JamesBCFC

No particular order. Blackadder OFAH Futurama After Life Red Dwarf

It applies, but on a race by race basis. Doesn't matter if you lead for 71 laps out of 72, if you don't cross the at the end in 1st you don't win even if you were overtaken on the last corner. Take that to the extreme and you can have someone win the championship without leading a race for a full lap combined over the season.

You posted a graphic of laps led. As sports has shown many times, time spent leading (or as the case in the article, in the relegation zone, like Bristol Rovers in 2014) is irrelevant. The only bit that matters is where they are at the end.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/11/football-team-relegated-not-being-in-drop-zone-all-season-the-knowledge

Can't agree there. All the hysteria from Red Bull over the last fortnight has made me want them to fail. This time he was a completely innocent person caught up in it, but the person I feel for is Norris. Made the best start of anyone off the line, gets up into 3rd but is the first person Bottas hits, forced to retire after having had the longest consecutive points finishes of anyone on the grid.

Thing is, this track is one where overtaking is usually very difficult, and it's been part of the grid for decades. It's only because Mercedes and Red Bull are so far clear of the rest in performance that they were able to climb back through at all, and even Hamilton was struggling for a while.

Was working while it was on, but got a stream up on my pc with a screen recorder. Unfortunately I had to leave 2 hours before the race and the recording stopped after 3.5 hours. I've seen a fantastic 42 laps so far though

Rather than being just a critique of Verstappen it's pointing out how his OTT driving style would have caused a crash had Hamilton not backed off when he had no other reason to in Barcelona. But because Hamilton backed off, Verstappen's dangerous driving got praised as a "brave overtake" Then reverse the roles and see what happened on Sunday.

Fully agree about fewer penalties being needed as a general rule, my post was taking the quoted one and applying its logic to other incidents. But if they stay at the same amount as now then I'm ok with that, so long as consistency is applied, which I don't think it currently is. And also some punishments for certain infractions may need reviewing, but that's a separate discussion and this post will be long enough already. Raised it several times now but at Imola Verstappen forces Hamilton over the kerb in the chicane lap 1*. Hamilton takes some damage which he has for the rest of the race. At Barcelona Verstappen dives in and nearly causes an incident like Sundays, but Hamilton backing out meaning the crash doesn't happen. Also lap 1* In Austria Norris is penalised for holding his line and Perez going off track while trying to overtake on the outside, lap 3 or 4* Perez then punished for pushing Leclerc off track twice, no idea what laps. *I understand that the stewards are generally told to be more forgiving of lap 1 incidents as the drivers are closer together, and contact more likely to happen, but Sundays incident was also lap 1. The Norris incident with Perez was also first lap after safety car went in which should come under the same discretion for the same reason, a bunched up pack of cars. For me, of the Austria incidents only one is penalty worthy, the second one between Perez and Leclerc. For the reason that the footage shows Perez actively turn to his right on the exit of the left hander to force Leclerc off. The first incident between the two was hard racing which is exactly what fans have been after. As was the Norris one. The other crucial thing is that the severity of the crash shouldn't dictate the penalty either. The reason being that a very small and innocuous thing can inadvertently lead to a serious injury (as can often been seen with injuries in football). As an example with the contact on Sunday, had Verstappen's wheel not come off the way it did, but the rest went the same, his car would have slowed a significant amount and the impact would have been significantly less. The severity of the transgression, i.e a driver physically turning into another driver compared to someone understeering into someone should be the key factor. Another example being the Grosjean crash last season, a very minor bit of contact from a small misjudgement resulting in one of the biggest F1 crashes for years. So when reviewing for punishment the pertinent parts to check is all the points up to contact being made for the last time between the cars involved. The way Horner carried on was pathetic really and actually came across to me as insincere. It felt like he cared more about making sure Hamilton was punished severely than he cared about Verstappen's condition. (The counter being he likely had been in contact with multiple people and knew exactly how Max was feeling and what his injuries were, or at the latest information they had to that point, let's not forget the hospital visit was purely precautionary.)

