Elisons pamet ‘Ferrari’, Alonso par grūtībām ar Hamiltonu, Sainsu uztrauc ‘McLaren’ progress

Ja paraktos dzilāk kas notiekās iekš F1 pavēŗtos cita pasaule. Protams vispirms būtu jāiemācās rakt.

…tas labi teikts Mārtiņ……

Tirlliņ…kur es te kaut kur mēģinu pataisīt “Business F1” par baumotājiem?! Atkal uzprasies skūto kaķu īpašniek uz razborkām?! “Britu prese, kas nekad nav bijusi pozitīvi noskaņota pret Sarkano baronu” …pēc šāda ievada ļoti objektīvi nu nenoteikti nevarētu spriest par rakstu 🙂

Funny, tu neesi tā vērts, lai es ar tevi diskutētu. Es pasmaidu par tavu totālu nezināšanu par F1 vēsturi un tas arī viss. Vāries vien savā sulā. 😀

nu ja neesmu ,tad nepiemin mani te pajoliņ!

Funny, ja tu nebāztu savu degunu lietās no kurām tev nav pilnīgi nekāda sajēga, tad tev visi liktu mieru! 😛

Mārtiņ,cik dziļi esi ieracies F1? 😉 varbūt kādu faktu vari iemest ar linku,kur ir redzama Moslija paliidziiba Ferrarii…baigi gribaas zināt 😉 Var arii kaadu rakstu utt…gribās palasīt 😉

Fan , lai to saprastu ir jāvelk paralēles dažādās f1 politiskajās situācijās, jāseko visai f1 pasaulei kopumā…te reizēm nepalīdzēs pat internets… Tu traks vai, ka domā, ka kautko tādu kāds publiski laistu klajā un teiktu – ,,vot, lieta tāda ka boss politiskos aspektos ir tā un tā pusē,, …Tu zini, ar ko tamlīdzīgas frāzes beigtos?? ir lietas par kurām skaļi nerunā, bet sekojot šādām tādām ,,politiskajām zīmēm,, var izsecināt…..linkos var atrast tikai ņisekretnuju oficiaļnuju informaciju, kas ir tikai aizberga redzamā puse…

Edgar,Tu tgd esi Mārtiņš?! Es viņam to jautāju man vēl vairāk interesē kā 2007g.Moslijs Ferrarī palīdzēja un vēl tas gads kad Šūmis diskābeli dabūja 😀 Bet tas jautājums ir Mārtiņam 🙂 un kur Moslijs bija Ferrarī 5 tukšajos gados tīri interesanti,Mārtiņ 😉

Esmu pētījis visu F1 vēsturi. Par rakšnos iekš F1 Edgars jau manā vietā pasteidzās atbildēja. Par 2007. gadu jāsaka kad tā sezona ieies F1 vēsturē kur par čempiona tituliem cīnījās tiesas zālē. Spiegošana vienmēr ir bijusi lielāka mazāka bet tik skandiloza kāda tā bija 2007gada agrāk nebija piedzīvots. Par pašu spiegošanu daudz kas no tā tika uzspūst un inscinēts. FIA pieņem soda mērus jo lielāks lobijs no ientresētas puses jo vēlamāks soda mērs.

Iesaku ieguglēt un izlasīt sekojošu rakstu:
How Ferrari and Bridgestone Stole the 2003 F1 World Championship.
P.s. 2005.g. ASV GP farss arī ir interesanta lasāmviela, bet mani vairāk šokēja 2003.g. riepu noteikumu nožēlojama mainīšana (3 posmus pirms ļoti saspringtas sezonas beigām!!!!) par labu Ferrari un Bridgestone. Tas pilnībā iznīcināja arī pēdējās manas tolerances paliekas pret Ferrari un FIA. Tomēr naivi bija no manas puses censties uztvert cirku pa nopietnam! 😀

Par ko diskvalificēja Šulmaheru tu jau pats zini. Ja paskatamies kāds bija sods kāds tika piemērots par nesportisku rīcību bija visai relatīvs otrā vieta viņam nozīmēja zaudētāja vietu pec diviem izcīnītajiem tituliem tāteikt bijusi nebijusi. Bet pārējās nozīmīgās lietas kā uzvaras piedestāli un punkti tika atstāti ko viņš bija izcīnījis sezonā. Un kas lem par soda mēriem iepriekš jau minēju.

Nēsmu liels komentētājs lai atbildētu uz visiem taviem un doma biedru jautājumiem. Par Šulmahera diskvalificēšanu 1997. gada atbildēšu īsi sods bija relatīvs. Tavs pēdējas jautājums par pieciem tukšajiem gadiem man šķiet nesakarīgs.

Piekrītu Mārtiņam un varu tikai piebilst, ka 1997.g. sezonas kopvērtējumā Šūmahers nav, jo ir DQ, tādējādi es viņa tos 78 punktus arī nekad nepieskaitu viņa karjeras laikā izcīnītajiem punktiem. Kā var pievienot punktus, kuri nav atspoguļoti sezonas kopvērtējumā?! 🙂

Nu skaidrs… tukšajos 5g. Moslijs vēl tikai domāja palīdzēt Ferrarī vai nepalīdzēt Rihardiņ vai tad tie punkti ir pieskaitīti kaut kur?!

Iedodu tev linku par vienu no taviem 5 tukšjiem gadiem lai ar tas ir nepilnīgs ,bet konteksts ir.
http://apollo.tvnet.lv/zinas/mihaels-sumahers-aizgaja-pats-vai-vinam-paludza-aiziet/343007

Mārtiņ…labs raksts,kas balstīts uz baumām un pieņēmumiem un vēl vairāk,ja to rakstījis cilvēks,kuram nepatīk Šumahers 😉 Cik tas ir objektīvs grūti spriest! Cik atceros vismaz publiski Ferrarii teica,ka negrib,lai Šūmis beidz karjeru un kad viņš atgriezās MB,tad arī esot vīlušies,ka ne Ferrarī…tā ir aizberga redzamā daļa gan jau rakstam arī ir kāda patiesība! Moslija lielo palīdzību īpaši nejutu,ja tā būtu šaubos,ka komandas būtu ieinteresētas ieguldīt naudu un laiku,lai startētu un cīnītos par 2-3 vietu!

Var jau gari un plaši tarkšķēt par to tēmu. a paskatās pēc būtības, tad 2007 tas ir nekas vairāk kā neveiksmīgs pretinieka bloķēšanas mēģinājums pie apdzīšanas, kādu f1 ir ir bijuši simtiem un tādi ir beigušies gan ar kontaktiem gan bez tiem. Šeit beidzās slikti bloķētājam. So what? Viss pārējais – (tīši/netīši, mēģinājums izsist……) jau ir fantāzijas augļi
Ja jau tāda uzmanība, šim tad ko lai saka, piemēram par Sennas titulu, kurš tika iegūts apzināti izsitot pretinieku pirmajā līkumā. Kur šeit ir Šmeka brēcieni, ka šis Sennas tituls ir anulējams un sezonas rezultāti anulējami?

