The F1 thread.

Ravenstone wrote:

And although this is an F1 thread - I feel the need to mention Simoncelli, and express my deep regret at his sad death. Such a loss to the sport. And such an horrendous accident. My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi as well.

same here, that and the death of Dan Wheldon may be the two worst crashes I've ever seen in their respective sports

both were absolutely horrific...

Seve wrote:

looking at the wins he's had in the last couple of seasons, since he won the title, Jensen seems to be the master tactician whenever track conditions are less than ideal

Agreed. He's smooth, good at driving around problems and/or situations, and mechanically sympathetic. When his wheels don't fall off....

Quote :

while the others seem unable to read or adapt to changing circumstances, showing a lack of maturity?

Dunno if it's maturity, or just that there are some things you cannot be taught ;)

Quote :

none of the current leading drivers has shown the delicate mastery of damp conditions which marked out the likes of Stewart, Senna and even the much maligned Schumacher, as drivers of a higher order

Well, two out of three.... ;)

I know it's contentious and unpopular, but I don't like Schumacher. Yes, he's good. I'm not taking that away from him. But I wouldn't put him in the same category as Senna (not that I liked Senna, but he was amazing when he was driving and not pushing people off the track). Schumacher has had some good drives, but I've never really seen much to impress me. Except for his singular talent in telling porkies about what he was actually doing with his steering wheel when someone's overtaking him.....

I don't like him. It's really no good trying to convince me. I've had years of people trying to convince me. But lots of people telling me something doesn't make it true. I can only say what I see - and I haven't seen much with him except stuff that's made me want to punch him very hard.

I used to know a woman who had an old school friend who worked for Williams in the mid to late 90s. He said Schumacher was rather a personality-free zone. And also not really thought much of by other drivers.

Seve wrote:

both were absolutely horrific...

They were. Terrible. It's strange how nothing happens for years, and then all of a sudden there's a rash of them :(

[quote="Ravenstone"]

Seve wrote:

Quote :

none of the current leading drivers has shown the delicate mastery of damp conditions which marked out the likes of Stewart, Senna and even the much maligned Schumacher, as drivers of a higher order

Well, two out of three.... ;)

I know it's contentious and unpopular, but I don't like Schumacher. Yes, he's good. I'm not taking that away from him. But I wouldn't put him in the same category as Senna (not that I liked Senna, but he was amazing when he was driving and not pushing people off the track). Schumacher has had some good drives, but I've never really seen much to impress me. Except for his singular talent in telling porkies about what he was actually doing with his steering wheel when someone's overtaking him.....

I don't like him. It's really no good trying to convince me. I've had years of people trying to convince me. But lots of people telling me something doesn't make it true. I can only say what I see - and I haven't seen much with him except stuff that's made me want to punch him very hard.

I used to know a woman who had an old school friend who worked for Williams in the mid to late 90s. He said Schumacher was rather a personality-free zone. And also not really thought much of by other drivers.

well I don't pretend to be an expert driver myself, but I'm persuaded by respected writers I've read about the validity of the "driving in the wet test" and he passed it, so that's all I'm saying

we all have drivers who's personalities and behaviour we dislike, but if that was the criteria for success, Jaques Laffite would be the great French champion instead of Prost, Clay Regazzoni would have kicked Niki Lauda's arse, John Watson would have been the great British champion instead of Nigel Mansell, Gerhard Berger would have cleaned up Senna etc

Another thing that bothers me these days is the continuous rule changes from FIA. I mean let them do what they want with their bloody cars.
At first they banned the ingenious F-duct, then they banned the also ingenious blown-diffuser. Now they want to bann extreme engine mapping in general I think. But that's what the sport is all about. The extreme! In the end what they will manage is to help the engine supliers and to decapitate the smaller teams, because they will be able to develop stronger engines. Aerodynamics play the biggest part in modern motor racing and the FIA doesn't want it! Oh, and add to the list the flex front wing.

