2010 F1 Belgian Grand Prix

[Bram Turismo]

I don't understand why so many people are doubting Petrovs seat to be honest

Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting Petrov at all. It's just the fact that I am so inpatient to see Kobayashi shine in a fast car and I'm sort of afraid the Sauber might not get faster and Kobayashi might turn in a wasted/ forgotten talent if he'd never find a better seat than the Sauber. Petrov deserves a second year to evolve, but things may be different from Renault's point of view as Ardius has mentioned.

 

[FishforRent]

....It's just the fact that I am so inpatient to see Kobayashi shine in a fast car and I'm sort of afraid the Sauber might not get faster and Kobayashi might turn in a wasted/ forgotten talent if he'd never find a better seat than the Sauber.

I, too share your enthusiasum for Kobayashi. His racecraft caught my eye early on in the season. At times it appeared that he was battling 'over-his-head' with some of the upper class cars, thus finding himself in the sand or grass (and sometimes without all his car-parts) but he was just dueling with the only sword he had, and that is impressive to me. That he didn't just put his sled in the way, but rather, made anyone who attempts to pass him....earn it...without destroying them or him. Minor mistakes this season, learning pains, but I would love to see him in the Renault or even Force India.

Truth betold, if Sauber can improve their car even alittle, I believe he could place in the top 5 every weekend. And that should keep the team afloat while further chassis improvements are found.

Seismica: Thanks for the club link.....I'm aboard. 👍

 

[Akmuq]

Maybe as a second reserve driver, just incase Alonso and Massa hit each other one day and injure each other...

That would be team orders if it was only those 2 fighting for the championship and alonso was ahead on points.

 

[albteman015]

FIA lol

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/241735/massa-starting-error-now-under-investigation/

 

[The Outlaw]

Wow...

It's time to investigate nearly a week later

 

[FishforRent]

The steward that was behind him never looked towards the start. The steward that was in 'charge' of his row was looking down the whole time. Maybe he was texting someone.

 

[albteman015]

Wow...

It's time to investigate nearly a week later

they are extremely efficient.

 

[Prince.M5]

Owh FIA, that's how you work!

Now what, 5 places grid penalty? 20 seconds race time penalty? Or will they bring it to a court? Sheesh!!

 

[Ardius]

Note that they are investigating how it occured, not if Massa did anything wrong. This implies they will take steps to prevent it being missed or occuring again, not necessarily hand out penalties.
Keep the faith people.

 

[niky]

I have faith in the slowness of bureaucracy.

Wow...

It's time to investigate nearly a week later

They're trying to set a record. Look for the next championship-deciding incident to be decided upon two months after the fact.

In fact (looks it up...) isn't that meeting where they're going to discuss the "team orders" thing happening within a week or two?

 

[Ardius]

The flip-side is not providing enough time to gather and analyse sufficient evidence.

 

[niky]

The flip-side is not providing enough time to gather and analyse sufficient evidence.

While this is true, a championship is going on in the background, so it's in their best interests to decide everything in a timely manner.

 

[The Outlaw]

They're trying to set a record. Look for the next championship-deciding incident to be decided upon two months after the fact.

At this rate I wouldn't be surprised one bit

While this is true, a championship is going on in the background, so it's in their best interests to decide everything in a timely manner.

This.

Regarding the the team orders incident w/ Ferrari @ Hockenheim - waiting 2-3 months to prosecute Ferrari and potentially change the results (which could then impact all the other teams who were in points scoring positions) is a bit asinine IMO. Fans of the sport don't like seeing results changed 2-3 months down the line when all the evidence and wrong doings were done right there and then on race day.

It can't be said that the FIA is overly efficient when it comes to getting their "investigations" done in a timely/respectable manner. To me they make a mockery out of the race and results, without much second thought or respect to the followers of the sport...as they work at their own pace as if they are truly bigger than F1.

 

[yeti]

It can't be said that the FIA is overly efficient when it comes to getting their "investigations" done in a timely/respectable manner. To me they make a mockery out of the race and results, without much second thought or respect to the followers of the sport...as they work at their own pace as if they are truly bigger than F1.

To be fair - it's Ferrari that make the mockery of the sport - the FIA just add some extra laughs.

I'm also really concerned about this...

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/241595/belgian-gp-in-trouble-to-run-every-other-year/

This is all Bernie's fault - clearly the race doesn't make any money - yet is one of the most attended races of the year... this MUST be down to FOM taking too big a cut.