Mārtiņ, es Tev šajā sakarā iesaku izlasīt oriģinālu (Business F1 nav baumu žurnāls kādu to cenšas pataisīt fans81 :D):
Michael Schumacher – The strange story of his retirement
Contributed by Business F1
Thursday, 05 April 2007

The dramatic circumstances of the Italian Grand Prix and Michael Schumacher’s retirement will live on for a long time. After his rival was sidelined by a bizarre stewards’ decision, Schumacher won the race and then announced his retirement. But it was an amazing few hours, worthy of a scripted piece of drama. BusinessF1 retraced the moves that led to that startling finish.

By Tom Rubython On Sunday 10th September 2006 at 3:25pm, precisely the same time as Michael Schumacher passed the checkered flag to win the Italian Grand Prix, the staff of Ferrari’s press supremo, Luca Colajanni, started handing an A4 sheet of paper to journalists outside the team’s motorhome. It was a one-page press release announcing the retirement of the most successful racing driver in history, a driver at the top of his game challenging for the world championship. Colajanni had been given precise orders by Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo about just what he had to do and when he had to do it.
It was strange timing, as Schumacher was about to make the announcement himself in the winner’s press conference after the podium ceremony. Normally press releases are handed out after an announcement has been made, or during it – but rarely before. It takes away the point. As so it turned out when half an hour later Schumacher found himself announcing what everybody already knew.
The Ferrari team’s haste to announce its driver’s retirement was indeed bizarre. Colajanni had wanted to pre-empt the driver’s own announcement as if to make sure there was no turning back.
Montezemolo had exercised a strong presence in the Ferrari garage at Monza Park all weekend. On qualifying day he hovered around the Ferrari motorhome waving away journalists’ enquiries about what was going on. On race-day he had arrived with John Elkann, the most senior member of the Agnelli family working at Fiat, and Sergio Marchionne, the chief executive of Fiat. He also had Piero Ferrari in his party. One observer was mystified at the presence of all these big guns and said: “It was as though Luca wanted reinforcements.” But reinforcements for what? It was soon to become clear. Although everything looked normal in the Ferrari garage and motorhome, underneath the surface a civil war was concluding, in Montezemolo’s favour. It had run all summer, but was finally coming to an end. All that Montezemolo now required was for Jean Todt, the team principal, and Michael Schumacher, the number one driver, to run up the white flag.
In truth no one knew what was about to happen. Schumacher didn’t want to retire, at least not that day. And he thought he still retained enough power to get his way. But Montezemolo had long before given him a deadline of Monza and told him (expressly against Jean Todt’s wishes) that it was either driving alongside Kimi Räikkönen in 2007 – or retirement.
In a previous age no one had dared tell Michael Schumacher what to do. He had been king of Formula One for 12 years and for half of them was easily the sport’s most powerful man, eclipsing even Bernie Ecclestone.
Montezemolo hated this situation and had also come to resent Jean Todt’s role in the Michael Schumacher show. He took the Enzo Ferrari view that drivers were employees who performed at the behest of their employers. Todt on the other hand took a collegiate view; the top people at the team, including Schumacher, were his close friends and far from being his employees.
But there is no doubt that this combination of opposing management styles got the job done. And for that reason each had tolerated the other.
Only once before in the 11 seasons that Schumacher had been a Ferrari driver, in 1999, had Montezemolo insisted on getting his way.
Officially, of course, none of the above occurred. The official line was that Schumacher had simply decided to retire many months before and that Ferrari had signed Räikkönen to take his place, end of story. In fact, Todt suggested anyone who thought any different was “stupid”.
Everyone, then, is stupid.

