Pants and nose rings and driver safety

Pants and nose rings and driver safety

Author
Discussion

thegreenhell

10,704 posts

196 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
Red9zero said:
Hamilton is the only one who has visible facial piercings, so is easier to single out. Others may have ear rings, but Hamilton has diamonds in his, which tend to stand out. That and the necklaces and bracelets which again are very visible. For all we know, the race of the grid has pierced nipples, scrotums, cocks etc, but Hamiltons are out on show, so easier to police. Maybe we need an F1 edition of Naked Attraction just see who actually has what pierced. Although if Crofty is on it, I'm out.
If a driver had that much jingle-jangle you'd think his engineers would be bugging him to remove some of the unnecessary weight from the car.

Siao

310 posts

17 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
Red9zero said:
Hamilton is the only one who has visible facial piercings, so is easier to single out. Others may have ear rings, but Hamilton has diamonds in his, which tend to stand out. That and the necklaces and bracelets which again are very visible. For all we know, the race of the grid has pierced nipples, scrotums, cocks etc, but Hamiltons are out on show, so easier to police. Maybe we need an F1 edition of Naked Attraction just see who actually has what pierced. Although if Crofty is on it, I'm out.
If a driver had that much jingle-jangle you'd think his engineers would be bugging him to remove some of the unnecessary weight from the car.
Driver and seat combo must weigh a certain weight together (minimum 80Kg I think), so that doesn't add much. Unless he is a rather large guy for an F1 driver and pushing beyond that limit.

Clockwork Cupcake

69,214 posts

249 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
Red9zero said:
Hamilton is the only one who has visible facial piercings, so is easier to single out. Others may have ear rings, but Hamilton has diamonds in his, which tend to stand out. That and the necklaces and bracelets which again are very visible. For all we know, the race of the grid has pierced nipples, scrotums, cocks etc, but Hamiltons are out on show, so easier to police.
Exactly so. yes

And Verstappen was the one who was most visibly getting alongside other drivers on rolling restarts.

In both cases, the rules were clarified and obviously affect all drivers. But also in both cases we all know who the most high profile offender was.


Clockwork Cupcake

69,214 posts

249 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
Siao said:
Driver and seat combo must weigh a certain weight together (minimum 80Kg I think), so that doesn't add much. Unless he is a rather large guy for an F1 driver and pushing beyond that limit.
It's why the drivers have to be weighed in full kit including helmet, HANS, etc., and why they are not allowed to put watches etc. back on until after they have been weighed. You can imagine how heavy their watches would be otherwise. hehe

It's like in the early 1980's when the regulations allowed you to top off all fluids post-race before the car was weighed. Colin Chapman came up with the idea of having a reserve water tank and the first thing it did in the first couple of laps was dump all that water so the car could run underweight for most of the race. Then, post-race, it was refilled and the car was then over the minimum weight.

Indeed, most cars are designed underweight so that ballast can be used to bring the car back up to minimum weight whilst giving some control over weight distribution. It's also why there have been complaints when the minimum weight was difficult to achieve, with drivers being put on diets to try to bring the weight down to the minimum (obviously no ballast used in that scenario).

PhilAsia

977 posts

52 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
MarkwG said:
PhilAsia said:
I don't know how anyone can know categorically whether anyone is being targeted or not. If you can, please explain as I will be rivetted...
If a driver was being targeted, the FIA would have referenced them specifically & they'd have failed scrutineering immediately. Hamilton has been given a two race exemption for his nose metalwork, Vettel had to change his pants straight away...so if anyone was targeted, it was Vettel... wink
Yes, I understand that the FIA can make an specific announcement, but anything can be said behind closed doors...or even remain unsaid, and still push for a rule to be implemented.

Rotary Potato

155 posts

73 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
I'm a fairly big Lewis Hamilton fan and a fairly big anyone-but-Max fan too (although that 2nd one might change if he keeps driving cleanly for the next few years).

That said. I think Lewis is wrong here.

It's been a rule for as long as the vast majority of drivers in FIA events can remember. Enforcement of the rule had slipped in F1 (unsure about other FIA series). With fresh governance after the shizzle show of last year, it feels right for them to want to ensure rules are followed.

