Mohammed ben Sulayem

[TypeRTim]

rscott said:

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

You've not seen that Gasly and Magnusson aren't happy about it either?
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a3994571...

I had not seen that article. I'm pretty sure that an exemption was made for wedding rings due to the symbolic nature of them from what I recall - open to correction on that one, but I'm sure Russel joked with Hamilton in a presser about getting married to get around wearing jewellery. As for religious purposes, there is nothing in christianity that implores or enforces wearing of a cross, so that is purely personal preference (it definitely isn't something all christians do) and so in my view, subject to the same rules as regular necklaces.

Like I said, LH is just the most publicised and vocal about it - probably because his are piercings rather than rings and chains. I believe Lewis takes any rings and chains off etc. when racing, just not the piercings. If it's not that much of a safety issue, why doesn't he just keep wearing his rings, chains and watches when racing?

Wow. You're happy with an exemption for wedding rings because of their symbolic nature, but not for a symbol of their faith.

There is no scripture, ritual or command to my knowledge that dictates wearing any iconography to symbolise your faith. Therefore any religious jewellery is purely down to personal choice.

A wedding band is ceremonial and used across faiths, cultures and traditions. It is linked to a ceremony and a symbolic bond of 2 people. A lot of people view removal of the wedding band as a removal of the vows and bonds of marriage and so view it as immoral.

A Crucifix, a St.Christopher, a Star of David... there is nothing in the religion that ties someone to wearing one to symbolise their connection to the religion. It is purely optional on one's personal choice. So I don't believe it to be on the same level of exemption as a wedding band, no.

But also like I said, I remove my wedding band when exercising, Karting or track driving just in case.

[PhilAsia]

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

You've not seen that Gasly and Magnusson aren't happy about it either?
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a3994571...

I had not seen that article. I'm pretty sure that an exemption was made for wedding rings due to the symbolic nature of them from what I recall - open to correction on that one, but I'm sure Russel joked with Hamilton in a presser about getting married to get around wearing jewellery. As for religious purposes, there is nothing in christianity that implores or enforces wearing of a cross, so that is purely personal preference (it definitely isn't something all christians do) and so in my view, subject to the same rules as regular necklaces.

Like I said, LH is just the most publicised and vocal about it - probably because his are piercings rather than rings and chains. I believe Lewis takes any rings and chains off etc. when racing, just not the piercings. If it's not that much of a safety issue, why doesn't he just keep wearing his rings, chains and watches when racing?

Wow. You're happy with an exemption for wedding rings because of their symbolic nature, but not for a symbol of their faith.

There is no scripture, ritual or command to my knowledge that dictates wearing any iconography to symbolise your faith. Therefore any religious jewellery is purely down to personal choice.

A wedding band is ceremonial and used across faiths, cultures and traditions. It is linked to a ceremony and a symbolic bond of 2 people. A lot of people view removal of the wedding band as a removal of the vows and bonds of marriage and so view it as immoral.

A Crucifix, a St.Christopher, a Star of David... there is nothing in the religion that ties someone to wearing one to symbolise their connection to the religion. It is purely optional on one's personal choice. So I don't believe it to be on the same level of exemption as a wedding band, no.

But also like I said, I remove my wedding band when exercising, Karting or track driving just in case.

And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?

Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."

As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?

[TypeRTim]

PhilAsia said:

And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?

Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."

As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?

Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!

[PhilAsia]

TypeRTim said:

PhilAsia said:

And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?

Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."

As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?

Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!

Nope.

You bring in weddings and why wearing rings is correct and to hell with safety.

I bring in the Highway Code and why no contact with the lines is safer.

[rscott]

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

You've not seen that Gasly and Magnusson aren't happy about it either?
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a3994571...

I had not seen that article. I'm pretty sure that an exemption was made for wedding rings due to the symbolic nature of them from what I recall - open to correction on that one, but I'm sure Russel joked with Hamilton in a presser about getting married to get around wearing jewellery. As for religious purposes, there is nothing in christianity that implores or enforces wearing of a cross, so that is purely personal preference (it definitely isn't something all christians do) and so in my view, subject to the same rules as regular necklaces.

Like I said, LH is just the most publicised and vocal about it - probably because his are piercings rather than rings and chains. I believe Lewis takes any rings and chains off etc. when racing, just not the piercings. If it's not that much of a safety issue, why doesn't he just keep wearing his rings, chains and watches when racing?

Wow. You're happy with an exemption for wedding rings because of their symbolic nature, but not for a symbol of their faith.

There is no scripture, ritual or command to my knowledge that dictates wearing any iconography to symbolise your faith. Therefore any religious jewellery is purely down to personal choice.

A wedding band is ceremonial and used across faiths, cultures and traditions. It is linked to a ceremony and a symbolic bond of 2 people. A lot of people view removal of the wedding band as a removal of the vows and bonds of marriage and so view it as immoral.

A Crucifix, a St.Christopher, a Star of David... there is nothing in the religion that ties someone to wearing one to symbolise their connection to the religion. It is purely optional on one's personal choice. So I don't believe it to be on the same level of exemption as a wedding band, no.

But also like I said, I remove my wedding band when exercising, Karting or track driving just in case.

A crucifix is often ceremonial too and symbolises a deep spiritual bond to the wearer.
Many couples I know don't both have wedding rings, or remove them when working, especially in dangerous environments . Their marriages haven't failed.

[Siao]

rscott said:

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

TypeRTim said:

rscott said:

You've not seen that Gasly and Magnusson aren't happy about it either?
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a3994571...

I had not seen that article. I'm pretty sure that an exemption was made for wedding rings due to the symbolic nature of them from what I recall - open to correction on that one, but I'm sure Russel joked with Hamilton in a presser about getting married to get around wearing jewellery. As for religious purposes, there is nothing in christianity that implores or enforces wearing of a cross, so that is purely personal preference (it definitely isn't something all christians do) and so in my view, subject to the same rules as regular necklaces.

Like I said, LH is just the most publicised and vocal about it - probably because his are piercings rather than rings and chains. I believe Lewis takes any rings and chains off etc. when racing, just not the piercings. If it's not that much of a safety issue, why doesn't he just keep wearing his rings, chains and watches when racing?

Wow. You're happy with an exemption for wedding rings because of their symbolic nature, but not for a symbol of their faith.

There is no scripture, ritual or command to my knowledge that dictates wearing any iconography to symbolise your faith. Therefore any religious jewellery is purely down to personal choice.

A wedding band is ceremonial and used across faiths, cultures and traditions. It is linked to a ceremony and a symbolic bond of 2 people. A lot of people view removal of the wedding band as a removal of the vows and bonds of marriage and so view it as immoral.

A Crucifix, a St.Christopher, a Star of David... there is nothing in the religion that ties someone to wearing one to symbolise their connection to the religion. It is purely optional on one's personal choice. So I don't believe it to be on the same level of exemption as a wedding band, no.

But also like I said, I remove my wedding band when exercising, Karting or track driving just in case.

A crucifix is often ceremonial too and symbolises a deep spiritual bond to the wearer.
Many couples I know don't both have wedding rings, or remove them when working, especially in dangerous environments . Their marriages haven't failed.

Magnussen also said this:

"Meanwhile, Haas driver Kevin Magnussen said that since Miami he has started taking off his wedding ring before getting in the car, despite wanting to wear it, as a result of the FIA's stance.

"I took it off once they said there was a €50,000 fine," he said. "That's it - I put it right in my drawer! Not gonna take the risk."

Rings are not covered by the jewellery rule, so I'm not sure why they are relevant. It only talks about piercings and necklaces.

[sparta6]

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis with pesky things like rules.

[JonChalk]

sparta6 said:

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis with pesky things like rules.

...or perhaps a rule like a 70mph speed limit, which is actually something like an unwritten 79mph rule (though that is written down in guidance from the authority vested with enforcing it).

[sparta6]

JonChalk said:

sparta6 said:

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis with pesky things like rules.

...or perhaps a rule like a 70mph speed limit, which is actually something like an unwritten 79mph rule (though that is written down in guidance from the authority vested with enforcing it).

Nope. We are talking about FIA regulations for all FIA motorsport competitors.

[glazbagun]

I think the difference is that ben Sulayem is an authoritarian himself whereas Todt was a pragmatist.

You saw it in ben Sulayem's response to the total debacle that was Abu Dhabi- there's nothing to see here, it's the drivers and fans and teams fault for not understanding what happened. Whereas after the Spa debacle Todt was immediately apologetic. Todt overcame criticism of the Halo by pointing to previous fatalities. ben Sulayem is overcoming criticism by drivers wearing jewellery through calling them snowflakes and banging his fist whilst pointing to the letter of the law.

I'd love to know what people have against Ari Vatanen- he lost to both Todt and ben Sulayem.

[JonChalk]

glazbagun said:

I think the difference is that ben Sulayem is an authoritarian himself whereas Todt was a pragmatist.

You saw it in ben Sulayem's response to the total debacle that was Abu Dhabi- there's nothing to see here, it's the drivers and fans and teams fault for not understanding what happened. Whereas after the Spa debacle Todt was immediately apologetic. Todt overcame criticism of the Halo by pointing to previous fatalities. ben Sulayem is overcoming criticism by drivers wearing jewellery through calling them snowflakes and banging his fist whilst pointing to the letter of the law.

