Todt Suffers Foot in Mouth disease

[SGWilko]

According to a report in Autosport;

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81360

Todt said "nobody has died in F1 since [Ayrton] Senna"

What about the marshall(s) that have died due to flailing debris...? DOn't they count???

Still, on a lighter note, he will probably stay in the role of FIA presedent for 20 years, given he said "No, I'm doing a single mandate; otherwise I wouldn't have time to do other things anymore"

Sounds just like Mosley did, when he told us all he would step down at the next election, again and again............

[Dave B]

Silly sausage, Jean. No drivers, maybe, but that's a slap in the face for Graham Beveridge and Paolo Gislimberti.

His point about safety, although clumsily made, does have some validity though. Massa's injuries last year were clearly a major concern, and Schuey's broken leg in 2001 was no laughing matter, but it's a fact that drivers are surviving accidents which would have maimed or killed their predecessors. Long may this continue without complacency setting in.

[BDunnell]

I would like to know the proper translation of the actual quote from the Italian article in this case. Did he really say 'nobody has died in F1 since Senna', or is this a poor translation?

[Mark]

Schuey's broken leg in 2001 was no laughing matter, .

As well as the one in 1999 presumably?

[turismo6]

What about Luciano Burti crash in 2001?

[Dave B]

As well as the one in 1999 presumably?
I was talking about Colin Schumacher, my mate who broke his leg skiing. Obviously.

:p

[pino]

I would like to know the proper translation of the actual quote from the Italian article in this case. Did he really say 'nobody has died in F1 since Senna', or is this a poor translation?

Italian :

MOSLEY — "Un amico, una delle persone pìu intelligenti che abbia conosciuto ma anche quando era un nemico è stato grande, ha fatto un lavoro super per la sicurezza sia stradale sia in pista. Basti pensare che dopo Senna non è morto più nessuno e se guardiamo all’incidente di Massa... Poi ognuno ha il suo stile".

http://www.gazzetta.it/Motori/Formula1/08-02-2010/todt-schumi-o-ferrari-602930200917.shtml

English :

mosley — "A friend, one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, but even when he was an enemy he was great, he did a tremendous job on safety whether on the road or the track. You only have to think that since Senna no one has died, and if we look at Massa's accident... And everyone has their own style."

http://english.gazzetta.it/Motor_sports/08-02-2010/todt-schumi-or-ferrarifriends-but-choose-the-fia-602932636776.shtml

[SGWilko]

Italian :

MOSLEY — "Un amico, una delle persone pìu intelligenti che abbia conosciuto ma anche quando era un nemico è stato grande, ha fatto un lavoro super per la sicurezza sia stradale sia in pista. Basti pensare che dopo Senna non è morto più nessuno e se guardiamo all’incidente di Massa... Poi ognuno ha il suo stile".

http://www.gazzetta.it/Motori/Formula1/08-02-2010/todt-schumi-o-ferrari-602930200917.shtml

English :

mosley — "A friend, one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, but even when he was an enemy he was great, he did a tremendous job on safety whether on the road or the track. You only have to think that since Senna no one has died, and if we look at Massa's accident... And everyone has their own style."

http://english.gazzetta.it/Motor_sports/08-02-2010/todt-schumi-or-ferrarifriends-but-choose-the-fia-602932636776.shtml

Thanks Pino.

So, now we know JT - marshalls don't count......

[Garry Walker]

Thanks Pino.

So, now we know JT - marshalls don't count......

Sad that one has to sink so low to bash Todt.

[SGWilko]

Sad that one has to sink so low to bash Todt.

Hold it. Has anyone directly involved in F1 died, as a result of racing, or not since Ayrton?

If your answer to the question is yes, then Todt is wrong.

Why is pointing out a fact incorrect? Why is it bashing.

If I were to suggest he was a 'short a**3 f****h t***pot, that, I would hazard a guess, is bashing.

Maird, some folk............

[Robinho]

why did you bleep/star out the letters in the middle of the word French, thats not a swear word is it? ;)

why did you bleep/star out the letters in the middle of the word French, thats not a swear word is it? ;)

It is for people of a certain mentality, sadly.

[SGWilko]

It is for people of a certain mentality, sadly.

Funny, people go all 'racist' when you use nationalities. Remember?

Funny, people go all 'racist' when you use nationalities. Remember?

Practice what you preach, then.

[SGWilko]

why did you bleep/star out the letters in the middle of the word French, thats not a swear word is it? ;)

If I were to, say, put 'you Italians are sore losers' for example, I'd be classed a racist by some.

Bit like 'us brits' being morons.

What is good for the goose and all that cobblers.......

Only, some don't jump on the racist bandwagon...........

