News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

JayVee wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote:

JayVee wrote:
This means you are a great great fan of Williams but I don't see you passing on anything negative you read about them or their dreaded gearbox ..... That's all

Sigh, if you read some of my posts you will disagree with your post, and that is not all

huh ?

Show me one of those posts. You said it before, if there is anything bad on Williams (or Webber for that matter) you stay quiet.

So don't report bad news on Renault then say you are a great fan of them

JAYVEE you will spend days sifting thru posts to have a go at someone, but wont tap a bloody key when you know the other person is right. You KNOW Ihave been supportive of Renault in the past, you KNOW you have read posts to that effect, you KNOW I have slagged off at Williams in bitter disappointment so please do not post

JayVee wrote:

rah wrote:

JayVee wrote:
Ah but you can't answer why Michael never had a strong driver alongside him at Ferrari



Not Indy 2005

No I can't, I had no idea I was supoosed to. We DO know of the contracts the other drivers had, but we do NOT know why they never picked another top line driver. Maybe they approched them, but the drivers were turned off due to the contract. I have no idea. What I do know is that I have never seen it stated in anything I have read (other than your posts) that MS has a veto over any other drivers. IMO the contract would have driven other drivers away, not MS.

Ah I see, so it is only semantics. There is a condition in the other driver's contract to play second fiddle to Michael (i.e. helper in my book). Hence any driver that could be a threat gets turned away.

No that's not a veto by Michael
Perhaps in todays world we can call it a preemptive veto by Michael

Prove it JV.

JayVee wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote: And geminis

And its a Camira not a Gemini

I was being kind, however if you wish to publicly humiliate yourself by openly claiming ownership of a Camira, so be it

rah wrote:

JayVee wrote:
Ah I see, so it is only semantics. There is a condition in the other driver's contract to play second fiddle to Michael (i.e. helper in my book). Hence any driver that could be a threat gets turned away.

No that's not a veto by Michael
Perhaps in todays world we can call it a preemptive veto by Michael

Not semantics, a totally different thing. One is an action by Ferrari. One as you are suggesting is an action by MS. Two different actions by two different parties.

Ferrari and Michael adopt the same philosophy. I use them interchangeably. If you are happier to call it a pre-emptive Ferrari veto that is fine with me

rah wrote:

No that's not a veto by Michael

Absolutely correct. Glad you get it now.

I didn't think you are the type who takes other statement out of context.

Julian Mayo wrote: JAYVEE you will spend days sifting thru posts to have a go at someone, but wont tap a bloody key when you know the other person is right. You KNOW Ihave been supportive of Renault in the past, you KNOW you have read posts to that effect, you KNOW I have slagged off at Williams in bitter disappointment so please do not post

Excuses excuses

Let me say it in a different way so as not to make you angry,

Say you read an article that isn't too favourable towards Williams or Webber. You wouldn't just post it without making sure it isn't rubbish.

With Renault, you don't appear to do that. Yet you just called yourself a great fan of Renault which I thought was over the top.

This is my opinion, you may not agree, fine.

No noises please

Julian Mayo wrote:

JayVee wrote: No that's not a veto by Michael
Perhaps in todays world we can call it a preemptive veto by Michael

Prove it JV.

List the drivers who have partnered Michael then do the maths

Hang on, you think Michael/Ferrari (choose whichever) don't dictate the conditions by which a second driver has to follow at Ferrari ?

I thought you said Massa The Rebel will do as he is told

JayVee wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote: JAYVEE you will spend days sifting thru posts to have a go at someone, but wont tap a bloody key when you know the other person is right. You KNOW Ihave been supportive of Renault in the past, you KNOW you have read posts to that effect, you KNOW I have slagged off at Williams in bitter disappointment so please do not post

Excuses excuses

Let me say it in a different way so as not to make you angry,

Say you read an article that isn't too favourable towards Williams or Webber. You wouldn't just post it without making sure it isn't rubbish.

With Renault, you don't appear to do that. Yet you just called yourself a great fan of Renault which I thought was over the top.

This is my opinion, you may not agree, fine.

