Posts by goldenpilot2

And what about behind Eau Rouge? I guess how many drivers were actually penalized for messing up that corner?

If you look at the Italian forums, people are arguing the exact opposite. They claim a straightaway that's 300 meters longer, braking into the corner, and a chicane that feels somewhat similar to Maggotts-Becketts where the "correct" line is only about one meter wide (David Culthard)... it’ll separate the real drivers from the pretenders. And if someone messes up, I guess they'll just be punished at the next chicane.

And you can see I'm just jumping into this thread late

My apologies to the Formula 1 fans if there is already a thread about tracks; the search function isn't working properly, and I couldn't find anything on the first few pages.

To get straight to the point—here is a bit of news out of nowhere. It is common knowledge that Indianapolis is struggling to secure funding for the next three or four years in Formula 1. Apparently, Daytona already has a signed contract containing a clause to step in if Indianapolis drops out.
But that isn't my main point—the legendary layout of Indianapolis is being changed. It is true that it has been altered several times before (Ascari, Lesmo1 and 2, those two nasty chicanes...), but this change might actually restore some of its former glory.

In short—the first chicane after the start is being removed, the Curvo Granda following it will be slightly modified, and a new, much more "fluid" chicane will be added there. Here is a PDF from the competition tender issued by the local state government, which should result in a new layout for the 2017 season.

http://silvia.regione.lombardia.it/s...stensione=.pdf

The team would gain roughly another 300m of straightaway (calling it a "straight" since Formula 1 currently goes full throttle through the Curvo Granda) plus braking into a turn at about 230 miles/h for the first significant change in direction.

They are also working on drainage and a few other things... if anyone cares, here is the full tender:
http://silvia.regione.lombardia.it/s...=si&aggreg=PRO

P.S. I am calling on Rojs, Radić, the Žužul brothers, and all the other "unskilled" folks to apply. If we don't have anyone in Formula 1, maybe we can at least have some track designers.

I’ll just repeat what I told my colleague in a private message—Joshua Scott is taking this thread way too seriously (personally, perhaps?). I respect his effort and how closely he tracks the FCA group, but you can't really expect a discussion about Fiat to go without some mockery. That's just how we are. I’m not a fan of Toyota, someone else might bash the Frenchmen, and someone else will likely mock the Germans...

So, Joshua Scott—thanks for your input here. I’ll always enjoy reading your posts, and I plan to just ignore the trolls. There isn't a better way to handle them than total indifference.

You're heading straight for frustration...

Article 48.

2) On a road within a residential area featuring at least two marked lanes traveling in the same direction, a driver may utilize a lane that is not adjacent to the right edge of the roadway provided they don't interfere with other vehicles traveling behind them.

Does it say anywhere that this rule doesn't apply if you're driving at the "maximum speed limit"?

nimblebison8 said:So you actually trust diplomats, the police, and emergency vehicles with their lights on?

I guess God doesn't care about any of that. silverfox91 just used the speed limit as an excuse to break the law, so I am trying to show him that the limit doesn't really matter in this situation. If he is driving in the left lane, even if he is going over the limit, he still needs to move over for faster traffic. Amen. End of story. Otherwise, he is just part of that group of frustrated drivers who make up their own rules.

No, no, no—look, there are certain vehicles that aren't actually required to follow the speed limit law, so for them, it’s practically non-existent. I guess my question remains: are you really going to try and pick a fight with them too?

silverfox91 said:Maybe Wonder can sing battle hymns until the end of time and claim that someone has to move out of the left lane even if they're driving at the speed limit, but that's just nonsense. He also wrote that a truck driving at the maximum allowed speed has to pull over if a line of three cars forms behind it. It seems like someone wants to drive faster than the legal limit, and now everyone else is expected to bow down to them. 😂 😂

Now you're just talking nonsense—there are vehicles that aren't legally required to follow the speed limit law... and you're going to pick a fight with them in the left lane?

George Johnson24 said:Can my insurance company force me to settle for a repair, or am I entitled to a full part replacement?
http://upload.slike.com/?v=4qD2x.jpg
I wasn't at fault—the other driver admitted they messed up. We handled all the paperwork without needing the cops, and the insurance company agreed to cover the damage, but they're pushing for a REPAIR instead of just replacing the damaged part.
If the mods think this belongs in a different subforum, feel free to move it, just give me a second to breathe... I figured some folks here might have dealt with this kind of thing before.
Hopefully the photo makes sense...

