I haven't followed all the posts here, but can anyone tell me why Renault and Mercedes were not penalised for the wheels falling off like Renault were last year?
Tim
WhiteBlue wrote:Back to the Suzuka GP and why Chaparral's remark is not relevant. You get no points for setting fastest lap but you get WDC points for crossing the line first and you get initial track position for qualifying faster. So qualifying times and finishing positions matter. Fastest race laps are simply an issue of who is prepared to run his equipment a bit harder for a statistic figure that interest very few people.
Webber simply qualifies worse than Vettel does. It is reason enough to call him the slower Red Bull driver. Why do bookies give you 3.1 for Vettel and 4.5 for Webber to win the next race? Because they think that Vettel will qualify better and win the race. In a nutshell because they think he will be faster than Webber.
I see no point in getting personal and calling someone a jerk who simply has a different opinion. I trust Steven and his moderators to follow a good policy on that.
It was the wheel disc that was not locked in, and looked as if the wheel was coming off. This loose wheel disc, made the wheelnut loosen off, and then the wheel fell off. But I often wondered why the nut was reverse threaded, so the wheel disc could not have loosened the nut.n smikle wrote:Reanualt refused to park Alonso even in light of obvious signs that the wheel was about to fall off. I remember, Alonso's wheel was wobbling as soon as he left his pitbox and he drove it for a good long while trying to make it back on the next lap. It's not like this year when the wheels suddenly loosened for whatever reason.
I luv how Australia has brighter neon highlighting than the other continents!andrew wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0[/youtube]
That's wrong. Bookies will try to put the odds that will make them earn more money. That's it. If for example I got all London to bet a tenner on Webber, you'd see his odds "decreasing" dramatically (I mean going closer to 1:1). The reason being the bookies can't afford to let Webber win if everybody is betting for him. Actually, if you have the money and influence, you can buy and sell bets for different odds and earn money in a stock exchange-like fashion.WhiteBlue wrote:Why do bookies give you 3.1 for Vettel and 4.5 for Webber to win the next race? Because they think that Vettel will qualify better and win the race. In a nutshell because they think he will be faster than Webber.
Thats one theory. The other one is that betting is a free market where the betting money is pretty smart and bookies adjust the odds to just cash in on the margins. This means they they simply increase all the odds percentage wise the same so that they are 110-120% in total and their cut is all that is above 100%.Miguel wrote:That's wrong. Bookies will try to put the odds that will make them earn more money. That's it. If for example I got all London to bet a tenner on Webber, you'd see his odds "decreasing" dramatically (I mean going closer to 1:1). The reason being the bookies can't afford to let Webber win if everybody is betting for him. Actually, if you have the money and influence, you can buy and sell bets for different odds and earn money in a stock exchange-like fashion.WhiteBlue wrote:Why do bookies give you 3.1 for Vettel and 4.5 for Webber to win the next race? Because they think that Vettel will qualify better and win the race. In a nutshell because they think he will be faster than Webber.
Imagine you know Vettel's gearbox or engine is about to explode (insider info or whatever), so you bet for Webber. Now, you release the information about Vettel's reliability issues. Suddenly, Webber is more desirable, and thus the bookies will offer you less money for him. It's possible, given enough change in the odds, to sell your bet to someone for more money than you actually paid.
Hey ace you wrote it - Webber was quickest on the day - sorry thats the way it is not what you would hope forGugs wrote - Back to the Suzuka GP and why Chaparral's remark is not relevant.
Chaparral wrote:WhiteBlue wrote -I don't think this was the issue here. N smikle thinks that Webber is as fast as Vettel lately. Frankly put, that is a ridiculous proposition that bears no resemblance with the facts. Look up the session times and and you will see the error in that thinking. Webber is so bloody slow that on even points no one would give him a decent chance for WDC now.
Fastest Lap. M.Webber, 1:33.474 ... ...
Get real! As nobody is safe in the race for the WDC, nobody is going to be stupid enough to try and take another driver out. Because it is never known if his own car would be the one to be eliminated or penalised. Why not drop all the conjecture, and instead, look forward to a good race.lebesset wrote:take vettel out if it wins him the championship ? about as likely as the other way round ...approx 100 %
it was ever thus