F 1, better now or before?
Discussion
alne22 said:
i dont like the tyre rules. it means that races depend on how durable tyres are rather than driver skill.
the same goes for the qualifying rules. unlimited fuel and tyres i say.
I disagree, I think part of being a good racing driver is to be able to avoid mistakes like locking up wheels on the way into corners. If Raikonnen (sp?) hadn't had the couple of incidents earlier in the race I think his tyre would have hung on.
Hugh1 said:
i dont like the tyre rules. it means that races depend on how durable tyres are rather than driver skill.
the same goes for the qualifying rules. unlimited fuel and tyres i say.
I disagree, I think part of being a good racing driver is to be able to avoid mistakes like locking up wheels on the way into corners. If Raikonnen (sp?) hadn't had the couple of incidents earlier in the race I think his tyre would have hung on.
thats a good point, but if proper pit stops were allowed and tyres could be changed, the races would have been about pure driver skill and strategy. it just seems a shame that a driver may have to stop pushing because his tyres are worn out.
alne22 said:
alne22 said:
i dont like the tyre rules. it means that races depend on how durable tyres are rather than driver skill.
the same goes for the qualifying rules. unlimited fuel and tyres i say.
I disagree, I think part of being a good racing driver is to be able to avoid mistakes like locking up wheels on the way into corners. If Raikonnen (sp?) hadn't had the couple of incidents earlier in the race I think his tyre would have hung on.
thats a good point, but if proper pit stops were allowed and tyres could be changed, the races would have been about pure driver skill and strategy. it just seems a shame that a driver may have to stop pushing because his tyres are worn out.
Maybe, but driver skill also involves being able to preserve your tyres and being able to drive smoothly as well as fast.
It's going the right way now, only change now would be to make the qualifing order based on the previous race qualifing positions rather than the race finish order. I feel using the race order is unfair on someone that may have been punted out on the first corner through no fault of their own.
All they nned to do after that is too reduce the aero effect to get some more drafting ability and overtaking and it'll be great.
The previous format of three 20 lap sprint events stitched together into a 90 minute race is not Grand Prix racing. It bears no relationship to what GPs were ever about. Thank goodness the new tyre rules reintroduce into the sport something we haven't seen for over a decade in F1, a driver being rewarded for looking after his car. My hunch is that Michael Scumacher would not have done so well over the past decade if looking after ones tyres had been an essential part of the racing.
Indeed. Takes me back to the edge-of-the-seat races with the leaders in serious danger of running out of fuel and the same will-he-won't-he excitement of the lead changing in the last few laps that we had on Sunday.
Who can forget Mansell running out of fuel on the last corner of the last lap of a race whilst in the lead?
I must confess I was skeptical about the new tyre rules, but they do seem to have added a bit of spice.
However, the same could have been achieved by returning to the old rules of no refuelling.
Who can forget Mansell running out of fuel on the last corner of the last lap of a race whilst in the lead?
I must confess I was skeptical about the new tyre rules, but they do seem to have added a bit of spice.
However, the same could have been achieved by returning to the old rules of no refuelling.
Eric Mc said:
My hunch is that Michael Scumacher would not have done so well over the past decade if looking after ones tyres had been an essential part of the racing.
I think the majority of people with a knowledge of F1 would disagree with you: Schumacher is regarded as being one of the best drivers in his ability to drive around and nurse problems with the car.
festermath - possibly, but I reckon he would have had tougher challenges to face over his career. I'm not doubting he would have been a multiple world champion, just that he would have had to adapt his style and technique to suit. I well remember him winning the 1996 Spanish GP with the car stuck in 5th Gear, for instance.
Eric Mc said:
festermath - possibly, but I reckon he would have had tougher challenges to face over his career. I'm not doubting he would have been a multiple world champion, just that he would have had to adapt his style and technique to suit. I well remember him winning the 1996 Spanish GP with the car stuck in 5th Gear, for instance.
He was 2nd... but still, not a bad drive.
For what it's worth? I reckon it's way better. You don't know who's going to win after the first 1/3 of the race for a start. There's more unpredictability, more scope for driver error and, by the same token, more scope for drivers to show their skill.
When traction control goes and they return to manual gear-changing, that would make it even better...
When traction control goes and they return to manual gear-changing, that would make it even better...
jaytee368 said:
Almost staying on-topic, does anyone else think Shoe-makka is sandbagging?
In a word; No!
I was at Monaco and stood under the grandstand at the exit of the swimming pool and both Ferraris looked clearly uneasy compared to the rest.
I don't see what they would gain by sandbagging.
steviebee said:Very unlikely conspiracy theory that I don't actually believe myself, but... Ferrari recently signed up with the FIA for F1 post-Concorde for a sizeable chunk of cash. Could it not be possible that one of the terms of this deal was to let the other teams beat Ferrari for a while, making them more likely to sign up to F1 instead of GPWC as they can see themselves in with a chance of winning...
I don't see what they would gain by sandbagging.
LexSport said:
I don't see what they would gain by sandbagging.
Very unlikely conspiracy theory that I don't actually believe myself, but... Ferrari recently signed up with the FIA for F1 post-Concorde for a sizeable chunk of cash. Could it not be possible that one of the terms of this deal was to let the other teams beat Ferrari for a while, making them more likely to sign up to F1 instead of GPWC as they can see themselves in with a chance of winning...
Anythings possible given the politics of F1...!!
It's certainley odd that the Ferrari was on another planet to the others at Imola but nowhere everywhere else so far.
They certainley seem hampered by the Bridgestone tyres lack of grip in qualifing at the moment.
I still won't be surprised to see Schuey winning a few races before the end of the season, but IMHO Alonso/Renault have done enough to WIN the title, they can only LOOSE it now.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff