The vultures and the corpse of F1
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4200459.ece
F1 is in danger, of that there can be little doubt. Despite this being one of the most exciting and, Magny aside, most unpredictable seasons for some years, the two people who could help revive the sport are now going to fight over its corpse.
They are like two vultures squabbling over the body of a rabbit. They are both going for the nutrient rich intestines but, if they keep fighting over them, by the time either gets to keep the spoils, the guts will be rotten and have little sustenance.
There is more at stake than is being admitted at the moment.
Eccs seems to be cultivating Murdoc. All press releases seem to come through The Times.
Now there’s a choice that would throw Solomon: which side to pick. Murdoc or Mosley?
The guts of F1 are strewn over the ground and everyone is picking sides: Williams and Ferrari, together with Red lap Dog Bull with Mosley; on the other side we have the might of Eccs, Murdoc and all the others teams.
No one, it would appear, is on the side of the sport.
F1 is in danger, of that there can be little doubt. Despite this being one of the most exciting and, Magny aside, most unpredictable seasons for some years, the two people who could help revive the sport are now going to fight over its corpse.
They are like two vultures squabbling over the body of a rabbit. They are both going for the nutrient rich intestines but, if they keep fighting over them, by the time either gets to keep the spoils, the guts will be rotten and have little sustenance.
There is more at stake than is being admitted at the moment.
Eccs seems to be cultivating Murdoc. All press releases seem to come through The Times.
Now there’s a choice that would throw Solomon: which side to pick. Murdoc or Mosley?
The guts of F1 are strewn over the ground and everyone is picking sides: Williams and Ferrari, together with Red lap Dog Bull with Mosley; on the other side we have the might of Eccs, Murdoc and all the others teams.
No one, it would appear, is on the side of the sport.
If I were Ron Dennis at the moment I would be banging on Mercedes' door demanding either resurrection of the break away idea or that they buy his share and he gets to bugger off.
The current situation is neither fair nor sustainable and Ferrari should be dumped with whatever is left of F1 when the manufacturers get bored of pouring millions into their little inbred circus.
The current situation is neither fair nor sustainable and Ferrari should be dumped with whatever is left of F1 when the manufacturers get bored of pouring millions into their little inbred circus.
I have been watching F1 for nearly 50 years and it has has now become such a farce that i have now taken to watching Nascar for in that i can be certain that the result is fair and correct.
I have only just watched last sundays episode of garbage,Having been at Donington to watch some overtaking and a young British lad fly the flag for this country.
Regarding Hamiltons overtake being legal or not is maybe debateable but what was wrong was the stewards taking all that time to decide wether it was,Maybe they had to wait for a confirmation from the FIA HQ. Then there was the unreal situation of a Ferrari with bits of metal hanging from it ,Bodywork alight not being black flagged.You can bet if it had been painted silver it would have been hauled in pronto.
It is time now for the the good of the sport for the control to given to people and companies that care for the sport rather what money they can take out of it.
Make no mistake Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.
They threatened to quit F1 before but soon backed down when push came to shove and they would do the same now.
Porsche et al must be laughing their socks of that their fellow German manufacturers are plowing vast sums of money into something so questionable.
With all the revelations that have come to light as you say ,It may well be that the BBC having have won the rights to show just repeats as there is no F1 anymore.
I have only just watched last sundays episode of garbage,Having been at Donington to watch some overtaking and a young British lad fly the flag for this country.
Regarding Hamiltons overtake being legal or not is maybe debateable but what was wrong was the stewards taking all that time to decide wether it was,Maybe they had to wait for a confirmation from the FIA HQ. Then there was the unreal situation of a Ferrari with bits of metal hanging from it ,Bodywork alight not being black flagged.You can bet if it had been painted silver it would have been hauled in pronto.
It is time now for the the good of the sport for the control to given to people and companies that care for the sport rather what money they can take out of it.
Make no mistake Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.
They threatened to quit F1 before but soon backed down when push came to shove and they would do the same now.
Porsche et al must be laughing their socks of that their fellow German manufacturers are plowing vast sums of money into something so questionable.
With all the revelations that have come to light as you say ,It may well be that the BBC having have won the rights to show just repeats as there is no F1 anymore.
Calm down Bob, you're becoming irrational!! I too have watched F1 since the early sixties and don't like what I now see in general but let's put it in perspective.
Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
Plenty of examples of damaged Silver cars being left to run too, witness the obviously failing tyre of Kimi, Nurburgring 05. Everyone could see it was a major risk, but nothing done. Resulting accident could have been far worse than it turned out to be.
On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
The facts are that there is no evidence, ouside the minds of Mc fans, of bias and LH's recent problems all stem from his crass misjudgement in Canada.
Get over it!
Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
Plenty of examples of damaged Silver cars being left to run too, witness the obviously failing tyre of Kimi, Nurburgring 05. Everyone could see it was a major risk, but nothing done. Resulting accident could have been far worse than it turned out to be.
On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
The facts are that there is no evidence, ouside the minds of Mc fans, of bias and LH's recent problems all stem from his crass misjudgement in Canada.
Get over it!
If I had to choose[1] - and it's Hobson's choice with bells on - I'd go with Ecclestone. After all, he's got the commercial rights.
I'm with 10PS on what should be done. Breakaway series with McMerc, BMW, Honda and Toyota et al with a healthy privateer scene (supported by the works teams and not necessarily just with wonga) would be the way forward.
Let Bernie watch the three Ferrari teams go round in circles with the red cars finishing first, the way he likes it.
I'm with 10PS on what should be done. Breakaway series with McMerc, BMW, Honda and Toyota et al with a healthy privateer scene (supported by the works teams and not necessarily just with wonga) would be the way forward.
Let Bernie watch the three Ferrari teams go round in circles with the red cars finishing first, the way he likes it.
1. On a business basis, that is.
DSM2 said:
Calm down Bob, you're becoming irrational!! I too have watched F1 since the early sixties and don't like what I now see in general but let's put it in perspective.
Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
I'll tell you what - we'll put a helmet on you and sit you in a chair, then we'll take a metal tube 3" in diameter and 15" long and fire it at a speed of 100 mph directly at your visor. Still trivial?Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
A puncture at 180 mph - trivial?
DSM2 said:
Plenty of examples of damaged Silver cars being left to run too, witness the obviously failing tyre of Kimi, Nurburgring 05. Everyone could see it was a major risk, but nothing done. Resulting accident could have been far worse than it turned out to be.
On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
The complicating factor back in '05 was that the FIA, having unilaterally imposed the single-tyre rule, had not clarified whether a team would be allowed to change a tyre not in the case of a puncture, but in the case of a badly flat-spotted tyre. It appeared at the time that the FIA felt (mistakenly) that if the car was actually in danger of failing (which failure would obviously be catastrophic to McLaren themselves, unlike the exhaust pipe to Ferrari), McLaren would bring the car in. For its part, McLaren thought (mistakenly) that the suspension would hold, but moreover they did not know whether they were allowed to make a tyre change.On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
You may recall that, after this race, the FIA clarified the rule so that changing an unpunctured but defective tyre was explicitly allowed.
DSM2 said:
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
That's not how it works.The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.
DSM2 said:
The facts are that there is no evidence, ouside the minds of Mc fans, of bias and LH's recent problems all stem from his crass misjudgement in Canada.
Nope, no bias whatsoever. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about the FIA here - how could there be bias?The only way I can see any parity in the future of any 'premier worldwide motorsport series' is that there's parity and justice built into the very bones of the series' constitution, right from the very start.
Every competing team should have the same financial terms and those who govern the sport should not have or have had interests, financial or otherwise, in any of the currently competing teams.
The governing body should be run with the clarity, legality and structure of a public company, owned equally by the teams in the series as shareholders. Any person who has been employed by any currently competing team should be barred from holding executive roles in the governing company and should be barred from all board positions. This would also apply to race stewards.
A series such as F1, especially considering the stakes, should do everything within its power to both appear to be and actually to be impartial, fair and transparently so. Sadly, as a long term fan of the sport, I don't feel the FIA or Bernie are fair, open or transparent.
My personal preference would be for the manufacturers, including Ferrari if they wanted to, to breakaway from the FIA and Bernie, and form their own championship governed perhaps in the ethos of my outline above.
'F1' should not be a vehicle for making personal fortunes and scoring political points through its own governance. It should not be a outlet for manipulation. It should be an outlet for developing new technologies and providing a spectacle.