If I was Jean Todt I'd say do whatever you want with your cars and then let's see who has the balls to win. That's the right way to go I think.

Never forget the FIA is also known as Ferrari International Aid ;)

Yeah, personal preferences do hold sway. I think, as well, my own dislike was pushed further into intense dislike simply by so many people telling me how good he was. If that makes sense. Including my brother, who was never a huge F1 fan until recent years. It just seemed that all the new fans jumped on the Schumacher bandwagon, so I dug my heels in even further simply to stand up for myself and my right to disagree ;)

I quite liked Mansell. And I love how he's still faster than most F1 drivers around the Top Gear track! :D

Aris wrote:

Another thing that bothers me these days is the continuous rule changes from FIA. I mean let them do what they want with their bloody cars.
At first they banned the ingenious F-duct, then they banned the also ingenious blown-diffuser. Now they want to bann extreme engine mapping in general I think. But that's what the sport is all about. The extreme! In the end what they will manage is to help the engine supliers and to decapitate the smaller teams, because they will be able to develop stronger engines. Aerodynamics play the biggest part in modern motor racing and the FIA doesn't want it! Oh, and add to the list the flex front wing.

If I was Jean Todt I'd say do whatever you want with your cars and then let's see who has the balls to win. That's the right way to go I think.

if it was really about "balls" you would go back to using cars with technology from the 30s

IMO those cars required far bigger balls to drive than todays "scalectrix" cars

Ravenstone wrote:

I quite liked Mansell. And I love how he's still faster than most F1 drivers around the Top Gear track! :D

yes, I've got a soft spot for him too, despite the chip on his shoulder and the whiny voice

He can't help the whiny voice - it's a Brummie thing; ending a sentence on an upward inflection. As for the chip on his shoulder - well, Prost did steal his car.

I do like Schumacher because he was such a bastard. It made the racing more interesting. He was everyone's favourite villain. He reminds me a bit of Canada's Paul Tracy. Tracy would not allow himself to be passed by a "lesser" driver. He'd run them off the road, and take himself out if he had to, just to maintain his aura or whatever. It got him him in lots of trouble, but drivers do seem to have a grudging respect for their peers that drive aggressively and get away with it. As a result Tracy was often given more room than other drivers and he won lots of races. But drivers all know how to record top lap times. Just find the racing line and brake as late as possible and then foot to the floor until the next braking point. But actual racing in traffic and overtaking, that's where the fun is, and some drivers play that very nervy game, much better than others. Its the real bastards of the track that often make things interesting.

[quote="Seve]
if it was really about "balls" you would go back to using cars with technology from the 30s

IMO those cars required far bigger balls to drive than todays "scalectrix" cars[/quote]

I think it's wrong to compare those two eras. And it's wrong because they are two different things. Then it was all about safety. Tracks were narrow, there was no room for error. Nowadays, the cars are superfast and become even faster every year. The definittion of "balls" is about who can go faster and not only who can keep the car off the wall.

What I'd like to see is no rules in terms of developing the cars, no testing limits. Then we'll see who has the abillity to make a car that's fast, but also who has the balls to drive that car. This will put the drivers to a test.

Another thing that has to be changed is the "health and safety" rules. I mean in Canada this year there was a two hour red flag. I mean God! They treat them like babies. Let them race. They're the best drivers out there. The cars are secure enough let them race even if the track is a lake. Why didn't they stop the race that long in Monza in 2007? F1 is not only about racing in the dry and about tyre management. It's about risks.

Seve wrote:

if it was really about "balls" you would go back to using cars with technology from the 30s

IMO those cars required far bigger balls to drive than todays "scalectrix" cars

I think it's wrong to compare those two eras. And it's wrong because they are two different things. Then it was all about safety. Tracks were narrow, there was no room for error. Nowadays, the cars are superfast and become even faster every year. The definittion of "balls" is about who can go faster and not only who can keep the car off the wall.