It's not targeting anyone. To target Lewis, someone would have needed quite a crystal ball when putting that rule in place all those years ago.

He's making himself look silly by choosing to take this stand. He chose to break the rules when they weren't being enforced. He can now figure out how to ensure he complies with the rules now they will be enforced. No one person is bigger than the sport - if he chooses to walk away over this, then so be it.

I think one thing we can all agree on, regardless of how you see this issue, is that it would be AMAZING to be a fly on the wall at Monaco and see Toto's reaction if both Lewis and the FIA play hardball and Lewis gets excluded. Will Toto take a harder line with Lewis - "We pay your wages. Get that out today and go drive our car" - or will he pander to the goose that has laid him so many golden eggs and be all pally with him while being forced to put De Vries or Vandoorne in the car? What then becomes the point of paying one of the most talented drivers on the planet a huge sum of money, if they aren't eligible to drive your car? It's a lot of money to spend on what's effectively a brand ambassador at that point.

If neither the FIA nor Lewis blinks in the next few weeks, Mercedes have some very difficult decisions to make.

Fundoreen

2,999 posts

60 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
A battle of wills between the petty head of the FIA and the F1 drivers.
The bling ban is because they no doubt think all the saudi money plastered all over F1 means no need for the individual bling.
So instead of the expensive lifestyle accompanyments we will all be thrilled by big aramco signs.
What a load of crap. How long will this FIA leader be there diminishing the sport? Years and years I guess with current stratospheric oil prices.
All the usual F1 puppets are onside with the visual austerity being visited on the paddock and will happily parade around with a plain aramco tee shirt in the future.

Siao

310 posts

17 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all
Fundoreen said:
A battle of wills between the petty head of the FIA and the F1 drivers.
The bling ban is because they no doubt think all the saudi money plastered all over F1 means no need for the individual bling.
So instead of the expensive lifestyle accompanyments we will all be thrilled by big aramco signs.
What a load of crap. How long will this FIA leader be there diminishing the sport? Years and years I guess with current stratospheric oil prices.
All the usual F1 puppets are onside with the visual austerity being visited on the paddock and will happily parade around with a plain aramco tee shirt in the future.
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?

PhilAsia

977 posts

52 months

Thursday 12th May
quotequote all


How long before Lewis' huge baynis (that adjustable one that many seem fixated on) and his weighty Prince Albert jewellery are banned?

The combined weight, that low down, must increase cornering speeds, surely?

Cold

12,803 posts

67 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
How long before Lewis' huge baynis (that adjustable one that many seem fixated on) and his weighty Prince Albert jewellery are banned?

The combined weight, that low down, must increase cornering speeds, surely?
No evidence of that so far this season.

Clockwork Cupcake

69,214 posts

249 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Siao said:
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but the Saudis are ultra-conservative. I can certainly see them having a problem with anything they deem "deviant". And I am sure male facial piercings would be amongst them.

(I only mention "male" due to the extreme misogyny of the Saudis)


TypeRTim

605 posts

71 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Fundoreen said:
A battle of wills between the petty head of the FIA and the F1 drivers.
The bling ban is because they no doubt think all the saudi money plastered all over F1 means no need for the individual bling.
So instead of the expensive lifestyle accompanyments we will all be thrilled by big aramco signs.
What a load of crap. How long will this FIA leader be there diminishing the sport? Years and years I guess with current stratospheric oil prices.
All the usual F1 puppets are onside with the visual austerity being visited on the paddock and will happily parade around with a plain aramco tee shirt in the future.
so now that we can't blame the FIA and race directors for it, we'll blame the Saudis??? Christ some people on here....

Tyre Smoke

21,353 posts

238 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Siao said:
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but the Saudis are ultra-conservative. I can certainly see them having a problem with anything they deem "deviant". And I am sure male facial piercings would be amongst them.

(I only mention "male" due to the extreme misogyny of the Saudis)
You certainly are.

Siao

310 posts

17 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Siao said:
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but the Saudis are ultra-conservative. I can certainly see them having a problem with anything they deem "deviant". And I am sure male facial piercings would be amongst them.