If I were to, say, put 'you Italians are sore losers' for example, I'd be classed a racist by some.

Bit like 'us brits' being morons.

What is good for the goose and all that cobblers.......

If not racist, then certainly bigoted.

Pathetic & hypocritical at best.

[SGWilko]

Practice what you preach, then.

Not a man of the cloth Tamb - no can do.

[SGWilko]

If not racist, then certainly bigoted.

Pathetic & hypocritical at best.

Well now, the penny drops.....

Well now, the penny drops.....

Thank you for just confirming what was long suspected. You are an outright bigot.

http://bnp.org.uk/

Right up your street.

[SGWilko]

Thank you for just confirming what was long suspected. You are an outright bigot.

http://bnp.org.uk/

Right up your street.

That's the spirit Tamb. I assume you are suggesting the above now has an office in Main Road then?

Sometimes, reading your witty repostes are more fun than counting the screws in the train door.

Chin chin.

[SGWilko]

I personally can't stand Jean Todt, but I won't hold this error against him. The real test will be when the season starts when we learn his stance on equality.

I am sure his equality will equal Mosleys....

I am sure his equality will equal Mosleys....

Based on what?

[truefan72]

where is pino when you need him

tamburello is losing it.

[truefan72]

Based on what?

so you are agreeing that mosley was not fair and partial, and which team did he favor per chance?

lol

this is a startling admission

[pino]

Please let's continue this nicely...and on topic, thank you!

[SGWilko]

Based on what?

Based on his equality....

[SGWilko]

so you are agreeing that mosley was not fair and partial, and which team did he favor per chance?

lol

this is a startling admission

Elemenary, my dear Truefan.....

[SGWilko]

where is pino when you need him

tamburello is losing it.

Too late.......

[SGWilko]

mosley was partial,

to a good spanking...... non?

so you are agreeing that mosley was not fair and partial

Not at all.

Unlike most, I'm bright enough and knowledgable enough to know that the FIA President position is generally a thankless one and is sadly open to criticism.




which team did he favor per chance?


None. The FIA certainly didn't favour Ferrari with all the rule changes made to try to end their domination in the first 5 years of the last decade. Who was President then? Oh yes, Mosley. Another crap anti-Mosley argument de-bunked.

[SGWilko]

Not at all.

Unlike most, I'm bright enough and knowledgable enough to know that the FIA President position is generally a thankless one and is sadly open to criticism.





None. The FIA certainly didn't favour Ferrari with all the rule changes made to try to end their domination in the first 5 years of the last decade. Who was President then? Oh yes, Mosley. Another crap anti-Mosley argument de-bunked.

Conveniently glossing over the other technical vetoes enjoyed by Todt, as Ferrari man, friend and confident of Max....

Mosley didn't favour a team as such, more his personal friend who happened to be team principle of Ferrari at the time.

So how do you explain the numerous FIA rule changes aimed at preventing Ferrari dominance between 2000-2004?

None of them did Todt any favours at the time.

Conveniently glossing over the other technical vetoes enjoyed by Todt, as Ferrari man, friend and confident of Max....

That were never used.

There were numerous technical changes to the rules during Todt's tenure at Ferrari.

How convenient of you not to remember them!

Typical lazy anti-FIA, anti-Mosley, anti-Todt blinkered bigotry.

[SGWilko]

That were never used.

There were numerous technical changes to the rules during Todt's tenure at Ferrari.

How convenient of you not to remember them!

Typical lazy anti-FIA, anti-Mosley, anti-Todt blinkered bigotry.

Bigot, bigoted and bigotry. Big, bad and blimmin ballsy, I love a spot of alliteration as much as the next man. You are having a blast today Tamb.

I love a spot of alliteration as much as the next man.

Shame you can't answer questions that are asked of you, though.

[SGWilko]

Shame you can't answer questions that are asked of you, though.

No point Tamb, you got me down as a fully paid up member of the BNP. In addition you happily call me a bigot, despite yourself labelling the Brits as morons. How does that work exactly?

However, given that Mosley and Todt worked out the technical vetoe, were good friends, and Mosley outstayed his welcome by a decade or so to make way for his pal Todt, I think the general forum suspicion of Todt is quite well placed and, dare I suggest, justified until proven otherwise.

Anyway, why don't you run along and accuse me of running the local KKK group...?

Chin chin.

[SGWilko]

How do you know they were created to "prevent Ferrari's dominance"? Surely this is about as questionable as what you are questioning here?

Rules are changed every season to some degree to suit demand from investors, coverage for sponsors etc etc. Ferrari may not have benefitted from the changes themselves but they were in the same position as the rest of the teams on the grid.

