2011 Italian GP **SPOILERS** + Race Statistics
Posted by andreigp4
Wrong. F1 has always been as much about technology as it has been about racing.
I say Boo to the signature police!
I say Boo to the signature police!
Hamilton wasn't his usual aggressive self. Personally i think there is not a problem with saying "this incident was x's fault", if it actually was their fault. I've never said Hamilton should change his style or overtake less, more "learn from what he did wrong", such as where it is sensible to overtake, not overtake etc. Maldonado in monaco was his fault, thats fair enough to say, and he should learn that type of move doesnt work, rather than just stop overtaking.
And im probably not experienced enough to say, but yes whilst F1 as always been about technology and the machinery coupled with the race drivers, its the small gadgets that arent necessary
Highest position: 2nd - Belgian GP S8
Highest position: 1st x2 - British GP S1, Austrian GP S2
And im probably not experienced enough to say, but yes whilst F1 as always been about technology and the machinery coupled with the race drivers, its the small gadgets that arent necessary
Highest position: 2nd - Belgian GP S8 Highest position: 1st x2 - British GP S1, Austrian GP S2Right. The technology has always been fundamentally aimed at safety first and then ways to make the engines and stability more efficient it has nothing to do with gadgets, these are after thoughts because without them the engine is still the same engine therefore it has no more advantage or disadvantage, and as such there is no technological advancement.
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 02:40PM by Isaint.
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 02:40PM by Isaint.
Colin Chapman was thinking of safety when he strove to make his cars lighter and lighter with the result that they often fell apart? Yes that technology was all about safety wasn't it? I think perhaps some people may not be aware of the history of this sport. Technology has always been about going faster. Technology wasn't truly applied properly to safety until post Imola 1994.
There have always been gadets or gimmicks or some sort anyway. I'm sure when they first introduced wings, someone some where would have scoffed and decided it had nothing to do with racing. Turbo boost effectively achieves the same result as DRS, a boost in straight line speed, are we devaluing that as a gimmick or gadget?
There are many asumptions being made here that are too easy to pull apart with historical knowledge.
There isn't anything wrong with scrutinising an incident and apportioning blame, everyone does that, it's when people insist on scrutinising every aspect of a persons personality to explain it. Hamilton has made some mistakes, at Monaco his attitude was atrocious, since then he's been mature, yet people are scrutinising his personal life in a fruitless effort to explain his continuing mistakes or misfortune. I think he has every right to be miffed, when a select group of people effectively accuse him of crashing into other cars because he happens to go out with a pussy cat doll or whatever it is. It's not relevant. He makes a mistake, fine that's life, let's move on please.
I say Boo to the signature police!
There have always been gadets or gimmicks or some sort anyway. I'm sure when they first introduced wings, someone some where would have scoffed and decided it had nothing to do with racing. Turbo boost effectively achieves the same result as DRS, a boost in straight line speed, are we devaluing that as a gimmick or gadget?
There are many asumptions being made here that are too easy to pull apart with historical knowledge.
There isn't anything wrong with scrutinising an incident and apportioning blame, everyone does that, it's when people insist on scrutinising every aspect of a persons personality to explain it. Hamilton has made some mistakes, at Monaco his attitude was atrocious, since then he's been mature, yet people are scrutinising his personal life in a fruitless effort to explain his continuing mistakes or misfortune. I think he has every right to be miffed, when a select group of people effectively accuse him of crashing into other cars because he happens to go out with a pussy cat doll or whatever it is. It's not relevant. He makes a mistake, fine that's life, let's move on please.
I say Boo to the signature police!
The F1 oversight body, FIA, began introducing safety regulations in the late 1960s, starting with rules on rollbars, dual braking systems, seatbelts, fire protection, protective clothing, helmets and safe fuel tanks. This soon advanced to safety inspections at racing circuits and the introduction of flag signaling codes. FIA continued to address race safety, implementing organized race marshalling, mandatory five-second cockpit evacuation by drivers and fire-resistant clothing. F1 had a fatality free record for 12 years, until the horrific weekend in 1994, when both Roland Ratzenburger and legendary driver Ayrton Senna died in one race weekend at Imola. Since then, the focus of teams and FIA over the last two decades has been the quest for safety, balancing it with the quest for speed. F1 cars nowadays are faster than ever, as well as safer. However, in a sport where speed is of the essence, it is always going to be difficult to balance safety with speed.
