Lauda: "Varat noņemt cepuri Hamiltona priekšā un apsveikt viņu"

pilnīgi nepiekrītu

Hose rakstīja: Laudā ir spēks

lauda muld vienaa muldeeshanaa jau kuro gadu peec kaartas kursh tad vinju vairs klausaas?

juha rakstīja: Neesmu Hamiltona fans, taču uzskatu, ka uzvaru viņam atņēma nepamatoti. Viņš šajā sacīkstē bija labākais un visu izdarīja pēc noteikumiem.

labaakais saciikstee bija kimi, luiss to uzvaru bija pelnijis PEEC kimi riepu nolietoshanas un izstaashanas

labais333

Tu ir pretīgs. Izvēlies lūdzu korektus izteicienus. Jau kurais forums, kur neko labu pateikt nevari un rupji lamājies.

labais333 rakstīja: gonsčik-samogonščik!!
klau,zaķzobi, hamis nogrieza trasi visi redzēja,,,,,,,,nav ko d.rst!!!!!!!!!!
viena fantastiska trases saīsināšana,zaķzobi!!!!!!!!!!!!!trulums

Nez ko labais333 saka par to kā Šumahers nogrieza trasi? Trulums?
youtube.com: YouTube - Pedro De La Rosa overtakes Michael...
Drīzāk tiesnešu trulums, jo soda Šumaheram nebija!

Ta jau ir pagatne, ja Hamiltons ir taads vecis tad vinam tie 4 punkti bijushi nebijushi un vinsh panems to chempja titulu.Ja nee tad nee, tad vinam PAGAIDAM nav lemts

mareks2 rakstīja: Nez ko labais333 saka par to kā Šumahers nogrieza trasi? Trulums?
youtube.com: YouTube - Pedro De La Rosa overtakes Michael...
Drīzāk tiesnešu trulums, jo soda Šumaheram nebija!

vel neapnika to linku visur baazt?

Kapec lai vins beigtu bazt video kur redzams identisks bet nesodits parkapums ? Tapat jau jebkuram aunam ir skaidrs ka ferari nekad nau godiga cina uzvarejusi un tiem m****m tas metodes nekad nemainisies

Runājot par Šumahera manevru:
Ja to līkumu Šumahers būtu paņēmis kā de la Rosa tad Šumahers nemūžam uzreiz nākamajā līkumā nevarētu būt priekšā de la Rosam. Nu nekādīgi!

Iesaku izlasīt sakarīgu rakstu:
In a sport that is often suspected of having a microprocessor in place of a heart, it was a minute of marvellous chaos. As Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen passed and repassed each other in the dramatic setting of the Ardennes woods, the mind flashed back to great moments from the history of motor racing: Juan Manuel Fangio chasing down Mike Hawthorn and Peter Collins at the old Nürburgring in 1957, or Gilles Villeneuve and René Arnoux banging wheels all the way around Dijon-Prenois in 1979. It was very nearly that good. And then they took it away from us.

The stewards' decision that deprived Hamilton of victory in Sunday's Belgian grand prix was an offence against just about everything that makes sport worthwhile. What we had seen, for once, was motor racing in hot blood, the physical expression of the emotions at play in the cockpit of a formula one car. Thanks to a shower of rain, all the usual polished precision was abandoned in favour of gloves-off combat. It was enough to get television spectators leaping to their feet.

But no, the men in blazers decided that it had all meant nothing. Applying the strictest possible interpretation and totally ignoring the human dimension of a race that had no need of their interference, they ripped out the joy of the moment and threw it on the scrapheap.

When rain started to sweep the circuit with three laps left, Hamilton took immediate advantage. Lying second behind Kimi Raikkonen, he mounted a challenge as the two cars slithered towards the final chicane. Raikkonen braked early and Hamilton drew level. But since the Finn was not ready to concede, the Englishman took the only safe option and cut the corner. Since that gave him an advantage, he knew he would have to back off and drop behind Raikkonen or face punishment. That was exactly what he did.