Some of the FIA backed decisions at the time were questionable as to who they benefitted. For example Indy 2005 where Todt opposed the temporary chicane and the FIA backed him over FOM and the rest of the teams and fans. Monza 2006 where Alonso was penalised for blocking a Ferrari 300 metres behind him ontrack at the time. One decision gave Ferrari a victory they would not gained without intervention, and the other was at a crucial point in the season where damage could be done in Ferrari's favour. The FIA were still interfering as late as 2008 with crucial decision making and showing a biased hand under the Mosley regime. The FOTA disagreement of 2009 put an end to all this IMO.

You in the BNP as well??!! :D

No point Tamb, you got me down as a fully paid up member of the BNP. In addition you happily call me a bigot, despite yourself labelling the Brits as morons. How does that work exactly?


Sad and pathetic.

Oh, and I am British, so I'd like to know how I can be a bigot towards my own countrymen?

Sadly, though, because I worked in a team that had a German driver, some of my fellow countrymen decided to spit on, throw beer cans at and generally abuse me and my fellow workers at Silverstone, just for wearing our team shirts.

Those are bigots. They were on your side of the fence. Therefore I have no respect for "fans" at the British GP. Scum of the earth.

And the fact that you won't answer the question speaks volumes.

[SGWilko]

Sad and pathetic.

Oh, and I am British, so I'd like to know how I can be a bigot towards my own countrymen?

Sadly, though, because I worked in a team that had a German driver, some of my fellow countrymen decided to spit on, throw beer cans at and generally abuse me and my fellow workers at Silverstone, just for wearing our team shirts.

Those are bigots. They were on your side of the fence. Therefore I have no respect for "fans" at the British GP. Scum of the earth.

And the fact that you won't answer the question speaks volumes.

Don't lower yourself to their level then Tamb.

I did answer the question, maybe you didn't read the post what I wrote....

I can now fully see how you accusing me of being a BNP member is fully justified.,

Nice.

[SGWilko]

However, given that Mosley and Todt worked out the technical vetoe, were good friends, and Mosley outstayed his welcome by a decade or so to make way for his pal Todt, I think the general forum suspicion of Todt is quite well placed and, dare I suggest, justified until proven otherwise.



There you go Tamb - I've left only the bit you say isn't there.....

Some of the FIA backed decisions at the time were questionable as to who they benefitted.

And some equally favoured other teams.


The decision to change the points system in 2002 was aimed at preventing another Ferrari/Schumacher domination. It certainly did not favour the then champions.

The decision to out-rule team-orders did not favour Ferrari.

The decision to move Schumacher to the back of the grid in Monaco 06, justified as it may have been, didn't favour Ferrari.

The decision to ban testing did not favour Ferrari.

The previous decision to drastically reduce testing did not favour the one team with their own test track.....that team was, oh, let's guess....yep, Ferrari.

These dispel the notion that Max favoured Ferrari.

[SGWilko]

Send in the Cleaner please!

My apologies. I will halt forthwith. Point has been made.

There you go Tamb - I've left only the bit you say isn't there.....

All that does is prove that you pre-judge without waiting to see the evidence.

[pino]

Guys, let's stop it here before someone will end with a long ban ! And I am not going to ask again...

[SGWilko]

And some equally favoured other teams.


The decision to change the points system in 2002 was aimed at preventing another Ferrari/Schumacher domination. It certainly did not favour the then champions.

The decision to out-rule team-orders did not favour Ferrari.

The decision to move Schumacher to the back of the grid in Monaco 06, justified as it may have been, didn't favour Ferrari.

The decision to ban testing did not favour Ferrari.

The previous decision to drastically reduce testing did not favour the one team with their own test track.....that team was, oh, let's guess....yep, Ferrari.

These dispel the notion that Max favoured Ferrari.

One thing that occurs to me is that, the need to perhaps 'curtail' the Scuderia was borne out of necessity, due in part, to previous 'Ferrari favouring' regulations.

Speculation though it may be, plausible a notion it most certainly is.

As for the reduction in testing, this affects all the main teams equally. The fact that Ferrari had their own track can quite justifiably be seen as an unfair advantage. While it is not Ferrari's fault they have their own track, to be the only team allowed, in effect, extra testing, is a clear advantage, and not a level playing field.

[Hawkmoon]

As for the reduction in testing, this affects all the main teams equally. The fact that Ferrari had their own track can quite justifiably be seen as an unfair advantage. While it is not Ferrari's fault they have their own track, to be the only team allowed, in effect, extra testing, is a clear advantage, and not a level playing field.

I disagree. Ferrari weren't allowed extra testing, it was just easier for them because they had their own track. None of the other teams, even Williams and McLaren despite being around for decades, had the brains to build their own track.