There was clearly tension between Todt and Montezemolo that weekend in Monza. On Friday and Saturday, there had been an uneasy peace as both men went about their business. Then, on race-day, with less than 15 minutes to the start, Montezemolo broke away from Ferrari on the grid and went up to Räikkönen’s car. He leaned over the cockpit and gave a thumbs-up sign, as if indicating that all was going to plan. It was a strange action to pursue with his team’s close competitor at Ferrari’s home race.
After Schumacher’s race victory, Montezemolo was delirious with joy and, flanked by Elkann and Marchionne, in the full glare of television, he embraced Jean Todt and kissed him. But as Montezemolo kissed him Italian style and threw his arms around his shoulders, Todt quickly turned away. It resembled the scene in ‘The Godfather Part III’ when Michael Corleone embraces his brother Fredo whilst whispering his death sentence.
Then it was Michael Schumacher’s turn. After being pecked by Montezemolo, he too resisted his boss’s celebratory embraces and looked blankly over his shoulder. For Montezemolo, as he embraced the two men he knew the press release signalling his victory was being handed out to journalists.
It was now clear to insiders that Montezemolo had won his internal battle with Todt to turn Räikkönen’s option into a firm contract drive for Ferrari in 2007. And it was clear that Schumacher’s ultimatum of ‘Räikkönen’s or me’ had been ignored.
It was a battle Montezemolo had been determined to win. Six years earlier, to give the team the very best chance of winning, he had wanted to hire Mika Häkkinen as team-mate to Schumacher. But he had been blocked by the twin powers of Schumacher and Todt. This time he was determined to prevail. He wanted Räikkönen, and if that meant Schumacher’s departure, then so be it. And he also made it clear he was not prepared to carry on paying Schumacher his US$45 million a year in his twilight years. In any case that money was no longer available, it had been allocated to Räikkönen in a deal skilfully negotiated by the driver’s manager David Robertson.
In truth Schumacher was not simply being pushed out of Ferrari, he was not prepared to carry on under the terms that were being offered. So he reluctantly decided to retire. And in any event it was good timing – he was going out at the peak of his powers.
Naturally, in the circumstances, the two press conferences, first for TV and then for the press were sad affairs. Schumacher was very morose. He clearly saw no happiness in retirement. But he played the company line and did not vent any feelings of being pushed out. That was not Schumacher’s way. And the timing of the press release before his own announcement had given him no room for manoeuvre. It was done on the express orders of Montezemolo to ensure that he, and not Schumacher, was setting the agenda.
The sense of despair from Schumacher was obvious. He is the one driver on the grid who genuinely loves Formula One. He lives and breathes it. Whilst some other multiple world champions have rushed into retirement, he seemed set to drive on into his 40s. He was clearly not ready to retire after 16 seasons of racing, nearly double the average career span and equalling the career of Ricardo Patrese.
But at the age of 37, he found, like many others, that as far as Montezemolo was concerned he was past his sell-by date. As Schumacher’s long-time manager, Willi Weber, woefully observed in a passing comment to a journalist at Monza: “Michael found he no longer has the power he thought at Ferrari.” So Schumacher’s retirement was just as controversial as his entry into the sport at the Belgian Grand Prix in first practice on Friday 23rd August 1991.
The countdown for Schumacher’s demise had begun on 25th August 2005 when Räikkönen signed a one-year option which gave Ferrari the right, within a certain time period, to employ him, at a salary of around US$45 million, for three years from 2007 to 2009 with options to renew beyond that. The option price had never been confirmed but was rumoured around the paddock to be US$5 million.
Everybody knew that the drivers’ market was headed for a shake-up in 2007. It became clear that the contracts of the three best drivers in the world, Schumacher, Räikkönen and Fernando Alonso were all expiring at the same time – at end of 2006. It was a unique event in Formula One history and meant that all three could be driving at different teams in 2007. In normal circumstances one or two of the top drivers might be out of contract at the same time, but never three. However, in truth nobody expected any of the three to move from their incumbent teams. Schumacher was an absolute fixture at Ferrari and showing no sign of retiring. Alonso was winning everything at Renault so why would he move, especially as Flavio Briatore, the Renault team principal, was his manager? And Räikkönen, despite coming to the end of his contract, had options for the future and really nowhere else to go.
And that was how it looked in the summer of 2005 as Räikkönen’s manager, David Robertson, and McLaren Mercedes team principal, Ron Dennis, sat down to discuss the Finnish driver’s future. It was to be the first of the big driver negotiations for 2007.
As far as Robertson was concerned, it was all going to be pretty straightforward. He couldn’t comprehend Räikkönen leaving. The contract was up but Dennis had options to renew it well into the future. These options all stemmed from the original contract Räikkönen had signed in September 2001. Dennis had paid a small fortune to secure Räikkönen’s services including a rumoured US$14 million to compensate Peter Sauber. It was a complex contract – two years (2002 and 2003) at a modest salary and then three years (2004-2006) for a much larger retainer culminating in the near US$45 million he was being paid in 2006. But Räikkönen was far from a free agent at the end of his McLaren contract. By all accounts it was at Dennis’s option to take up another three years if he was willing to pay an escalating salary.
Dennis had security, but at a price. There is no way of telling what that price was but it was likely to mean Räikkönen receiving at least US$60-US$70 million a year by 2009. But Dennis, who had been bamboozled into agreeing the high price four years before in 2001, just before the 9/11 terrorist attacks when economic conditions had been very different, did not want to pay, although he still wanted Räikkönen to drive for him.
By all accounts Robertson was somewhat surprised, even if he didn’t show it, when Dennis said he wasn’t taking up the option. Although there is no independent confirmation of this it appears that Dennis believed he could cancel the option, and thereby his commitment, and open negotiations with Robertson at a more sensible retainer. After all Dennis believed, and it certainly looked the case, that Räikkönen had nowhere else to go.
It appears Dennis genuinely believed Robertson would simply agree a lower retainer, probably something nearer US$35 million. But it proved Dennis did not know the man at all. Robertson is an extremely shrewd individual. Even his critics say he can read the minds of team principals. He is believed to study their psyche in his spare time so that he can deal with them more effectively. In his short career in the paddock he has already negotiated with Frank Williams, Flavio Briatore, Ron Dennis and Jean Todt, and bested all of them.
Anyone who has had negotiations with him of any kind is aware of his skills. As one associate says: “He is the sort of man, and this is not said impolitely, with whom one counts ones fingers after shaking his hand. He probably secretly relishes that reputation.”
It is important to emphasise that at that stage of the 2005 season, in spite of Robertson’s reputation, Dennis thought he held all the cards. Räikkönen was dominating the latter half of the 2005 season and McLaren was the top team. Conversely Ferrari was in the doldrums – why would Räikkönen want to go there even if he could?
And Renault was out of the equation. Everyone thought Alonso was a fixture at Renault. When Dennis let Räikkönen’s option lapse he knew, or at least thought he knew, that he could simply wait for Robertson to accept his offer.
But Robertson sensed something different. He sensed discontent in the McLaren organisation, a sense of drift. He had picked up that Adrian Newey was leaving and that Nick Tombazis might do the same. He also thought most of Ferrari’s problems were tyre related and solvable; he knew that Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne had not suddenly become bad engineers.
But Robertson kept his counsel with Dennis and said he would get back to him.
Robertson considered his options and marched over to the Ferrari motorhome to get the lie of the land. He imagined negotiations with Todt alone would be a waste of time. So he sought to engage Montezemolo and Todt together. Again the wily operator had picked up their differences on his radar and thought he might be able to divide and conquer. He was absolutely correct. Whilst Todt was cool to the idea of hiring Räikkönen, Montezemolo was more than keen. But there were complications. Ferrari already had an option with Valentino Rossi and Todt doubted openly that Schumacher would want Räikkönen alongside him. But Robertson spoke privately to Montezemolo. Soon the two men agreed to sign Räikkönen to an option in Ferrari’s favour for a year, and to pay for the privilege.
But Robertson was not out of the woods. At that point he did not think Ferrari would actually sign Räikkönen. But it was his leverage on Ron Dennis. Robertson made sure by judicious leaks to journalist friends that it got around the paddock about Ferrari’s option. Dennis’s bluff had been publicly called.
And so matters rested, until the end of the season when Dennis heard on the grapevine that Räikkönen had signed for Ferrari. Although it was only an option he guessed immediately what was going on and decided he was not about to be kept on a string for a year whilst Ferrari decided his future.
By then the situation with the third driver in the loop, Fernando Alonso, was becoming clouded as rumours spread that Renault would withdraw from Formula One at the end of 2006. One very highly placed pundit whispered in Dennis’s ear that he had heard this would definitely happen. As sad as that might be for Formula One, Dennis realised it was very good news for him. As the rumour gained currency, whatever its truth, it effectively put Alonso into play.
Dennis made an approach for Alonso. He understood, as did everyone else in the paddock, that at around US$6 million a year, Alonso was underpaid. Dennis offered Alonso US$16 million a year. The timing of the move was perfect.
At that point Renault’s prospects for 2007 were at their lowest and McLaren’s, after its storming season, at their highest. McLaren had also just announced it had signed Vodafone as title sponsor for 2007; it had more cash than ever. With all things considered Alonso’s manager Flavio Briatore had no choice but to advise his driver to accept Dennis’s offer. He knew Renault at that moment in time would not match it (although later the situation was to change).
Dennis attached one condition to his offer – he wanted to announce it immediately despite the disruption it would cause to his existing drivers. Close friends say he was driven by a desire to get back at David Robertson and tell the Formula One world how clever he was.
Alonso’s signing was announced to an unsuspecting world just before Christmas 2005. It caused a sensation, mainly revolving around Briatore’s position and the obvious conflict of interest. Briatore took it all in his stride. Interestingly he and Dennis came up with entirely different stories of how Alonso was signed. But by then it didn’t matter. After the ravages inflicted on his bank account by David Robertson, Dennis considered it a good day’s work to get Alonso for just US$16 million.
But Dennis had seriously piqued his existing drivers and when they heard the news both vowed to leave the team at the end of 2006. They felt they had been double-crossed. Räikkönen’s position for 2007 suddenly looked precarious.

