Ten years ago nobody would have believed that F1 would be racing at night. Way too gimmicky, dangerous and contrived. It is. And YOU of all people should be able to figure out #1. While absent should recognize #3, but he might not be on here.
10% of the Contract amount is billed as "Mobilization" *sounds of electric pencil sharpener* There.........done!
Another article to fan the flames. Does have some mockups I haven't seen before. http://www.formula1unitedstates.com/F1RacingArticle030711.pdf
Very interesting. "It'll be about April before we can start thinking about constructing the buildings." BS.
Tavo Talk. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F33_iNa8ZVQ&feature=related[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq6OwPsCJ4g&feature=related[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKFtQAuzGpc&NR=1[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1dWzgVp-98&feature=related[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNF9RFtG1n8&feature=related[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uazbr2kbpo&feature=related[/ame]
Has the article in F1 magazine about Tavo and the whole Austin thing been discussed here? Tavo's father was very close with Bernie. Close ties, makes sense. Austin will happen. Sorry if this is old information.
You seem to be right on 1 but wrong on 3 or at least I can't connect it to F1. Lovely place indeed like most of Canada.
where are the sprinklers to make the mud? on a side note brother of a friend of mine just bought a suite at the track today.....guess he felt confident enough that they were gonna finish in time
I disagree (but you knew that) Night racing is simply to adjust the time of the race to allow for reasonable viewing times in the majority of areas - it's not a gimmick designed to inject unwarranted drama. A race at night, lit up so well that it looks like daytime isn't more dangerous than a normal race, so there is no element of a falsely contrived show. Night races are just a curiosity, implemented for purely logistical reasons. I don't remember anyone ever saying "they will never race at night". Not so with sprinklers, whose sole function would be to inject drama that would not otherwise be there.
Every effort is made to make them as bright as daytime races. They're run when they are solely to accommodate the TV audience.
It seems that is what Bernie is going for and that's replacing F1 with Mario Kart. KERS is like the super star you get to temporarily make your car go faster. Now with the sprinklers it's like the banana peel that gets dropped on the floor to spin the car out. All we need now is random objects that will fall or shoot off the cars to hit each other off the track and we pretty much have Mario Kart F1. It's about damn time F1 cars are armed with weapons.
Night racing's primary reason for existence is to boost TV viewership (we agree on that). Artificially wet races' primary reason for existence is to boost TV viewership. Same difference. And while I hear your argument regarding night racing, that isn't the full picture: Part of it is also the allure of something new, something different, glitz and glamour of Singapore night life, adding rock concerts into the mix. Let's face it, it is not a total coincidence that the first night race happens to be in a fancy town booming with night life. Night racing would have lost half of its appeal if they had done it at e.g. Sepang. And a similar argument can be made for racing from day to dusk at Abu Dhabi. There it is even more obvious that they timed the race not only to accomodate for European prime time TV but also because it is yet another novelty. As for the gimmicky part, I could actually make a counter argument: F1 never raced at night. F1 always raced on wet surfaces. Therefore introducing artificially wet surfaces isn't anything new to the drivers whereas racing at night is. Wrong analogy: F1 always raced in the wet. So sprinklers don't add a new challenge to the drivers' skill set. Banana peels and weapons would be something new and gimmicky, but nobody is talking about that.