There was nothing "unfair" about the advantage Ferrari had from Fiorano. Just as there was nothing unfair about Sauber having a full scale wind tunnel when nobody else did.

So when the testing restrictions were being argued about it was Ferrari who had the most to lose. McLaren, Williams et al were giving up little by comparison.

[SGWilko]

I disagree. Ferrari weren't allowed extra testing, it was just easier for them because they had their own track. None of the other teams, even Williams and McLaren despite being around for decades, had the brains to build their own track.

There was nothing "unfair" about the advantage Ferrari had from Fiorano. Just as there was nothing unfair about Sauber having a full scale wind tunnel when nobody else did.

So when the testing restrictions were being argued about it was Ferrari who had the most to lose. McLaren, Williams et al were giving up little by comparison.

Weren't the rules set at one point to allow testing at more than one track simultaneously?

I can't think of an instance where a decision involving Ferrari and another team has not gone in Ferrari's favour over the past 10 years.

And that proves what, apart from feck all?

How about judging each case by itself, on its own merits, instead of with Nigel Roebuck's patented "Knoborama" vision?

The fact that Ferrari had their own track can quite justifiably be seen as an unfair advantage. While it is not Ferrari's fault they have their own track, to be the only team allowed, in effect, extra testing, is a clear advantage, and not a level playing field.

Unbelievable.

The testing ban hindered Ferrari but did not favour any other team as such.

So hindering an opponent doesn't give you an advantage?

[speeddurango]

Because you get hindered as well as obviously stated.

[SGWilko]

So hindering an opponent doesn't give you an advantage?

It is not hindering though, is it? All that has happened is that Ferrari get the same amount of testing as the other participants.

That is what becomes the phenomenon called a 'level playing field'.

Whether you chose to believe it or not is academic. It is not, after all rocket science.

[SGWilko]

And that proves what, apart from feck all?

How about judging each case by itself, on its own merits, instead of with Nigel Roebuck's patented "Knoborama" vision?

While it pains me to read from the manual of the 'bleeding obvious', but all you appear to be doing recently on this forum is go out of your way to throw unjustified insults at posters who have a different opinion to your.

You may not see it, but you are no different to those you dislike so much after your bad experience at Silverstone.

Now, back to the post quoted above, what exactly does Roebuck have to do with what Henners wrote exactly, and why did you feel it was necessary to throw in a token knob reference?

[wedge]

Mosley deserves every ounce of his credit in changing safety levels in F1

There is no need to bash Todt ...yet.

[SGWilko]

Mosley deserves every ounce of his credit in changing safety levels in F1

There is no need to bash Todt ...yet.

Of course, but he could hardly bury his head in the sand now, could he.

I actually thought his introduction of chicanes made from tyres a splendid effort.

It is not hindering though, is it? All that has happened is that Ferrari get the same amount of testing as the other participants.

That is what becomes the phenomenon called a 'level playing field'.

Whether you chose to believe it or not is academic. It is not, after all rocket science.

Unbelievabe from a supposed knowledgable man.

Presumambly you also believe that Mclaren's CFD and simulator, widely acknowledged as being the best in the business, are also not "a level playing field"?

Presumably you also believe that Vodafone's huge investment in sponsoring Mclaren, as opposed to poor USF1 who haven't got a big-money sponsor, is also not "a level playing field"?

Come to think of it, you also have to presume that having two World champions in the team is not "a level playing field" either?

If you don't, you are a first grade hypocrite.

If you do, then you evidently don't know the first thing about the subject.

I've news for you....Formula One is a meritocracy. If you want a level playing field then you are looking at the wrong sport.

[jens]

Todt as a FIA president? Well, so far he has seemed quite promising to me actually. The only thing I can't quite work out is that why did they need to adopt such a new weird points system and now they have done it in WRC too.

[SGWilko]

Unbelievabe from a supposed knowledgable man.

Presumambly you also believe that Mclaren's CFD and simulator, widely acknowledged as being the best in the business, are also not "a level playing field"?

Presumably you also believe that Vodafone's huge investment in sponsoring Mclaren, as opposed to poor USF1 who haven't got a big-money sponsor, is also not "a level playing field"?

Come to think of it, you also have to presume that having two World champions in the team is not "a level playing field" either?

If you don't, you are a first grade hypocrite.

If you do, then you evidently don't know the first thing about the subject.

I've news for you....Formula One is a meritocracy. If you want a level playing field then you are looking at the wrong sport.

I quite agree with your final sentence. Which begs me to ask why you get so rattled about others' opinions vis a vis Ferrari?

I quite agree with your final sentence. Which begs me to ask why you get so rattled about others' opinions vis a vis Ferrari?

