Just to note: Calling somebody a WUM, Fanboy or 'Hater' for just having an opinion is against the house rules
What's wrong with WUM? Nobody said anything about banning the word WUM. Being a good WUM is an achievement - humour, intelligence, a dash of derring-do. It should only be banned when used to describe humourless zealots.
Whilst being a grown up lad and not at all a prude, I don't think it's a good idea to "encourage" swearing. Swearing can allow people to let off some steam sure, but it's also a very easy way to create inflammatory posts and, more often than not, leads to aggression. I used to post on muzz606 and despite deciding to leave because of a few particular members, all the posts on there were excellent because people worded them in an civil and clean manner. This often lead to people accepting an opinion despite having been opposed to it in the beginning, rather than resulting to insults as I have seen on here. As far as I can remember, they were no threads being locked because people had decided to get into a slanging match about Hamilton. Don't get me wrong, they were definitely some heated discussions, but it never got out of hand. In the end, a forum is here for discussion that hopefully leads to enlightenment about a particular subject. I find that this is all the harder to achieve when people language that is likely to offend.
If you want to swear and let off some steam then the general section or the chat box is the place to go. The F1 board should be kept respectable. Im ok with swearing in a comical way but not in an offensive way. Anyway back to the topic of Reviews of the race. (Any non topic comments on here will be deleted) Thanks, El_Bando View attachment 4260
yes, you are, they're both from me and an attack on Hamelotism (it means Hamilton Zealot, I coined the phrase for Dr-What, Avi, Bruceron etc. from 606). In many threads I said that all his incidents were, because of the conditions, racing incidents but that if blame was to be aportioned from a 'someone must be to blame' point of view (like insurers would) then the blame had to be Hamiltons. I have no problems with hamiltons fans, like Mclarwum, but cannot stand the Hamelots at all
Well it's never an insurance claim in F1 and I think TV commentators and others do us a disservice by describing everything in terms of 50/50 or 60/40. If it's a racing incident then surely it should be 0/0?
seems to me the only call it a 'racing incident' if the car that 'caused' it goes out. TBH I didn't see any collisions at Canada that were anything other than racing incidents, but it seems the FIA want someone to blame for any sort of contact at all. There have been far too many penalties this season, most of them unfair or unwarranted, Lewis has deserved a couple of his trips to the stewards, but he certainly hasn't deserved a majority of them, the Malaysia weaving and the Massa at Monaco are really the only 2 I think he should've been called up for. Of course we don't want to see people getting injured, but we also don't want to have to wait for the DRS zone to see any overtaking, but if they continue with these outlandish proportioning of blame then that's what we may end up with.
You're right, Miggins, I think it's excessive too and I also fear that if this draconian approach to stewarding continues, it will affect the genuine racing. They brought in the new tyres, KERS and DRS to increase overtaking and then they investigate and penalise when drivers have the audacity to attempt to pass! It's a strange situation.
I would tend to agree with that but we should also remember that the stewards would not want to be accused of ignoring something that might be controversial, and they got the two big decisions in Canada correct (no penalties for Hamilton/Button or Alonso/Button). I also think they got both Hamilton penalties in Monaco correct, as well as his weaving in Malaysia.
Oh yeah, I agree that they mostly draw the correct conclusions, it's just that the number of investigations seems to have increased massively this season, or maybe I've just got a short memory. When they promised us more overtaking, they didn't mention that they were going into Health & Safety overdrive. It seems that we're always waiting on some stewards' decision and my cynical side wonders if it's just another tactic to ramp up the excitement in a spurious way.
I wonder whether the stewards now announce things are under investigation, when before they'd just look at a replay, decide it was a racing incident on the spot, and move on. We used to very rarely see a stewards investigation without a penalty quickly following, maybe that's all that has been changed? They investigate everything more thoroughly, so they have a proper case to defend every decision?
I think they now have access to much more information - multiple video replays (that we're not privy to), radio comms, telemetry, GPS, etc. All that must take more time to sift through. In a lot of instances I think they are more inclined to listen to the opinions of the drivers involved, too, which may be due to the influence of the ex-driver steward. That can't happen until after the race, of course, and that makes it much more public. I definitely feel they're much fairer and more measured than they used to be and, once the three-strikes reprimands begin from the British GP onwards, I think there'll be a lot more flexibility in their decisions.
A good point Canary. I read your post and was about to type. Then I saw Genji's post which pretty much says it all. The real positive from all this is that there has been a general improvement in the decisions being arrived at. Whereas before a decision was often made in the heat of the moment with scant information, there is now a lot more thought going through a lot more information. When one considers the ramifications of these decisions, it is absolutely right that the decision making process acts as a brake in arriving at any and all conclusions. It's the responsible thing to do and there is now a huge amount of information (very much a good thing) at the disposal of those making the decisions.