No noises please

JV, I have on many occasions posted the fact that I have followed Renaults fortunes since the pre-turbo era. It is the fact that you choose, as you so often do, to ignore that which angers. You often choose to attack a particular post, and take it out of context, while ignoring the history of the person's posts. By the same token the article you refer to was published in the Melbourne Age with a journalist's byline.By including his by-line, the journalist is saying he is publishing in good faith. Incidentally, it was the same journalist who published an article, which I posted a reference to, saying that this could be Webber's last year to seal a drive in F1. You did not dispute that article or my post. Now anyone with any knowledge of newsprint media will agree that The Melbourne Age is a respected journal, not an "oily motorsport rag" to quote someone or other.

JayVee wrote:

Redhead wrote:

JayVee wrote: So you don't mind having 2 teammates not on equal terms

No

JayVee wrote: The very basic of any sport is fair play

Agree

JayVee wrote: Luckily the rest of the field play fair

Very informative

Please inform me where I havent been informative and I will attempt to inform. I thought my answers were pretty unambiguous.

I asked a question which you didnt answer, not sure why you expect me to

Julian Mayo wrote: JV, I have on many occasions posted the fact that I have followed Renaults fortunes since the pre-turbo era. It is the fact that you choose, as you so often do, to ignore that which angers. You often choose to attack a particular post, and take it out of context, while ignoring the history of the person's posts. By the same token the article you refer to was published in the Melbourne Age with a journalist's byline.By including his by-line, the journalist is saying he is publishing in good faith. Incidentally, it was the same journalist who published an article, which I posted a reference to, saying that this could be Webber's last year to seal a drive in F1. You did not dispute that article or my post. Now anyone with any knowledge of newsprint media will agree that The Melbourne Age is a respected journal, not an "oily motorsport rag" to quote someone or other.

You just want to

Go back a bit and read what you posted:

Julian Mayo wrote:Ahem, meanwhile there is a story in the Age which covers the title of this thread. (Oh, no, not back on topic !)
Eddie Jordan, amongst others, states that Renault WILL quit F1 at the end of the year, leaving their premises at Enstone vacant, until "Schumaker F1 Audi/Volkswagon" opens for business.

Eddie Jordan states. Now who is Eddie Jordan to say such rubbish ? I don't think he works for Renault ??
And
A few weeks ago Renault CEO stated that Renault will review their involvment during 2007 and their decision to stay will almost totally rely on the outcome of the FIA/GPMA fight.

Now you can't see this is obviously trash being spread to either grab attention or some third party wanting to try and disrupt the Renault operations ?
This journo of yours may well be respectable but in this case he obviously hasn't done his homework and you just passed the info!

The Webber issue doesn't need arguing. I think most know that his contract is up at the end of this year and like any other driver would need to do well this year to renew his contract or get a better one with another team.
What am I supposed to comment on. Should I tell you, no way, he will for sure be in F1 next year
Had you said Eddie Irvine said this WILL be Webber's last year in F1 then I would have said, rubbish

Even the most respected journals stuff up. It is up to you to pick up what makes sense and what doesn't. I know it is hard to resist sometimes

JayVee wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote: JV, I have on many occasions posted the fact that I have followed Renaults fortunes since the pre-turbo era. It is the fact that you choose, as you so often do, to ignore that which angers. You often choose to attack a particular post, and take it out of context, while ignoring the history of the person's posts. By the same token the article you refer to was published in the Melbourne Age with a journalist's byline.By including his by-line, the journalist is saying he is publishing in good faith. Incidentally, it was the same journalist who published an article, which I posted a reference to, saying that this could be Webber's last year to seal a drive in F1. You did not dispute that article or my post. Now anyone with any knowledge of newsprint media will agree that The Melbourne Age is a respected journal, not an "oily motorsport rag" to quote someone or other.

You just want to

Go back a bit and read what you posted:

Julian Mayo wrote:Ahem, meanwhile there is a story in the Age which covers the title of this thread. (Oh, no, not back on topic !)
Eddie Jordan, amongst others, states that Renault WILL quit F1 at the end of the year, leaving their premises at Enstone vacant, until "Schumaker F1 Audi/Volkswagon" opens for business.