Because they are, at best, wrong.

[SGWilko]

Because they are, at best, wrong.

An opinion is an opinion.


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You need to learn to respect the rights of others to their own opinion without fear of others shouting them down in blinkered dissagreement.

So have we now gone from "Rule changes" to "money spent" on equipment and sponsors now then?

Oh, so now theres a difference because it involves Mclaren?

Thank you for proving what a hyopocrite you are.

An ignorant one at that.

[SGWilko]

Because they are, at best, wrong.

You're not my wife are you.....?

She also mistakenly claims to never be wrong............

[SGWilko]

Oh, so now theres a difference because it involves Mclaren?

Thank you for proving what a hyopocrite you are.

An ignorant one at that.

That's the spirit, insults again.

[SGWilko]

Oh, so now theres a difference because it involves Mclaren?

Thank you for proving what a hyopocrite you are.

An ignorant one at that.

If it's a spend fest you wish to compare, I think in the days of fag money, Ferrari would spend their way to poor results.

That's the spirit, insults again.

Says a proven bigot.

And a statement of fact is not an insult. Henners clearly knows squat about F1. Fact. That makes him ignorant.

Which rules are we actually talking about now, as the ones at the end of 2002 evidently played into Ferrari's advantage as far as I can see.

Then you are blind.

Reducing the points deficit of the 2nd place driver, the season after Schumacher swept to the title by July, was aimed solely at preventing such domination again. Since Ferrari were the team to beat, the reigning champions, only the truly blind would believe it was not aimed at reducing their perceived advantage.

If you weren't so ignorant you'd have known that.

If you did know it, then it proves something less savoury.

[Mark]

My finger is on the temporary ban button just now.....

[henners88]

Oh, so now theres a difference because it involves Mclaren?

No theres not a difference because it involves Mclaren. They are not the only team who were able to spend vast amounts of money on facilities, I just don't see how that is related to rule changes. How teams raise the necessary funds to support their campaign is their business, and Ferrari used this ethic to build their own test track. Thats a good initiative and I haven't tried to complain at all in this thread about an unfair advantage related to a teams facilities.


Thank you for proving what a hyopocrite you are.
An ignorant one at that.
I don't wish to state the obvious but calling someone ignorant and then proceeding to insult them is hypocritical in every sense of the word. I have not insulted you once and have remained calm whilst debating with my opinions. You seem to have a distinct problem with others having a different opinion to your own. I don't agree with what you are saying, and no amount of insulting names and immature jibes in signatures is going to make me agree with you I'm afraid. :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

My finger is on the temporary ban button just now.....

Perhaps you should then Mark. I got an infringement for suggesting someone grow up.

Now, I've been labelled a bigot, a BNP member and lazy to name but a few and Henners has been labelled ignorant, yet a finger isn't even raised.

Do you think that is right?

There are limits, do you not think?

Any chance we can debate without the use of insults guys?

Yes, but can we include facts too? It helps a debate to be dealing in facts, not fiction.

So do you have conclusive proof that the the points system was changed to prevent Ferrari/Schumacher dominating the season? We need to know whether we are both dealing with either fact or fiction. :)

"The scoring system was changed to 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in an attempt to make the constructors' and drivers' title races closer"

Admittedly thats Wikipedia, so try this...

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/archive/Pages/en.aspx

"Testing
Provided that by 15 December, at least three teams undertake to the FIA not to run more than 10 car-days of
private testing between 1 March and 1 November, the teams which have given this undertaking will be able to
test at each Event from 09.00 to 11.00 on Friday and may use their spare car and their test driver during this
period.

World Championship points
From 2003 points will be awarded down to 8th place on the scale 10:8:6:5:4:3:2:1
(previously to 6th place on the scale 10:6:4:3:2:1).

Team orders
Team orders which interfere with the race result are prohibited"

Ferrari & Michael Schumacher were the reigning F1 World champions. It is the only reasonable and logical explanation that these specific rule changes were aimed at reducing their advantage.

Much the same as Williams having ABS, Traction Control and Active Suspension banned after two years of their domination, the rule changes were aimed at preventing a continuation.

Any other conclusion than that is implausible. Fact.

[SGWilko]

Tamb, please don't insult me via PM. If you've got an axe to grind, take it somewhere else.

[SGWilko]

"The scoring system was changed to 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in an attempt to make the constructors' and drivers' title races closer"

Admittedly thats Wikipedia, so try this...

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/archive/Pages/en.aspx

"Testing
Provided that by 15 December, at least three teams undertake to the FIA not to run more than 10 car-days of
private testing between 1 March and 1 November, the teams which have given this undertaking will be able to
test at each Event from 09.00 to 11.00 on Friday and may use their spare car and their test driver during this
period.

