hobbers
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 29,512
Was going to put a Rafa gif with that.Rafa is that you?
Was going to put a Rafa gif with that.Rafa is that you?
You need to learn what a "fact" actually is, as in all of the ones you've presented you've made assumptions.Not opinions, objective facts.
Max was stood next to Lewis in his car trying to drive away. Fact. He can see he's fine. Fact. He didn't see his tyre hit Lewis' helmet. Fact.
In Silverstone Max went backwards into a wall at 180mph. Facht.
If you can't accept that these are objective facts then you're just another deluded fanboy.
Umm, he didn’t go backwards into a wall. FactNot opinions, objective facts.
Max was stood next to Lewis in his car trying to drive away. Fact. He can see he's fine. Fact. He didn't see his tyre hit Lewis' helmet. Fact.
In Silverstone Max went backwards into a wall at 180mph. Fact.
If you can't accept the above it's maybe a sign you're a bit of a deluded fanboy.
That's fair, and yes it's been a godsend since it was introduced.Maybe it’s a translation thing then. Anyway thank god for the Halo.
In racing maybe not, in the scheme of f1 he drove for force India for a few years. He’s got a bee in his bonnet imoI am not normally a fan of Paul, but today he has been OK , to say he is a nobody is a tad harsh.
100%I think if max was going into anyone else he would have bailed but he benefited from taking out Lewis
Which one of those statements isn't a fact?You need to learn what a "fact" actually is, as in all of the ones you've presented you've made assumptions.
Still, it doesn't matter though. You're a spoiled child defending another spoiled child, throwing around insults that perfectly describe your own attitude.
There's simply nothing Max could do that you wouldn't defend.
Apparently your memory is shit.Umm, he didn’t go backwards into a wall. Fact
Not opinions, objective facts.
Max was stood next to Lewis in his car trying to drive away. Fact. He can see he's fine. Fact. He didn't see his tyre hit Lewis' helmet. Fact.
In Silverstone Max went backwards into a wall at 180mph. Fact.
If you can't accept the above it's maybe a sign you're a bit of a deluded fanboy.
Rafa is that you?
Same question, which one isn't a fact?
Anyone who resorts to putting "fact." After their own personal opinions really needs to look at themselves and their analytical skills.
He went sideways into a tyre wall. Maybe your eyes are as bad as your opinionsWhich one of those statements isn't a fact?
Stop embarrassing yourself with this incessant delusional whining.
Apparently your memory is shit.
Maybe you found the reason for the dodgy opinionsHe went sideways into a tyre wall. Maybe your eyes are as bad as your opinions
First 2 are assumptions. 3rd is incorrect.Same question, which one isn't a fact?
If you're going to die on this pathetic hill then at least be specific about what point is incorrect.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Backwards and sideways. The rear of his car hit the wall first.He went sideways into a tyre wall. Maybe your eyes are as bad as your opinions
Max was stood next to the Merc looking in at Lewis while he was trying to reverse out. It's not up for debate. What on earth is wrong with you people?!First 2 are assumptions. 3rd is incorrect.
If there is a hill you are dead in a ditch alongside it.
Again with the projection. The only person embarrassing themselves here is you, you've been called out by multiple people for passing off your own opinions as facts.Which one of those statements isn't a fact?
Stop embarrassing yourself with this incessant delusional whining.
Because they're idiotsAs a casual F1 fan, why were people against the halo?
No matter how much the two might not like each other (apparently), having your fly car inches from your opponents head after being to aggressive, only for the other driver to be saved by the halo from having his head knocked off, is not an awkward low speed crash, come on!!!Probably because he was stood right next to Lewis' car watching him try to reverse out.
As accidents go Silverstone was a massive crash. This was an awkward low speed crash. Trying to equate the two is absurd.
Your last paragraph won't make any difference, you're talking to a religious zealot. Max could have aimed a kick at Lewis and he'd find a way to justify it, and anybody disagreeing would be a "deluded fanboy".No matter how much the two might not like each other (apparently), having your fly car inches from your opponents head after being to aggressive, only for the other driver to be saved by the halo from having his head knocked off, is not an awkward low speed crash, come on!!!
