Just when you thought he couldn't get any more senile...
Posted by Nickv
I knew that everyone would hound him for this... he actually came out with some very sensible points in the same interview.
He talked about how most of the overtaking in the 70s and 80s was done under braking, and how modern brakes are too 'efficient'.
He talked about increasing the points gap between 1st and 2nd, possbily even 2nd and 3rd.
He also talked about the cars today being too reliable - with the top 6 cars at the halfway point usually being the top 6 at the finish.
[www.autosport.com]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
He talked about how most of the overtaking in the 70s and 80s was done under braking, and how modern brakes are too 'efficient'.
He talked about increasing the points gap between 1st and 2nd, possbily even 2nd and 3rd.
He also talked about the cars today being too reliable - with the top 6 cars at the halfway point usually being the top 6 at the finish.
[www.autosport.com]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
The cars are too reliable. I remember whenever Mika was leading it was always 'so which lap is he gonna blow'?
As for the brakes, that is true but a change to steel wouldnt make much of a difference. At least in aircraft, steel brakes offer the same stopping ability, the only reason they are used are because of weight, and because steel brakes under temperature can wear pretty quick, so need to be well cooled.
For F1, I imagine changing back to steel would entail teams replacing their brakes as often as they could whereas with the current standard carbon brakes, they are used for a whole weekends work. I wonder now whether it would simple be cheaper to stick with the current systems?
As for the points I thought the proposed system was quite good in that more emphasis was placed on achieving better result than consistency??? Wasnt it something like 3nd places were worth more than 3 4th places?? And the same for 2nd and 3rd...
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 08:46AM by chet.
As for the brakes, that is true but a change to steel wouldnt make much of a difference. At least in aircraft, steel brakes offer the same stopping ability, the only reason they are used are because of weight, and because steel brakes under temperature can wear pretty quick, so need to be well cooled.
For F1, I imagine changing back to steel would entail teams replacing their brakes as often as they could whereas with the current standard carbon brakes, they are used for a whole weekends work. I wonder now whether it would simple be cheaper to stick with the current systems?
As for the points I thought the proposed system was quite good in that more emphasis was placed on achieving better result than consistency??? Wasnt it something like 3nd places were worth more than 3 4th places?? And the same for 2nd and 3rd...
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 08:46AM by chet.
The suggestion about the points (IIRC 25-18-12....) was an excellent one. Let's hope it gets implemented. But the suggestion about 'overtaking lanes' is total muppetry.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
Yes, F1 is quite dry these days. Most likely because of the obscene amounts of money involved....oh wait who was it that helped that along... ? 
F1 quite dry these days!? There is so much evidence to the contrary that it's not worth listing them all here. The only thing which is lacking is overtaking - and overtaking doesn't make great races. Everything else about F1 - the drivers, the politics, the glitz - is in better shape than it's been for years.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The drivers? Really? We got lucky this year in
> that we have Schumacher returning. But most of the
> grid is bland and featureless. I'f you got rid of
> the likes of Trulli, Heidfeld, Sutil, Kubica,
> Kovelinen, I wouldn't even notice. Only a few of
> the drivers on the grid have enough of a character
> to even be dislikeable, nevermind likeable.
Every grid has had its dull drivers. It's not fair to compare eras by looking at their worst features. We have Alonso, Hamilton, Schumacher, Barrichello, Button, Webber to name but a few, all big characters.
> The politics? The best shape in years? Depends, do
> you want MORE politics? Because of so then yeah
> it's great. Just wait for Whitmarsh to drop
> McLaren in it again for some more political BS
This is actually what I meant, yes. The politics certainly aren't dull! You can't claim the political side of F1 is dull nowadays, even if most of us wish it were.
> The Glitz? Who gives a f**k about the Glitz? The
> Glitz is why we keep seeing Hamiltons now
> ex-girlfriend, or one of the many women DC and
> Flavio were shagging. Who cares!
Again, we might not care, but it's making more headlines than it has done for years.
> What I want is some good racing. Whilst F1 has
> never been top of the world in terms of racing, it
> has become increasingly stale again.
Meh, I thought 2008 and 2009 have both witnessed some very good racing, personally. As I said above, every season will have its low points. But IMHO there have been more high points in recent years than in the 1990s and early 2000s.
> But it
> doesn't help when we're being treated to ugly cars
> on ugly circuits. Hell at least F1 in the 70s,
> even when there was no overtaking it was still
> interesting to watch. Now it's a scaletrix race in
> whatever random desert they've constructed a track
> in now! The one saving grace of this was meant to
> be Abu Dhabi and even that has turned out to be
> just like all the rest, just with some fancy
> lights on it. Thank god we have Singapore, which
> somehow hangs on to some of the old traditions of
> motorsport, despite being brand new.
And on this point, I agree.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The drivers? Really? We got lucky this year in
> that we have Schumacher returning. But most of the
> grid is bland and featureless. I'f you got rid of
> the likes of Trulli, Heidfeld, Sutil, Kubica,
> Kovelinen, I wouldn't even notice. Only a few of
> the drivers on the grid have enough of a character
> to even be dislikeable, nevermind likeable.
Every grid has had its dull drivers. It's not fair to compare eras by looking at their worst features. We have Alonso, Hamilton, Schumacher, Barrichello, Button, Webber to name but a few, all big characters.
> The politics? The best shape in years? Depends, do
> you want MORE politics? Because of so then yeah
> it's great. Just wait for Whitmarsh to drop
> McLaren in it again for some more political BS
This is actually what I meant, yes. The politics certainly aren't dull! You can't claim the political side of F1 is dull nowadays, even if most of us wish it were.
