Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
Excuse me!?
|
I find your own quoted sources highly interesting, but not for the reasons you might expect. We are hearing a largely one sided story. In my opinion a large part of it is an attempt by RBR to shore up their arguments for the appeal…
Quote:
|
blah blah blah said Horner
|
Quote:
|
Dr Helmut Marko told Auto Bild: blah blah blah
|
Quote:
|
blah blah blah, Horner said on Wednesday
|
The one quote you provide that doesn’t sound to have come out of the mouth of RBR I happen to agree with 100%. It is about how RBR handled sensor problems in Malaysia…
Quote:
|
The sensor failed early on, but the team avoided disqualification this time around by simply following the FIA's advice about how to comply with the rules in the absence of the troublesome Gill device.
|
Directly to the point about playing fast and loose with the facts, you said (paraphrasing here) that RBR was disqualified due to evidence from a faulty sensor that was drifting over the course of the race.
I don’t think I am being pedantic here, but that is not what happened. My understanding of the facts is that RBR never used the data from the sensor during the race. They didn't use an offset as specified by the FIA. They ignored steward’s directions during the race. All three of those items are against the rules.
The above news quote is about Malaysia, but it also sums up nicely what RBR should have done in Australia, but purposefully choose to not do. I think many who are supporting RBR in this argument conveniently forget some of the facts. Particularly those that don’t paint RBR in a good light with respect to their actions in Australia .
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
P.S. I try not to play fast and loose with the facts - this assertion is not appreciated.
If you feel any fact I have used is incorrect Richard please feel free to correct it. I have no agenda other than a better understanding of what goes on in F1.
|
If you are overly wound up, let me apologize. I was not trying to challenge your integrity. Rather I felt you were being selective of facts to make a point. And I was making a spirited reply that was contrary to your opinion.
To your point about not having an agenda, I don’t know you, but I will respectfully disagree. Everyone has agendas and biases on topics that they feel strongly about. I have my own, but I try to recognize them, and adjust accordingly. I actually try hard to be neutral to the facts, but it is hard at times as I am also passionate about the sport, so I fall short at times as well. In short, this entire thread (forum?) is full of agendas and biases. Mine, yours and others.
In this case, I feel strongly that RBR didn't play by the rules, but at the same time I am not even close to trying to defend the rules that try to accurately measure instantaneous fuel flow as well as the implementation of that via the single sensor. I think a different solution needs to be found. Maybe things will be sorted out this season, maybe not. I am also skeptical of the accuracy of the fuel flow models (for instantaneous flow) and think they have their own set of issues (lack of uniformity, potential ease of manipulation to gain advantage) that many seem to ignore, but I can absolutely be swayed when presented with actual (i.e. scientific) and not anecdotal evidence.
To this specific thread (which isn't the one I started to discuss fuel sensor stuff), I am no particular fan of Vettel, but am a huge fan of Newey and am mostly ambivalent toward RBR. I think I mostly fall in the category of “root for the underdog”. If RBR was down and out, you might actually find me cheering them on. I have tried to focus my comments here around my negative opinion toward threats by RBR to leaving F1.
Richard