From the current issue of Austosport. [Archive]

View Full Version : From the current issue of Austosport.

wombat666

March 29th, 2013, 08:04

So very true!!

The driver stood up in the Grand Prix Drivers Association meeting and asked (and I’m paraphrasing because obviously I wasn’t there and have been told the tale by someone who was):

“So how did we allow this to happen? When did we become circus performers just putting on a show rather than F1 drivers racing flat-out?”
The target of his ire was Pirelli and though it’s fair to say he’s been one of those most competitively disadvantaged by the behaviour of the latest rubber, and therefore his impartiality might be questioned, he makes an interesting point.

The subject is a bit of an old chestnut and was in the news this time last year when Michael Schumacher said driving on Pirellis was “like driving on raw eggs”.
It painted the picture rather well.

Michael’s complaint was that he didn’t feel much like a racing driver when having to drive to a delta time for a significant part of the race, just in order to keep his tyres alive.

The complaint of the 2013 generation of tyres is that their graining or wear is so totally car-dependent, there’s nothing the driver can do about it.
He does the pace dictated by his car’s tyre management and the race plays out accordingly.
Because this gives a different competitive order than the measure of one-lap pace that is qualifying, so it plays out to give a race in which there are plenty of place changes.
It still looks like racing to the casual spectator. But from inside the car it doesn’t feel like it. It feels like you are just sitting there driving below the car’s potential and having the race just play out almost independently of your efforts. It feels to him like he’s a non-critical component in a championship for suspension kinematics.

Which isn’t what most fans assume they are watching…

“You can take the quotes from the last two seasons,” says Pirelli’s Paul Hembery, “and, in the first three races, it’s exactly the same. There tends to be a phase at the start of the year and, after six to eight races, it all changes.
If we look back at the type of comments that you had at the start of the year when everyone is trying to find out where they are, and how to maximise the combination of chassis and tyre performance, it tends to start like this.
But then it starts to move away when people get used to it. We don’t see the need to make any changes. We’ve just had the most exciting Melbourne in years. Do you want us to make boring races?”

Well, there are your two choices.
Most fans are loving the Pirelli era of races.
They make for a great show – and Sunday’s grand prix in Malaysia was a case in point: wheel-to-wheel thrills and a good dose of controversy into the bargain, triggered by the tyres.
If all the cars were on all-out performance tyres rather than rubber deliberately configured with chemical limitations, the Red Bulls would be winning races by a lap.
That’s the estimation of Pirelli itself…

They see the fast-corner loads of all the cars. Those of the Red Bull simply use up more energy than the tyre has available for any length of time. Instead the drivers, not just of the Red Bulls, drive up to 2s off the pace for big parts of the race.
So if the participants are telling you that what you’re watching and being thrilled by isn’t what you think it is, that it’s just an exercise in tyre conservation and that the real competition is between the suspension engineers, what do you think? Some hate being told and close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears. Others lament it.

It comes down to whether you view F1 as a sport or as entertainment. Sometimes it cannot be both.

:icon_eek:

Panther_99FS

March 29th, 2013, 11:32

Hmmmm....I suppose a counter-point where the days when picked either "A, B, C, or D" and ran the whole race without pitting for fuel nor for tires....

Jafo

March 29th, 2013, 15:43

Artificial 'limitations' caused by tyre 'formula' is no different to other limitations such as rear wing size.
If either were left wide open to design choices you can be sure the rear wing for one would be much more aggressive as it would definitely make passing almost totally impossible at all. Races would be a simple procession after turn one lap one.

Hardly fantasy either.... just look at the recent past.

The only 'real' issue with any sort of poor tyre performance is if/when there is no control manufacturer....then you have absurdities like that GP at Indy with only Bridgestone runners running.

I don't see anything wrong with the current 'formula' ...and I've been a 'closer watcher' than most for 29 years of Inter F1.

I can say though that the rubber left on the track now is quite different to other years ....gets quite 'chunky' to the point you worry it's some 'more significant' foreign object on the track that requires a flag thrown at it.

In other years, immediately after the F1s were on track the race-line was so sticky you could require a conscious effort just to lift your feet. .... couldn't compare the same this time...the weather was crap...;)

EasyEd

March 30th, 2013, 07:24

Hey All,

I can't speak to F1 as I don't think it is either entertainment or racing when the outcome is predetermined - ala "Mark you are ordered to finish behind Sebastian".

I can speak for NASCAR as I have followed it for a long time.

It is mostly entertainment - the objective being keep the competitors close enough to provide racing. NASCAR knew this long ago - perhaps the best example being the fact that the largest margin of victory in a NASCAR race was 15 laps by Ned Jarrett in the Southern 500 at Darlington in 65 (I think) (some trivia for you). Who wants to see somebody win a race by 15 laps? Can you say boring... What the fans want to see is hand to hand racing (in some cases you could almost say combat) for wins on the track. By and large they don't care about technological innovation other than ooh that looks different and once the race is underway and you know pretty quick who is more innovative as they either have a big lead or win constantly the race is then boring... I'll give you a NASCAR example - the winged superbirds with the 426 hemi (greatest engine ever BTW). Innovative, different, exciting and then they won and won and won - racing was boring... So they made them use smaller engines (305s) and added weight to them till they were uncompetitive. Now there is a small group of techno-geeks who think racing is about technology and driving but there is simply not enough of them (or willing enough to pay the needed dollars for tickets) to make a series based on both profitable - and profit is the ultimate driver. So the series must attract the ignorant masses and so it becomes all about entertainment and what you must do to make it entertaining (and today add in massive efforts toward driver safety) and make a buck. Add to that that no sponor or - I'll use the weird word - constructor (why not use erector? hmmm...) wants to look bad on the track - they are willing to compete but if they look bad they take their toys home - a willingness to fight and compete is always secondary to image and profit levels. Tires are just another way to keep it close and "entertaining". That is reality.

-Ed-

Panther_99FS

March 30th, 2013, 08:33

Who wants to see somebody win a race by 15 laps? Can you say boring...
-Ed-

I challenge you to find the most recent F1 race where the winner won by 15 laps....

wombat666

March 30th, 2013, 08:43

I challenge you to find the most recent F1 race where the winner won by 15 laps....

Actually, I doubt I can find ANY F1 race with a winning margin of 15 laps!
:icon_eek:

EasyEd

March 30th, 2013, 10:42

Hey All,

I challenge you to find the most recent F1 race where the winner won by 15 laps....

I write all that and all you guys get out of it and focus on is the number of laps?

The NASCAR 15 laps is about a 20 mile margin of victory and (I looked it up) the biggest margin of victory in F1 was about 8 miles (2 laps) (Spanish GP - Stewart in 69) and 4.7 miles (2 laps) (Australian GP - Hill in 1995). BUT F1 races do not as I understand it exceed 2 hours or about 190 miles. The Southern 500 was the first 500 mile race in NASCAR and is on a 1.4 mile (rounding up) track. No F1 track is less than 2 miles and most are nearer 3 miles. So using the Spanish GP as a possible example: Roughly a 191 mile race with a 5.8 mile margin of victory. So 191 miles is 38% of 500 miles so multiply 5.8 miles by 2.62 (38% inverted) to get some kind of equivalence and you get about a 15 mile margin of victory. These margins of victory in my opinion are pretty comparable because it is likely that Stewart would have increased that margin had the Spanish GP been 500 miles.

The main thrust of what I said still stands as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that is what should be commented on not just a knee jerk reaction about number of laps.

-Ed-

An edit: I looked up the actual numbers for the 69 Spanish GP and if the margin of victory was exactly 2 laps the 500 mile margin would have been 11.1 miles but if the margin of victory was say 2.99 laps - called 2 laps because it wasnt 3 laps the 500 miles equivalent margin would have been 16.6 miles not counting any increase in margin of victory due to increased race length. I used some F1 generalities in the above but still clearly in the ball park.

Panther_99FS

March 30th, 2013, 11:28

Point taken....

