| Author | Message | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Junior Member Username: Psk Post Number: 231 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas, Yep have to agree that I loved watching the 1 lap qualifying sessions ... didn't think it was going to be that good, but being able to see EVERY driver do a complete lap trying their best (okay not quite as on the edge as the old format, but none the less still trying). Thus while I can see that due to stuff ups (like McLaren's) and weather issues there will be some unfair or strange grids ... I think it is okay. I even enjoyed the race, but the weather really controlled it to me. If Ferrari had started on dry's .... hmmmm, the race would have been very different .... Pete | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 190 Registered: 11-2002 |
Have a look at the archive. I love Sniffpetrol - really funny! BTW, Andreas, I forgot to forward the e-mail with your number on it from work to home. Could you e-mail it to the vavavoom address please? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2002 |
Just follwed Anthony's thread and link and realized, that below the Wynona Rider joke is a really funny fake letter from Mosley: http://www.sniffpetrol.com/index.html Hilarious, I think. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 567 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bernie actually said, he'd love it for MS to win the 6th title to set a new all best. But he also hopes, that this won't happen until late in the season. And quite frankly so do I. I still watched all the races after the WC was won last year and would do so this year, but it is more dramatic if it doesn't just happen halfway through the season. And I believe we won't see it as dramatic this year either. The gap got narrower. | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 436 Registered: 3-2001 |
Boy...won't Bernie be PISSED when Schumi and Rubens wrap up the championship just as early this year?? Next season, as a penalty, the boys in red will have to drive with only 3 wheels on their car. | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 435 Registered: 3-2001 |
Yup...all about entertainment. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 566 Registered: 10-2002 |
Matt, true that is a problem and it was actually stated by Mosley, that they kinda hope for that scenario... Point is to give chance more of a hand in the starting grid. Not a bad idea if entertainment is the driving factor, obviously bad if you only consider fairness. Obviously it can go either way for any team. Now to take this a step further one could argue, that Ferrari (who is believed to have a superb weather man/forecast) could in future races (wasn't possible in this one as they used the WC points) play with their times in the qualifying session to get either an early or late slot in the 2nd session (which really counts) to get the weather they needed. To paraphrase Chris Kataan on SNL: "Isss aaal gooood."  | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 434 Registered: 3-2001 |
Hey guys...sorry to jump in late, and I'm not even going to get involved with your ongoing conversation (I think you both have touched on some great points), but what about this...... Previously, a team could send a driver out for a hot lap during qualifying whenever they wanted. What happens, if say it starts to rain in the last 15 minutes of qualifying in Melbourn? Ferrari clearly knows the weather is coming, yet can do nothing about it? Visa versa is not as big of an issue, because standing water will be on the track (of course, it is easier to drive when the course is just wet, as opposed to when it raining hard). Once again, teams have their hands tied when it comes to trying to do the best THEY can. Any thoughts? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 563 Registered: 10-2002 |
Pete, agree with most of your statements. A few comments though: I *LOVED* last night's single time trials in Melbourne. Didn't think much of it beforehand, but boy was that a cool show or what! Finally you get to see every driver one by one run the track. Never before did I ever see such a comparison. I loved it! So not all of Bernie's ideas are ruining the sport IMHO. Second I'd love to see a manufacturers F1 series for the fact, that then the identification is a lot bigger. No, I don't say that because of NASCAR...Personally I only want to drive a car, that is actually out there competing. So if it weren't for my F car, I'd probably drive a Toyota, Jag or Renault (ok, no Renaults in the US). But I agree with you, that there is a risk, that the car manufacturers alone might ruin it. OTOH I think it really is the easy way out for say BMW to just focus on the engine and have somebody else build the car (well, right now they probably regret that themselves). Finally I couldn't agree more with your statement about the tracks! Spoken from my heart. When they presented the first drawings of the Nuerburgring my jaw dropped in disbelief of the upcoming boredom (at least for local spectators). Compare that to Monaco, where only the Armco separates you from the cars. And all those chicanes, that castrate good circuits. I hate to see Imola disappear from the calendar, but it might be for the better, 'destroyed' as it has become after 94. I would even go as far as to say F1 could use at least one oval race. I said oval racing doesn't do it for me, but they should have at least one in the calendar. Why not use the Indy track as it was intended to instead of this Mickey Mouse circuit? Anthony, street races for me a tracks on real streets, preferably somewhere in a downtown area with NO runoff area (not counting escape routes at corner exits). Unforgiving armco or concrete walls. Canada and Melbourne still have some grass left, so I don't count those. Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, those counted. Those races are not only unforgiving to the drivers but also to the machines, the brakes, clutches etc. There is a reason for why a Monaco victory counts more than a regular one. And we have plenty of Hungarorings in the calendar already... | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 184 Registered: 11-2002 |
Isn't Melbourne a street circuit? And what about Canada? I realise they aren't the same as Monaco as they are more forgiving of mistakes, but they are used as streets when the race isn't in town. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Junior Member Username: Psk Post Number: 223 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas, Yes interesting we have a doubt edged sword situation ... sponsorship brings in the necessary money for the technology, but on the other hand is ruining the main objectives of the sport, and that is to prove who is the fastest driver and which team can create the best car. Thus what do we do? I am concerned if we keep bowing to the entertainment side to keep the sponsors happy that eventually F1 will no longer mean that the world champion is actually the best racecar driver in the world. We already have a situation for this year where pole position will not necessarily go to the fastest car and driver package, but to the team that decided that pole position was the most important strategy ... personally this is wrong. Pole should be the fastest and bravest and most amazing lap we are ever going to see ... we have lost that now  What is next ... weighing down M. Schumachers car, because he is the best and deserves to win (hands down) and the crowd find this boring!!!, or banning M. Schumacher because his skill has made the sport boring. It is a dangerous balance and Bernie needs to be real careful, because from a purest point of view he has already gone to far ... any further and we will not have the ultimate motor racing competition, but a high speed TV game show (attempt at humour here . What to do, oh what to do .... Ok, here is the answer: Kill F1, and move to the manufacturers series. Why? Because the only sponsors that do not care about the racing being interesting are the car manufacturers. They infact want to dominate ... so they can crow from the top of the highest hill that they are the best. Thus we have the money (almost) and the attention of the manufacturers (which I think we all agree is a big boost to F1) and racing can be left pure ... and those that are not interested will not be 100% car rev-heads like us. Pete ps: I agree that F1 needs more street circuits, infact I believe we need more 'real' mans circuits like Spa ... we need more corners that make the drivers private parts want to be somewhere else other ... even the tracks are becoming sterile and over safe. Note: I do not want to see someone killed or hurt, but racing needs to test the drivers courage otherwise what have we got ... a video game? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 547 Registered: 10-2002 |
PSK, well you got a point there about the competition etc. That's all true. However in order to maintain the high level of F1 (same argument holds true for say the Olympics) a lot of money has to flow into the sport through sponsors. And they're only there if the world is watching and the number of fans of F1 has dropped quite a bit due to the procession style races of last year (don't get me wrong, I'm a Ferrari fan and love to see them win, but once the WC was won it really became a bit anticlimatic). So fuel stops and all the other hoopla is just another way of making it more interesting for the spectators. Granted the end result will remain the same, but the way of getting there will be a bit more convoluted through the different race strategies. Personally I actually agree with you, that fuel stops just cloud the picture and there should be an all out racing effort. However I have to admit, that I bite my fingernails every time they come in for refueling, especially if the passing window is thight and there is always a chance of a screwup as once with Eddie at Nuerburg or MS in Sepang. You mentioned the dreaded laps for waiting to go for the refuel etc. Well, true, OTOH remember the Turbo era, when there were no fuel stops and flat out racing, but in the end it was not a game of who drove the fastest, but who conserved the most fuel. Imola comes to my mind, where we saw new race 'leaders' every other moment in the last few laps. To finish up: I consider myself actually European, albeit living in the US now. And I do agree with you re: NASCAR. Oval racing just ain't racing, but that's just me. However at the same token I have to say, that my respect for CART grew immensely doing it all (oval, road and street racing). Street racing is something F1 should have more often. They currently only have Monaco, but there should be more of that as I think it is a lot more challenging than road racing: One mistake and you're out, just unforgiving. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Junior Member Username: Psk Post Number: 221 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas,