(I only mention "male" due to the extreme misogyny of the Saudis)
Yes they are conservative in some stuff, more than other Western countries, but that doesn't mean anything. The bling rule was an FIA rule way before the current FIA president took the role.


Plus the current president is not Saudi, but from the Emirates... I don't know where the "Saudi money" came from. Maybe Doreen can tell us

mw88

974 posts

88 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Siao said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Siao said:
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but the Saudis are ultra-conservative. I can certainly see them having a problem with anything they deem "deviant". And I am sure male facial piercings would be amongst them.

(I only mention "male" due to the extreme misogyny of the Saudis)
Yes they are conservative in some stuff, more than other Western countries, but that doesn't mean anything. The bling rule was an FIA rule way before the current FIA president took the role.


Plus the current president is not Saudi, but from the Emirates... I don't know where the "Saudi money" came from. Maybe Doreen can tell us
Maybe they're right, the first Bahrain GP was in 2004. Wasn't this rule bought in for the next season 2005?


Siao

310 posts

17 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
mw88 said:
Siao said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Siao said:
Saudi money means drivers can't have bling... Got it. Because the spectators can view Hamilton's prince Albert, right?
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but the Saudis are ultra-conservative. I can certainly see them having a problem with anything they deem "deviant". And I am sure male facial piercings would be amongst them.

(I only mention "male" due to the extreme misogyny of the Saudis)
Yes they are conservative in some stuff, more than other Western countries, but that doesn't mean anything. The bling rule was an FIA rule way before the current FIA president took the role.


Plus the current president is not Saudi, but from the Emirates... I don't know where the "Saudi money" came from. Maybe Doreen can tell us
Maybe they're right, the first Bahrain GP was in 2004. Wasn't this rule bought in for the next season 2005?

So Bahrain is behind everything. You are onto something!

RB Will

7,921 posts

217 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all

MarkwG

3,919 posts

166 months

Friday 13th May
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
It's why the drivers have to be weighed in full kit including helmet, HANS, etc., and why they are not allowed to put watches etc. back on until after they have been weighed. You can imagine how heavy their watches would be otherwise. hehe

It's like in the early 1980's when the regulations allowed you to top off all fluids post-race before the car was weighed. Colin Chapman came up with the idea of having a reserve water tank and the first thing it did in the first couple of laps was dump all that water so the car could run underweight for most of the race. Then, post-race, it was refilled and the car was then over the minimum weight.

Indeed, most cars are designed underweight so that ballast can be used to bring the car back up to minimum weight whilst giving some control over weight distribution. It's also why there have been complaints when the minimum weight was difficult to achieve, with drivers being put on diets to try to bring the weight down to the minimum (obviously no ballast used in that scenario).
Minor point - I recall it as Brabham & Williams, rather than Lotus, with rumours there were others at it too. The water was supposedly to cool the brakes, but suspiciously it was all used up very quickly...

MG CHRIS

8,642 posts

144 months

Saturday 14th May
quotequote all
MarkwG said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
It's why the drivers have to be weighed in full kit including helmet, HANS, etc., and why they are not allowed to put watches etc. back on until after they have been weighed. You can imagine how heavy their watches would be otherwise. hehe

It's like in the early 1980's when the regulations allowed you to top off all fluids post-race before the car was weighed. Colin Chapman came up with the idea of having a reserve water tank and the first thing it did in the first couple of laps was dump all that water so the car could run underweight for most of the race. Then, post-race, it was refilled and the car was then over the minimum weight.

Indeed, most cars are designed underweight so that ballast can be used to bring the car back up to minimum weight whilst giving some control over weight distribution. It's also why there have been complaints when the minimum weight was difficult to achieve, with drivers being put on diets to try to bring the weight down to the minimum (obviously no ballast used in that scenario).
Minor point - I recall it as Brabham & Williams, rather than Lotus, with rumours there were others at it too. The water was supposedly to cool the brakes, but suspiciously it was all used up very quickly...
Didn't tyrell use ball bearings or something like that and was spotted dropping out of the car in the pits in Monaco then got banned mid 80s I think for the season

dibbers006

8,114 posts

195 months

Saturday 14th May
quotequote all
RB Will said:
rofl