC was called?
If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
"following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
being on the cards?
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won (providing
it was done fairly).
And it's "hearsay"; one word.
On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybeDid you miss the part where he says:
select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
We don't know of course.
It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it
was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
time the SC was called?
If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up SC
removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a "following
lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have been such an
obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that being on the cards?
Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
(providing it was done fairly).
I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, Alan wrote:maybe
On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
trivial &What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".select one sentence out of it to quote.Did you miss the part where he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
We don't know of course.
It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it
was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
time the SC was called?
If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up SC
removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a "following
lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have been such an
obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that being on the cards?
Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
(providing it was done fairly).
I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.
No you are just looking for ways to keep the argument going with
irrelevant issues.Is the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed would
It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
time the SC was called?
In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as
well as delay, obviously) things?
Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
(providing it was done fairly).
On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:maybe
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
select one sentence out of it to quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoffDid you miss the part where he says:
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
the race that it would be a priority to get the race going again,
should the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the
video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t
away with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with asWhat did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
very difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that
will apply equitably in every situation.
We don't know of course.
On 2021-12-16 1:03 p.m., alister wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, Alan wrote:
Or maybe >>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoffDid you miss the part where he says:
the >>>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
again, should >>>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36
into the video)?
away >>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t
Just checking.
very >>>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule thatBTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
will apply >>>> equitably in every situation.
What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
We don't know of course.
it >>> was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness toIt can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that
who?
I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
a SC >>> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass,What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
surely which >>> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern
it was in at the >>> time the SC was called?
up SC >>> removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a "following >>> lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would haveIf it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed
been such an >>> obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
being on the cards?
Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
considered >>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps ofMy expectation is that neither of those things had ever been
Sunday's race.
happening.OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all
Verstappen >> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was toldHe was told specifically that only the cars between him and
the safety car >> would come in on the same lap that that was
happening.
be to >>> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling orIn hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done
grid >>> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75%
race >>> distance completion or something like that?
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
have >>> left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matterMax vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would
who won >>> (providing it was done fairly).
I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.
No you are just looking for ways to keep the argument going withIs the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed
trivial & irrelevant issues.
would be the protocol for safety cars during the late stages of the
race "irrelevant" to this discussion?
You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
rule should be OK ?
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in every situation.
On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
-a ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe >>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.Did you miss the part where he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race >>> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
every situation.
We don't know of course.
It can't mean a priority over safety.-a So did they all agree that it was
a priority over fairness?-a And in which case, fairness to who?
I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
a SC period?-a Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
in at the time the SC was called?
If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
"following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
being on the cards?
Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 06:16:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Larkin wrote:
<snip general irrelevance>
It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
time the SC was called?
That would be one option & covered by the current regs but open to DR descretion which was the cause of the problem.
<snip unkowable conjecture>
In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?
The 75% rule does not say a race MUST be declared if a red flag occurs at over 75% as demonstrated in Bacu which had 1 lap remaining on restart
Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme
rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as
well as delay, obviously) things?
I was thinking along the same lines a mandatory red flag if the safety car
is on track or required with lest than 5 laps to go. no need to change any
of the current red flag processes.
On 17/12/2021 6:50 am, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
-a ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe >>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.Did you miss the part where he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
geoff
"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
race
that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
Just checking.
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little >>>> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult >>>> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in >>>> every situation.
We don't know of course.
It can't mean a priority over safety.-a So did they all agree that it was >>> a priority over fairness?-a And in which case, fairness to who?
I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
a SC period?-a Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
in at the time the SC was called?
If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
"following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
being on the cards?
Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.
Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
Possibly a bit busy driving ?
Alan wrote:
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he likes
then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways they were
never intended.
Again, you display your omniscience.
On 2021-12-16 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:In both cockpit and RD control room, there was plenty going on.
Alan wrote:
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
equitably in every situation.
Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he likes then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways they were never intended.
Again, you display your omniscience.
On 2021-12-16 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
very difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that
will apply equitably in every situation.
Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he
likes then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways
they were never intended.
Again, you display your omniscience.
On 2021-12-16 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
very difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that
will apply equitably in every situation.
Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he
likes then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways
they were never intended.
Again, you display your omniscience.
that time has come.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 218:30:46 |
| Calls: | 139 |
| Files: | 752 |
| Messages: | 87,387 |