So if when Perez and Leclerc battled in Austria Leclerc got suspension damage from being pushed wide then Perez should be forced to retire? How do you account for smaller damage? Verstappen pushed Hamilton over the kerbs in the chicane at Imola and Hamilton had floor damage but not enough to retire him. But as it was lap 1 it hurts every single lap of the race, so does Verstappen get a grid drop there? After all he caused it. Or perhaps an easier solution would be that no driver goes into ever race with the attitude of "I will never back out, no matter what" like Verstappen currently does. On track he is a bully and the only reason they weren't both retired from Barcelona where he dived in recklessly is that Hamilton backed out despite having track position. On Sunday the bully got beaten up, and while I hope there's no injuries for him I have no sympathy whatsoever when his own driving style has meant a big crash with someone was inevitable. Just ask Vettel or Raikkonen, who he continually crashed into a few years ago. Or Perez who he took out last season. Or Ocon who was faster and unlapping himself as he had every right to do when Verstappen crashed into him.

I'm not sure he does, not without strategy playing a part and how tires get managed, and Mercedes have messed up on strategy several times already this season. Red Bull have the faster car and Lewis had no answer in the sprint race. Of course its easier to defend once you're ahead than it is to get past but I think Max would have got through.

That is true, but it's still the fastest car on the track. Second para is pretty much what's in my longer post, though a lot more succinctly put. Helmut Marko at RB even worse than Horner, calling for a suspension for a race.

But Perez is in an identical car to Verstappen.

It's literally a racing incident. If blame has to be given it's more Hamilton than Verstappen, but let's be real for a second. There's been at least 3 occasions this season where Hamilton has had position and backed out to avoid a crash with Verstappen, that's just this season. In this race Verstappen had already moved to bump wheels where Hamilton was alongside going down the straight about 2 corners before the crash. Heading into the corner, MV squeezes LH tight on the wall, then moves a bit to give room. LH is missing the apex because of where he was forced to go, but is at full steering lock (can be seen from the footage). MV sees LH on his right when they were side by side heading into braking (again, can be seen from footage). So, in the corner itself, MV knows LH is on the inside and off the racing line, therefore less grip, but takes the same line regardless when he had room to take a wider line while still making the corner. LH could have backed out more and conceded the position. Both drivers had the option to make a decision that avoids the incident. Now, all through the season LH has done exactly that, and it has resulted in losing the place to a driver taking aggressiveness to a whole new level each time. MV has, for years, taken the piss when it comes to being an aggressive driver, and there was always going to be a point where someone decided to play him at his own game. Today was that day and MV came off worse when it happened. This should be a wake up call that he doesn't own the track and that while racing aggressively is fine, there also needs to be occassions where he backs off, because if he refuses to do so, other drivers will do the same to him, and one day that could result in a serious injury for someone. With regards to the penalty, I can understand why LH got one, but really think its more to do with the joke one Norris got last time out, and the stewards trying to show a degree of consistency. A longer time penalty because the result of the incident was more serious than Perez just going off track for a few seconds.

It's a racing incident. Lewis did the same move on Leclerc right at the end.

That's usually the case.

Think I predicted a Hamilton Championship but Red Bull constructors Championship on a poll somewhere before the season. Starting to think I might have had it the wrong was around. I know Red Bull are ahead, but Bottas had a nightmare with various bits of bad luck through the start of the season which would have left them almost identical.

Lando robbed of 2nd with a joke penalty today. Superb drive by him to get back past Hamilton and get 3rd.

1000000%

A lot better than Derby. Marriott scored 9 in 69 league games for them, 17 in 86 overall. Diedhiou scored 46 in 154 in the league for us, 51 in 169 overall. Marriott had a worse than 1 in 7 rate in the league, worse than 1 in 5 overall. Diedhiou had a rate of just under 1 in 3 boht in the league and overall. So we got far more value out of him, in both appearances and goals scored.

I'm wondering how they have such easy access to Rooney's underwear.

Meanwhile Bradford have sold over 5000.

I like the story of when Stephen Hawking threw a party complete with pyramids of champagne for time travelers, and didn't release any invites until after the party. When no one turned up he concluded that it means time travel (to the past) would never be achieved. Or in his words "what a shame".

Hang on, a book in 1841 was talking about a guy who was predicting the end in 1844 and 1845?