> The Glitz? Who gives a f**k about the Glitz? The
> Glitz is why we keep seeing Hamiltons now
> ex-girlfriend, or one of the many women DC and
> Flavio were shagging. Who cares!
Again, we might not care, but it's making more headlines than it has done for years.
> What I want is some good racing. Whilst F1 has
> never been top of the world in terms of racing, it
> has become increasingly stale again.
Meh, I thought 2008 and 2009 have both witnessed some very good racing, personally. As I said above, every season will have its low points. But IMHO there have been more high points in recent years than in the 1990s and early 2000s.
> But it
> doesn't help when we're being treated to ugly cars
> on ugly circuits. Hell at least F1 in the 70s,
> even when there was no overtaking it was still
> interesting to watch. Now it's a scaletrix race in
> whatever random desert they've constructed a track
> in now! The one saving grace of this was meant to
> be Abu Dhabi and even that has turned out to be
> just like all the rest, just with some fancy
> lights on it. Thank god we have Singapore, which
> somehow hangs on to some of the old traditions of
> motorsport, despite being brand new.
And on this point, I agree.
The thing is, the FIA and Bernie destroyed F1 since 1998 when they started to change almost every year the rules, and the shape of the cars... and the tracks... and then they get worried because the costs... and they try to save money with more rule changes that destroyed F1
They said more than once things like less downforce, less sets of tires, less engines per season, they prohibited the engines development...
some team chiefs said that the development of a F1 car is about 10% of the amount of money they spend in a season. and the FIA had taken decissions like froze engines, reducing the development costs in a 10%. so, they were saving only a 1 % in the total of the bill... instead of save where they really spend like trips, the huge motorhomes, etc, etc, etc. but they dont save in that because they consider is not good for them... look 30 years ago was very different, they spend all the money on the car, look at a Lotus box in 1975, you know it was Lotus box because there was Colin Chapman and 1 or 2 umbrellas with the John Player Special Logo... Brabham box had only Gordon Murray, Bernie and Martini umbrellas, and so on...
I think they really need to see that epoque, almost no restrictions, you could have a V8, V10, V12, or a turbo V6... no engine development bans....
I think they destroyed F1 because they wanted more and more and more money, and for that they made F1 lose speed, when F1 was (and it should be...) pure speed. And only with a global financial crisis they saw that and started to do something like put again slick tires, but the hurt they made to F1 is enormous, and will take some years to fix it
They said more than once things like less downforce, less sets of tires, less engines per season, they prohibited the engines development...
some team chiefs said that the development of a F1 car is about 10% of the amount of money they spend in a season. and the FIA had taken decissions like froze engines, reducing the development costs in a 10%. so, they were saving only a 1 % in the total of the bill... instead of save where they really spend like trips, the huge motorhomes, etc, etc, etc. but they dont save in that because they consider is not good for them... look 30 years ago was very different, they spend all the money on the car, look at a Lotus box in 1975, you know it was Lotus box because there was Colin Chapman and 1 or 2 umbrellas with the John Player Special Logo... Brabham box had only Gordon Murray, Bernie and Martini umbrellas, and so on...
I think they really need to see that epoque, almost no restrictions, you could have a V8, V10, V12, or a turbo V6... no engine development bans....
I think they destroyed F1 because they wanted more and more and more money, and for that they made F1 lose speed, when F1 was (and it should be...) pure speed. And only with a global financial crisis they saw that and started to do something like put again slick tires, but the hurt they made to F1 is enormous, and will take some years to fix it
Bring back manual gear levers! That would bring back the driver skill; which should then increase driver mistakes and vary the ontrack action a bit more.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
It is interesting. What exactly is the pinnacle? Entertainment, technology, politics... :P
I had a very similar argument over my architecture presentation on Thursday.
My building proposal reached a point where I had spent so much time on the construction and design element that it had begun to dictate the architectural layout, theory and purpose it was there for originally.
In terms of F1, it seems as though the sport has reached a point where the desire to use the most expensive and most invested machinery has overtaken the purpose of it being a sport and more so a business.
It is similar to football, everything is blowing up exponentially. Wages/debts/fees etc. It isnt necessarily who you have in the team, but who you can afford to buy and pay weekly.
Then you end up with massive egos, and off-pitch crap liek who's crashed their car; what their wife wore to the X-Factor party. That all overtakes the fundamentals that it is a sport, but you are bombarded with all the other shite.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 11:41AM by danm.
I had a very similar argument over my architecture presentation on Thursday.
My building proposal reached a point where I had spent so much time on the construction and design element that it had begun to dictate the architectural layout, theory and purpose it was there for originally.
In terms of F1, it seems as though the sport has reached a point where the desire to use the most expensive and most invested machinery has overtaken the purpose of it being a sport and more so a business.
It is similar to football, everything is blowing up exponentially. Wages/debts/fees etc. It isnt necessarily who you have in the team, but who you can afford to buy and pay weekly.
Then you end up with massive egos, and off-pitch crap liek who's crashed their car; what their wife wore to the X-Factor party. That all overtakes the fundamentals that it is a sport, but you are bombarded with all the other shite.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 11:41AM by danm.
Gav and Dave, you're missing the point. I was responding to a post that claimed F1 had become "dry". My post (and your subsequent discussion of it) proves that modern F1 clearly is not "dry".
This is not a discussion about the quality of the racing, or the enjoyment we draw from it, or the health of F1 as a sport. If, and when, these things are discussed, I'm sure I'd find myself agreeing with much of your posts.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
This is not a discussion about the quality of the racing, or the enjoyment we draw from it, or the health of F1 as a sport. If, and when, these things are discussed, I'm sure I'd find myself agreeing with much of your posts.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.