Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic
No I do agree with you, don't get me wrong - I just think it was a bizarre statement to put out. Yes, he should be penalised if he broke a rule. But if the justification is consistency and not the reason for the rule (danger), then it just reads really oddly. That suggests the priority is all wrong - we're penalising for consistency rather than the driver doing something dangerous.
GPDA sounds fine, but let's be honest - it was absolutely worthless. Mr Webber used to pretend he was some sort of hard man running it, like he was the local driver rep gangster, saying the hard things so somebody else didn't have to. But they'd frequently come to "agreements" with the FIA, and then Webber would whine about it afterwards anyway. So even with with the F1 driver equivalent of Danny Dyer pretending to be a mob boss, they still never achieved anything.  |
Well that’s true lol. But then to be fair I’ve been (and still am a driver/ steward/ marshal). A lot of the time, drivers only think of themselves and what either makes their lives easier or gives them a competitive advantage. I’m sure the FIA/ Charlie Whiting take notice of what drivers say, but then counter argue because drivers haven’t really thought things through from every angle