Are you crazy? You’re really going to let someone strip the entire side of your car just because of some minor nonsense? Do you even know anyone in the US who can actually do that job RIGHT? Once you get your car back after that "surgery" and it's leaking, pulling to one side, rusting, or twisting like dough—then maybe I'll ask how smart your decision was.

Just straighten out that fender and call it a day.

neonfox10 said:You're looking at this from all the wrong angles again—for stuff like this, you can't blame insurance companies. The real issue is the American judicial system, which is basically just a corrupt mess run by people who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag if they tried.
Every insurer has the right to claim their policyholder isn't even remotely at fault in a collision; it’s a standard right, and they use it just like anyone else—nobody is guilty until proven otherwise, after all.
If our courts actually handled simple cases within a month or two, and if the losing party had to foot the entire bill for filing a frivolous lawsuit, then these obvious situations wouldn't even end up in court—or if they did, they'd be too expensive for the person losing the case (which, in this instance, would be the insurer).
The blame for this whole situation lies squarely with the American court system.

I've been saying for a long time that the American judiciary is the rot of this society. And all the nonsense—and I mean ALL the nonsense—stems from that one endless fact.

The problem, Joe, is that insurance companies act like total cheapskates. If they get even a whiff that you might actually collect a payout, you’re screwed. Instead of just taking your Toyota Camry to a shop and letting them settle their own mess, you'll likely end up losing out. They practically go out of their way to scam people—since what happened above was a total fraud—especially since out of 100 cases where they cheat someone, maybe only a couple ever make it to court.

A bunch of thugs—I honestly don't have any other words for them.

Keith Rodriguez27 said:He shouldn't have waited, nor should he have merged back into traffic immediately. He ought to have moved to the other side of the track, or even off it entirely, and then rejoined when there wasn't a car coming.

Well, he did move—and by the time he turned back, there was MORE than enough room. I guess his whole explanation is just completely hollow.

Douglas Parker61 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAWJO1fzQfc

According to
"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which:
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Articles 41;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or The Code;
- caused a false start by one or more cars;
- caused a collision;
- forced a driver off the track;....

So he got penalized because that reentry was unsafe. I guess.☕

mistybear87 said:exactly 😉
he should have waited for everyone to pass before spinning back onto the track to rejoin the race.

You are absolutely wrong. If he had STAYED where he spun, everyone would have been forced off the track, since his rear end was barely an inch from the edge. Not to mention how foolish it would be to expose the entire team's budget to a potential collision.

So, zero points for that explanation.

stormybadger8 said:Out of all the main contenders, Fernando Alonso was definitely the worst at managing this race.😳
I'm not joking; it seems pretty clear to me that on this track and under these specific conditions, Ferrari was far superior, which Felipe Massa proved quite effectively.
Then there's the fact that Alonso messed up several things himself, plus he got screwed over in the pits with his tires (or maybe he just blew it himself🤷), so overall it's a decent result, though he really could have done much, much better.

I mean, what can you actually expect when someone ruins their start, spins out twice in the exact same spot, loses control... could it have been better? I guess he did what he could during that final stint on those super softs, but those tires just don't last. Maybe 7 or 8 laps before they're shot and the lap times just skyrocket.

On the other hand, I understand that a constructor might mess up a car one year, overlook something, miscalibrate a setting, or just lack an idea... BUT for the mechanics to screw up two or three pit stops in every single, absolutely every single race? That is something I simply cannot wrap my head around.
Look at the gap in the fight for positions—the competitor is sitting at 3.2 seconds, while Alonso is at 5.6s. Well, that's not how you win races.

And please, enlighten me: who was the steward for this race? That penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton makes zero sense (actually, it's just plain brainless).

Driving without a license and blowing a .08 BAC... nice job, buddy. I guess we can all wonder what kind of trouble you'll stir up once you actually GET your license back.
Honestly, I'm not even sure how to answer that question. You passed the test, got the license, and immediately handed it over to the Department of Justice for "safekeeping"... congrats. There aren't many people like you in America.

As for the topic—you'll pass the exam just fine. You'll probably get your license issued normally, too. But give it maybe four or five or six months, and you'll likely find a process server at your door.