Now then,
Not everyone thinks the same as you do....That's why there are many forms/flavors of racing available....Drag, NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, Rally, ALMS, and the list goes on...
Motorsports (IMHO) would be very boring if there was only one type of racing on the planet....:mixedsmi:

Jafo

March 30th, 2013, 16:34

"Now there is a small group of techno-geeks who think racing is about technology and driving but there is simply not enough of them (or willing enough to pay the needed dollars for tickets) to make a series based on both profitable - and profit is the ultimate driver."

EasyEd ...that's the bit I take out of your comment. You clearly seem to have forgotten F1.
There's quite a large group, actually. The numbers of 'live' spectators is typically 600 million, and the 95 Adelaide GP [its last] closed the ticket gates on Saturday afternoon....as the 'track limit' was reached.... 205, 000 people trackside for the Sunday [race].

Ask Bernie whether F1 is profitable.
NASCAR is entirely different to F1 [I've worked them BOTH....did the first Nascar race ever held outside the US....at Calder...1988] ....mostly boring as bat****....go as fast as you can...and turn left.....then repeat.
The ONLY saving grace was the ability to see the entire track....and read a car number from anywhere... and not miss the inevitable high speed bingles...without a need for a super screen.

Ultimately the Nascar/Auscar series died in the arse in Oz...but partly due to Jane splitting from Cams ....silly twit..... but partly because Aussie Touring Cars [Supercars - Group A] were a hell of a lot more entertaining ....they even turn right ...;)

EasyEd

March 30th, 2013, 17:50

Hey All,

Jafo you miss the point. Entertainment versus no rules "run what ya brung" racing and let the chips fall where they may. That is the constant argument here. It is all about the governing bodies finding ways to equalize (and commonly slow) the cars and obviously in F1 tell drivers the appropriate finishing order. - NOT done in NASCAR.

NASCAR like all the fine things in life is an acquired taste. Juan Pablo Montoya who was successful in F1 and Indy car (won the Indy 500 and Monaco Gp) but has never won on a NASCAR oval (in fact only won 2 races in 6 years) has said NASCAR is far harder and more competitive. He even has conflicts with jet fuel based track dryers (see below). You can call it as boring as you like but all that tells me is how little you know about NASCAR.

Here is the video from the 2012 Daytona 500.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S12iw5YTrQY

What were the chances - a million to Juan! :mixedsmi:

-Ed-

PS Yes P it is good that all kinds of racing exist - personally I have always really liked WRC.

Panther_99FS

March 30th, 2013, 18:19

EasyEd,
If you don't like F1, why do you continuously post negative comments toward F1 in many of the F1 threads here :ques: Perhaps you trying to belittle those of us here who like this form of racing...:ques:

EasyEd

March 30th, 2013, 18:42

Hey All,

I am not in any way trying to belittle anybody here. I probably watch most at least in some part of the F1 races myself. I think it is enjoyable to watch two drivers up front racing for the lead. That is as it should be. F1 should NOT be a owner prestige based series - showing how they can order their drivers around. That is simply a bunch of old geezers trying continuously to show who has the bigger - you know. It is silly and I think truly offensive to those who value racing. Blue pills were invented for that. But a hard fought - no team orders - race between two drivers is good to watch. If you look at my posts you will see two things: I absolutely despise team orders determining finishing order and I usually don't tolerate people putting down NASCAR who have no appreciation of how competitive it really is. I have no complaint what so ever about open wheel racing in which drivers are actually allowed to race.

The other point is - it isn't the 50s or 60s any more. In those days run what ya brung and let the chips fall where they may was more the way racing was. If you got beat bad you dusted yourself off and tried harder next week. I totally get that - it was fun seeing who brought what and how would it do. The reality is times have changed it isn't that way anymore and never will be again and cannot ever be that way again - liability, safety and profit/cost concerns say so. NO amount of moaning and groaning about it will ever change it. It always bothers me when people retreat into the past instead of facing today and I try to avoid calling them out on it but sometimes...

I'm an old geezer myself according to some but you will not see me trying to argue - hey the world was better when I was young. Even though it was it does no good and serves no purpose to tell people today something that they never experienced and never will.