I disagree. Competitive racing each other started many, many thousands of years ago, when one caveman grunted to the other that he can run faster than him. Thus they took off to prove who was faster ... and could not give a toss who was watching or not. Racing from a team and a drivers point of view is still the same ... they do not care if anybody is watching. I definitely did not care when I used to race cars, and won a championship, it was all about personal achievement, development and proving to myself that I could prepare and drive better than anybody else in my class. Thus sorry the root cause and driver of any sport is not entertainment but for the players (or team) to prove their training and efforts are rewarded by a win ... the fact that idiots (including myself) wish to spend huge amounts of money to come along and watch their personal vendetta is a bonus as it makes some of them rich. We have forgotten in this twisted modern world why we have sport and now all think it is because of TV or live entertainment. Well I can tell you, that if something drastic happened and we suddenly lost electricity and our TVs could no longer work ... Sport would still be played. Our children would still play competitive sports and fun games and this has nothing to do with entertainment other than the participants enjoying themselves. We are but an animal with the same basic instincts. You have been sucked into this sad world that thinks that everything that happens on TV or in the name of sport is for YOUR entertainment ... you are wrong. For example: Olympians do not train from the age of 6 to entertain you and me, they do it to win and to achieve something. They definitely achieve more than becoming yet another flaky actor on a TV program. I also am close to 100% sure that becoming some sort of celebrity is far from their minds ... Please remember what life is really about and it is not just about entertainment. Sport is far more serious than just mere entertainment ... If you are American then I can understand your view point, because motor racing is a joke in the USA because it exists purely for entertainment and thus has no real basis to the sport, and this is why the rest of the world does not understand NASCAR (for example). A sport cannot exist as entertainment alone, it has to exist first because we as humans have a desire to go out there and play this sport as hard and as fair as we can ... that has to come first. No wonder F1 is loosing the plot. Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 538 Registered: 10-2002 |
PSK, remember, that the sole purpose of F1 (or any other racing) is entertainment. There is no real reason to do these things other than because they're fun. And fuel stops add to the drama, so that's why they're there. Bernie understands that and that's why he brought them back. IMHO Bernie is one of the smartest guys on the planet and without him F1 would be a bunch of UK garage boys toying around. (stepping down from the soap box now) My question re: the fuel regulation is, what happens if we have a red flagged race because say a start collision? Is refueling then permitted and if so how much fuel can be added? Otherwise some people who use minimal fuel will not make it around back to the pits. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Junior Member Username: Psk Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2002 |
Actually I have been thinking about this alot, and I think this is the best strategy: 1. Put minimal amount of fuel in the car for qualifying ... thus qualify well and avoid the accidents at the start. 2. Pit on the first or second lap, and thus rejoin the track with a nice empty track to play with. Thus your pace will be very fast (due to not being held up) and should be enough to create a gap on the others that are waiting until later to pit ... and thus may not get the guaranteed clear track that you would at the beginning. Thus if this works (and I can see no reason why not) this will be the strategy that most of the top teams attempt and thus we will have the pathetic possibility of everbody starting on light fuel and then all racing into the pits and then resuming like a normal race ... thus nothing has changed and the race really starts after the first pit stop. In the end you can mix up the incredients as much as you want but we have to remember that motor racing is about racing on the track. I personally would like to have refueling banned again so we can actually race the whole race long and not have the race confused by fuelling strategies which, usually mean that the pace is different for some cars and thus they are not really racing on the track. With no refuelling then you actually get cars trying to pass, instead of waiting for their pit stop!!! Bernie does not understand motorracing at all ... possibly going senile. Pete | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Junior Member Username: Psk Post Number: 213 Registered: 11-2002 |
Anthony,