What I'd like to see is no rules in terms of developing the cars, no testing limits. Then we'll see who has the abillity to make a car that's fast, but also who has the balls to drive that car. This will put the drivers to a test.

Another thing that has to be changed is the "health and safety" rules. I mean in Canada this year there was a two hour red flag. I mean God! They treat them like babies. Let them race. They're the best drivers out there. The cars are secure enough let them race even if the track is a lake. Why didn't they stop the race that long in Monza in 2007? F1 is not only about racing in the dry and about tyre management. It's about risks.

Aris wrote:

I think it's wrong to compare those two eras. And it's wrong because they are two different things. Then it was all about safety. Tracks were narrow, there was no room for error. Nowadays, the cars are superfast and become even faster every year. The definittion of "balls" is about who can go faster and not only who can keep the car off the wall.

I'm the opposite, the less technology, the less the grip, make driving skill a greater part of the equation again!
as I'm not a car nut I'm imore interested in driver skill
however I accept that motor racing will always be a combination of both

Aris wrote:

What I'd like to see is no rules in terms of developing the cars, no testing limits. Then we'll see who has the abillity to make a car that's fast, but also who has the balls to drive that car. This will put the drivers to a test.

no, what we would see is who had the most money,
and we've already been down that road before,
(the answer is Ferrari)

Aris wrote:

[
Another thing that has to be changed is the "health and safety" rules. I mean in Canada this year there was a two hour red flag. I mean God! They treat them like babies. Let them race. They're the best drivers out there. The cars are secure enough let them race even if the track is a lake. Why didn't they stop the race that long in Monza in 2007? F1 is not only about racing in the dry and about tyre management. It's about risks.

I disagree. I hate seeing crashes, because I'm always concerned they're going to be fatal. We haven't had a fatality in F1 since 1994, but just look at that weekend in 1994. Two drivers killed. And there's still the suggestion that the race should have been stopped, because Ratzenberger died on the track, but the race organisers got him artificially respirated until they got off the track, so he was announced dead at the hospital. Same with Senna. Because if a driver is declared dead at the race, the race is stopped immediately, under Italian law. And the organisers didn't want to lose money.

Before 1994, there hadn't been a death since about 1982, when there were two deaths.

But either way, I don't watch F1 to watch them crash. I don't find crashing exciting unless it's in a film. Canada was far too wet to race. Cars would have been flying off the track left right and centre, and all you would have had would have been a procession around behind the safety car until the last driver went off. Too wet to keep heat in the tyres, too slow to keep the brakes up to temperature - they wouldn't have stood a chance.

Remember when Senna died, it wasn't long after the safety car had come in. Several drivers were complaining - even before the race - that the safety car was too slow to be safe.

Seve wrote:

no, what we would see is who had the most money,

Agreed. And what I'd rather see is more competition from the middle of the pack. Slowing the cars down isn't a bad thing, especially if it means more overtaking.

And there's been quite a bit of overtaking this year -
http://www.yallaf1.com/2011/08/10/webber-%E2%80%98king-of-the-overtakers%E2%80%99-so-far-in-2011/

Yeah I admitt it was a bad point from me concerning the development of the cars. If this changes the sport will be only about sponsors and money. Completely wrong.

Since I see that your opinions are valuable and we have a good debate going on what do you think of new tracks in general? (China, Korea, India, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Bahrain)

Sharky wrote:

This thread needs Shadowonthesun/ Captain Tightpants.

Do you want him delivered?

Ravenstone wrote:

Express delivery?

Sharky wrote:

In the diplomatic bag.

Ravenstone wrote:

Surely you mean pouch? ;)

Mummy roo's on her way.

I quite liked the Korean track. A blend of long straights, twisty turns, and anti-clockwise. But what a stupid place to put a pit lane. Gerhard Berger had an awful shunt once in his career, I believe, as a result of slowing to enter the pits. You'd always see him raise his hand out of the cockpit when he was entering the pits after that.