Eddie Jordan states. Now who is Eddie Jordan to say such rubbish ? I don't think he works for Renault ??
And
A few weeks ago Renault CEO stated that Renault will review their involvment during 2007 and their decision to stay will almost totally rely on the outcome of the FIA/GPMA fight.

Now you can't see this is obviously trash being spread to either grab attention or some third party wanting to try and disrupt the Renault operations ?
This journo of yours may well be respectable but in this case he obviously hasn't done his homework and you just passed the info!

The Webber issue doesn't need arguing. I think most know that his contract is up at the end of this year and like any other driver would need to do well this year to renew his contract or get a better one with another team.
What am I supposed to comment on. Should I tell you, no way, he will for sure be in F1 next year
Had you said Eddie Irvine said this WILL be Webber's last year in F1 then I would have said, rubbish

Even the most respected journals stuff up. It is up to you to pick up what makes sense and what doesn't. I know it is hard to resist sometimes

The post was about Schumaker, not bloody Renault.

Redhead wrote: Please inform me where I havent been informative and I will attempt to inform. I thought my answers were pretty unambiguous.

I asked a question which you didnt answer, not sure why you expect me to

Redhead,

I don't have a habit of ignoring questions. I looked back and found a question that I interpreted as a statement. Are you talking about this:

Redhead wrote:Last time I looked they were all competing under the same set of rules, or are you saying that the only true competition in F1 is between teammates because they are the only ones in equal car?

If that is all that matters perhaps one should follow Formula Ford, or perhaps Formula Vee, there's lots of passing ....

Here's a thought ... maybe Mad Max can change the rules so each team can only enter one car

Was that a question and was the following line an answer to your own question ?

If you expected an answer well I think we all know that F1 is pretty unique in that there are teams competiting as well as drivers competing.
The way most people like to see it, is where the two teammates compete with each other and as well compete with other teams. This ensures the team will get maximum points.
Towards the end of the season, if one of the drivers no longer has any chance of winning the championship, they shouldn't interfere with the drivers fighting it out.
Now some may not subscribe to that and emphasise on the drivers championship by having a first driver and second driver who acts as an aid to the first driver.

To me F1 should have real competition between teammates and luckily for us, there are several top teams who promote that.
And no I wouldn't want F1 to have 10 or 11 teams with 1 first driver and a helper.
That's the way I see it and I hope that answers your question.

Julian Mayo wrote: The post was about Schumaker, not bloody Renault.

Oh there was no mention that Renault WILL quit at the end of the year.

Why do I bother

JayVee wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote: The post was about Schumaker, not bloody Renault.

Oh there was no mention that Renault WILL quit at the end of the year.

Why do I bother

There was the phrase," back on topic" included to guide you away from your usual inflammatory reaction to any post that does not deify, or at least glorify Renault and Alonso.

JayVee wrote: Ferrari and Michael adopt the same philosophy. I use them interchangeably. If you are happier to call it a pre-emptive Ferrari veto that is fine with me

No I am not happy to call it that. I do not want to call it that, the only person in the world calling it that is you! You imply it id the actions of Ferrari not to allow better drivers to drive for them. I say it is bollocks and you have absolutely no proof.
I say better drivers do not want to drive for Ferrari because of their current or previous policies.
two completely different thing.

I didn't think you are the type who takes other statement out of context.

Merely proving once again how easy it is to misinterpret text.[/quote]

rah wrote:

JayVee wrote: Ferrari and Michael adopt the same philosophy. I use them interchangeably. If you are happier to call it a pre-emptive Ferrari veto that is fine with me

No I am not happy to call it that. I do not want to call it that, the only person in the world calling it that is you! You imply it id the actions of Ferrari not to allow better drivers to drive for them. I say it is bollocks and you have absolutely no proof.
I say better drivers do not want to drive for Ferrari because of their current or previous policies.
two completely different thing.

Fine don't call it that but I am not the only person to call it that.

Anyway you say "better drivers do not want to drive for Ferrari because of their current or previous policies"

Let me ask you, why ? why is it that better drivers do not want to drive for Ferrari ? what are those current/previous policies that cause those better drivers not to drive for them ?