Formula1 in chaos, again!

Hey All,

Good race! Actual passing (not overtaking - what's that? - they need to use North American terminology :whistle:) and more than one car at a time on the TV screen which is what I recall F1 being all about.

As for who to cheer for well I'll try this team - since Panther says there is no F1 Jimmie Johnson. I assume they got their engine upgrade this past off season, have a pretty good diffuser and have a KERS system available even if they don't want to yet use it as it isn't where they want it.

Plus my DSLR camera is a Panasonic G1 - seems as good a reason as any to pull for a team.

-Ed-
 
Hey All,

EasyEd said:
...A race what you bring series commonly won't work - cars are too fast for the tracks and the subsequent insurance risks/costs won't allow it. It surprises me that insurance concerns hasn't shut down rally racing but I'm sure glad it hasn't - yet. It has forced NASCAR to slow the cars down from their potential.
Click to expand...

From F1Technical - At the end of 2005, the last season where the regulations allowed 3litre engines with 10 cylinders, some engines were producing more than 980hp and running very close to the 1000hp mark, a figure that was never reached since the ban on turbo engines. It was a sign for F1's governing body to change the regulations as top speeds at Monza of 370km/h were deemed hazardous for the drivers as well as the spectators.
Click to expand...

I see F1 has concerns about top end speed and so must - like NASCAR - slow the cars down. Appears as though both series have the same problem technology making tracks obsolete and nobody designing and building tracks for higher speeds. Wombat said insurance concerns are nonexistent but I bet that changes once an F1 car flies into a crowd of spectators like a stock car almost did at Talledega. Both series are looking for parity and allowing technology to improve top end speed is no more.

-Ed-

PS Panther glad you approve of Panasonic/Toyota. :amen:
 
EasyEd,
The newer tracks have the "technology" designed for them....Like Malaysia & Bahrain for example....
 
EasyEd said:
Hey All,





I see F1 has concerns about top end speed and so must - like NASCAR - slow the cars down. Appears as though both series have the same problem technology making tracks obsolete and nobody designing and building tracks for higher speeds. Wombat said insurance concerns are nonexistent but I bet that changes once an F1 car flies into a crowd of spectators like a stock car almost did at Talledega. Both series are looking for parity and allowing technology to improve top end speed is no more.

-Ed-

PS Panther glad you approve of Panasonic/Toyota. :amen:
Click to expand...

Ed, until NASCAR eliminates the COT, today was my last short track race.

Looks at bristol last week and Martinsville today, no actions, just like F-1 most of the time, follow the leader, can't pass, can't wreck 'em, the COT is a total and utter failure.

I never thought I would see the day when they would say Bristol was "almost" a sell-out. I mean, Christ, they ran 100 laps unders green last week, that is sacreligious at Bristol. All of the races at Bristol, Martinsville, and Richmond have been dull events because of the lack of action. Read that as wrecks if you will, because dagnabbit that is the reason us rednecks go to these events!

I am through with seeing NASCAR live, they have ruined the sport with that POS generic car they run now.

And F-1 is no better, just another bully pulpit! But it was nice to see the big names turn topsy for a change. Young Lewis made a good show with the POS McClaren has this year.

Caz
 
So what happens (rule wise) if a team has not used there soft slick tyres towards the end of the race and it starts raining. The cars then need to go to dry tyres. There are holes all over the place just with the new compulsory soft tyre use.
 
Hey All,

Ed, until NASCAR eliminates the COT, today was my last short track race.

Looks at bristol last week and Martinsville today, no actions, just like F-1 most of the time, follow the leader, can't pass, can't wreck 'em, the COT is a total and utter failure.

I never thought I would see the day when they would say Bristol was "almost" a sell-out. I mean, Christ, they ran 100 laps unders green last week, that is sacreligious at Bristol. All of the races at Bristol, Martinsville, and Richmond have been dull events because of the lack of action. Read that as wrecks if you will, because dagnabbit that is the reason us rednecks go to these events!

I am through with seeing NASCAR live, they have ruined the sport with that POS generic car they run now.
Click to expand...

Caz at Bristol I think it is more the track than the car but at Martinsville and Richmond you do have a point about the car. What to do about it though. Only at the end when you have to "move" someone blocking is there "action". NASCAR needs to rethink their approach to short track racin for sure.

-Ed-
 
demorier said:
So what happens (rule wise) if a team has not used there soft slick tyres towards the end of the race and it starts raining. The cars then need to go to dry tyres. There are holes all over the place just with the new compulsory soft tyre use.
Click to expand...

No, rain means 'rain tyres', there were mountains of them available.
And of course, it is up to the driver to make the decision to stay out on slicks or come in for wets, depending on the conditions.
The general opinion (almost 100%) is the stupidity of haveing a hard and a soft compound that are so different it means a compromise setup, the soft compound is almost a 'qualifying' tyre and was shredded because most of the cars were biased toward the hard rubber.
What I object too is the ruling that every team MUST run both compounds in an event, that one has never made any sense to me.
 
Hey All,

I think the whole point to varying tires (whats a tyre?) is to increase the human element in racing. It is humans that make mistakes in judgement not machines/tires. By requiring both you better get it right as to when you use what - otherwise F1 becomes about technology - who builds a better car. The evolution that I see is steadily away from that - as well it probably should be - racing is entertainment. NASCAR went down this road F1 will too - I think the writing is on the wall.

-Ed-
 
Once a race is declared a wet race by the stewards, the 'both compounds' rule no longer applies. :)

For this year Bridgestone isn't bringing the right tyre for a particular track anymore, but one harder and one softer tyre. In Melbourne the 'Medium soft' would have been the best, but they brought the supersoft and medium compounds to Australia. For the spectators it's more fun to see cars that are harder to handle, but for those more into tactics etc. the dual tyre rule allows for some interesting tactics. The ones that started on soft last Sunday (Like Ferrari) suffered because it was too hot to run the soft compound on a heavy car that early. Kubica was doing very well on the softer tyres towards the end of the race, when the track was cooler and his fuel tank almost empty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top