World Championship points
From 2003 points will be awarded down to 8th place on the scale 10:8:6:5:4:3:2:1
(previously to 6th place on the scale 10:6:4:3:2:1).

Team orders
Team orders which interfere with the race result are prohibited"

Ferrari & Michael Schumacher were the reigning F1 World champions. It is the only reasonable and logical explanation that these specific rule changes were aimed at reducing their advantage.

Much the same as Williams having ABS, Traction Control and Active Suspension banned after two years of their domination, the rule changes were aimed at preventing a continuation.

Any other conclusion than that is implausible. Fact.

I thought ABS, TC and Active Ride were banned in an attempt to reduce rapidly increasing cornering speeds.

Williams had been intermittently running iterations of active ride since, IIRC at least 1988 with the Judd powered car.

[SGWilko]

I thought ABS, TC and Active Ride were banned in an attempt to reduce rapidly increasing cornering speeds.

Williams had been intermittently running iterations of active ride since, IIRC at least 1988 with the Judd powered car.

In fact, my understanding was that Benetton had mastered the art of active ride and had the best solution.

The one innovation in F1 that should never have been banned was/is CVT. Would actually be rather beneficial for heat recovery, with the engine running at optimum RPM all the time the car is accellerating, harvesting the heat from the exhaust becomes much more efficient.

[ArrowsFA1]

It is the only reasonable and logical explanation that these specific rule changes were aimed at reducing their advantage....Any other conclusion than that is implausible. Fact.
That may be your conclusion but it's not a fact, and it's not the "only" conclusion that can be reached.

Another reasonable and logical explanation is that these specific rule changes were aimed at preventing any team from having such an advantage in the future.

The rule changes were not implemented retrospectively.

That may be your conclusion but it's not a fact, and it's not the "only" conclusion that can be reached.

Another reasonable and logical explanation is that these specific rule changes were aimed at preventing any team from having such an advantage in the future.

The rule changes were not implemented retrospectively.

Once again, your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.

[SGWilko]

Once again, your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.

Berlin - once sung a song about breath being taken away. From the Top Gun soundtrack IIRC.

In fact, my understanding was that Benetton had mastered the art of active ride and had the best solution.

That's a fact is it??????

Au contraire, it is Bollocks. Utter bollocks.

We, for that period in time was when I was employed by that specific team, had refined our system, but it was still no match for Williams.

Maybe in 1994 it would have been, but if anything the loss of those "driver aid" systems benefitted Benetton far more than Williams as we had yet to fully design a car around them. The B193 had all the driver aids, but was very much a first effort, compared to the FW13C which was a finished masterpeice.

Please, if you wish to preach about facts, use some yourself.

Berlin - once sung a song about breath being taken away. From the Top Gun soundtrack IIRC.

A one hit wonder, as I recall......a bit like Arrows strike-rate when it comes to having an opinion that includes reality.

[SGWilko]

That's a fact is it??????

Au contraire, it is Bollocks. Utter bollocks.

We, for that period in time was when I was employed by that specific team, had refined our system, but it was still no match for Williams.

Maybe in 1994 it would have been, but if anything the loss of those "driver aid" systems benefitted Benetton far more than Williams as we had yet to fully design a car around them. The B193 had all the driver aids, but was very much a first effort, compared to the FW13C which was a finished masterpeice.

Please, if you wish to preach about facts, use some yourself.

No, it was 'my understanding'. The car may well have not been designed with Active ride in mind, but the actual active ride system, so I was led to believe, was a better solution that the, still somewhat unreliable (a la Monza 1992) Williams effort.

[SGWilko]

A one hit wonder, as I recall......a bit like Arrows strike-rate when it comes to having an opinion that includes reality.

Who needs reality Tamb.....?

I just post what the voices tell me to, didn't you know mother?

Who needs reality Tamb.....?

Ah, now that explains everything......although I never had you down as a Woodstock kind of dude, man.

Tune in, turn on and drop out.

But, please, don't twist my melons.

[SGWilko]

Ah, now that explains everything......although I never had you down as a Woodstock kind of dude, man.

Tune in, turn on and drop out.

But, please, don't twist my melons.

Black Grape?????

[SGWilko]

Happy Monday's ;)

Ah yes, same lead. Songs still made no sense though........

[ArrowsFA1]

Once again, your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.
So the rule changes were implemented retrospectively were they?

A one hit wonder, as I recall......a bit like Arrows strike-rate when it comes to having an opinion that includes reality.
:laugh: :laugh: Not one of your finest, but not bad :s mokin:

[SGWilko]

So the rule changes were implemented retrospectively were they?