If Bernie doesn't change this - then we will lose a very important race on the calendar.

C.

 

[Ardius]

Regarding the the team orders incident w/ Ferrari @ Hockenheim - waiting 2-3 months to prosecute Ferrari and potentially change the results (which could then impact all the other teams who were in points scoring positions) is a bit asinine IMO. Fans of the sport don't like seeing results changed 2-3 months down the line when all the evidence and wrong doings were done right there and then on race day.

It can't be said that the FIA is overly efficient when it comes to getting their "investigations" done in a timely/respectable manner. To me they make a mockery out of the race and results, without much second thought or respect to the followers of the sport...as they work at their own pace as if they are truly bigger than F1.

You're assuming the race results will be changed, please name one race where the results were altered several months after the event? The FIA don't alter the race results very often, even in extreme circumstances such as Singapore 2008.

The championship results however, are not decided yet and I have no problem with them being altered through penalties etc.

The most likely thing Ferrari will get is a fine or lose their constructors points from that race. The worst they can get is an outright ban or a race suspension.

While I agree that the FIA aren't perfect, I think most of you are being overly critical for the sake of it. The hearing hasn't even happened yet.
Most FIA decisions do happen fairly quickly, some important ones don't but I tend to believe they have good reasons most of the time. For example, they are taking an age deciding who is going to be the 13th team in 2011....but then they may be carrying out a more thorough research than last time just so USF1 doesn't occur again. They backed up their delay with Hamilton's penalty at Valencia due to the lack of decent footage and the time it takes to gather the evidence and then analyse it.
It also needs to be pointed out that rarely are decisions clear cut. The very fact people are debating what penalty Ferrari should get shows how long they could debate it themselves.

I'm not pretending the FIA are perfect here, I agree they need to improve. However, I don't agree that this particular case has taken too long because its a serious case which requires a longer, more considered approach than simply throwing them in front of the stewards and handing out a penalty. The case may require a more serious penalty than the stewards can actually give (thats the whole point of the WMSC) and not only that, but the FIA have to consider the ramifications of the penalty.

 

[The Outlaw]

You're assuming the race results will be changed, please name one race where the results were altered several months after the event? The FIA don't alter the race results very often, even in extreme circumstances such as Singapore 2008..

No I'm not, if YOU hadn't assumed what I said, you would have realized the word "potentially" in my sentence. I don't assume any definite penalty in this circumstance.

And when I said race results I think I better meant point results, which are basically one in the same in the whole scheme of things (the main goal - the Championship).

Also, Singapore was a very different circumstance to Hockenheim, as the actual foul play that took place wasn't uncovered until many months later after the Championship had already been decided. No one had any idea WHATSOEVER of any foul play the night of the race except a very select few within the team. Had the FIA and stewards been aware of such a situation at the time, they had better reacted in a timely matter...but knowing them they probably wouldn't have anyway...but that's ok, right...

The championship results however, are not decided yet and I have no problem with them being altered through penalties etc.

The most likely thing Ferrari will get is a fine or lose their constructors points from that race. The worst they can get is an outright ban or a race suspension.

Even if Ferrari lose contructors points from that race, because of the fact that they violated the rules they basically whisked away points (because they weren't DQ'd on spot) that could have/should have been awarded to other drivers/teams who would have finished higher up the running order. This is the issue I bring up.

While I agree that the FIA aren't perfect, I think most of you are being overly critical for the sake of it. The hearing hasn't even happened yet.
Most FIA decisions do happen fairly quickly, some important ones don't but I tend to believe they have good reasons most of the time. For example, they are taking an age deciding who is going to be the 13th team in 2011....but then they may be carrying out a more thorough research than last time just so USF1 doesn't occur again. They backed up their delay with Hamilton's penalty at Valencia due to the lack of decent footage and the time it takes to gather the evidence and then analyse it.
It also needs to be pointed out that rarely are decisions clear cut. The very fact people are debating what penalty Ferrari should get shows how long they could debate it themselves..

How long can you debate (especially when it is your job) over the type of penalty a team deserves for a cut and clear situation/violation like Hockenheim??? The bottom line is that they should have had a penalty system in place for team order violations to begin with.

