• Chain Bear ain't all bad

    From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 10:38:55 2021
    ... 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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Dec 15 20:10:27 2021
    On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
    -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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 14:44:09 2021
    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 ?

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Dec 15 19:12:57 2021
    On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:


    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.

    Ya i can see you have no
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Dec 15 19:18:35 2021
    On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 8:12:59 PM UTC-7, texas gate wrote:

    On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:


    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.
    Ya i can see you have no
    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.

    *go cart track
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 01:01:13 2021
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 07:11:52 2021
    Alan wrote:

    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...

    You are a strange fellow. It's about following his discussion and
    agreeing or not with the inferences and opinions. What did you feel you
    were being asked to trust?

    That you wish to ignore a very well argued, supported and demonstrated
    position and make the extraordinary inference that the regulations
    should be ignored based on the most insipid hearsay demonstrates your
    complete inability to be objective.


    ...but not his statements of fact.

    And it's "hearsay"

    Exactly.

    PS have you found any precedent yet or are you still floundering?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 22:25:59 2021
    On 16/12/2021 7:01 pm, Alan wrote:
    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 is dick-head one word or two ?


    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.


    If that one wasn't followed then it wasn't - a totally separate matter.
    The was that *was* followed wasn't a regulation.


    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.

    At least we agree there.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Matt Larkin@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 06:16:27 2021
    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 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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).
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 09:46:20 2021
    On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    And it's "hearsay"; one word.

    you fucking useless, cock sucking,
    piece of shit, cunt hole
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 12:50:22 2021
    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 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 09:55:05 2021
    On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    And it's "hearsay"; one word.

    go fuck your pathetic self.
    5 words asshole.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From alister@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 18:03:06 2021
    On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, 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:
    ... 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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 trivial & irrelevant issues.



    --
    If at first you don't succeed, you must be using Windows.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 13:12:51 2021
    On 2021-12-16 1:03 p.m., alister wrote:
    On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, 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:
    ... 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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
    trivial &
    irrelevant issues.
    Is the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed would
    be the protocol for safety cars during the late stages of the race "irrelevant" to this discussion?

    Is pointing out that a prior agreement that something like this may have
    been discussed is a plausible explanation for why Hamilton didn't so
    much as metaphorically raise an eyebrow when he was informed of what
    would happen "irrelevant"?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From alister@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 18:13:18 2021
    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.



    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).





    --
    Telephone, n.:
    An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
    of making a disagreeable person keep his distance.
    -- Ambrose Bierce
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 19:48:50 2021
    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:
    ... 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    We don't know of course.


    ...but no sane person would presume they meant change the regs on the
    fly and take the decision as to who would win the championship.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 19:50:24 2021
    Alan wrote:

    On 2021-12-16 1:03 p.m., alister wrote:
    On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, 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:
    ... 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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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
    trivial & irrelevant issues.
    Is the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed
    would be the protocol for safety cars during the late stages of the
    race "irrelevant" to this discussion?


    As we can presume they did not agree to throw the rule book out of the
    window and let the RD decide the winner, yes.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan LeHun@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 20:35:42 2021
    In article <gsGdncf-CotxBCf8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org says...
    You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
    rule should be OK ?


    WWF1 ?

    --
    Alan LeHun
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 20:42:13 2021
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 12:49:00 2021
    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:
    -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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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 ?

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 12:53:23 2021
    On 17/12/2021 7:13 am, alister wrote:
    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.

    It's not as if when the SC was called Masi thought it would likely take
    fewer than 5 laps to clear crashed car and clean up any debris.

    So yes, and in this case it would have been a no-brainer to red-flag it
    laps earlier. Then there could have been 'racing' (to quote Masi),
    instead of a farce.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 19:47:00 2021
    On 2021-12-16 6:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
    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:
    -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.
    What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

    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 ?

    Nope.

    That's my point. He was fully capable of complaining about the situation
    while actually full-on racing, but only did so after his last
    opportunity to get back in front was gone.

    While behind the safety car he was talking a lot...

    ...just not about the supposed "manipulation".
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 20:18:45 2021
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Dec 16 17:45:22 2021
    On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 6:18:48 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Again, you display your omniscience.

    fuck off moron
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Matt Larkin@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 01:21:38 2021
    On Friday, 17 December 2021 at 01:18:48 UTC, Alan wrote:
    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.
    In both cockpit and RD control room, there was plenty going on.

    I seriously doubt Lewis had rule 48.12 in his head when Masi set it
    aside. Omniscience, maybe - but no different to your omniscience in
    knowing that Lewis didn't complain about it because he was aware of
    it.

    In the RD control room, there should have been at least a call from
    someone in there that "the rules say (or at least suggest it is normal) to leave another lap after lapped cars have passed" with a positive
    decision to choose not to apply that (using the newly discovered RD's discretion) in the interest of getting the race going before the
    flag was waved. At the moment we don't know whether that was
    explicitly stated or not. The suspicion from most of the motorsport
    press it seems is that it was not an explicit decision, that the decision
    to restart immediately was a rushed one which failed to consider that
    because of contextual pressures. I wonder if there is a "black box"
    style recording of communications between the RD, the clerk of the
    course, the stewards etc at the time which will give us an insight into that?

    From the drivers perspective, Lewis will have known one thing - that
    if Max started under SC behind him on new softs vs his old hards that
    Max would have an outstanding chance of overtaking whether that was
    one lap, two laps or more.

    Lewis didn't even really know how many laps were left as his dash was
    showing him duff info (Sky commentators posited that it was programmed
    with the no of laps from last year's race?).

    There was only 2 scenarios that Lewis would have likely had in his mind;
    either the SC runs to the end of the race (in which case, it's a done deal)
    or SC comes in and Max gets to have a go at him under a big tyre advantage.

    The only uncertainty would have been about lapped car removal which is sometimes done and sometimes not. Lewis would have been (or at least
    should have been) well aware that the removal of those cars was a
    possibility with discretion to be exercised by the RD as that has been seen previously. On the final point of lapped cars getting the "following lap"
    to catch up the train, I would seriously doubt that that was in his mind though; and I don't remember Bonington referencing it either?

    It didn't matter to Lewis whether only the cars between him and Max
    were removed, or all the cars.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 11:55:11 2021
    Alan wrote:

    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.

    Repeating asinine comments does not make them less asinine.

    The hypocrisy of trying to belittle common sense and common
    comprehension while you have recently insisted you know what drivers
    were thinking or doing, after asserting that words in the regs have
    some unique usage outside of the rest of the English language.

    Take the beam out of your eye and fuck right off, mate.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 12:02:39 2021
    Alan wrote:

    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.

    So do you think 15.3 was ever intended to give the RD the right to
    ignore all the written SC procedures and do what ever he likes?
    Similarly, that 48.13 was ever intended to be used as an excuse to
    ignore 48.12?

    Sometimes even a dumbass has to admit he's wrong... at least to himself
    and desist. You've won Twat of the Year... that time has come.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Dec 17 16:21:26 2021
    On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 5:02:41 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

    that time has come.

    like when germany was bombing britain?
    you slow fuck
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)