2014 Monaco Grand Prix

[ecapox]

Why are we arguing about Abu Dhabi and Canada in the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix thread?

[Phil]

That's exactly why IMO the hamilton / rosberg topic should be re-opened. These are fascinating topics to discuss and much to learn too (specifically what track could suit which driver). It would also clean up these threads because those topics would be more confined to the right thread.

[Kingshark]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

Didn't Rosberg absolutely demolish Hamilton by like 1 minute in Abu Dhabi last year?

EDIT: I just found out that it was 45.6 seconds, not quite a whole minute, but still a lot.

[SiLo]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

Didn't Rosberg absolutely demolish Hamilton by like 1 minute in Abu Dhabi last year?

EDIT: I just found out that it was 45.6 seconds, not quite a whole minute, but still a lot.

Did tyres have anything to do with that?

[Pierce89]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

I honestly don't know why this myth is still floating around.

Nor do I. Its probably due to his 2009 win after Vettel and Rosberg throw it away.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

Didn't Rosberg absolutely demolish Hamilton by like 1 minute in Abu Dhabi last year?

EDIT: I just found out that it was 45.6 seconds, not quite a whole minute, but still a lot.

Did tyres have anything to do with that?

Cracked chassis.

[60DShim]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

I honestly don't know why this myth is still floating around.

Nor do I. Its probably due to his 2009 win after Vettel and Rosberg throw it away.

2009 Abu Dhabi, Lewis qualified first. Had to retire because right rear brake failure
2010 finished 2nd
2011 won
2012 qualified fist, had to retire due to fuel pressure
2013 qualified 4th, had cracked chassis

I don't think it's a myth. When his car is working he seems to do very well.

[Kingshark]

I'd rather say Abu Dhabi is Hamilton's ground. He absolutely kills it every year in the slow sector.

I honestly don't know why this myth is still floating around.

Nor do I. Its probably due to his 2009 win after Vettel and Rosberg throw it away.

I believe that was Singapore, not Abu Dhabi.

[e30ernest]

I'm not sure if this was posted here before, but Derek Warwick, one of the stewards who investigated Rosberg's qualifying incident talks about their decision to let Nico go without penalty:

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorspor ... 60449.html

I know this won't allay the suspicions of some but we have to admit, they have much more data than we have to make an informed decision.

[siskue2005]

Now i dont believe he did it on purpose, but the backing up on to the track was intentional

[Richard]

Clean this place up or lock it.

off topic, so much off topic in this thread its unbelievable

Oh oh.

Posts talking about some other random track. Advertising a kitchen cleaner called "Hamilton" that kills 99% of known slow sectors, meanwhile Roseberg has become some sort of solvent that destroys Hamilton on contact. It's like accidentally walking into http://www.fanboy-r-us.com

Yoda member f1tech is? Hamilton beat Hamilton only. Does change have to come to from within too?

Of course being a technical forum we should have an in depth discussion about the possibility of Hamilton beating Hamilton because he's harnessed the power of bi-location. Once upon a time bi-location was thought to be magic, but we now know it is perfectly possible. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 62648.html

Hang on a second....

Catholic philosophers maintain that there is no absolute impossibility in the same body being at once circumscriptively in one place and definitively elsewhere (mixed mode of location). The basis of this opinion is that local extension is not essential to material substance. The latter is and remains what it is wheresoever located. Local extension is consequent on a naturally universal, but still not essentially necessary, property of material substance. It is the immediate resultant of the "quantity" inherent in a body's material composition and consists in a contactual relation of the body with the circumambient surfaces. Being a resultant or quasi effect of quantity it may be suspended in its actualization; at least such suspension involves no absolute impossibility and may therefore be effected by Omnipotent agency. Should, therefore, God choose to deprive a body of its extensional relation to its place and thus, so to speak, delocalize the material substance, the latter would be quasi spiritualized and would thus, besides its natural circumscriptive location, be capable of receiving definitive and consequently multiple location; for in this case the obstacle to bilocation, viz., actual local extension, would have been removed. Replication does not involve multiplication of the body's substance but only the multiplication of its local relations to other bodies. The existence of its substance in one place is contradicted only by non-existence in that same place, but says nothing per se about existence or non-existence elsewhere.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm

Or maybe not.