[I'm not pretending the FIA are perfect here, I agree they need to improve. However, I don't agree that this particular case has taken too long because its a serious case which requires a longer, more considered approach than simply throwing them in front of the stewards and handing out a penalty. The case may require a more serious penalty than the stewards can actually give (thats the whole point of the WMSC) and not only that, but the FIA have to consider the ramifications of the penalty.

They should have been DQ'd on spot had the stewards felt there were team orders involved. That's fine if the WMSC want to get involved later on to further penalize the team, but the WMSC shouldn't be the ones altering points results for the Hockenheim race nearly 3 months down the line.

 

[in.s@ne]

How long can you debate (especially when it is your job) over the type of penalty a team deserves for a cut and clear situation/violation like Hockenheim??? The bottom line is that they should have had a penalty system in place for team order violations to begin with.

Why does everyone blame the FIA for this one? They dealt with it very shortly after the race - slapped Ferrari with a fine and referred it to the World Motorsport Council.
That's. All. They. Can. Do.

Blame the WMSC for the slow handling from there

 

[The Outlaw]

Because the WMSC is a division of the FIA And in the end, they are not seperate entities.

Why does everyone blame the FIA for this one?

Better yet, why do so many find the need to jump in and antagonize everything I say?

 

[niky]

Actually... I felt the stewards could have assigned a race penalty then and there... either a disqualification on the spot or a grid penalty for the next race... then left the monetary fine up to the WMSC.

Because, let's face it... a 100,000 fine is nothing. A disqualification hurts even more.

 

[PeterJB]

Plus, Vettel would have won then.

 

[Ardius]

No I'm not, if YOU hadn't assumed what I said, you would have realized the word "potentially" in my sentence. I don't assume any definite penalty in this circumstance.

And when I said race results I think I better meant point results, which are basically one in the same in the whole scheme of things (the main goal - the Championship).

Also, Singapore was a very different circumstance to Hockenheim, as the actual foul play that took place wasn't uncovered until many months later after the Championship had already been decided. No one had any idea WHATSOEVER of any foul play the night of the race except a very select few within the team. Had the FIA and stewards been aware of such a situation at the time, they had better reacted in a timely matter...but knowing them they probably wouldn't have anyway...but that's ok, right...

Even if Ferrari lose contructors points from that race, because of the fact that they violated the rules they basically whisked away points (because they weren't DQ'd on spot) that could have/should have been awarded to other drivers/teams who would have finished higher up the running order. This is the issue I bring up.

How long can you debate (especially when it is your job) over the type of penalty a team deserves for a cut and clear situation/violation like Hockenheim??? The bottom line is that they should have had a penalty system in place for team order violations to begin with.

They should have been DQ'd on spot had the stewards felt there were team orders involved. That's fine if the WMSC want to get involved later on to further penalize the team, but the WMSC shouldn't be the ones altering points results for the Hockenheim race nearly 3 months down the line.

1. Ok, so potentially then. Even so, name the race where they changed the results long afterwards? There is no "potential".

2. Race results and point results are not the same thing. If they alter the race result, it bumps up everyone behind them, so Vettel would have won. If they alter the point results by simply taking them away, this doesn't happen.

3. Singapore is different, but displays that you cannot know everything immediately after the race and so rash stewarding decisions are not the way to go in my opinion.

4. Why do other teams and drivers deserve more points? Ferrari's rule breaking didn't rob them of anything, it only robbed Massa.

5. You can debate it as long as is needed. I'd say a limit is the season end (apart from incidents from the last race of course), but 2-3 months is not too long.

6. The stewards may not have had all the evidence nor the power to act upon a team orders violation and give a DSQ. Remember, the stewards simply have a rulebook and a selection of penalties for certain infringements.
Personally, I prefer a bigger decision that can require a more serious penalty is left to the WMSC (and hence a more considered approach) rather than the stewards.

Better yet, why do so many find the need to jump in and antagonize everything I say?

Because you have strong and controversial opinions? Don't post if you don't like it .

 

[cobraagent90]

A little off topic but i have to ask. Is there any "explanation" of the Monza circuit like Red Bull did with Spa?

 

[Akmuq]

A little off topic but i have to ask. Is there any "explanation" of the Monza circuit like Red Bull did with Spa?

I don't think there is yet but they have one for every race so just wait.

 

[niky]

Better yet, why do so many find the need to jump in and antagonize everything I say?