While he may not necessarily be paranoid, it might just be that everyone is against Ferrari......

[SGWilko]

There was quite an interesting article in a national paper recently (The Times) and it was mentioned on here about a 1994 Benetton which came up for sale on ebay. It was the same chassis which was used in 3 of the races including the infamous Adelaide GP. It was found that the car was fitted with traction control, which was rumoured at the time but never proven. Its not known as fact if the traction control was there during 1994 or whether the owners since have paid to have it developed and fitted. The article asked some interesting questions but was purely speculation. Interesting none the less. Sorry OT.

Isn't that the old BT faults chestnut - press option 13 for assistance?????

Did you employers at the time know how infatuated and besotted your were with a rival team such as Ferrari? Is that maybe why Benetton started winning once you had vacated the team? :p :)

Like all my employees they knew I could be professional.

I was there in 1994 as well, and also did work on the B195 for 1995...and remind me.....who won titles in both those years?

[wedge]

Can't see why there's a need to bash Ferrari. Those battles were many moons ago.

The Ferrari veto which Mosely referred to last year was an excuse to discredit Ferrari and especially FOTA. The irony is that Todt now must bring back Ferrari into the fold now that Luca De Montezemolo has sided with FOTA.

Its funny how Williams throws spanners in the works with their diffusers, Schumi Ferrari test veto, affiliated with FIA than FOTA and deemed 'protecting their own interests' and yet Ferrari have been constantly bashed as cheats and unsporting.

Judging by some of your personal attacks on here, I have little faith whether you could be professional in an F1 environment, and whether you ever were in your claimed position.

Yes, because everybody in the industry is so cuddly wuddly. Yeah, right.


I made some good points on here previously about Todt and the FIA, and they have been ignored and the subject changed. I think this thread has run its course, and should be closed as the agenda is not to discuss whats in the title.

I'm out.. :s mokin:

Or, when translated...

"That's another debate I've lost"

Can't see why there's a need to bash Ferrari. Those battles were many moons ago.

The Ferrari veto which Mosely referred to last year was an excuse to discredit Ferrari and especially FOTA. The irony is that Todt now must bring back Ferrari into the fold now that Luca De Montezemolo has sided with FOTA.

Its funny how Williams throws spanners in the works with their diffusers, Schumi Ferrari test veto, affiliated with FIA than FOTA and deemed 'protecting their own interests' and yet Ferrari have been constantly bashed as cheats and unsporting.

Well said.

It'll never catch on though.

[ArrowsFA1]

Or, when translated...

"That's another debate I've lost"
And there it is folks. The familiar self-declared "clincher". Another thread "won".
Well tally ho! With a bing and a bong and a buzz buzz buzz! :bounce:

[SGWilko]

"That's another debate I've lost"

Or, I hold the moral high ground, as I know when to stop?

[SGWilko]

Can't see why there's a need to bash Ferrari. Those battles were many moons ago.

The Ferrari veto which Mosely referred to last year was an excuse to discredit Ferrari and especially FOTA. The irony is that Todt now must bring back Ferrari into the fold now that Luca De Montezemolo has sided with FOTA.

Its funny how Williams throws spanners in the works with their diffusers, Schumi Ferrari test veto, affiliated with FIA than FOTA and deemed 'protecting their own interests' and yet Ferrari have been constantly bashed as cheats and unsporting.

The Ferrari veto was, methinks, originally referenced by Ferrari, not Max.

Williams, as an independant, have their own interests to protect. I am quite sure that, in the cuddly wuddly world of F1, all Frank & Pat's employees are quite pleased their jobs are secure......

[SGWilko]

"That's another debate I've lost"

Ooohhh, I lave a good mass debate.

Did yer win Tamb, was it good?

[SGWilko]

Like all my employees they knew I could be professional.

I was there in 1994 as well, and also did work on the B195 for 1995...and remind me.....who won titles in both those years?

Rather that knowing you 'could', perhaps it should have been 'they knew I was'. Could, on it's own, suggest 'not always'. Just thought I'd throw that one in, being the last word freak wot I is.

Non?

[wedge]

The Ferrari veto was, methinks, originally referenced by Ferrari, not Max.

My mistake, it was actually Bernie but still an enemy of FOTA.


Williams, as an independant, have their own interests to protect. I am quite sure that, in the cuddly wuddly world of F1, all Frank & Pat's employees are quite pleased their jobs are secure......

What does keeping the DD diffuser and vetoing Schumi testing to do with jobs? They want to remain competitive at all costs. That has always been an essence of motor racing as the late American racer Mark Donohue put it: The Unfair Advantage (also the name of his autobiography).