What about the 107% rule, a Minardi on full tanks would not make this cutoff if Ferrari went out with 5 laps of fuel on board. Thus we could see Ferrari putting 5 laps of fuel on board (3 laps qualifying, 1 lap warm-up and 1 lap of the race) to set a blistering pace and get some excluded from the race due to the 107% rule. OR is the 107% rule going to be dropped? Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 528 Registered: 10-2002 |
Don't think that is gonna work: Aren't there now size limitations on the fuel tanks (since a few years I believe). So even if your tank is as big as the rules allow and you fill it up completely you will have to do one refueling stop. Anyway, I see your point. It will be interesting. | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 179 Registered: 11-2002 |
Another possibility is that Minardi decide there is no point trying to get near the front of the grid so they qualify with their tanks full. They might then be able to do the whole race without stopping. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 527 Registered: 10-2002 |
Anthony, you're quite right. That's what I meant with 'confusing', it will be a bit like in the past, when one had to figure out, whether they're on a one, two or three stop strategy. But it won't really be a true fight as the 'cheaters' in qualifying will be gone for refueling early on. So by mid race things will have settled in the usual way. Whereas a reversed grid would really get the guys to fight for it. Oh well, such is life. | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 177 Registered: 11-2002 |
We could easily see some mixed up grids. A team might try qualifying one car on a light fuel load to get it further uo the grid. It will obviously have to stop earlier in the race but by then he could have held up a rival and helped out his team-mate. Jordan or Minardi might try qualifying on fumes early in the season in an attempt to attract new sponsors. We are not going to see a Minardi on pole, but they might manage to get in the top 10. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 526 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'm afraid this won't change a darn thing other than make things a tad more confusing. I do like the new strategy games one can play with less fuel in qualifying and going for an early pitstop etc. As I said in the other thread about the MS interview, don't take anything for granted: A simple injury like a broken leg is all it takes to make this season unpredictable. Hope that won't happen of course. But MS has knocked on Heaven's door before, not just in Silverstone. Jamal, I completely agree with your statement about Rubens in Germany, but this rule change won't create that effect: All it means, that the front runners got the last chance to qualify, it won't affect the grid. If you really want entertainment, you have to go with a reverse grid based on WC points. Then you have a situation like Germany. And yes, that would be entertaining. Also a bit scary if people like Sato would sit on pole... | ||
| Jamil Jamal (Jameel)
New member Username: Jameel Post Number: 48 Registered: 9-2002 |
This might be a weird rule, but the FIA has to do something to keep F1 entertaining. I think this is a good change, that and the single car qualifying. I'm sure it won't change things overall. We all know Michael Schumacher will win again this year, unless McLaren and/or Williams have had a quantum leap, which I doubt! But at least with these changes, we can see some of the faster teams moving up from the back of the grid to the front. Do you guys remember Rubens B. (I think it was in 1999), he started 18th at Hockenhiem (sp?) and ended up winning the race. Now that was exciting to watch! | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2002 |
No. The quickest on Friday go last on Saturday. | ||
| Steve (V10_nut)
Junior Member Username: V10_nut Post Number: 55 Registered: 3-2002 |
Do you think the front runners will be sandbagging during the Friday qualifying session so they get to do the hot lap toward the end of the session on Saturday? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 478 Registered: 10-2002 |
Shocking, isn't it? Yes, it is for real, starting at Melbourne. There will be no more Sunday warmup practice. The cars will be sealed and no more fuel added. You're quite right, that has a HUGE impact on qualifying and race strategy. I think it is purely entertainment as the best will remain the best. But we could in theory end up with a pole position by Minardi... | ||
| Steve (V10_nut)
Junior Member Username: V10_nut Post Number: 54 Registered: 3-2002 |
Is that for real?? If so, they have to plan their race strategy to include the single qualifying lap. What about the warm up session on race day? Wont they get to refuel after morning practice? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 472 Registered: 10-2002 |
Since nobody has commented here on this one, I thought I'd better bring this up: Effective immediately the teams can no longer refuel their cars after qualifying! That means, that they have to make a decision to either have a fuel heavy car for qualifying and not do well obviously or have a light fuel load, get a good grid position and then come back to refuel in one of the early laps. A weird concept, but definitely entertaining. In the scheme of things I don't think this will change the pecking order, but it will lead to interesting qualifying and races, no doubt. |