As you can see the re-dress to safety was instituted a lot sooner than 1994.
In any event, the technology behind F1 whether it be for safety or speed is not in question. It's merely the way that it is implemented and ultimately how it affects the sport. I don't see K.E.R's or D.R.S as some major technological break through, in the same vein as A.B.S or power steering, four wheel drive ..... turbo engines etc. All of which can be seen on road cars today. Your are hardly likely to see K.E.R'S or D.R.S on a road car that's because these are not seen as technological advancements. They are what they are, temporary measures to circumvent the rules lay-ed down by the FIA. They are unnecessary and detract from what an individual can deliver in regards to his own raw talent.
As regards to Lewis I could not agree more, his personal life has nothing to do with any one and it is certainly not a reflection on anything he does on the track.
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 06:06PM by Isaint.
As you can see the re-dress to safety was instituted a lot sooner than 1994.
In any event, the technology behind F1 whether it be for safety or speed is not in question. It's merely the way that it is implemented and ultimately how it affects the sport. I don't see K.E.R's or D.R.S as some major technological break through, in the same vein as A.B.S or power steering, four wheel drive ..... turbo engines etc. All of which can be seen on road cars today. Your are hardly likely to see K.E.R'S or D.R.S on a road car that's because these are not seen as technological advancements. They are what they are, temporary measures to circumvent the rules lay-ed down by the FIA. They are unnecessary and detract from what an individual can deliver in regards to his own raw talent.
As regards to Lewis I could not agree more, his personal life has nothing to do with any one and it is certainly not a reflection on anything he does on the track.
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 06:06PM by Isaint.
Those safety features introduced as you put it by the FIA came about by the GPDA and people such as Jackie Stewart rightly insisting upon improved safety, not by teams developing safer cars via technology. The 12 year gap without a fatality at a race weekend (deaths had happend in testing between, e.g De Angelis) had as much to do with sheer good luck as it did with any technological advancement in safety. The FIA have been far more strict on imposing safer technical regulations regarding both cars and tracks since Imola 1994 than before it and it took the loss of a legend who was almost perceived as invincible to do provoke it.
Since that fateful day circuits have been modified, and driver safety within the car has been increased more than more obsessively than any period from the beginning right upto and including the nineties. Before 1995 a drivers head and feet were in precarious position and very exposed in the event of a crash. These fundamental changes came after Imola 1994 not before. Think of icidents like Heidfeld colliding with Sato at Austria 02, Kubica's accident at Montreal in 08... Had these happened as recently as the early to mid nineties then they had very severe concenquences indeed, let alone had they occurred in the 50's to 70's or even before.
Hence my comment that it wasn't technology that drove safety forward in earnest until post Imola 1994. It was the original GPDA who had to fight tooth and nail against hostile organisers, promoters and in some cases their own teams! Simply to introduce such obvious features such as armcoe barriers (the run offs at Spa and Hockenheim literraly used to be the trees) or emergency medical crews and facilities at the circuits, it took nearly an hour for an ambulance to arrive for Stewart at spa in the 60's and it was left to Graham Hill and nuns would you believe to stay with him until professional medical help arrived and when it did it only went and got lost on the way to the hospital for crying out loud!
Technical advances in F1 before 1994 were predominantly aimed at making a car go faster, you only have to look at a car from any period unto to 1995 to realise that safety took the back seat to performance.
This role was only reversed from 1995, and thankfully the rate of increased safety is still increasing now.
I say Boo to the signature police!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 06:46PM by J i m.
Since that fateful day circuits have been modified, and driver safety within the car has been increased more than more obsessively than any period from the beginning right upto and including the nineties. Before 1995 a drivers head and feet were in precarious position and very exposed in the event of a crash. These fundamental changes came after Imola 1994 not before. Think of icidents like Heidfeld colliding with Sato at Austria 02, Kubica's accident at Montreal in 08... Had these happened as recently as the early to mid nineties then they had very severe concenquences indeed, let alone had they occurred in the 50's to 70's or even before.