Because of the way you say it... and the oft-times off-the-wall nature of what you do say, as Ardius notes.

 

[The Outlaw]

1. Ok, so potentially then. Even so, name the race where they changed the results long afterwords? There is no "potential".

Sorry to say (for your argument), but in this case past events and rulings have nothing to do with future rulings and penalties. So you really ought to refrain from spreading your opinion and basis of thinking around as fact (because I know damn well if I did that I would be getting a bunch flack for having a overly "strong and controversial opinion" as you say).

AFAIK, the FIA & WMSC can alter/amend race results (although regarding Hockenheim they probably won't) up until the end of the season. If you can verify the validity of this (whether true or false) I would appreciate it...and no, I'm not talking about a verification which is simply based upon past rulings/outcomes and your thinking that this proves your point...

2. Race results and point results are not the same thing. If they alter the race result, it bumps up everyone behind them, so Vettel would have won. If they alter the point results by simply taking them away, this doesn't happen.

This is true. Looking back, I was clearly mistaken in my terminology

3. Singapore is different, but displays that you cannot know everything immediately after the race and so rash stewarding decisions are not the way to go in my opinion.

Of course it is, and this is why Singapore has no relevance to the Hockenheim incident as I've said before. All the evidence to convict Ferrari was committed on race day...so how could there be a rash stewarding decision for something so cut and dry, of course unless you don't have a punishment (like there should have been) in place beforehand. Which is just another reason to criticize the FIA's incompetence...unless of course you are one that gets off on defending the FIA time and time again.

4. Why do other teams and drivers deserve more points? Ferrari's rule breaking didn't rob them of anything, it only robbed Massa.

Well theoretically it altered the way in which the race played out, as Alonso (by being gifted the position by Massa) was able to stay clear of the danger behind him (Vettel/Crash Kid ) as well as a potential risky situation that could have developed as he tried to overtake Massa....which was one of the things Ferrari made a point of (after the race) in having Massa concede position to Alonso.

I also don't see how you can win a race, but in the end have your points taken away regardless. As to me it just doesn't add up...but that's just my opinion on that.

5. You can debate it as long as is needed. I'd say a limit is the season end (apart from incidents from the last race of course), but 2-3 months is not too long.

That's fine, and your entitled to thinking that. Let me remind you that this argument started because I came down on the FIA for taking excessively long to come to a conclusion, as well as not having a penalty system in place before hand...then you decided to jump in because you have been trying to correct my opinion all along as if yours is the end all be all to the discussion.

6. The stewards may not have had all the evidence nor the power to act upon a team orders violation and give a DSQ. Remember, the stewards simply have a rulebook and a selection of penalties for certain infringements.
Personally, I prefer a bigger decision that can require a more serious penalty is left to the WMSC (and hence a more considered approach) rather than the stewards.

My argument is that there rulebook is not big enough, which I believe we've seen time and time just in this season alone.

Because you have strong and controversial opinions? Don't post if you don't like it .

*cough* hypocrite *cough*

Because of the way you say it... and the oft-times off-the-wall nature of what you do say, as Ardius notes.

Sorry to say, but you're guilty of the same thing, Mr. AUP violation Whistle Blower (when it's not even a valid claim).

Funny how I'm the one who's off the wall, yet just in the most recent 8 post alone (in this thread) I've already found myself having to defend my statements because either someone doesn't realize/acknowledge an important word that is in there, or they ask why I blame the FIA because THEY are ignorant (by definition) to the fact that the WMSC is a division of the FIA, and rather jump on to antagonize my comments when they clearly don't know what they are talking about to begin. I don't see them geting any flack for doing so, like I do all the time...which is really the only thing that annoys me

 

[niky]

Sorry to say, but you're guilty of the same thing, Mr. AUP violation Whistle Blower (when it's not even a valid claim).

The AUP asks that you not state false or misleading information. In other words, it was over-the-top, but technically correct. Would you like to read it?

It also asks that you not act in an abusive and hateful manner. And I say that calling me a "fool" and a "seven year old" counts as abusive (although that's just an opinion). I was willing to let that slide because I saw no point in resorting to name-calling just to get back at you.

---

Maybe I should also add: Because of your combative and flame-worthy nature? I haven't taken sides against you in this argument, and yet here you are... attacking me... again... when I'm trying to give you constructive criticism. Funny...