The public want to see and hear Max do the right thing there, and in my opinion Max was at fault.
Before you reply by saying you're saying that as a Hamilton supporter, I lived in Holland for over 10 years and have a huge love for the country - so the opinions are not coming from a Hamilton fan but from an F1 fan
We love you too!No matter how much the two might not like each other (apparently), having your fly car inches from your opponents head after being to aggressive, only for the other driver to be saved by the halo from having his head knocked off, is not an awkward low speed crash, come on!!!
The public want to see and hear Max do the right thing there, and in my opinion Max was at fault.
Before you reply by saying you're saying that as a Hamilton supporter, I lived in Holland for over 10 years and have a huge love for the country - so the opinions are not coming from a Hamilton fan but from an F1 fan
Restricting visibility was the only viable one. The other stupid reason was that it took away from the shape of the cars.As a casual F1 fan, why were people against the halo?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/27/max-verstappen-formula-one-drivers-against-halo-systemAs a casual F1 fan, why were people against the halo?
I've been called out by a couple of salty fanboys who apparently can't argue a point to save their lives.
Genuinely dude, there's a lot of interesting aspects to debate about this race but you and a couple of others are focussing on some bizarre moral grandstanding argument based on false premises. It's a bit pitiable and very tedious.
It's brutal stuff.Jesus this thread is like peak Messi vs Ronaldo thread in terms of pettiness and childish arguments.
I think we need an “Is the F1 thread safe to go into yet?” thread.It's brutal stuff.
Everything these days seems to turn into a tribal binary thing with no sensible middle ground or civilised debate.
Everyone has to win their argument at all costs
From Max's perspective it absolutely is a very low speed crash.having your fly car inches from your opponents head after being to aggressive, only for the other driver to be saved by the halo from having his head knocked off, is not an awkward low speed crash, come on!!!
for what?Hope Max is punished.
Just the look of them, obstructed driver vision and historically a big change in the look of F1.As a casual F1 fan, why were people against the halo?
Yes Russell.At least the close rivalry is entertaining. Are we not entertained?
Of course he can, Max is just as egotistical and spoilt as all top F1 drivers tend to be.
I'm just not frothing at the mouth for him walking past a car that's revving and moving and not leaning in to check on a driver who is obviously fine. It's a 15mph crash and Max will have no way of knowing where his rear wheel went.
Trying to use that as a stick to beat him with is pretty pathetic fanboyism tbh.
Not opinions, objective facts.
Max was stood next to Lewis in his car trying to drive away. Fact. He can see he's fine. Fact. He didn't see his tyre hit Lewis' helmet. Fact.
In Silverstone Max went backwards into a wall at 180mph. Fact.
If you can't accept the above it's maybe a sign you're a bit of a deluded fanboy.
Just looking through the last couple of pages, you do use that word a lot more than anyone else. One hell of a glass house.I've been called out by a couple of salty fanboys who apparently can't argue a point to save their lives.
Genuinely dude, there's a lot of interesting aspects to debate about this race but you and a couple of others are focussing on some bizarre moral grandstanding argument based on false premises. It's a bit pitiable and very tedious.
its not hard at all. RiccardoDriver of the day is a hard one.
Bottas for getting where he has from dead last.
Riccardo or Norris.
That’s pretty much it, I wouldn’t be surprised if he got a grid penalty though. After what di resta was saying about Lewis leaving him room just after the 1st corner both would probably have been aided if Lewis shut him off completely making him go through the corner instead, because we all know if max sees the slightest of gaps he’ll try it.Max to blame for me. He has to yield or go over the corner and then give the place back.
I certainly don’t think he’d ever intentionally try and take him out though. If that was remotely true, he should never drive again. These drivers put their lives in each other’s hands and none would ever be reckless enough to purposely take another out… surely.
I think it’s Max’s fault, as I say, but I think it’ll be ruled as a racing incident
Yeah it’s saved a lot of lives since it has come in, didn’t it save alonso a few years ago with it holding the weight of the car on it, when it first came in I was more in favour of the Indy car one with the screen.Even some drivers were doubtful of the Halo at first - but I think it's fair to say with some of the incidents we've had since it was fitted, NOBODY should be doubting it anymore.