I could start cleaning up the mess but it would probably only cause more hassle. But the topic would be me, which would be a change
It was on their systems. Why would you have an illegal device on your systems if you have no intention of using it? It was not a throwback to 1993 as the Ford V8's of 1993 and 1994 (HB v Zetec-R) were completely different engines so would not work on the same ECU. Why have TC mapped on an engine it is unsuitable for? But we're in agreement on the other 3 points?
Ignorance? How? You sure theh fact it was a British driver that lost out isn't clouding your vision somewhat? Schumacher was robbed of 3 races and still managed to finish the season with the most points in a car that was 2nd best, how is that undeserving?
I am baffled by some people's opinions. So what if a driver wins a championship when his main rival has mechanical issues, it's got nothing to do with them or the team they drive for. Maybe that "team" that had multiple failures can make the car more reliable.
Not really. The planks was for one race (another race Schumacher was robbed of so that makes 4) and the decision is marginal to say the least. How come Ferrari and McLAren don't get the same hassle for having the same coding in their ECUs? Black flags is a strange one, I dont know why any driver would ignore them, any driver would know there is no benefit so I wouldn't be so sure they were deliberately ignored. As for Adelaide why does no one blame Hill for not cooling his jets? Why did he dive for a corner that was always closing? He could have taken him with ease on the very next straight.
I will choose to recognise your attempt to discredit me as a poster and not the point i am making as you struggling to justify your position
I agree with this. It is like saying a driver does not deserve the title because another driver drove better than him but was in a slower car. Unless cheating is involved then where you finish at the end of the season is where you deserve to finish more or less.
Lewis Hamilton is the exception, of course. If he wins, its because others had reliability issues. If he loses, it's because he's ****. And yet when I point out the hypocracy; that Hamilton's situation was the exact reverse of Ferrari's in 2007 and 2008, I am accused of breaking the law by someone who is incapable of even pretending to be even-handed.
As you suggest my judgement is clouded as its a British driver involved, may I ask if your judgement is clouded by him being British but in another way? When a Brit lost, you defend the other guy even though they and their team cheated on various levels and then you give reasons why they did so, when a Brit wins (Hamilton) you try to make out reasons why it was underserved. Very Xiggly-esque
You accused people who don't support Hamilton of racism, and unless you decide you want to actually name who you were referring to and justify why, then it can only be assumed that you were making a generalised accusation
I have nothing aginst a driver due to issues of nationality. I have always liked Button and have recently found myself really liking DiResta for the cheerful way he carries himself in his interviews. Again please stop trying to discredit me with unsubstantiated accusations. For the record, IMO xiggly had some good points in him but was an obsessive relentless bore for the most part
So he was DQ'd for a techincal infringement, and you add it to the list of races he was robbed from? He clearly ignored the black flag as he came in for a stop-go.. . so someone told him about it, that and the big black flag that was shown to him for many laps. McLaren/Ferrari were also fined for not giving their access codes to the FIA , but as they didn't win the WDC as a result, why would I complain? We're looking at undeserved WDC's here. The gap to Hill only closed when he went for the inside. Schumacher was heading for the outside of the track at that point then turned in.
and for the record, if people would choose to read my entire contribution to this thread, I have not once nominated Hamilton as undeserving, just fortunate. My driver nominations for undeserving are Keke Rosberg, and then Phil Hill possibly
I've decided to create "Westy's Law". Westy's Law states... 'As an online F1 discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hamilton at Spa in 2008 or Schumacher at Adelaide in 1994 (delete as applicable) approaches 1'. In years to come I'll be quoted in pub quizzes across the country.
Brilliant, this is one of those cases where the 'rep' function would have come in very handy! Can we now adopt the policy I've seen other forums use when Godwin's Law is invoked, and that a mention of Spa 08 or Adelaide 94 means the end of a thread, and the person who brought it up loses?
Brilliant!!! I'm going to go test this theory by starting a thread about sandwich fillings or rhubarb forcing and recording how long it takes for one of those two items to crop up.