Every competing team should have the same financial terms and those who govern the sport should not have or have had interests, financial or otherwise, in any of the currently competing teams.
The governing body should be run with the clarity, legality and structure of a public company, owned equally by the teams in the series as shareholders. Any person who has been employed by any currently competing team should be barred from holding executive roles in the governing company and should be barred from all board positions. This would also apply to race stewards.
A series such as F1, especially considering the stakes, should do everything within its power to both appear to be and actually to be impartial, fair and transparently so. Sadly, as a long term fan of the sport, I don't feel the FIA or Bernie are fair, open or transparent.
My personal preference would be for the manufacturers, including Ferrari if they wanted to, to breakaway from the FIA and Bernie, and form their own championship governed perhaps in the ethos of my outline above.
'F1' should not be a vehicle for making personal fortunes and scoring political points through its own governance. It should not be a outlet for manipulation. It should be an outlet for developing new technologies and providing a spectacle.
10 Pence Short said:
The only way I can see any parity in the future of any 'premier worldwide motorsport series' is that there's parity and justice built into the very bones of the series' constitution, right from the very start.
Every competing team should have the same financial terms and those who govern the sport should not have or have had interests, financial or otherwise, in any of the currently competing teams.
The governing body should be run with the clarity, legality and structure of a public company, owned equally by the teams in the series as shareholders. Any person who has been employed by any currently competing team should be barred from holding executive roles in the governing company and should be barred from all board positions. This would also apply to race stewards.
A series such as F1, especially considering the stakes, should do everything within its power to both appear to be and actually to be impartial, fair and transparently so. Sadly, as a long term fan of the sport, I don't feel the FIA or Bernie are fair, open or transparent.
My personal preference would be for the manufacturers, including Ferrari if they wanted to, to breakaway from the FIA and Bernie, and form their own championship governed perhaps in the ethos of my outline above.
Excellent post.Every competing team should have the same financial terms and those who govern the sport should not have or have had interests, financial or otherwise, in any of the currently competing teams.
The governing body should be run with the clarity, legality and structure of a public company, owned equally by the teams in the series as shareholders. Any person who has been employed by any currently competing team should be barred from holding executive roles in the governing company and should be barred from all board positions. This would also apply to race stewards.
A series such as F1, especially considering the stakes, should do everything within its power to both appear to be and actually to be impartial, fair and transparently so. Sadly, as a long term fan of the sport, I don't feel the FIA or Bernie are fair, open or transparent.
My personal preference would be for the manufacturers, including Ferrari if they wanted to, to breakaway from the FIA and Bernie, and form their own championship governed perhaps in the ethos of my outline above.
10 Pence Short said:
'F1' should not be a vehicle for making personal fortunes and scoring political points through its own governance. It should not be a outlet for manipulation. It should be an outlet for developing new technologies and providing a spectacle.
We've as much chance of that happening as it never raining on a summer Sunday. Probably less. Nice thought though.flemke said:
DSM2 said:
Calm down Bob, you're becoming irrational!! I too have watched F1 since the early sixties and don't like what I now see in general but let's put it in perspective.
Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
I'll tell you what - we'll put a helmet on you and sit you in a chair, then we'll take a metal tube 3" in diameter and 15" long and fire it at a speed of 100 mph directly at your visor. Still trivial?Fact is F1 cars are rarely called in for something as trivial as an exhaust hanging off. Last car to get black/orange was, guess who?, MS in a Ferrari, 2003 Melbourne.
Of course not. But of course, that was not what was happening or ever likely to happen in this instance is it?
A puncture at 180 mph - trivial? Well, that risk is greater from shards of CF, which regularly litter the tracks.
DSM2 said:
Plenty of examples of damaged Silver cars being left to run too, witness the obviously failing tyre of Kimi, Nurburgring 05. Everyone could see it was a major risk, but nothing done. Resulting accident could have been far worse than it turned out to be.
On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
It appeared at the time that the FIA felt (mistakenly) that if the car was actually in danger of failing (which failure would obviously be catastrophic to McLaren themselves, unlike the exhaust pipe to Ferrari), McLaren would bring the car in. On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
Precisely the logic that was applied last weekend? So it was consistent.
For its part, McLaren thought (mistakenly) that the suspension would hold, but moreover they did not know whether they were allowed to make a tyre change.
