Sebastian Vettel has done what he needed to. He stuck his head down, gave it all and won the race. Ferrari's terrible strategy and McLaren's good form here have given him the world championship, well deserved. Lewis Hamilton is second, Jenson Button third.
Ok, Seg, this is just semantics : Sarcasm was technically the wrong word, but the intention behind the phrasing is pretty clear.segedunum wrote:No....you don't. That's what's sad about it. You might believe you're trying to be 'sarcastic' (looking up what sarcasm means might help), but since Mark Webber actually believes he's a number 2 and that's how he justifies things to himself there's not a drop of sarcasm or double meaning in there.djos wrote:Hey who wrote that, Me or You? That's right Me and I know how I wrote it!
Either way, the construction of the sentence was clearly intended to imply that the description was one that shouldn't apply to the current situation but is being implied by third parties regardless.The Dictionary wrote:i·ro·ny
[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
The use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
There's nothing ironic there at all because it's not 'conveying a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning'. The literal meaning, and from what we've heard Mark say himself, is that he believes that he's a number 2. In reality, he should not have lost that championship and has never been a number 2 in the chances he's had, making him look a bit of an idiot.gridwalker wrote:Ok, Seg, this is just semantics : Sarcasm was technically the wrong word, but the intention behind the phrasing is pretty clear.
Sometimes I think people around here argue just because they have nothing better to do with their time.
That's what forums are generally for.Sure tire situation sucked, but even if we get our A,B,C,Ds back, it would still be better to have refuelling because refuelling makes strategies with more than 1 pit-stop more effective. I hope I don't have to explain how.myurr wrote:Lack of refuelling wasn't the problem, it's the damned tyres. When the supposedly marginal option tyre can manage two thirds race distance on a supposedly high wearing surface without giving away much performance then something is seriously wrong. We need option tyres that are good for approx 1/4 to 1/3rd race distance, with prime tyres good for 1/3rd to 1/2 race distance. That should split the strategies between 2 and 3 stops with an outside chance of someone being able to pull off a 1 stop if they're really careful and are able to defend on shot tyres in the closing laps.komninosm wrote:Lack of refuelling made strategy variety and overtaking even more of a living hell than normal. I mean come on, every single car had 1 stop.
Hopefully that's what we'll get with the Pirelli's next year, and when coupled to the removal of the double diffuser then hopefully we'll get better on track action as well.
Maybe for you, it seems to be your raison d'etre.segedunum wrote:That's what forums are generally for.
What? Where else was he meant to go? The only sensible thing to do was to try and get off the track but a Force India scuppered this. If he went backwards, then there would have been a bigger pile-up. I think you have the orientation a bit wrong there. Anyway it was just one of those things, as Shumcaher admitted.komninosm wrote:What I also noticed was that Schumacher tried to go forward when he was facing the wrong way. Look at his tires. He had selected 1st gear and spun them, but then stopped as he realised it was stupid. Maybe if he had let his car slide backwards or off track a bit more he would have been missed by all other cars. That accident was his fault anyway. He lost his rear, there was no contact with Rosberg as someone said here.
I know! What was that?gridwalker wrote: What were people's impressions of Vettel's questionable pace control at the end of the safety car period? I am surprised that there wasn't an investigation, as he dropped WAY back (further than the mandated 10 car lengths IMHO) and Hamilton obviously had difficulty maintaining his position behind him.
andrew wrote:What? Where else was he meant to go? The only sensible thing to do was to try and get off the track but a Force India scuppered this. If he went backwards, then there would have been a bigger pile-up. I think you have the orientation a bit wrong there. Anyway it was just one of those things, as Shumcaher admitted.komninosm wrote:What I also noticed was that Shoemaker tried to go forward when he was facing the wrong way. Look at his tires. He had selected 1st gear and spun them, but then stopped as he realised it was stupid. Maybe if he had let his car slide backwards or off track a bit more he would have been missed by all other cars. That accident was his fault anyway. He lost his rear, there was no contact with Rosberg as someone said here.
Go watch it again...People don't want to talk about that. It scares them :pgridwalker wrote:What were people's impressions of Vettel's questionable pace control at the end of the safety car period? I am surprised that there wasn't an investigation, as he dropped WAY back (further than the mandated 10 car lengths IMHO) and Hamilton obviously had difficulty maintaining his position behind him.
Hmmmmm. Now that is ironic - doing the opposite of what you're arguing for.gridwalker wrote:Maybe for you, it seems to be your raison d'etre.
You can't make something ironic that isn't. Something isn't ironic because you believe that it is. I described where the irony was there, and it wasn't what the OP thought. That's irony. If he doesn't actually agree with 'number 2' by putting quote marks around it then he's arguing against himself. That's irony. There's no useful purpose served by putting them there.Placing the quotation marks around number 2 made it ironic, because it was using a phrasing that the OP does not agree with in order to describe a proponent who the OP does not believe deserves that description. The laws of subjectivity makes it an ironic statement, whether you agree with it or not.
That kind of explains the dialect of English we get out of companies these days........ It doesn't stop logical fallacies though.But, hey, what do I know? I only proof read all of my company's technical and promotional literature.
Please do, unless you're up for more irony.Back to Abu Dhabi please folks ...
It depends whether the blinking lights on the SC are on or off. After they go off signaling SC is going in, the race leader becomes effectively the pace setter.gridwalker wrote: What were people's impressions of Vettel's questionable pace control at the end of the safety car period? I am surprised that there wasn't an investigation, as he dropped WAY back (further than the mandated 10 car lengths IMHO) and Hamilton obviously had difficulty maintaining his position behind him.
Pushed the gas to stop the car sliding backwards and eventually continue turning until in the right direction again. That's an immediate reflective reaction. But there were too many crowded cars and he stopped.komninosm wrote:
He immediately pushed the gas pedal then stopped realising that half the grid was coming at him and this was no time to make a U-turn on track. Stop trolling please.
