Not sure about that: The fact that he now apparently talks to the Tavio group (don't you like my motto, see below?) to me says that it was more than just a brief attempt to keep F1 in the headlines when there is no race. Granted Tavio probably goes along with it as lip service doesn't cost him a dime and if it keeps him in better standing with Bernie, then all the better (in case they can't deliver for the 2012 season). The bottom line is, that Bernie does what brings $. Races where there is more "entertainment" will bring more TV viewers and that ultimately ends up in more $ for Bernie. He doesn't care what purists think about his idea. Whether or not there will be sprinklers IMHO comes only down to whether or not the FIA (and to some small degree the GPDA) will allow it or not. I dont think they would object from a purists perspective (although they would never admit that) as they too care primarily about the show (as evidenced in recent rulings like the movable wings or reintroducing pits stops). However they might object from a safety perspective. Then again everybody thought that after Hockenheim's Verstappen fire, refueling would be banned forever and the opposite happened for the sake of the show. I thought sprinklers were only true in fairytales. Boring races haunted all my dreams. Then I saw Bernie's face, now I'm a believer.
Thanks m8. You're damn right that it sorts the men from the boys. Personally I don't like rain, but you know what: "Fake rain" is the best of both worlds: You get to see the F1 drivers struggle in the wet with all the action that this entails, but us a spectators don't get rained on AND we might even watch the whole scene in perfect sunshine, which translates into great fotos of sparkling rooster tails.
Tavo will agree with whatever Bernie says. Bernie came up with this lead balloon to keep F1 in the news after the Bahrain disappointment. The fact that it has traction surprised him more than anyone else.
Right that does it.... Mr high pants. Bang on, I don't like rain myself, but with that scenario brilliant.
Racing deprivation is a terrible thing. It plays with even the most stable of minds. You never stood a chance. Rx; A full season of F1 starting toot sweet
LOL That may well be quite true. Anyway sorry for derailing this important thread, I give up predicting US GP's after last time.
The problem with fake rain is that it is either unpredictable or too predictable. If they turn them on randomly, then it's more unpredictable than real rain, because with real rain, you can at least see the radar images and teams can use an element of skill and/or strategy to try to further themselves in that situation. If the rain came totally randomly, that part is gone - and anything that happened because of that (i.e. a team crashes out, or is in the lead and decides to stay out and risk it on dry tires and ends up off-track) will be seen (rightly so) as FIA manipulation. If they are not random, and the teams are told the rain starts on lap 20 and stops on lap 30, then it's just a fake event and no different than musical chairs, but with racecars and water. It's not workable, and won't be implemented. As for Tavo, he is Bernie's useful idiot. He is in Bernies pocket more than any other track owner/promoter in the history of the sport. He'll enthusiastically agree with anything Bernie says. He fills a role for Bernie too - he adds a (minuscule, microscopic) level of credibility to Bernies words. Suddenly, it's not just the ramblings of a senile old coot, it's got some track support (lulz go here).
Actually it could be made into a fairly realistic simulation where the FIA computer defines the parameters and the teams are given real time "weather" feeds. If you like to see how that works, just buy any decent computer F1 game and select the "random weather option", then define the tire and pitstop strategy etc. F1 2010 for instance has that on a simple basis. I'm sure airplane training simulators have this in a much fancier version suitable for F1. It is workable. The question is more around the safety issues and the potential for lawsuits if somebody (team, track worker, driver, spectators, press) gets hurt. You can ridicule Tavo as he is new to the F1 game, but how about the boss of Pirelli's F1 tire project? Or some ex drivers?
Well, well, well....... Someone just tossed a multi million dollar project into my office this morning, starts TODAY!!! With Austin Commercial!!! Funny, how fate works......
Absolutely, we evaluate opportunities for modular pre fabrication, then a pile of shrink wrapped palletized assemblies hits the project "just in time delivery" and off you go!! BUT, just because you have nine women in the room, you still cannot have a baby in one month's time.... "A man has got to know his limitations....." Dirty Harry
It's still random... you can't ever replicate the guy looking out of the pitlane off to the distance and feeling in his gut that rain is coming from the East, and to get the intermediates ready. And on that basis, you can't ever replicate rain races. Your simulator analogy is a good one - you can emulate all of the visuals and reactions in a simulator, but without the extra element, it's just not the same. In simulators, that element is the danger amongst other things. In fake rain, it's the instinct and experience of team strategists. Well, you say it's workable and then provide a few reasons why it's not And some people in F1 thought that Scott Speed was worthy of an F1 seat. Need I say more about the sometimes foolish ideas of F1 people?
Uh, oh. Congratulations! Keep us posted (if you're allowed to). You know, I have a big window sill, sometimes little birds land there...
A few remarks to that: - Even those "weathermen" get it wrong quite a few times. Williams at Monaco as one of the biggest weathermen forecast blunders comes to mind. And in more recent years races at Nuerburgring and Spa are notoriously difficult to predict. - The "new weathermen" might have to develop a nose for the computer's simulation attitude. After all, even a random generator follows a pattern, which eventually can become somewhat predictable. - Regardless I think if they really introduce this, they will probably keep the guessing game to a minimum. As Bernie already mentioned it would be limited to like 10 laps in the middle or towards the end of the race. The teams would for instance know that the sprinkler window opens between lap 28 and 30 and last for roughly 10 laps. The sprinklers would probably start out slowly and evenly. Therefore avoid tricky Spa like situations where it rains in one part but not in others. Also a slow oncome would keep it relatively safe and the teams would be ready by lap 27 with the wet tires. Quite frankly I'd see the implementation a bit like what we have today with the rule demanding that two different dry tires are used per race: So everybody is on a 5 lap stint with the supersofts, gets rid of them and then changes to the real ones (at least that was true for the past). This wet phase would add 10 laps on wet tires (probably between intermediates or full wets, but unlikely the monsoon types). And after 10 laps everybody returns to the pits again and continues on dry tires. I never read my F1 ticket stubs but I'm pretty sure somewhere on there it says that I signed my life away by entering the track. There is always the risk that a car or a wheel gets airborne and ends up in the spectators. And if you can outrule liability to spectators you can certainly make the same case for all the other professionals working around the track. Maybe not in litigation happy US of A, but certainly in the rest of the world. So I'm not so sure whether legalities would be a stumbling block. At the end of the day, it probably boils down to political will of the FIA, read Todt. True dat. For every argument you will always find folks/experts supporting it or the opposite. PS: Who the hell did believe in Scott Speed? Other than a few lost souls on here I mean. Just curious.
Don't say that, you're missing out on a lot of fun! BTW: Can you name those 3 tracks? Isobel, you are not allowed to help here. I'm sure you know them. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I can appreciate the desire to have the races mixed up a bit with additional drama, and sprinklers would definitely do that... but it would be contrived drama, and so I don't support it. I think the overwhelming majority of the F1 world would not support it either, so I am sure it will never happen. We shall see. Well, we also have people who thought USF1 was a real effort. And there are even a few who think the Austin GP is a legit project! Some people will believe anything