I'd love to know what people have against Ari Vatanen- he lost to both Todt and ben Sulayem.

Long-time criticisms of the FIA and it's election process, and fear that he might change too much?

[Leithen]

The jewellery issue is a distraction IMO. Far more interesting is the positioning going on over the future of F1 and how that squares with the legacy of Mosley and Ecclestone.

There’s a fundamental cultural difference too between Ben Sulayem and his predecessors that will inevitably trigger certain people.

[vaud]

JonChalk said:

Long-time criticisms of the FIA and it's election process, and fear that he might change too much?

Or maybe the FIA members were tired of another European representing a global sport? It's not a role known for it's diversity...

https://f1.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_FIA_Presidents

[jm doc]

TypeRTim said:

PhilAsia said:

TypeRTim said:

PhilAsia said:

vaud said:

PhilAsia said:

Wonderful irritation to some... Lewis thinks it should remain for the rest of the year (as jewelry).

On the jewellery topic I partly agree with Mohammed ben Sulayem... embedded jewellery IS a risk for a driver in event of a crash and injury. You can't put metal in an MRI scanner.

Let them race with jewellery, but limit the amount... and it must be removable.

High ferrous content metals are not ok.

Titanium and platinum is ok in an MRI. I believe that is what Lewis' nose stud is made from (platinum?)

Just allow them to sign a disclaimer - like they do anyway, before each race.

Problem with that is that they will then have to have 'scrutineering' for the jewellery to determine whether it is safe or not. Much easier just to say No Jewellery...just as it says now.

The problem is historic lack of enforcement. It's like if in Northamptonshire (just to pick an example) if they suddenly turn the speed cameras back on, you get caught doing 35mph in a 30 zone. The rule has always been 30, you've just gotten used to disobeying it because there were no consequences. You can't complain at breaking a rule that has always been there, just because it is now being enforced....

That's my view on it.

On this specific issue, LH should never have gotten the piercings in the first place as it was against the rules when he got them. Lack of enforcement is not an excuse for wilful disobedience.

Willful disobedience from many drivers. Many mention Lewis but (Max fans/LH haters) carefully sidestep Max.

My view is that if Max and Lewis sign a disclaimer, then job done - nothing to see here, nothing to enforce, no comebacks from either side. And, even without the disclaimer, seemingly little impact from a medical standpoint where non-ferrous metals are concerned, as far as I can see.

Wasn't aware of any other drivers taking umbrage with the jewellery rules. LH is just the most publicised and seemingly the only one defying the mandate so vociferously.

It's not just the question of MRI - it's also a question of melting points and causing huge long term damage through heat exposure.

If it’s hot enough to melt metal in his private parts I think the driver would have other concerns

You really are obsessed by this aren’t you? Some of your replies come across as actually bonkers.

[jm doc]

sparta6 said:

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis Christian Horner with pesky things like rules.

FTFY. You surely recall Horner asking Masi to change the safety car rules for the last lap at AD so that he could win the title?

[PhilAsia]

jm doc said:

sparta6 said:

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis Christian Horner with pesky things like rules.

FTFY. You surely recall Horner asking Masi to change the safety car rules for the last lap at AD so that he could win the title?

Sparta is as forgetful as Masi...

[HighwayStar]

PhilAsia said:

jm doc said:

sparta6 said:

angrymoby said:

or a rule that hasn't been enforced for about 10+ years is a bad rule ...& should probably be amended

....or a passive Todt who didn't want to upset Princess Lewis Christian Horner with pesky things like rules.

FTFY. You surely recall Horner asking Masi to change the safety car rules for the last lap at AD so that he could win the title?

Sparta is as forgetful as Masi...

Sparta is just being Sparta, doing what he always does and totally predictable… I’ve given up responding directly to his focused/biased/blinkered posts… If only there was an ignore option.

[paulguitar]

HighwayStar said:

Sparta is just being Sparta, doing what he always does and totally predictable… I’ve given up responding directly to his focused/biased/blinkered posts… If only there was an ignore option.

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

[HighwayStar]

paulguitar said:

HighwayStar said:

Sparta is just being Sparta, doing what he always does and totally predictable… I’ve given up responding directly to his focused/biased/blinkered posts… If only there was an ignore option.

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

There’s a few wondering the same thing… he’s never spelt it out though. It’s amusing to see how tap dances around, ignoring other issues, rule infringements, whatever… but finds no problem fixing his guns on Lewis. For that he’ll put in overtime.

[angrymoby]

paulguitar said:

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

shagged his missus ...or if you believe Sparta's assertion that Hamilton is gay- knocked him back