There is nothing in the rules to say how far behind a driver has to drop in such circumstances, or how soon he can make another attempt to pass. So, since he was clearly much the faster of the two, Hamilton ducked out of the Ferrari's slipstream and overtook as they approached the next corner. Raikkonen repassed while they were both avoiding a spinning car, but then the world champion lost control, hit the barrier and opened the way for Hamilton to complete an exhilarating victory.

Raikkonen had no complaint. Nor, it is said, did his team lodge an objection, but the three stewards did their job for them by deciding that Hamilton had infringed the regulations. They added 25 seconds to his overall time, enough to push him down to third place, to give Felipe Massa the win and to ensure that the gap between them at the top of the championship table is reduced from six points to two, rather than expanded to eight.

The cynical view - and formula one seldom invites any other kind - would be to point out that there are five races left in this season's championship and that a battle to the wire is of greater value to those who hold the sport's commercial rights. Since the closing of the gap will boost interest in Ferrari's home grand prix at Monza this coming Sunday, the decision will also do nothing to dispel the widespread belief that the sport's rulebook is written not just in Italian but in the Modenese dialect.

Examples of judgments favouring Ferrari are now too numerous to be dismissed. Most recently, why was a fine against the team the only punishment for Massa's dangerous exit from the pits during the grand prix in Valencia, allowing him to keep his victory, when Bruno Senna, doing exactly the same thing in the GP2 race at Spa, was given a drive-through penalty that cost him a win? It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if the roles of Hamilton and Raikkonen had been reversed on Sunday, no action would have been taken against the Ferrari driver.

It is not necessary to be a fan of Hamilton or the McLaren team, or to harbour a dislike of Ferrari, to see that here is a miscarriage of justice entirely consistent with formula one's current code of practice, in which the rules mean whatever the men in charge want them to mean.

It is no coincidence the sport is gradually moving towards wide-eyed new audiences in Russia, China, India and the Arab countries, where formula one means Ferrari and governments are willing to spend their people's money on it, and away from its traditional base in Europe, where - as this weekend's outcry demonstrated - the fans know what they are looking at and can tell when they are being treated like idiots.

Nu tieši to pašu var teikt par Šūmja izgājienu Monaco 2006. Tur principā ne ar kādiem paņēmieniem nebija iespējams pierādīt, ka viņš to izdarīja speciāli. Pilots vienkārši kļūdījās. Jebkurš cits pilots viņa vietā būtu apstājies tieši turpat vai pat ievilktu sienā. Tomēr visi zin, kas ir Šūmahers, tāpēc arī sods tika piespriests. Domāju, ka arī Hamis pamazām pievērš sev uzmanību ne tajā labākajā veidā.

Ir pilnīgi skaidrs, ka arī Raikonens vienu brīdi kārtīgi izbrauca no trases un atgriezās tajā pa trases blakus joslu un ja viņš būtu mēģinājis braukt pa trasi, tad nebūtu atradies tik tuvu Luisam, respektīvi ja Kimi būtu izbraucis šo līkumu aiz viņa. Tātad arī Kimi tajā brīdī ieguva labumu!!!

Lūk ko vēsta ārzemju mediji:
'Hamilton 'cut a chicane and gained an advantage, but Raikkonen not only gained an advantage by running on to the high-friction run-off area on the exit to La Source on the opening lap, but did likewise at Pouhon on the 43rd, before he spun. At no stage did the stewards propose a penalty for those actions.'
Tātad Kimi ir ieguvis labumu pat 2 reizes!

Kimi tu esi īstenais čempions bet Hamiltonam ir jābeidz lekties un tad viņs būs pelnījis čempiona titulu.

';

Hamiltons neko nau pelnījis tikmēr kamēr nemainīs atieksmi.

';

Ai lauda aizveries,it ka kadu interese ko tu doma

Jaa es ari tapat domaju par ferari.bet vai tapec jaatkartojas 10 reizes?