And there it is folks. The familiar self-declared "clincher". Another thread "won".
Well tally ho! With a bing and a bong and a buzz buzz buzz! :bounce:

Which is why I worked in a competitive environment, where as you just hoped to write about it.

[jens]

Before anyone considers themselves as winners, wait for the response of two giants, Ioan and Garry Walker, who will mop the floor with the rest of the field. ;)

[SGWilko]

Which is why I worked in a competitive environment, where as you just hoped to write about it.

Er Tamb, what does Arrows do for a living again?

[SGWilko]

Before anyone considers themselves as winners, wait for the response of two giants, Ioan and Garry Walker, who will mop the floor with the rest of the field. ;)

I hear they are both on diets jens.....

Er Tamb, what does Arrows do for a living again?

If he writes about F1 for a living he wants charging under the Trades Description act.

Judging by some of your personal attacks on here, I have little faith whether you could be professional in an F1 environment

People in the F1 environment were my intellectual peers, so didn't annoy me with a lack of knowledge.

[SGWilko]

If he writes about F1 for a living he wants charging under the Trades Description act.

My point being you have no idea. For all we know, your competetive environment could be the stationery cupboard.

[Dave B]

People in the F1 environment were my intellectual peers, so didn't annoy me with a lack of knowledge.
Are you familiar with the phrase "delusions of grandeur"? :laugh:

Are you familiar with the phrase "delusions of grandeur"? :laugh:

Are you familiar with the phrase "out of your depth"?

[ArrowsFA1]

Jean Todt. Remember him? He's got a lot to do in not much time if he's only sticking around for one term.

[SGWilko]

Jean Todt. Remember him? He's got a lot to do in not much time if he's only sticking around for one term.

Who will be his successor?

[ArrowsFA1]

Who will be his successor?
Max :confused: :p :eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

Ron Dennis perhaps?

[SGWilko]

Ron Dennis perhaps?

Only problem with Ron is that he would spend ages lining up the paper clips in his desk tidy and no work would get done..... ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Only problem with Ron is that he would spend ages lining up the paper clips in his desk tidy and no work would get done..... ;)
Wouldn't he also want to re-paint FIA HQ at Place de la Concorde an efficient shade of grey. That may be a little time consuming too. He may event want to go as far as having the place rebuilt by Norman Foster :p

Nick Griffin.

He'd get the support of some on this forum, at least.

[Dave B]

You could set your watch by it, couldn't you?

You could set your watch by it, couldn't you?

I don't want to disappoint the adoring public.

[Dave B]

That's us, pressed up against the wire fencing just waiting for your latest... I won't use the word "joke" as that implies some sort of sense of humour at work... let's say "wisecrack".

Well, at least you know your place.

[SGWilko]

Nick Griffin.


I would hazard a guess that he has more in common with the previous FIA figurehead than we could imagine.

[SGWilko]

Well, at least you know your place.

Given that you are supposed to have designed F1 cars, shouldn't you be sunning yourself on your yacht somewhere hot spending your millions earned in cuddly wuddly F1, rather than sat in front of a pc day in, day out, ?

[SGWilko]

That's us, pressed up against the wire fencing just waiting for your latest... I won't use the word "joke" as that implies some sort of sense of humour at work... let's say "wisecrack".

Why not use 'joke'. It always springs to mind when he pops up.....

Given that you are supposed to have designed F1 cars, shouldn't you be sunning yourself on your yacht somewhere hot spending your millions earned in cuddly wuddly F1, rather than sat in front of a pc day in, day out, ?

Since you earlier pointed out that I didn't know for certain what a forum member did, please prove that I'm not sat on my yacht.

Otherwise it is somewhat hypocritical of you to have a double-standard now.

And you wouldn't want that, I'm sure.

Why not use 'joke'. It always springs to mind when he pops up.....

Boom-Boom!

http://www.basilbrush.com

[BDunnell]

I have said it before and will say it again — certain members' posts tell us far more about themselves than the subject in hand, no matter what their level of expertise in that subject, and that's a shame.

It's also a pity that an interesting thread has been taken so far off topic.

[Garry Walker]

Before anyone considers themselves as winners, wait for the response of two giants, Ioan and Garry Walker, who will mop the floor with the rest of the field. ;)

:P

Where is ioan? Has he been banned again?

[SGWilko]

:P

Where is ioan? Has he been banned again?

Isn't he on Tamb's dingy? ;)

[Firstgear]

:P

Where is ioan? Has he been banned again?
The little bugger just can't help himself.

But let's get back to the topic....Todt/Foot/Mouth....
The little bugger just can't help himself.

[Langdale Forest]

I only thought animals got foot in mouth! :p