----

You could simply answer debate points straight and leave the attitude at the door. Everyone else would likewise do the same. Would make you a lot happier and less picked on, wouldn't it? You seem to be doing fine in a straight debate. I wish you would just leave it at that.

 

[The Outlaw]

The AUP asks that you not state false or misleading information. In other words, it was over-the-top, but technically correct. Would you like to read it?

Since you didn't get it the first time, I will say it AGAIN. My post (which was actually a joke) wasn't a piece of information (actually it's "material" in the AUP, not "information") as you say, rather an assumption, so how could it possibly be in violation of the AUP to begin with? Maybe you should go back and read my joke again, this time word for word.

Yet again we have a case of someone not properly comprehending the words I write...thus forcing me to go on the defense, which at this point has become beyond irritable. It's becoming a vicious cycle for me at this point and I don't feel it's even worth posting around here when people can't even comprehend even the most simple statements.

It also asks that you not act in an abusive and hateful manner. And I say that calling me a "fool" and a "seven year old" counts as abusive. I was willing to let that slide because I saw no point in resorting to name-calling and imperiling my own account just to get back at you.

I don't take that back either. When you want to come at me with some BS AUP violation out of nowhere just because you have something against...don't be surprised to be called a 7 year old tattle taler. I'm sorry but unlike you, I don't have an internet persona and reputation to live up so I will say whatever is on my mind...and will continue to do so especially considering all the BS antagonizing I have to deal with around here.



---

Maybe I should also add: Because of your combative and flame-worthy nature? I haven't taken sides against you in this argument, and yet here you are... attacking me... again... when I'm trying to give you constructive criticism. Funny...

You do realize, it's hard to take constructive criticism when it's coming from a hypocrite/hater?
----

You could simply answer debate points straight and leave the attitude at the door. Everyone else would likewise do the same. Would make you a lot happier and less picked on, wouldn't it? You seem to be doing fine in a straight debate. I wish you would just leave it at that.

Surely it would be much easier to leave the attitude at the door if people like you weren't around here. It doesn't help when I have you jumping in out of nowhere calling AUP violation when I tell harmless jokes either So tbh, you could do the same with the attitude as well, as all you're doing is feeding my irritability around here (which I'm sure you're fully aware of) 👍

 

[niky]

Since you didn't get it the first time, I will say it AGAIN. My post (which was actually a joke) wasn't a piece of information (actually it's "material" in the AUP, not "information") as you say, rather an assumption, so how could it possibly be in violation of the AUP to begin with? Maybe you should go back and read my joke again, this time word for word.

Oh, I got it. An assumption is still a misleading statement. Care to try again? Then again, the AUP thing wasn't in a wholly serious vein. And yet you're the one who went off the deep end on me, not vice versa.

Yet again we have a case of someone not properly comprehending the words I write...thus forcing me to go on the defense, which at this point has become beyond irritable. It's becoming a vicious cycle for me at this point and I don't feel it's even worth posting around here when people can't even comprehend even the most simple statements.

The defend yourself. Play the ball, not the man. A moving screen doesn't require an elbow to the ribs.

I don't take that back either. When you want to come at me with some BS AUP violation out of nowhere just because you have something against...don't be surprised to be called a 7 year old tattle taler. I'm sorry but unlike you, I don't have an internet persona and reputation to live up so I will say whatever is on my mind...and will continue to do so especially considering all the BS antagonizing I have to deal with around here.

Reputation? I'm one of the only guys online who doesn't hide behind a screen nick. I have no online reputation to live up to because online rep doesn't matter two whits in the real world.

Forgive me if I say what I feel like saying and it makes you all prickly. See... in this argument (re: timeliness of penalties), I actually agree with you. And now you're getting up my bunghole. Funny, that.

You do realize, it's hard to take constructive criticism when it's coming from a hypocrite/hater?

Which you seem to call anyone who disagrees with you? (Since this is the second time in two posts you've used it?)

Surely it would be much easier to leave the attitude at the door if people like you weren't around here. It doesn't help when I have you jumping in out of nowhere calling AUP violation when I tell harmless jokes either So tbh, you could do the same with the attitude as well, as all you're doing is feeding my irritability around here (which I'm sure you're fully aware of) 👍

Oh... 👍 👍 👍 yourself. Take a chill pill and listen to this advice: Don't go off the deep end if somebody argues with you. Correct them and win your argument with logic. Now see... you've posted a perfectly fine rebuttal against me up there, and yet you simply can't resist adding in a jab or two at me. Calling me names isn't going to win your argument. All it does is make you look petty. Calling me out and challenging my arguments will. And I'll concede that you won that exchange... underneath all the vitriol you threw in my direction.