Other piece of random trivia - Gerhard would finish each race with bleeding hands. After severe burns left his skin very delicate on both hands, he would bind his hands up with tape before each race to protect them from the shaking and banging of the race. He would still end up with them bleeding apparently.

Aris wrote:

Yeah I admitt it was a bad point from me concerning the development of the cars. If this changes the sport will be only about sponsors and money. Completely wrong.

Since I see that your opinions are valuable and we have a good debate going on what do you think of new tracks in general? (China, Korea, India, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Bahrain)

well I can't profess to be an expert on track design, but it always dissapoints me when they build a new track and then the teams turn up to race and the word comes back from the drivers that there aren't any decent corners for overtaking...

IMO that should be design priority # 1

also in general I'm not in favour of street tracks, they may creat a good buzz off the track, but they tend to provide poor racing, being flat, with few overtaking points and walls everywhere which allow no room for error, thus encouraging conservative driving

I'm all in favour of racing around the world, but I also think tradition and history have to have a place too and evil Bernie is only interested in short term monetary gain

certain Grand Prix and circuits need to be kept in the schedule, even if they aren't able to pay Bernie the fattest fee
in particular Monaco for the history, Spa because it's about the best track out there, Interlagos is the best track in Brazil, Brands Hatch is a better track for racing than Silverstone, the revised Nurburgring for the history, Zandvoort for Tarzan corner alone, etc

Blimey, when was the last time they raced at Zandvoort?

*wanders off to check*

Bernie did a lot of good for the sport. Balestre was a conniving political bugger who played favourites far too much (yes, Prost, I'm talking about you again). And he had a very shady history.....

Yes, much better Bernie than Balestre.

Ravenstone wrote:

Blimey, when was the last time they raced at Zandvoort?

*wanders off to check*

Bernie did a lot of good for the sport. Balestre was a conniving political bugger who played favourites far too much (yes, Prost, I'm talking about you again). And he had a very shady history.....

Yes, much better Bernie than Balestre.

back in the day Bernie did some good (but always way more good for himself)
and he did try to introduce a count back points system to decide the title (where the guy with the most wins is automatically champion) which I've always advocated myself
but power inevitably corrupts over time and he's been around long enough to have become very corrupt by now, it's long past time he should have been forced to retire from his position
that's a problem with all world sporting bodies, lack of accountability, creeping corruption, jobs for life, jobs for the family, snouts in the trough...

Yes, but Ecclestone does seem to have the good of the sport at heart. F1 was going down the pan when he took over; losing fans hand over fist. It may not have survived another decade. But he turned it around. And he's always struck me as a bloke who knows the value of £50. I mean, he's very certain that people spending £200 for an F1 weekend should get value for money. Considering he can afford to blow his nose on £200, I think that's worth respect.

I didn't agree with Max Mosley getting pushed around by the bloody press. Who cares what he pays prostitutes for? He's not a politician. He doesn't need the good will of the public. Another bloke who, like him or loathe him (and I'm indifferent either way), you have to respect him. If only for going to Ratzenberger's funeral because he knew everyone else would be at Senna's.

Ravenstone wrote:

Yes, but Ecclestone does seem to have the good of the sport at heart. F1 was going down the pan when he took over; losing fans hand over fist. It may not have survived another decade. But he turned it around. And he's always struck me as a bloke who knows the value of £50. I mean, he's very certain that people spending £200 for an F1 weekend should get value for money. Considering he can afford to blow his nose on £200, I think that's worth respect.

how do you feel about a Hungarian Grand Prix that Hungarians can't afford to attend?

Shouldn't be allowed, I'd say.

Nice to see Lewis Hamilton has a picture of Simoncelli on the top of his lid this weekend.

Ravenstone wrote:

Shouldn't be allowed, I'd say.

I agree and that's where Bernie crosses the line for me, because he thinks it's fine

Wasn't aware of that. No, that's not good. It should provide services commensurate to the fee charged, and be affordable for fans.

I take it back. It's Bob Marley. Oh well.