Cheers, Sporty. Doesn't really answer it though. The answer's got be somewhere in Article 28.6, but I'm blowed if I can work it out.
"A gearbox will be deemed to have been used once the car's timing transponder has shown that it has left the pit lane." there we go!
Umm, no. Look, just consider the races. In the first race he used his first gearbox. In the second race he used his joker and took a free replacement. Then in the fifth race he used a third gearbox. Burning one out in the pitlane is simply the cause of having to use a third. It's the use of the third gearbox that should have incurred a penalty, not the failure of the second, which had been used for three races prior to being burned out in the pitlane in any case.
Why don't the drivers and race engineers swear whenever they're saying something they don't want to be broadcast to the world? Indeed, instead of devising rubbish codes, why don't they use unbroadcastable words as codewords?
Can someone please explain to me how Ferrari managed to make such a pigs ear of 2005? How does a team that has won the WCC 6 years in a row suddenly lose the capability of building a decent car?
Excellent stupid question. I have read the answer to this so it's out there on the internet somewhere but I've forgotten what it is. Looking forward to reading the answer. I think it might have something to do with the tyres (as in "it wasn't our fault!").
A quick read of wiki says that bridgestone tyres struggled in 2005 against the michelin tyre, but overall what a downfall after 6 straight titles, they get their lowest WCC ranking since 1995.
Well certainly the Michelins performed better than the Bridgestones, but that's all I can remember as I wasn't an avid fan back then.
Question. 'Can someone please explain to me how Ferrari managed to make such a pigs ear of 2005? How does a team that has won the WCC 6 years in a row suddenly lose the capability of building a decent car?' Answer. Bribery was refused?
They did win in Indianapolis Speaking of Ferrari, and I cba to look it up. When was the last time they didnt win a race in the season? I'm guessing early 90s
My dad kept saying that all through the 2005 season are you my dad? I say it was down to so many people praying for the Ferrari to be ****.
You can't prove anything! Seriously though, has anyone actually got an answer or is it as simple as the Bridgestones were terrible? They can't have been that bad as Ferrari stayed with them for the following year and were pretty competitive.
They could have been that terrible. The point is, Bridgestone's only competitive team were Ferrari because Ferrari wanted the tyres developed specifically for them so no other decent teams wanted Bridgestones. That meant the only meaningful feedback Bridgestone got was from Ferrari and, good or bad, it was a pretty one-sided view. They therefore produced tyres that were durable (as Ferrari would have wanted) but provided much less grip than the Michelins.Bridgestone (and Ferrari) would have learned from that and developed much more competitive tyres for the following season. You're right, though, it wouldn't have been solely down to the tyres. The car was uncompetitive too and they didn't make the steps forward that other teams did, possibly comparable with 2009.
Who is that guy with the beard at the award ceremony that gives out the hats and water to the drivers? I see people asking but no actual closure on the question.
Dunno about the guy with the beard but I remember someone on 606 (Czar-Orac unless I'm very much mistaken) saying the guy in the suit with no beard who hands out the watches was his mate - David someone possibly.