The point is that any idiot could see that the tyre presented a huge risk of failure, but nothing was done.
You may recall that, after this race, the FIA clarified the rule so that changing an unpunctured but defective tyre was explicitly allowed.
DSM2 said:
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
That's not how it works.The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.
Interesting. It was showing on the TV screens inside 15 minutes, so I would be amazed if Mclaren didn't know. Another conspiracy? Any way, within 2 minutes Hamilton had overtaken more cars so would have been in no position to undo his action so that seems irrelevant.
DSM2 said:
The facts are that there is no evidence, ouside the minds of Mc fans, of bias and LH's recent problems all stem from his crass misjudgement in Canada.
Nope, no bias whatsoever. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about the FIA here - how could there be bias?
DSM2 said:
Glad we agree on something!
Perhaps you agree with Lauda and Webber? Although my betting is that you will favour the FIA spokesman who was unwilling to put his name to the quote.http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080625112641.shtml
Derek Smith said:
DSM2 said:
Glad we agree on something!
Perhaps you agree with Lauda and Webber? Although my betting is that you will favour the FIA spokesman who was unwilling to put his name to the quote.http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080625112641.shtml
Has he considered a change in career - perhaps British politics?
Why?
No, it was not likely.
Could you tell us how likely it was that Christiano da Matta would be put in a coma by a deer crossing the circuit, or that Tom Pryce would be killed by a flying fire extinguisher?
Do they normally allow a car to race for 30 laps with shards of CF falling off it? I don't think so.
That is not to mention which, shards of CF were also coming off Raikkonen's car, along with metal bits. It wasn't "only" the exhaust pipe.
Have you bothered to read what Domenicalli said after the race - that Ferrari will have a tough time figuring out the cause of the exhaust problem because parts of the car were scattered all around the circuit.
Precisely the logic that was applied last weekend? So it was consistent.There is a new, ambiguous regulation this year about changing exhaust pipes?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I, or anyone on this thread, has defended the decision in '05 not to bring in Raikkonen.
The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.Interesting. It was showing on the TV screens inside 15 minutes, so I would be amazed if Mclaren didn't know. Another conspiracy? Any way, within 2 minutes Hamilton had overtaken more cars so would have been in no position to undo his action so that seems irrelevant.McLaren knew what Hamilton had done at the same time that everyone else did. Again, that is not the point.
The point is that the FIA should grow up and act like the officials in every other sport in the world do, by making expeditious decisions that do not spoil the competition. They manage to do it in football, they manage to do it in tennis. Why is it beyond the ability of the imperious regulators of "the world's most-watched sport"?
DSM2 said:
flemke said:
I'll tell you what - we'll put a helmet on you and sit you in a chair, then we'll take a metal tube 3" in diameter and 15" long and fire it at a speed of 100 mph directly at your visor. Still trivial?
Of course not. But of course, that was not what was happening or ever likely to happen in this instance is it?
Of course not. But of course, that was not what was happening or ever likely to happen in this instance is it?
Could you tell us how likely it was that Christiano da Matta would be put in a coma by a deer crossing the circuit, or that Tom Pryce would be killed by a flying fire extinguisher?
DSM2 said:
flemke said:
A puncture at 180 mph - trivial?
Well, that risk is greater from shards of CF, which regularly litter the tracks.That is not to mention which, shards of CF were also coming off Raikkonen's car, along with metal bits. It wasn't "only" the exhaust pipe.
Have you bothered to read what Domenicalli said after the race - that Ferrari will have a tough time figuring out the cause of the exhaust problem because parts of the car were scattered all around the circuit.
DSM2 said:
flemke said:
DSM2 said:
Plenty of examples of damaged Silver cars being left to run too, witness the obviously failing tyre of Kimi, Nurburgring 05. Everyone could see it was a major risk, but nothing done. Resulting accident could have been far worse than it turned out to be.
On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
It appeared at the time that the FIA felt (mistakenly) that if the car was actually in danger of failing (which failure would obviously be catastrophic to McLaren themselves, unlike the exhaust pipe to Ferrari), McLaren would bring the car in.On that point Sunday was quite consistent.
DSM2 said:
flemke said:
For its part, McLaren thought (mistakenly) that the suspension would hold, but moreover they did not know whether they were allowed to make a tyre change.
