anyone know what,s going on with Heiki? Haven,t heard anything at all about him..plans???

It´s strange that his name hasn´t been strongly vinculated to any team yet...

He could be going to Sauber

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=353071&FS=F1

He'll probably go back to team-soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-Renault.

He didn't sound worried about his future in F1 in the last few interviews I saw. When specifically asked about it he was sure he will continue in F1.

Also, we have a report from a Finnish F1 reporter that Heikki has assured to him personally that he will be in F1 in 2010 with 100 % certainty.

Of course we will have to wait and see what will actually happen to him. With the many changes with the teams going on it would be great to hear if he is still as confident about it.

anzie - 09 December 2009 12:20 PM

He didn't sound worried about his future in F1 in the last few interviews I saw. When specifically asked about it he was sure he will continue in F1.

Also, we have a report from a Finnish F1 reporter that Heikki has assured to him personally that he will be in F1 in 2010 with 100 % certainty.

Of course we will have to wait and see what will actually happen to him. With the many changes with the teams going on it would be great to hear if he is still as confident about it.

Sounds as if he's already signed a contract and just can't talk about it yet. And to think some of us thought the drama would dry up during the off season....

Cesar87 - 07 December 2009 11:22 PM

It´s strange that his name hasn´t been strongly vinculated to any team yet...

^Quiet frankly, he doesn’t bring much to the table

oilless - 09 December 2009 06:02 PM

Cesar87 - 07 December 2009 11:22 PM

It´s strange that his name hasn´t been strongly vinculated to any team yet...

^Quiet frankly, he doesn’t bring much to the table

Let's just say nobody's been impressed with his F1 performance. I doubt he'll be missed or noticed missing... Sad but...

Pssshhhhhhaaaaahhhh sure he's not great, but he doesn't comepletely suck, he'll be somewhere for sure. Only way he won't be driving next year is if he decides he's worth wayyy more than he is.

I would certainly miss him. And a formula season without a Finnish driver is like a season without Ferrari - you can do it, but its not right.

Maybe he has not been impressive, but still a top-10 driver (this season excepting) in F1. He drives solid races and scores points, and for me this is in some way better than the drama queens who vacillate like yoyos with their results, never taking responsibility for their bad races and always chest-pumping and self congratulating when they are winning. Frankly I'd be happy if they did not come back in 2010 - but sadly these emos will.

Cesar87 - 07 December 2009 11:22 PM

It´s strange that his name hasn´t been strongly vinculated to any team yet...

What does "vinculated" mean? I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the word and the on-line dictionaries I've tried don't have a definition for it. The closest I've come is a Croatian web site that I used a translaton program to turn into English. Here's what I got:

Ana Kardum (Croatitan-English Translator) -

Explanation:
Since I have long worked in the bank, known to me that this terminology and its meaning.

Restriction on transferability means transfer of rights in the insurance policy to the bank or the bank has the right to charge for the insurance policy in case of damage to property or movable. It was actually kind of collateral.

"Restriction on transferability of the insurance policy is the transfer of rights to payment of insurance amount to the bank, in case of damage or the insured event. This means that the insurance company if the insured case occurs, the amount of insurance paid for the insured bank or insurance policyholder. Restriction on transferability of the insurance policy for only when the insurance instrument insurance billing credit. "

It is necessary to actually translate the whole expression exactly and I am translating it roughly on the above method.

A second web search turned up this:

JohnnyTheSkier -

Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Russia
Native language: Russia, russian
Re: related company?

I think you mean that those companies are owed by one parent, right? Well, strictly speaking, related companies is a broad term, which includes ownership as well as other criteria. Here is a definition of 'related parties' from international accounting standards:

Related parties include:
(a) parties that directly or indirectly:
− control;
− are controlled by;
− are under common control;
− have significant influence over; or
− have joint control over, the entity.

(b) Associates of the entity.
(c) Joint venturers in which the entity is a venturer.

According to the standards, 'related companies' can also mean that one has significant influence over the other.

Any update, correction, and above all a web link to the dictionary definition would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

-- GW74 --