Over at Ferrari, Michael Schumacher was as entrenched as ever and the Italian team had signed an option with Valentino Rossi for 2007, this one at the driver’s behest. If Rossi decided to take up his option there would be no room for Räikkönen. The situation was slightly complicated when Rubens Barrichello read the tea leaves and saw that he also would be out at the end of 2006. Honda was desperate to sign him and he negotiated a release from his contract to take a big money, three-year deal. To replace him the team signed Felipe Massa on a one-year contract as a stop-gap. Schumacher expected that it would be him and Rossi in the cockpit for 2007.
But as 2006 began, Montezemolo realised he didn’t want that. Signing Rossi was Todt and Schumacher’s plan. He wanted Räikkönen, his man, in the car for 2007, and started scheming to get his way.
It may seem ridiculous that Montezemolo had effectively to politic within his own company, but that is the way it was. Todt had made Ferrari his own fiefdom, much to the annoyance of Montezemolo. The two had already clashed earlier this year when Montezemolo wanted to take Marlboro off the car for 2007 and find a non-tobacco sponsor. Todt wanted to stay with an eager Marlboro. Montezemolo tried everything he could to find an alternative and even invited Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP Group, the world’s biggest advertising agency group, to visit him in Maranello. Ostensibly he wanted to discuss whether WPP and its network of sponsorship agencies could help with finding a new title sponsor for 2007.
But Todt found out about Sorrell’s visit. And when Sorrell arrived at Maranello, he did not meet with Montezemolo but with the Frenchman. Predictably the discussions went nowhere. Todt told Sorrell he already had a title sponsor for 2007 and asked him why he was there. Sorrell wondered that himself and the visit had effectively been a waste of his time. But as Sorrell was leaving, walking down the corridor on his way to Ferrari’s reception, Montezemolo jumped out of a door in front of him and ushered him into a small adjacent conference room. He asked him what had been discussed with Todt and when Sorrell told him, begged him to find an alternative to Marlboro. It was all over in 10 minutes and Sorrell left Maranello shaking his head at the shenanigans he had witnessed between the two men. Sorrell had no intention of wasting his time trying to find a title sponsor for a team that already had one. Todt had already told Sorrell he had done a deal with his friend Louis Camilleri, the chairman of Altria, the Marlboro parent company. Camilleri had agreed a five-year deal from 2007 to pay US$200 million a year. It was the biggest sponsorship deal ever in Formula One and an offer the team could not turn down.
Montezemolo was in despair after the Marlboro deal was signed. It made Todt, now seen as a top rainmaker, even more powerful inside the team. In fact Montezemolo had begun to feel like a stranger in his own factory. Continually away on Fiat and Italian business, Montezemolo realised he had made a mistake when he had promoted Todt the year before to head the whole Ferrari car factory. He had expected him to fall flat on his face but instead he rose to the task and Ferrari, which had been in the financial doldrums, began a remarkable recovery under Todt’s stewardship.
Montezemolo felt he had created a monster in Todt that he could no longer control. Although the two men had worked together for more than a decade, they were like chalk and cheese. Behind the rough exterior, Todt is a self-made, cultured man, an art lover with impeccable taste. In 2005 he had teamed up with Hollywood actress, Michelle Yeoh, got engaged to her and was in many ways beginning to outshine Montezemolo himself.
By contrast Montezemolo is a proud aristocrat. A member of the Agnelli family by any other name, he is regarded within the Fiat empire as a marketing wunderkind.
No one in Maranello can understand why the Todt-Montezemolo alliance has lasted so long. One observer said: “It is a mystery, Todt’s not Luca’s sort of person and vice versa.”
It was never part of Montezemolo’s plan to get rid of Todt, he simply wanted to break up the Todt-Brawn-Schumacher alliance that so effectively controlled the team. And it appears that the battleground was drawn over Michael Schumacher, with both men determined to get their way.
But Montezemolo was more determined.
Montezemolo was not overawed by Michael Schumacher as so clearly was Jean Todt. That was shown in 1999 when the two men faced up to each other after Schumacher broke his leg at the British Grand Prix. Even after he had recovered enough to go testing Schumacher announced on Sunday 3rd October that he would not be fit enough to take part in the remaining two races of the year in Malaysia and Japan.
After the accident Eddie Irvine had taken up the running for the world championship title and badly needed the help of a strong team-mate. But the last thing Schumacher appeared to want was his team-mate to win the world championship and he had clearly decided, with Todt’s collaboration, to see the last two races out. Irvine pleaded with Montezemolo to intervene.
What happened next was instructive in the differing relationships Schumacher enjoyed with Todt and Montezemolo. On the afternoon of Tuesday 5th October 1999, Montezemolo rang Schumacher at his home in Switzerland to ask if he would change his mind and drive. But Schumacher’s young daughter Gina-Maria answered the phone and told Montezemolo that her Daddy was “getting out of his football boots”. Montezemolo questioned the little girl more closely and ascertained that she and her brother had been enjoying a rough game of football in the garden with their father. When Schumacher finally came to the phone, Montezemolo asked him if indeed he had been playing football. The German had no choice but to be truthful. Once Montezemolo heard that, he said to him that if he was fit enough to play football he was fit enough to drive in Malaysia and Japan. When Schumacher resisted, Montezemolo reminded him that he was being paid US$2 million a race and would do as he was told. Schumacher had no choice but to comply and on Friday 8th October the team announced he would indeed be returning for the last two races.
The incident had been a lesson for Montezemolo, who realised that a secret conspiracy existed between Todt and Schumacher.
He had run up against it before when he had wanted to hire Mika Häkkinen to partner Schumacher. Then Todt had told Montezemolo that Schumacher would not have it and would leave. In effect Schumacher was so powerful he could dictate terms and Montezemolo could not risk calling his bluff. But Montezemolo believed Schumacher would have stayed and was left smarting by his rebuttal at the hands of the two men.
So when the chance came to sign Kimi Räïkkönen in the summer of 2005, Montezemolo was determined to grab it. After a poor season when the team had won nothing bar the controversial United States Grand Prix, Montezemolo sensed that Schumacher’s reign was coming to an end. He would be nearly 38 when his last contract ended in 2006.
So when David Robertson came calling, Montezemolo was all ears. Robertson brilliantly played off Montezemolo and Todt against each other. According to sources at Ferrari, Montezemolo didn’t want to get into a situation next year where he was looking for a top-line driver and everyone was signed up. Montezemolo is in instinctive man and, as one person close to Ferrari observes: “He decided to put the bunsen-burner under the situation.”
That person confirms that Montezemolo had been bitterly disappointed when he couldn’t sign Häkkinen and it had always rankled: “The aggravation with Todt has been there the whole time but came to a head at Monza. Luca had wanted to see Häkkinen in the other car. He believes it is 200 per cent about the drivers.”