I'd rather see you stay. Someone always has to play devil's advocate. I just wish you'd play it better.

 

[NapoleonMikey]

I cant be the only one getting tired of these arguments between timeattack and nicky. I could have sworn there was an ignore feature on this forum so why dont you 2 use it and end this for good.

 

[The Outlaw]

Oh, I got it. An assumption is still a misleading statement. Care to try again? Then again, the AUP thing wasn't in a wholly serious vein. And yet you're the one who went off the deep end on me, not vice versa..

Then why call AUP to begin with??? If you did it to be funny (which is the only other reason to do so...weird as it may be) you must have a pretty lame sense of humor then. To me it's obvious that at this point you're just doing what you do best (clutching at straws) to win an argument using your defense (I wasn't all that serious when I called AUP violation out of the blue) which is laughable at best.

So in your world, assumption = statement = material...what a convenient way to win an argument 👍 I guess anyone whoever speculated (made an assumption) on GT5's features is guilty of breaking the AUP as well...off with their heads!

The defend yourself. Play the ball, not the man. A moving screen doesn't require an elbow to the ribs...

Don't act like I'm not defending myself or my words. You throw your elbows like a ninja (subtly/sneakily), I throw my elbows like a barbarian (bluntly)...in the end they both do damage and get under eachother's skin.

Reputation? I'm one of the only guys online who doesn't hide behind a screen nick. I have no online reputation to live up to because online rep doesn't matter two whits in the real world.

I agree. With that said, I don't see why you get your panties in a bunch when I tell a harmless joke and you go out of your way to let it be known that I supposedly broke the AUP, as if you are the teachers pet and can't wait to get me in trouble in order to look like the good guy. If this isn't the case, what other reason do you have to call me out on a supposed AUP violation? Quit trying so hard...

Forgive me if I say what I feel like saying and it makes you all prickly. See... in this argument (re: timeliness of penalties), I actually agree with you. And now you're getting up my bunghole. Funny, that.

Because everything is over your head as usual. If you even knew what your big mouth typed and how we've gotten to where we are, you would have realized the latest argument between us didn't start because you were in agreement or disagreement w/me in regards to the timeliness of penalties in Formula 1 (in which Ardius thinks my opinion is incorrect and is trying to correct me because he is always in the right...yet thinks I'm the only one guilty of having overly strong/controversial opinions), rather the fact that you took it upon yourself to answer my question of why the things I say get antagonized left and right. I got irritated with the nerve you had to respond and to write such a thing, being that it was coming from someone who is a hypocrite (of some of things he claims I do wrong - off the the wall accusations) and hater of my actions (deciding to jump in out of nowhere to call violation of AUP on a harmless joke I made...which IMO is only something a off the wall hater would do).

Which you seem to call anyone who disagrees with you? (Since this is the second time in two posts you've used it?)...

No. As usual you've managed to make this up in your mind. You're the only I would call a hypocrite AND a hater, although there a select few who are guilty of being hypocritical as well.

Oh... 👍 👍 👍 yourself. Take a chill pill and listen to this advice: Don't go off the deep end if somebody argues with you. Correct them and win your argument with logic. Now see... you've posted a perfectly fine rebuttal against me up there, and yet you simply can't resist adding in a jab or two at me. Calling me names isn't going to win your argument. All it does is make you look petty. Calling me out and challenging my arguments will. And I'll concede that you won that exchange... underneath all the vitriol you threw in my direction..

And I hope you don't wonder why. I will refrain on commenting here as it only seems to lessen the validity of some of the arguments I have to make, oddly enough At this point it doesn't matter anyway, as nearly no one is on my side due to the reputation I have built as being overly blunt and rude (even when there is good reason to be so irritated with certain members)

I cant be the only one getting tired of these arguments between timeattack and nicky. I could have sworn there was an ignore feature on this forum so why dont you 2 use it and end this for good.

I've already decided in my mind to avoid Niky in any future threads/arguments, so I apologize for littering this "has been" thread. This thread is my good-bye riddance to him though fortunately. Although Atm I'm still having a tough time pulling the thorn out of my arse.