F1 2021: New season discussion and chat

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
56,965
It's a consequence of todays reporting.
I bet the reporter flat out asked "So did Toto call you" and when he replied with a single word sentence of no the headline wrote itself. But of course the question could also have been so who called you and then he went on a 20 minute monologue detailing it all. This is why I only pay attention to videos (and even there you have to be cautious about how it was edited), otherwise modern journalism simply twists the context to drive those clicks

You can also add that it’s possible that someone else from Mercedes called and asked, so if the question was “Did Mercedes check how you were?” the answer would have been yes, it just wasn’t Toto.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
56,965
It sounds like the Red Bull babies even made unsubstantiated allegations against the stewards in their review paperwork.



FIA rejects request to review Silverstone decision​


The FIA has tonight rejected Red Bull's call for a review of the incident on the opening lap of the British Grand Prix and the subsequent penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton.

A review was only possible if Red Bull was able to provide a "significant and relevant new element", and despite Helmut Marko's claim that this was the case, it didn't satisfy the stewards.

Earlier this week, Marko told RTL that his team would "bring new facts that were not available to us at the time of the race interruption or when the whole thing was dealt with".

Adding that: "Those facts will be brought forward on Thursday, and we hope that that will result in a reassessment, because we still think that this penalty was too lenient for Hamilton."

Other than a number of slides provided by the Austrian team based on GPS data which compared Lewis Hamilton's overtake of Max Verstappenand his subsequent pass on Charles Leclerc, Red Bull's "significant and relevant new element" also comprised slides containing data following a 're-enactment' of the Briton's opening lap carried out by Alex Albon during a filming day at the circuit last week.

In total, Red Bull produced four pieces of evidence:

• GPS data available to them of both Hamilton and Verstappen's car

• GPS data drawing "various alleged comparisons" with the line taken by Hamilton when passing Charles Leclerc for the lead later in the race at the same corner

• Alleged lap simulations of the incident

• What was described as a "re-enactment" of Hamilton's lap one line at Silverstone based on a lap allegedly driven by Alex Albon

What was presented to the Stewards was not "a significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned," said the FIA in its statement.

"The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review.

"And they were created based on evidence that was available to the Competitor at the time of the decision (namely the GPS data). That clearly does not satisfy the requirements of Article 14."

In a further twist to the whole sorry saga, the stewards noted allegations that had been made by Red Bull, though they failed to expand on what exactly the allegations were.

"The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter," said the stewards in their statement.

"Such allegations may or may not have been relevant to the Stewards if the Petition for Review had been granted.


"The Stewards may have addressed these allegations directly in any decision that would have followed. The Petition having been dismissed, the Stewards make no comments on those allegations."
 

Little Mac

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
53,053
It sounds like the Red Bull babies even made unsubstantiated allegations against the stewards in their review paperwork.



FIA rejects request to review Silverstone decision​


The FIA has tonight rejected Red Bull's call for a review of the incident on the opening lap of the British Grand Prix and the subsequent penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton.

A review was only possible if Red Bull was able to provide a "significant and relevant new element", and despite Helmut Marko's claim that this was the case, it didn't satisfy the stewards.

Earlier this week, Marko told RTL that his team would "bring new facts that were not available to us at the time of the race interruption or when the whole thing was dealt with".

Adding that: "Those facts will be brought forward on Thursday, and we hope that that will result in a reassessment, because we still think that this penalty was too lenient for Hamilton."

Other than a number of slides provided by the Austrian team based on GPS data which compared Lewis Hamilton's overtake of Max Verstappenand his subsequent pass on Charles Leclerc, Red Bull's "significant and relevant new element" also comprised slides containing data following a 're-enactment' of the Briton's opening lap carried out by Alex Albon during a filming day at the circuit last week.

In total, Red Bull produced four pieces of evidence:

• GPS data available to them of both Hamilton and Verstappen's car

• GPS data drawing "various alleged comparisons" with the line taken by Hamilton when passing Charles Leclerc for the lead later in the race at the same corner

• Alleged lap simulations of the incident

• What was described as a "re-enactment" of Hamilton's lap one line at Silverstone based on a lap allegedly driven by Alex Albon

What was presented to the Stewards was not "a significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned," said the FIA in its statement.

"The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review.

"And they were created based on evidence that was available to the Competitor at the time of the decision (namely the GPS data). That clearly does not satisfy the requirements of Article 14."

In a further twist to the whole sorry saga, the stewards noted allegations that had been made by Red Bull, though they failed to expand on what exactly the allegations were.

"The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter," said the stewards in their statement.

"Such allegations may or may not have been relevant to the Stewards if the Petition for Review had been granted.


"The Stewards may have addressed these allegations directly in any decision that would have followed. The Petition having been dismissed, the Stewards make no comments on those allegations."
"The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review.

Classic. Well put. Every team will do it, more so if they are desperately fighting for the WC.
 

cr@zydude

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
9,608
Yes.

Netflix and DTS has been integral to the growth in popularity of the sport, especially in the US market, so it is going to be around for a while.

This. While I don't particularly enjoy Drive to Survive, it has made a few of my friends take to watching F1, which is ultimately good.
 

RVFmal

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,086
Just turned over to the F1 and I see the Karen's are still butthurt and moaning. You would swear that Max was lying in a coma on a ventilator the way they are carrying on.

Successfully turned me off watching. Back to the Olympics.
 
Top