Hence my comment that it wasn't technology that drove safety forward in earnest until post Imola 1994. It was the original GPDA who had to fight tooth and nail against hostile organisers, promoters and in some cases their own teams! Simply to introduce such obvious features such as armcoe barriers (the run offs at Spa and Hockenheim literraly used to be the trees) or emergency medical crews and facilities at the circuits, it took nearly an hour for an ambulance to arrive for Stewart at spa in the 60's and it was left to Graham Hill and nuns would you believe to stay with him until professional medical help arrived and when it did it only went and got lost on the way to the hospital for crying out loud!
Technical advances in F1 before 1994 were predominantly aimed at making a car go faster, you only have to look at a car from any period unto to 1995 to realise that safety took the back seat to performance.
This role was only reversed from 1995, and thankfully the rate of increased safety is still increasing now.
I say Boo to the signature police!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2011 06:46PM by J i m.
'Hence my comment that it wasn't technology that drove safety forward in earnest until post Imola 1994.'
I understand your point and knowing the history behind this I agree with you.
How-ever the K.E.R's and the D.R.S thing, still sticks in my throat I just can't see this as a natural part of racing .......
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
I understand your point and knowing the history behind this I agree with you.
How-ever the K.E.R's and the D.R.S thing, still sticks in my throat I just can't see this as a natural part of racing .......
" Perfection is not a gift ....... it comes with practice."
Member of R.S.C.T Group
The 12 year gap without a fatality at a race weekend (deaths had happend in testing between, e.g De Angelis) had as much to do with sheer good luck as it did with any technological advancement in safety.
Exactly - Adelaide 1991 alone is proof of this, many drivers and marshalls were very lucky not to die that day, but because no tragedy actually happened the safety issue stayed brushed under the carpet.
Exactly - Adelaide 1991 alone is proof of this, many drivers and marshalls were very lucky not to die that day, but because no tragedy actually happened the safety issue stayed brushed under the carpet.
I don't see how he can be seen as anything other than having caused an avoidable accident. I agree with Gav's post.
With regards to Vettel on Alonso. Clearly he expected Alonso to give him more room. Alonso being the tough competitor he is didnt. It was obviously surprising to Vettel who after the race was obviously not best pleased about it no matter how hard he tried not to show it!
With Webber and Alonso. Webber basically gave Alonso no option to lift. It was either that or tangle. That kind of racing is perfectly fine because 9/10 the other driver knows when to back off. Webber had the momentum, and the right line.
In recent years the only dangerous one I remember was Hungary last year where Schumacher tried to scare Rubens into the wall. Poor driving from Schumacher/
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
With Webber and Alonso. Webber basically gave Alonso no option to lift. It was either that or tangle. That kind of racing is perfectly fine because 9/10 the other driver knows when to back off. Webber had the momentum, and the right line.
In recent years the only dangerous one I remember was Hungary last year where Schumacher tried to scare Rubens into the wall. Poor driving from Schumacher/
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
That clip is disappointing because it doesn't show Schumacher's chop on Hamilton at Curve Grande, but it does show how greedy he was at the braking zones, it was definitely too complacent at times.
And what Gav says about this not being rental karts is absolutely spot on, you get all kinds of incompetent stupidity in karts which could cause a nasty enough accident in that arena... That kind of behaviour in actual racing cars is insane and almost suicidal behaviour.
We all like hard and tough side by side racing, but you can have that without forcing one car off the road at or before braking zones.
I say Boo to the signature police!
And what Gav says about this not being rental karts is absolutely spot on, you get all kinds of incompetent stupidity in karts which could cause a nasty enough accident in that arena... That kind of behaviour in actual racing cars is insane and almost suicidal behaviour.
We all like hard and tough side by side racing, but you can have that without forcing one car off the road at or before braking zones.
I say Boo to the signature police!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.