During the 2005 season Montezemolo decided he didn’t want Valentino Rossi even though he had a firm option to join the team. He persuaded Rossi not to take it up and stay in MotoGP. This decision upset Schumacher who could see what it meant. Rossi had had a programme mapped out to familiarise himself with the car prior to a 2007 debut. Schumacher
said at the time: “We are sad not to see him here. I think he has a very high talent
and could have done it in terms of driving.” Ross Brawn, the Ferrari technical director and a strong Todt-Schumacher ally was also upset and said: “We were very impressed with what he was able to do. It would have been very exciting. He was very impressive in all the running we did, otherwise we wouldn’t have taken him so seriously. It would have been a nice challenge to have. It’s a shame.”
Rossi’s announcement fuelled speculation that Ferrari had already decided upon its 2007 driver line-up and that Kimi Räikkönen would be named as Michael Schumacher’s team-mate for next season. But by midsummer it was far from decided and a full-scale battle was going on inside Ferrari. There was a stand-off, which would continue until the deadline to take up Räikkönen’s option.
Meanwhile, David Robertson was sensing that Ferrari might not take up Räikkönen’s option and that Schumacher would not drive alongside him. That prompted him to renew relations with Ron Dennis and make sure his options were still open there. But with McLaren’s 2006 car having flopped and the three top technical men, led by Adrian Newey, having left the team, conditions were totally different. So in May, Robertson started serious negotiations with Flavio Briatore to take Räikkönen to Renault. Robertson found a team principal who very badly wanted to do a deal. The downside was that the retainer was half what he had been getting at McLaren and half of what he had been offered at Ferrari. But against that was a very competitive car; in May it was the most competitive car.
The negotiations were a surprise as Briatore had clashed with Robertson in 2001 and openly criticised him and his methods. But now the Italian turned on the charm offensive and entertained Robertson, and his son Steve, on his boat in Monte Carlo. He also introduced them to his ravishing new girlfriend, Elisabetta Gregoracci, and she worked her own charms on the two men as they toured the Renault team principal’s new yacht in Monaco harbour.
Briatore was ready to forget the past if there was a deal to be done. And he badly needed the deal. By this time his position was very different to how it had been in December 2005. Now the future was clear and Carlos Ghosn, the Renault chairman, had made a long-term commitment to the team and even turned on the cash spigot. Briatore was able to offer Räikkönen a decent retainer, said to be US$21 million but with the added opportunity to accept outside endorsements, which could have been worth another US$10 million.
The two men held detailed negotiations and Briatore personally spent a lot of time wooing Robertson. Later Briatore would angrily tell friends that he felt Robertson had been wasting his time and had been committed to Ferrari at the same time as he was offering Räikkönen to Renault. However, this was not the case. Robertson had been negotiating in the genuine belief that Ferrari would not take up its option because of Schumacher.
All through the early summer, civil war raged behind the scenes at Maranello. But Schumacher found his power to get his way had gone. Montezemolo appeared not to care whether he stayed or went. At the
German Grand Prix, which Schumacher won with Massa second and Räikkönen third, the Ferrari number one driver put on a very public show of affection for his team-mate and totally ignored Räikkönen. It was a classic Schumacher display: he was demonstrating publicly to Montezemolo how he wanted it to be and how good it could be. But Montezemolo was totally unmoved. In fact insiders say it hardened his resolve to dislodge the superstar. And in August, Robertson was proved wrong when Montezemolo signed the contract with him. No one close to Ferrari was surprised, as one insider says: “Luca, being the politician that he is, closed off every rat hole.”
When Schumacher learned the news, he told Montezemolo he wanted until the end of the season to make up his mind about whether he would stay and partner Räikkönen. In the meantime, he didn’t want any announcement made about Räikkönen. But Montezemolo was not having any of that. He wanted the situation resolved and told Schumacher he wanted his decision by Monza, when he would announce Räikkönen. By then it appears Ross Brawn had also decided he would leave if Schumacher did. That news was leaked to journalists to pile pressure on Montezemolo.
The writing was on the wall. Montezemolo had come this far and was not about to turn back.
Montezemolo won the battle: Schumacher would not drive with Räikkönen and would
instead announce his retirement. But the
decision was very much against his will.
He would have rather carried on with Felipe Massa as his team-mate. Now the seven
times world champion, still only 37, has to decide what to do next and where life will take him.
Meanwhile, none of the pronouncements so far can be taken for granted. Despite the 17 years since Enzo Ferrari’s death, Ferrari is still a very Machiavellian organisation and Jean Todt, predictably, is seething about losing this public battle with Montezemolo. He knows he will never have the same type of relationship with Räikkönen that he has had with Schumacher. Insiders, however, insist that Todt’s job is safe and that he has too many friends inside Fiat for Montezemolo to contemplate sacking him. And they
add that Montezemolo, who is not regarded as malicious, genuinely doesn’t want that and knows Todt is the best man to run
Ferrari. One says: “Whatever Luca is, he isn’t stupid.”
But another outside observer says that Todt has been wounded by what has transpired and doesn’t believe the story is concluded, as he says: “Todt is the most malicious person on two legs and he will hold that against Luca.”

Vermin, pirms sāc tarkšķēt vienmēr pārbaudi par ko vispār ir tēma, jo tavas zināšanas par F1 vēsturi ir tik aprobežotas, ka tu gandrīz vienmēr pat nezini par ko ir runa. 2007 gadā nebija nekāds “neveiksmīgs pretinieka bloķēšanas mēģinājums pie apdzīšanas”! 😀 😛

paskaties sākumā visu 2007g. sezonas gonku un tad muldi,ka nebija bloķēšanas…vēsturnieks atradies 😀

Funny, tu pat joprojām nesajēdz ka runa ir par 1997.g. nevis 2007.g. Tu taču esi vēl lielāks pajolis par pašu Verminu! 😀 😀

Vai varbūt diskvalificēt/anulēt rezultātus vajadzēja arī Hillu par 1995 gada Moncu?

Tāli

Tb.tieši tā 😉

Fan ..es vienkārši paspēju pirmais… Mārcis uzreiz redzams ,ka ar šādām tādām zināšanām kabatā , savukārt pirms pieminēt 5 tukšos gadus Tev būtu jāsaprot , ka nekad f1 nestāv uz vietas, jeb katru reizi situācijas mainās, plāni mainās , scenāriji mainās….visos laikos lielu lomu spēlē intereses konkrētā laikā un brīdī ..tas tā bija un būs vienmēr…..

Edgar…pirmais Tu te vienmēr esi 😀 bet es kādam citam to jautāju! Esi vecis tak…

Fan – Tu neesi beibe ,lai es ar Tevi te džentelmenētos, tāka neceri ka vienmēr nebūšu pirmais 😀

es Tev saku,ka Tev nejautāju,ko bāzies tur kur Tevi nav aicinājuši!?!

Ir viena svarīga nianse, Tāli. 😉
Rorijs Birns UN Ross Brauns nepārgāja uz Ferrari kopā ar Šūmi, bet “tikai” 1996.g. beigās.
1996.g. Ferrari (70p.) bija tikai Tods ar Šūmi un Ferrari konstruktoru kausā ieguva MAZĀK par 3 punktiem nekā 1995.gadā (73p.) 🙂
1997.g. Ferrari jau ir 102 punkti! Progress acīmredzams!

Tā nianse neietekmē lietas būtību. Tods savāca ap sevi večus un izveidoja superkomandu. Un protams, ka tādas lietas nenotiek, tā – klikš un ir. Vispirms Šumis, tad Birns un Brauns, mēŗki bija skaidri, tad mērķtiecīgs darbs. Un 1996. gads acīmredzot pagāja daudz nedomājot par Konstruktoru kausu, bet gan par saimniecības sakārtošanu, bāzes izveidošanu.

Fan – nu lūk , ar to arī izpaužas fana parastā ,,paplašinātais redzesloks,, f1 politiskajās niansēs….. 😀 …Moslijs domāja, jā, jā , domāja Fan 😀

Kaut kādu huiņu Tu te atkal lej

..ja par f1 politiku spriedīsi tāpat kā par riepu faktoriem, tad viss Tev liksies h…… Fan .

Andi – no sportiskā viedokļa Šūmim gan vajadzētu pieskatīt tos punktus, jo viņš sezonā tur bija, guva uzvaras, podiumus un punktus…. tas bija vairāk politisks lēmums , ne sportiski argumentēts… man uzreiz rodas jautājums, kāpēc par tādu pašu incidentu kā Šūmaheram – 1998 gadā Kulthārdam saglabāja 56 punktus un 3 vietu kopvērtējumā (par konkurenta tīšu izsišanu no trases Beļģijā, kas salīdzinot ar Šūmahera pārkāpumu 97 gadā bija vēl tālejošāks, jo kamēr Vilnēvs pēc incidenta turpināja sacīksti, tikmēr Šūmim Beļģijā pēc incidenta nācās izstāties un zaudēt 10 punktus cīņā par titulu ) ….kā redzi – likuma burts pēc loģikas viens – bet izpildījumi pilnībā atšgārni savā starpā….nu tad ko daram Andi???????????????? ..ņemam loģiku talkā vai nē??? ..emocijas traucē loģikai…tā tas ir bijis un būs….

Tāpēc, ka 1998.gada incidents nav tāds pats. Gluži bez vainas Kulthārds nav, bet par tīšu izsišanu tiesneši to neuzskata.

Tāli – 2002 gadā Kulthārds pats personīgi atzinās, ka to avāriju bija izraisījis tīšām…bet tai laikā par to visi ļoti labi zināja , bet kā jau Mārtiņš minēja – visur ir savi plāni soda mēriem un to pieņemšanai…tas pats notiek arī tagad, kad mēs redzam neadekvātas tiesāšanas….

Tajā, ko Tu te esi “safleitējis” Kulthārds noteikti netzinās.
Palasi šo
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/06/1057430084085.html

F1 sodi par vieniem un tiem pašiem pārkāpumiem ir atšķīrušis viens ir tas kad noteikumi mainas dēļ gan ar komandām un pilotiem kas cīnās par tituliem ir maigāki un kam ir lielāka ietekme iekš FIA. Vēsturiski ja skatās kādi sodi bija par pārkamumiem 50tajos 60tajos gados ir radikāli mainījušie ar mūsdienām kad atsevišķi pārkāpumiem ir kā pašsaprotama sacīkstes daļa. Sen atakļam lasīju rakstu ar interviju Huans Manuels Fanhio kur viņam jautāja kādam jābūt sodam Sennam un Prostam izgrūžot vienam otru no trases. Ar ko viņš atbildēja sods būtu viens ja viņi braukt 50tajos gados.

Mārtiņ – sodi visos laikos ir mainījušies, tāpat kā viss pārējais šajā sportā…. taču sodīšana savos principos radikāli mainījās minimums pa desmitgadēm (50, 60 , 70 u.t.t. gadi) , taču divi vienlīdzīgi incidenti ,kas notika ar divu gadu starpību atšķīrās tik ļoti , ka viens tika sodīts, bet otrs vispār un galīgi tika nesodīts nekādā veidā, lai gan visi ļoti labi zināja Kulthārda telemetrijas datus un pārkāpuma veidu…. tur tā būtība….

Tāli – protams, protams, tas bija Kulthārda dubultnieks , kas privātintervijā (pārraides nosaukumu vairs gan neatceros) par F1 skaidri un gaiši aprakstīja f1 lietas un politiku , vēsturi…tas noteikti nebija viņš 😀 ..tāpat kā Joss Verstapens, kurš reiz atzina, ka viņa mašīna bija krietni atšķirīga no Šūmahera Benetton 1994 gadā elektronikas jomā…..visi bijām appīpējušies 😀

…žēl ka vairs neatminos to pārraidi – noteikti padalītos ar kādu linku…. tajā Kulthārds atklāja dažus netīrus pleķus f1 politikā tāpat arī to , kā Maķi cīnoties par Hakkinena titulu – uztaisīja šo incidentu gluži tāpat, kā Pikē ieskrienot sienā 2008 gad’,lai Alonso tiktu pie uzvaras…
tajā lietus sacīkstē telemetrijas dati vien jau uzrādīja Kulthārda straujo bremzēšanu vietā, kur tas galīgi nebija vajadzīgs..tur vispār jautājumu nebija..viss skaidrs kā diena…

Nu nespēju Tev noticēt gan. Un tas nav svarīgi vai tevi tas interesē vai ne Tas nav sarunas temats. Nespēju noticēt kaut vai tāpēc, ka neskaitāmos saitos pilns ar tekstiem, ka telemetrijas dati uzrāda, ka Ķulthārds nav brermzējis. Tu saki ir
Meklē linku vai atceries pārraides nosaukumu. tas ir interesanti, un noteikti tad ir jābūt galiem netā. Un muļķības, ka nets neuzcepjas, ja tas notiek pāris gadus pēc tam. Uzcepjas un kā vēl.

Tāli, ja Tu par beļģu GP ’98 – Tevis paša piestādītājā linkā melns uz balta izlasāms (izcēlums ar lielajiem burtiem mans) –

[quote]
The stewards looked at the data and I hadn’t braked, so it was just all brushed under the carpet. The reality is that I lifted to let him pass me, BUT I LIFTED IN HEAVY SPRAY ON THE RACING LINE. YOU SHOULD NEVER DO THAT. I would never do that now.
[unquote]

Kas tas vēl ir, ja ne paša DC atzīšanās avārijas izraisīšanā???

Jums tak ir skaidrs ar ko Jūs te diskutējat 😉

es ‘diskutēju’ tikai un vienīgi ar Tāli J. 🙂

Austin, ar mūsu Guru strīds par niansēm. Protams DC atzīst, ka viņam nevajadzēja uz trajektorijas “nomest”gāzi, spēcīga lietus laikā, bet vinš nevienā mirklī neatzīstas, ka darījis to TĪŠĀM AR MĒRĶI IZSIST MS. Teikums skan The reality is that I lifted to LET HIM PASS ME. Kā redzi ar pilnīgi labiem un nevainīgiem nodomiem. Es domāju, atzīšanās, ka vinš to darīja tīši, lai izsistu MS nav bijusi un nebūs (pat ja vinš to tā darīja) Apvainot viņu tik briesmīgā grēkā arī grūti. Viņiem abiem bija pēc tam tikšanās, abi nonāca pie secinājuma, ka sacīkšu negadījums. Vai tas tāds PR pasākums, kādas ir patiesās MS un DC domas, to laikam neuzzināt nekad. 2000 gadā žurnālam BILD MS apgalvo, ka tā ir vienīgi DC vaina. Ar prātu man tā kā negribas ticēt, ka DC to darīja tīšām, bet es nebrīnītos, ka DC acīs parādījās velnisķīgas uguntiņas , un vinš izmantoja situāciju saprazdams, ka neko īsti piesiet viņam nevarēs.

Tāli, pēc manējās atmiņas, DC kādu laika strēķīti nelaida MSch garām (tapdams apdzīts par apli)… Un izvēlētā vieta t.s. ‘palaišanai garām’ (bez novākšanās no ‘racing line’) ir dikti jau nelaba tādam manevram.

Plus – DC mēģina stāstīt, cik jauns un dumjš toreiz bijis. Pēc 2 sezonām Williams-ā un 2.5 (rupji rēķinot) McLaren – atliek vien teikt krievenieku teātra klasiķa vārdiem – ŅE VERJU! (c)

Tāli – atkal jau jāpiesauc nianses…. neviens tev tajā brīdī nevienā intervijā ne pēc sacīkstēm, ne pēcintervijās neko neatzīs…. gaidi ar maisu… kas tu nezināji, ka ir lietas , ko drīkst runāt un ko nedrīkst..vēl pa šai dienai šī politika tiek piekopta , ka pilots runā tā, kā scenārijā paredzēts – nekā lieka…. jej bogu pakonsultējies ar to pašu Aldi tviterī , viņš tev noteikti pastāstīs par tiem pilotu ,,pantiņiem,, ..vai uzraksti Vitālijam Petrovam – viņš ir ļoti atsaucīgs pter faniem un velta laiku atbildēm..ko drīkst un ko nedrīkst runāt komandu vi f1 kopējās interesēs…tāpēc jau DC to atzina tikai pēc vairākiem gadiem , tāpat kā Joss par Benettoniem… kurš ta tev ko atzīs tajā laikā un tajā vietā?…

Tāli – patin atpakaļ kautvai filmiņu – tur pat ar neabruņotu aci redzams, kā DC bremzē agresīvi , nevis vien atlaižot gāzi samazina ātrumu, kā to parasti dara atpalicēji taisnēs….īpaši no Šūmahera onboard kameras tas redzams vislabāk , kā Šūmahers saglabā noteiktu ātrumu un kā DC pēkšņi samazina ātrumu….. sāls nav pat tajā , kā un kur kas bremzēja – sāls ir tajā, ka notika incidents, kurā pilots atzina savu vainu….
…ja uzceptos, tad nets uzceptos jau pēc Tevis pārpublicētā linka un pēc desmitiem citu līdzīgu rakstu… tas, kam ir noilgums – kā saka – ir norakstāms….sabiedrībai ir citas lietas par kurām cepties, tici man…

galabeigās, pastāv taču arī tāds termins kā ‘bremzēšana ar dzinēju’…

Austin – tieši tā , taču bremzēšana ar dzinēja apgriezienu noņemšanu neizsauc tik strauju ātruma samazinājumu, kā tas bija DC gadījumā…skaisti jau izskatījās – DC notur MS gandrīz pus apli aiz sevis , sagaida taisni , un tā vietā, lai novirzītos no ideālās trajektorijas (kas ir svarīgi pat sausos laika apstākļos īpaši taisnē, kur nu vēl lietū un pie sliktas redzamības) …..sorry – nu …veči comoon…

… Vermins ļoti labi nodemonstrēja nostāju, kura būtu lielākajai daļai sabiedrības…jeb – tas bija sen un kāda vairs kam jēga?….sabiedrība šīs lietas tā arī uztver, tāpēc nekāda sprādziena internetā nebija un nebūtu pat no tiem, kas to DC interviju redzēja…..

Redzi, ja gribi dzīvē ko sasniegt, tad nav lielas nozīmes koncentrēties uz pagātni – tajā vairs nekā neizmainīsim. Jākoncentrējas uz nākotni, un tur pagātnei ir tikai tāda nozīme, ka no tās bija kaut kas jāiemācās 😀

tieši tā Vermin …tos notikumus pašus par sevi neviens jau netaisās izmainīt vai iespaidot… vienkārši ja iet runa par f1 tiesāšanas politiku , tad pagātni nevar neņemt vērā veicot salīdzinājumus ….tad ir nepieciešama tā kopējā aina…

Edgar V., vienreiz sāc runāt konkrēti par konkrētām lietām. Tu atkal esi uzrakstījis palagu ar apšaubāmu teoriju . Ja tev vairķas reizes norāda, ka telemetrijā, kas ir precīzs DC braukšanas atspoguļojums neuzrāda bremzēšanu, un Tu to nespēj uztvert. Es te negribu neko ne atzīt vai neatzīt, ja telemetrija rāda, ka nav….tātad nav, ja rāda, ka ir….tātad ir. Man liekas jautājums nav apspriežams. Tehniskas lietas, ne emocionālas. Kādu skandālu varēja piesaukt? Visparastāko. 1998 gada Ferrari nav 1990.gada Ferrari. Ir pavisam citi cilvēki, mērķi un ambīcijas.
Un par Kultharda atzīšanos tiešā apzinātā darbībā ar mērķi izsist Šumaheru, – gādā pierādījumus, ‘ņemot vērā Tavu “fleitēšanas” māniju ātrāk tam ticēt nevar:)))

…Tāli – noup , noup , noup – situācija bija viena – vai tas 1990 gads vai 1998 ….tam nav nekāda sakara ar ambīcijām..bet nu tas tā..ai paliek..
otrkārt – kā jau Austins minēja – nav jāspiež pedālis , lai TAISNĒ gāzes ATLAIŠANA nenozīmētu STRAUJU ātruma samazinājumu…. skaties no kuras puses gribi – Kulthārds taisnē tipa laida garām Šūmi? – tipa laida …..ņem vienkāršu loģiku talkā – kādā veidā DC varētu palaist Šūmi garām , ja nesamazinātu ātrumu?? – kas savukārt skaidri redzams no Šūmja onboard kameras…… vismaz kartingus esi promējis?? Tev pietiktu pat ar tiem . lai zinātu cik maz vajag , lai taisnē esot priekšā konkurentam tu viņam sa….istu visu gonku pēkšņi mainot savu ātrumu??? .. Tas ir vieglāk par vieglu…kur nu vēl formulām un vēl pie tam sliktas redzamības apstākļos….

….tas, ka nevaru pasviest Tev linku – ir pilnībā mana vaina….ļoti žēl , ka neatminos pārraides nosaukumu…..ļoti to vēlētos sameklēt (bet sevis, ne Tevis dēļ) …bet nu – tas no manām pozīcijām neko nemaina….mani neuztrauc kāda nezināšana (jeb informācijas trūkums) … zinu to ko zinu ,tāpēc diskutēju….

1)Nē nebija gan. Padomā mazdrusciņ.
2) Nu protams, ka samazināja ātrumu, Vinš nometa gāzi, pie tam ne taisnē, bet līkumā. Vinš labi saprata, ka nedrīkst pieskārties bremžu pedālim, jo telemetriju pētīs.
Stāsts ir tāds.
3)Man nevajag kartingus, esmu jau nobraucis kādu miljonu kilometru. vai tuvu tam. No 1982 gada. Un esmu nonācis tādās situācijās, vienreiz nepaspēju, iebliezu vecam Mersim pa aizmuguri.

Nē, nesākšu gan. Un ja tas tiešam tevi neuztrauc, tad tā tiešām ir. Neticu tev un uzskatu tevi par muldoņu un lielu fantazētāju. 🙂

lai tā arī būtu, Tāli… man tas netraucē 😉

Edgar…par 1998 Beļģijas GP Tu brauc auzaas….Ja nee,tad pieraadi preteejo nevis te tukshi lej pasacinjas bez faktiem! 😉 tas ka toreiz kaut kad kaut ko dzirdeeju tikai neatceros ko-neder! 😀

…..jau sākas Fan 😀 …. 😀 nez kādu stratēģiju šoreiz pielietosi 😀 ….vēsture atkārtojas…šoreiz pat neceri – paliksim vien katrs pie savas ticības – jūs par to , par ko neesat lietas kursā , es par to, ko redzēju un dzirdēju…..darīt man nav ko, kā saujiņai cilvēku kautko pierādīt…..nav jausmai – lai tā arī paliek veči….

Tāli, Vutnāns k-gam ir diezgan daudz kopīga ar Little Britain tipāžu Daffyd Thomas (kuŗš no Velsas kalnraču ciema Llandewi Breffi),’Vy ņe nahoģjiķe?”…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008tv1w

Domāju…ienākšu te…paskatiishos,ko Tālis,Austins un Vermins būs uzrakstījuši,bet te priekšā 5 Vucāna komentāri…tinu makšķeres uzreiz! 😉

Fan – nu jau – neizskatās pēc Tevis, lai Tu no kautkā ,,baidītos,, un tītu makšķeres 😀

Tāli…Tev tikai jāizbrauc ar kartingu,lai saprastu,ka DC speciāli uztaisīja crash ar MC,cik tas ir vienkārši,bet ja gribi būt F1 GURuuu,tad jāizlido ar kosmosa kuği,vēlams līdz planētai-KLAUNS! 😉

Fans savā elementā 😀 ..labu pasaciņu samontēji – tā tik turēt 😀

Edgar, tas princips nav nekāda raķešzinātne un nekā sarežģīta tajā nav, vismaz man tā škiet.:) Un to saprast var labi braucot pa ielu. Ja pēkšni tev viens priekšā strauji nomet gāzi vai nobremzē…un Tu esi ļoti nepatīkamā situācijā. Pie tam bremžu lampiņas signalizē par bremzēšanas sākumu, sporta sacīkstēs ši ekstra iztrūkst. Iedarbinot visu savu loģisko domāšanu, var saprast, ka sacīkstēs sportisti nonāk vēl neapskaužamākā situācijā. Kartings mani nevelk, bet pamēģināt ar kādu rallijam sagatavotu vāģi, kāda profesionāļa vadībā, kas pamācītu kā izbraukt līkumu sānslīdē – to gan gribētu.

Tāli – salīdzinājumā ar ielu tā tiktiešām ir kā raķešu zinātne…pirmkārt ielas satiksmē ātrumi ir nesamērojami ar ātrumiem sacīkstēs….visus šos principus nosaka ātrums un apstākļi… tas arī rada to nesalīdzināmo atšķirību….ja uz ielas piemēram tā pati bremzēšana ar dzinēju ir jūtama lielā diapazonā , tad sacīkstēs bremzēšana ar dzinēju pie 220 – 300 km/h ir kā stāvošs miets tam, kas ir tev aizmugurē un turpina savu uzņemto ātrumu… tāpat bremzēšana kā tāda – pie sacīkšu ātrumiem jau 10-20 km/h strauja bremzēšana prasīs aizmugurē braucošā reakcijai tikai pāris simtdaļu laika, kamēr uz ielas tā pati bremzēšanas amplitūda 2x un pat 3x mazākā ātrumā neizpaudīsies diez cik traki….. tāka šo principu izšķir viens faktors – ātrums…. kartiem protams lieli ātrumi nav, taču kartiem ir cits aspekts – braukšana aiz konkurenta centimetru attālumā, kas nekur citur nav raksturīgi, un sacīkstes , sacīkšu režīms tomēr atšķiras no satiksmes režīma ielās, kur visi nebrauc uz maksimumu un nenoslogo tehniskos komponentus uz maksimumu..arī tas ir viens no aspektiem, kas padara nesalīdzināmu ielas satiksmi ar sacīkstēm….šīs pasaules salīdzināt nevar…. esmu izmēģinājis , salīdzinājis, un iesaku arī Tev , tiktiešām….

te iet runā par DC un MS crashu,bet šis cilvēks mēģina neveiksmīgi izvairīties no savas fantāzijas un atbildības par tukšo pukšķi! 🙂

Te nu gan tu Vucān irs 😀 f1 full race ieraksti ir daudzmaz pieejami sākot ar 70-to gadu sākumu un pat tur ar pašu perioda sākumu ir problēmas 50-60 gados tu labākā gadījumā esi hailaitus redzējis 😀

Vermin…Viņš irš vienā iršānā nepārtraukti 😀 `

tur jau tas āķis Tāli , ka tās elementārās lietas ne katrs ir ,,uzķēris,, kā izrādās….tad ta pēkšņi sākam saprast, koa??? ..nu ta beidzot, jāsaka…

Nav nekāds āķis :))) Konkrēti kurš nav uztvēris ? Es? Austins? Vermins? fans81? Te nav neviens tāds, kas to nesaprastu.:)))

Tāli – konkrēti Tu un vēl daži bandas locekļi…šī jau būs kāda otrā vai trešā reize no Tavas puses, kad tad,kad Tev apstāsta primitīvas lietas sakarā ar F1 – Tu pēkšņi nomaini kažoku un saki – ,,ā, es taču to zināju,, , pirms šāda atzinuma katru reizi vispirms pierādot, ka tomēr nezināji gan… ja būtu sapratis , nepiesauktu parasto šoferīšu pieredzi un ielas satiksmi….

Nu redz, ka tomēr nesaprati Tāli 😀 …Ja jau Tu neredzi atšķirību starp to , kad esi uz ielas un pie ātruma 100 km/h samazini to par kādiem 30 km/h , un to , kad esi trasē braucot ap 300 un samazinot par tiem pašiem 30 km/h ,tad nu man jāsaka – man Tevis žēl šoferīt…. ja vienā gadījumā tie 30 km/h neko daudz neizteiks, tad otrā gadījumā sekas jau būs maigi sakot briesmīgas…. tur jau ir tā fiška Tāli …. šī nieka viena elementārā lieta arī atšķir ielas šoferīti no sacīkšu braucēja…