Luigi Topolino wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Must. Stop. Laughing. Please - my sides hurt.

Seriously, does your thesaurus have bend and flex and slide as all
meaning the same? It may go someway to explaining your problem.

--
Graham

Make a little birdhouse in your soul...

Luigi Topolino <tifoso (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

No. Maranello would have been under too much pressure to survive if the
big manufacturers continued to up the financial stakes. With tobacco
leaving F1 and the FIAT Group in sempiternal disarray, Ferrari would
rapidly have found themselves on the seventh row. Something had to be
done.
....or in this case, lack of it.

C'mon, they're hardly "Crazy Al's Tyre 'n' Exhaust Franchise". They have
plenty of resources, data, and plenty of opportunities for technology
transfer from other series. We already saw the benefits of that, last
year at Indy.

Touché. But look how quickly Max reacted to change it back once some
pressure was applied from the FIA's best friend at Maranello. You really
think Max just unilaterally (and whimsically) changed his mind for the
fun of it?


Still illegal though, innit?

"...and will be applied selectively and retrospectively when our client
requests it".

Bollocks. Find me a qualified supporter of your POV, either in the
paddock, in F1 journalism anywhere, or at the FIA itself. Find me a
qualified, respected professional opinion ANYWHERE in motorsport that
absolves MS of all blame for '94 and '97.

What bullshit is this?
He has shown you proof, time and time again, that Ferrari endorsed V8s
and spec engines. There's no friggin' "negative" to "prove" there.
Please, no Sweeneyisms.

Not flexing, moving. *Sliding pin*
Now you see it, now you don't.

You are wilfully avoiding looking at this one face on.

Silly nonsense.

Nothing of the sort. A competitor was asked to explain his destructive
and dangerous actions, and was unable to come up with an explanation
consistent with the HARD DATA. A seven-times uber-WDC with enormous
experience making a once-only error, too fucking dumb even for a rookie,
on (surprise, surprise) THAT particular lap.

You'd forgive him anything, wouldn't you?

Not "fairly convicted"??? Seven hours of micro-deliberation and poring
over telemetry and video, by qualified personnel? What more do you want?
How would you have judged it (in the absence of neural implants)?

I'll give you credit for undying, blind loyalty :
"We looove you Michael; and that LaToya's bitch is jus' a lying ho'"...
--
ric at pixelligence dot com

ric zito wrote:
Q. Paolo what do you feel about the displacement and engine life package
proposals?

Paolo Martinelli: There are two aspects there. I think the extension of
engine life is effective to reduce the costs, it is the most effective
element in the cost cutting. To reduce performance and make a
significant step that is around 20 percent - down from the range of 900
to the range of 700hp, to go where we were in '95 basically, you could
say ten years ago, the rule has to be applied in one or two years from
now. *I think the only way is to reduce the engine displacement by about
20 percent, so I think the best technical solution to achieve that is to
have a V8, so we are in favour of a V8 2.4-litre to reduce performance
and we are in favour of a ban on the materials and the very expensive
technologies and increase engine life.* Those are the two principal
actions, I think, with a view on the engine side together with all the
methods that Mario was saying before concerning aerodynamics and tyres,
to improve the show, reduce speeds and increase safety in our sport.

source:http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/20...id/14002/.html

(Her Majesty's press corps no doubt made this up though...)

--
Graham

Make a little birdhouse in your soul...

On 6 Jul 2006 04:04:53 GMT, "Bigbird"
<BigBird.usenetREMTHIS (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Educated people can see through your childish edit, shitstain.
__

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:04:56 +0100, Graham Hodgson <ttgmh (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:
....Viz Ric's patently tortured insinuations, just what do you
"believe" you've "proved"?
__

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

Luigi Topolino <tifoso (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

"Tortured insinuations"? I love it. You set standards for my arguments
that you haven't a hope in hell of living up to with your own.

You criticise any citations, links, arguments put in front of you,
whilst being repeatedly and conspicuously incapable of offering anything
verifiable as a counter. That's just so weak, it's Wellsian.

Just back up your claims already, instead of slithering around like a
used bar of soap. Again : show me ANYTHING that backs up ANY of your
claims, and that counters mine. Anything at all.
--
ric at pixelligence dot com

Luigi Topolino wrote:
Why should I bother? You won't attempt to understand it, you'll just sit
there and spout off some bollocks about lack of education and a bigotted
attitude.

--
Graham

Make a little birdhouse in your soul...

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:43:34 +0200, address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote:

How do you reconcile this far-gone conclusion the oft repeated canard
that Ferrari do and have always out spent the rest of the field by a
factor of two?

The problems Michelin had and Bridgestone didn't at Indy last year had
nothing to do with the earlier resurfacing and certainly nothing to do
with Michelin's vastly greater distance racing experience.

No, I think the rule was changed to A) prevent another USGP-type
shakedown, and B) because the race distance tire rule only further
hampered an already gerrymandering punch drunk formula.

Since I don't know what was replaced I haven't assumed so, no.

....You do realize you are just making that nonsense up, don't you?

But I never said that either. ...Another of your increasingly foolish
"prove a negative or I win" gambits.

Please, no transparent sophism.

Hardly, I see it for what it plainly was, a locating element, neither
a pivot nor a mounting point.

In the absence of fact what else do you rely upon?

I'll certainly not convict him based merely on nationalistic bias and
fervor.

What do we fairly see, what can be objectively proved. All else is
prejudice.

Please... The only "smoking boys" here are the ones crying "Witch!"

__

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

Luigi Topolino <tifoso (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Hey, a reply. Cool - I'd forgotten about this thread.

Oh, very easily. Times change. situations change. The mighty fall, like
the dollar. The "oft repeated canard" was true until circa 2004, when
Philip Morris and Vodafone and others started deserting the s(t)inking
ship.

I love the way you do that. Stating a "truth" categorically, without any
proof, experience, or citations - and above all, contrary to the vast
body of evidence made public so far. This is a classic "I said so
therefore it's true" coupled with an implied "I am privy to critical
info which I won't divulge here" double-whammy.

I always imagined it far harder to design a bleeding edge, short life,
ultra-sticky F1 tyre than a long-life, harder tyre, which has
genetically much more in common with tyres from other series.

Bridgestone proved me wrong. Ferrari suffered, and the FIA jumped to
attention.

LOL. Wake up, Mark, you're sleepwalking.

"Prove a negative"? Will you please stop whining that nonsense for one
second? I said find someone who backs your POV (which is opposed to
mine) up. Nothing negative or positive there. I'm asking for a second
opinion, which you are apparently incapable of supplying, so surprise
surprise, up goes the smokescreen.

I give up. You're just being a dumb, graceless testa dura in retreat.
Again.

Such a moveable "locating element", being so much an intrinsic part of
this aero assembly as to be undissociable from it, is illegal. So they
covered it up. LOL. Blatant as Cheney.

I could ask you the same thing. Facts and you are distant cousins.

But DC, Kimi, Mika, Hill, JPM and others are all "fair game" for those
very reasons, eh Mark? Not to mention any Brit or Frog posting here.

Hypocrite.

Perhaps they'll publish the telemetry one day. Probably in F1 Racing,
which is deliciously ironic, given your opinion of that rag. Until then,
you can cry foul as much as you like, but justice was done - whether you
have access to the proof or not.

On another note - where are you off to for your holidays this year?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com

Luigi Topolino wrote:


A locating element. Well done - for the biggy: do you realise that any
object can be located in 6 senses? Longitudinally, laterally, vertically
and then in pitch, roll and yaw. The sliding mechanism located the top
plane of the wing in the vertical, longitudinal, yaw and roll sense. It
*may* have located it in the pitch sense too - that's impossible to tell
really from the photos. It did not locate it in the lateral sense. This is
known in engineering as a degree of freedom. Locating elements for
aerodynamic devices are banned from having any degrees of freedom. As an
example, a door hinge is a locating device. It controls the door's location
in all 3 translational senses, and in the pitch and roll sense. It has a
degree of freedom in the yaw sense. See how it works?

You clueless newbie fuckwit.

--
Graham

Make a little birdhouse in your soul...