Silly Season 2018/2019

[TAG]

Ricciardo to Renault should create some activity up and down the grid.

[Zynerji]

It's been widely reported in the past that these types of "veto" clauses are and do get included into contracts.
https://news.sky.com/story/lewis-hamilt ... n-11008503

Vet has specifically denied this is true.

Ferrari for years denied they'd been given Veto power by the FiA so you can't be certain about anything you *know* in this sport.

So, what makes you "know" better?

[marvin78]

Vet has specifically denied this is true.

Ferrari for years denied they'd been given Veto power by the FiA so you can't be certain about anything you *know* in this sport.

So, what makes you "know" better?

You don't need to know it better to say that nobody really knows that any driver can veto another one as teammate. And as if I dought the possibility and that amount of power for a driver, I go with Occam's razor. But as always: That's only an opinion.

[Zynerji]

Ferrari for years denied they'd been given Veto power by the FiA so you can't be certain about anything you *know* in this sport.

So, what makes you "know" better?

You don't need to know it better to say that nobody really knows that any driver can veto another one as teammate. And as if I dought the possibility and that amount of power for a driver, I go with Occam's razor.

But Occam would say that direct quotation of denial, in the absence of other data, would lead to the belief of NO driver veto.

[marvin78]

So, what makes you "know" better?

You don't need to know it better to say that nobody really knows that any driver can veto another one as teammate. And as if I dought the possibility and that amount of power for a driver, I go with Occam's razor.

But Occam would say that direct quotation of denial, in the absence of other data, would lead to the belief of NO driver veto.

That depends on how you weight the present data. If I put my opinion about power of one driver into the equation, Occam says: There is no such thing as driver veto. BUT: This is only my opinion. I (as you) have no evidence for that. And in reality all open data is to thin to let occam decide this really.

[Webber2011]

What veto?

It's been widely reported in the past that these types of "veto" clauses are and do get included into contracts.
https://news.sky.com/story/lewis-hamilt ... n-11008503

Vet has specifically denied this is true.

And you believe him

Back to Daniel, I'm not sure how to take this move.

Either he didn't like something in his Red Bull contract, or Renault have offered him 29768 39465399 gazillion

Or what else guys ?

Is it possible Renault have shown him something to convince him he'll be at the top in a year or two ?
Or did he have no other options ?

I'm a bit stunned by the news myself.

[TAG]

What veto?

It's been widely reported in the past that these types of "veto" clauses are and do get included into contracts.
https://news.sky.com/story/lewis-hamilt ... n-11008503

Ok. I thought there was finally a reliable source. But again nothing.

Unless you get a copy of a contract, there will never be the proof some here demand. However anyone that understands business will tell you that someone of Hamilton's caliber in the sport will have agents that deal with other agents that will tell them we can't discuss a deal with your driver because... and agents don't burn bridges because those same bridges may be the ones they use to get paid in the future. So very much in agreement, Occam's razor is a good way to see it.

[jjn9128]

Either he didn't like something in his Red Bull contract, or Renault have offered him 29768 39465399 gazillion

Or what else guys ?

Is it possible Renault have shown him something to convince him he'll be at the top in a year or two ?
Or did he have no other options ?

I'm a bit stunned by the news myself.

Could be he doesn't like the look of the Honda - or that because he's 28 he felt the RBR-Honda was going to be more of a project and he needs results now. Could be, like Hamilton, they offered the chance to reduce/pick and choose his press engagements.

[TAG]

Or what else guys ?

Is it possible Renault have shown him something to convince him he'll be at the top in a year or two ?
Or did he have no other options ?

I'm a bit stunned by the news myself.

Or more than likely he simply wants to become a WDC and the model for moving over to an up and coming team and building a dynasty with them has been repeated in the sport a few times.

Ricciardo has been given the Webber 2.0 treatment a few times this year.

[marvin78]

Oh you misunderstood. I don't want proof. But you guys take this veto stuff as given. You can't do that without proof. That's a big problem in our modern world. Everyone has an opinion (which is good) and talks about it as if it were facts he is talking about. That kills every real discussion and makes them to the kindergarden we have to deal with here again and again.

[Zynerji]

You don't need to know it better to say that nobody really knows that any driver can veto another one as teammate. And as if I dought the possibility and that amount of power for a driver, I go with Occam's razor.

But Occam would say that direct quotation of denial, in the absence of other data, would lead to the belief of NO driver veto.

That depends on how you weight the present data. If I put my opinion about power of one driver into the equation, Occam says: There is no such thing as driver veto. BUT: This is only my opinion. I (as you) have no evidence for that. And in reality all open data is to thin to let occam decide this really.

I have the evidence of a quotation of denial. You simply have opinion.

[Zynerji]

It's been widely reported in the past that these types of "veto" clauses are and do get included into contracts.
https://news.sky.com/story/lewis-hamilt ... n-11008503

Vet has specifically denied this is true.

And you believe him

Back to Daniel, I'm not sure how to take this move.

Either he didn't like something in his Red Bull contract, or Renault have offered him 29768 39465399 gazillion

Or what else guys ?

Is it possible Renault have shown him something to convince him he'll be at the top in a year or two ?
Or did he have no other options ?

I'm a bit stunned by the news myself.

Dismissal of evidence in the face of opinion doesn't impress me, at all...

[BrunoH]

or he Knows something about Honda that made him afraid for next year..who knows...

[marvin78]

Your opinion is based on a true or not true denial or quote of it and my opinion on other things (it appears to be the same opinion by the way). On of that is that a team like Ferrari or Mercedes surely likes to have more power than an employee. I surely think that drivers have certain powers but I don't believe that this powers come from a contract. That would just be ridiculous. And I think that this veto story only serves the bias some people have to some drivers or team. So it serves them well.

[TAG]

Oh you misunderstood. I don't want proof. But you guys take this veto stuff as given. You can't do that without proof. That's a big problem in our modern world. Everyone has an opinion (which is good) and talks about it as if it were facts he is talking about. That kills every real discussion and makes them to the kindergarden we have to deal with here again and again.

Ferrari was claimed to have veto power, people denied it despite plenty of circumstantial evidence over the years. It was proven to be true years later acknowledged by Ecclestone. Do you see any similarity in the two given circumstancial evidence around driver teammate veto power?

If facts is all that we talked about in this forum there would be a very small pool of content as F1 is a very secretive sport. This very thread wouldn't exist because why talk about things we don't know?

Everyone does have an opinion but it's easy to tell the opinions that are delusional versus the ones that are educated. Circumstantial evidence is something that need to be addressed once a preponderance of it exists.

There's a saying, where there's smoke there's fire.