The point is that any idiot could see that the tyre presented a huge risk of failure, but nothing was done.flemke already said:
You may recall that, after this race, the FIA clarified the rule so that changing an unpunctured but defective tyre was explicitly allowed.
DSM2 said:
flemke said:
DSM2 said:
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
That's not how it works.The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.
The point is that the FIA should grow up and act like the officials in every other sport in the world do, by making expeditious decisions that do not spoil the competition. They manage to do it in football, they manage to do it in tennis. Why is it beyond the ability of the imperious regulators of "the world's most-watched sport"?
As for the state of F1 at this moment,Bearing in mind the hatred that purveils in different factions of the sport, there is no way you will get a just result in F1.
What bemused me how a 7 cylinder Fezza was able to keep its distance from a fully fit Toyota and BMW.
Takes the term sandbagging to a new plane.
Maybe its time the cars were scrutinered by a true independent body,If none have got anything to hide what have they got to lose.
What bemused me how a 7 cylinder Fezza was able to keep its distance from a fully fit Toyota and BMW.
Takes the term sandbagging to a new plane.
Maybe its time the cars were scrutinered by a true independent body,If none have got anything to hide what have they got to lose.
We now have open warfare. Max Rufus has announced the establishment of a 'feeder series', although one has to wonder whom it is feeding, for F1 in direct conflict with GP2. This is about as unsubtle as you can get. Just what the sport needs, a split.
The grid is haemorrhaging cars and the sport has what must be one of the worst public images of any international sport and MM decides to play his fiddle. Just what the sport needs, another series and one that will disrupt the sport.
I am in fear for my sport
The grid is haemorrhaging cars and the sport has what must be one of the worst public images of any international sport and MM decides to play his fiddle. Just what the sport needs, another series and one that will disrupt the sport.
I am in fear for my sport
If I was the big cheese of a manufacturer like Renault, Honda, Mercedes and co, I'd be getting round a table to form my own race series away from both Bernie and Max. F1 does not need F1, in fact I would say that Ferrari need F1 more so.
If all the manufacturers reopened negociations about a break away series, I can guess which one the public would vote for...
Get out now and leave those two idoits to fight over themselves.
If all the manufacturers reopened negociations about a break away series, I can guess which one the public would vote for...
Get out now and leave those two idoits to fight over themselves.
flemke said:
DSM2 said:
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
That's not how it works.The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.
On all your other points, I totally agree.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/06/the-cold-war-is.html?cid=120092668#comments
F1 was fun while it lasted.
F1 was fun while it lasted.
rubystone said:
flemke said:
DSM2 said:
As for LH going off track, well he clearly did, and gained by it. So he deserved punishment and he got the most lenient allowed for. Maybe the time taken was spent deciding which punishment should be applied. If an instant decision had been made to apply one of the other sanctions, would that have helped?
That's not how it works.The stewards announce that they are investigating something, and that information normally causes the team being investigated to react. It's only later that the result of the investigation and the precise penalty are declared.
The problem was not that the stewards dragged their feet in deciding on what sanction to apply. The problem was that they took at least 15 minutes before telling McLaren that they were going to investigate at all, and by that time it was far too late for Hamilton to concede back the position.
On all your other points, I totally agree.
In doing so, however, our inherent limitation (apart from knowing a fraction of the facts) is that we tend to ignore probabilities.
In this case, McLaren were presumably making a calculated bet, that the probability of an investigation, multiplied by the cost of an investigation, would be less than the probability of no investigation multiplied by the reward of carrying on.
In doing those sums, you will often end up making the right choice, in terms of expected value, but still lose. Conversely, you could easily make the wrong choice, but win.
I've got no idea whether they made the right choice or the wrong one. What I do know is that every F1 team is filled to the rafters with folks who know at least 100 times more about what is happening than I, and pretty much everybody here on PH, do. Which does not mean that we shouldn't amuse ourselves and learn by sharing ideas and disagreeing with each other, just that we are relatively clueless.
In this particular case, I did find it odd that Brundle confidently asserted, just after it happened, that "Dave Ryan will have been on the phone to Charlie Whiting within a couple of seconds to ask whether the stewards were going to look at." If McLaren in fact failed to contact Whiting, they must have been pretty confident of the position. If they spoke with him but elected for Hamilton to hold station, it raises some interesting questions.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff