Aa V Mn

pete55 · 20 Apr 2005, 07:28 (Ref:1282713)

I see in todays MN Chris Lamben has said that the Baird/Dumbrell incident was just a racing incident but Tim Robinson from AA is saying it is Dumbrell's fault. I know which one i believe and it isn't AA. I feel AA will end up with egg all over it's face.

resisturban · 20 Apr 2005, 07:59 (Ref:1282730)

It wasnt Dumbrell's fault....

but he did cause the accident, and he was driving recklessly.

I have watched the replay many times, and in slow motion. Baird backed off, Dumbrell continued, and moved to go past Baird.

Bigguy · 20 Apr 2005, 08:15 (Ref:1282742)

Sheesh! Imagine what Dumbrell saw... a load of spray, a gap to the right of Baird, who slowed down. He wouldn't have even seen the other car (due to the sptray and the angle, being hidden behind Baird's car), and saw an opportunity to pass. Hindsight says that Baird overreacted by swinging as far right as he did, and Dumbrell had nowhere to go. Even if Dumbrell HAD seen the other car, there was no reason for him to expect Baird to move over as far as he did.

Dumbrell might have made some errors of judgement in the past, but this certainly wasn't one of them.

resisturban · 20 Apr 2005, 08:29 (Ref:1282750)

Baird didnt swing right...

look at the replay... he moves about 1/2 to 1 metre.

I am one of the biggest Dumbrell fans around, and one of the only ones to support him at clipsal last year where he was accused of punting someone into the sweeper wall.

Its simple... the fact that he went onto the grass anyway was stupid enough...

Also a Believer · 20 Apr 2005, 08:35 (Ref:1282757)

220kph rain spray low light and .012 reaction time ,,,,,,,,how can you blame anyone.

BAZzzzz c · 20 Apr 2005, 09:26 (Ref:1282804)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Also a Believer

220kph rain spray low light and .012 reaction time ,,,,,,,,how can you blame anyone.

YEP, Nuff said.

Psssst.. Congrats on the 1000 posts my man. Diligence indeed.

A9X05 · 20 Apr 2005, 09:35 (Ref:1282814)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Also a Believer

220kph rain spray low light and .012 reaction time ,,,,,,,,how can you blame anyone.

EXACTLY! At those terrifiing speeds in the wet with miniscule time to make a decision, its bloody stupid to point the blame at anyone! Its alright for some of us, Joe armchair critics to see a replay and to be able to disect every frame of video in slow motion, then sit back and be the all time armchair expert and point the finger. Then get on a P.C and tell the world how imformed Joe the armchair critic really is in these incidents without even sitting in and racing a Taxi! It was a accident no way intentional ,The main thing is the two drivers walked away unhurt!

Wrighty05 · 20 Apr 2005, 09:42 (Ref:1282824)

I was impressed that both magazines had the same headline on the front page.

Crowestar · 20 Apr 2005, 10:10 (Ref:1282843)

From one of them i read today its sounds like Mr Gore isn't happy at Dumbrell by suggesting that he might sue him. Grow up Craig Gore, it was only a racing incident.

**GTRMagic** · 20 Apr 2005, 10:14 (Ref:1282848)

Read Gorey's Corner for this week

resisturban · 20 Apr 2005, 10:32 (Ref:1282863)

Hmmm...

"Seriously, thanks to our friends at Ford."

Whats going on there.... lol

Uncle Cranker · 20 Apr 2005, 10:55 (Ref:1282879)

The "our friends @ Ford" bit was the Icing really.

Gory, Buddy if your out there somewhere; (man is he OUT THERE) can I have about 3 K's of that stuff, coz my wife is hassling me for a new Astra.
And if it's that good, 3 k's will make me enough to buy her one...............

Who's laughing now Larry ??????

pete55 · 20 Apr 2005, 18:04 (Ref:1283209)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Read Gorey's Corner for this week

Makes sense.

**GTRMagic** · 20 Apr 2005, 20:36 (Ref:1283326)

Is it the first sign that perhaps this motorsport caper is a fraction more involved and diffucult than first thought?

smithers · 20 Apr 2005, 22:42 (Ref:1283412)

I don't know haow to take the Ford thing. If it was serious i would have thought it would have deserved it's own sentence. If it's a shot, why repeat it the way he did?

Aarrgh8 · 20 Apr 2005, 23:14 (Ref:1283430)

I read it to mean that Ford did come to the party with some support in either parts or dollars.

That bit made more sense than all that stuff he quoted about inches.

smithers · 21 Apr 2005, 01:00 (Ref:1283476)

If that is the case, it reads as a mumbled statement. Hidden down the bottom as an after thought.
Almost as if his mouth is full of humble pie as he wrote it.

Aarrgh8 · 21 Apr 2005, 04:00 (Ref:1283524)

Humble pie? I didn't notice any of that.

pete55 · 21 Apr 2005, 04:11 (Ref:1283528)

When i work out what he was actually saying i'll see if there was any humble pie in there.

smithers · 21 Apr 2005, 06:46 (Ref:1283561)

If Ford came to help me, i'd be making a big point to thank them. Saying how there have been differences but they have been a big help in this instance.
IMHO, by burying the thank you in the last line, it's almost an after thought, as if he is hoping thst paople don't notice it.
Sort of like hiding the left over pea's under the mashed potato if you will....

I don't know, when reading the last few lines, i get the image of a kid looking down whist dragging his foot in the dirt and mumbleing an apology.

"... thanks to our friends at Ford. Seriously, thanks to our friends at Ford."