Just my perspective.

-Ed-

PS If there are people here thinkig I am trying to "make it personal" and put them down - I am not and I do apologize to those taking it that way.

Panther_99FS

March 30th, 2013, 19:04

Hey All,

I can't speak to F1 as I don't think it is either entertainment or racing when the outcome is predetermined

-Ed-

If this isn't belittling - and obviously you don't think of F1 as entertainment nor racing (as you've stated quite clearly), then what does the above comment mean :ques:

EasyEd

March 30th, 2013, 19:10

Jafo

March 31st, 2013, 04:03

Hey All,

Answer this - was Mark told to finish behind Sebastian last weekend? Yes or No.

Do you believe it was right and proper to tell Mark to finish behind Sebastian.

How you answer these will tell me all I need to know about your perspective on what racing is all about. It is entirely possible that you do believe that F1 is all about the old geezer owners - I dont. We will just agree to disagree.

What say you?

-Ed-
The answer is a definite 'no'.

Seb was required to finish behind Mark.
The policy was that whom-ever was leading after completion of all pit stops would be free from attack from his team mate.

For a long time the US has never really had a clue about F1 [in general] and preferred 'their' Indycar category [though quaintly at one time ALL the cars/chassis were English].
Were Indy a true pinnacle of motor racing you wouldn't have a rookie win the championship....ah good old Nigel....he had a knack of actually making F1 sound boring....just by opening his mouth....but he clearly could drive...;)

I remember the Nascar guys getting all uptight in '88 when they discovered our Auscar class was almost as quick as the 'real thing'....until they found one driver was female....then it was all OK....Auscar was a 'girlie class'.

I enjoyed the events....in spite of it being go-as-fast-as-you-can-and-turn-left .... the only bit that wasn't so good was when you're right against the fence as a comms/observer ... even ski goggles wasn't enough protection....you could still cry black tears from the tyre grit .... it was hell on the eyes.

Would I follow it as a class? nope....bears exactly no relevance to me...or Australia [the Aussie over there in the series was a wanker here in V8s....didn't like him then either....not quite a Rick Kelly....or a Skaife ....but close.

F1, on the other hand...I've met many of the drivers over the years.... and Australia is the second oldest GrandPrix [France is oldest] ...and so far I have officiated at 34 in a row. [This year was the 78th AGP]. There are fewer than 10 people who could say that.... and only one who has been comms/observer for all 34.

And besides....this is a thread re F1 .... not 'Freeway Racing' ....;)

Ferry_vO

March 31st, 2013, 05:19

The answer is a definite 'no'.

Seb was required to finish behind Mark.
The policy was that whom-ever was leading after completion of all pit stops would be free from attack from his team mate.

With both cars in a comfortable lead (Especially once Nico was ordered to stay behind his teammate although he clearly was faster!) it was the best decision to make; turn down the revs and fuel consumption in order to save the engines and cruise to the finish. Remember they can only use eight engines for nineteen races!

But Seb went for his own championship, and now he's leading the drivers' championship ahead of his teammate so he now knows they'll have to support him where they can... Nice guys don't win three titles in a row!

However it will be interesting to see how things work out next year, with a smaller engine (1.6 liter V6 turbo replacing the 2.4 liter V8), way less fuel (Max. 100 kilo, currently they use about 160 kilo) and not one but two different KERS systems (The one they currently use but lenghtened to 33 seconds, and a new unlimited one that can feed of the engine/exhaust heat) to manage! My guess is that the smartest driver will be champion, not the most ruthless or agressive.

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 08:54

How you answer these will tell me all I need to know about your perspective on what racing is all about. It is entirely possible that you do believe that F1 is all about the old geezer owners - I dont. We will just agree to disagree.

What say you?

-Ed-

Judge, jury, and executioner now on what is/isn't racing when it pertains to F1 :ques:

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 08:55

And besides....this is a thread re F1 .... not 'Freeway Racing' ....;)

Yes, it is....:mixedsmi:

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 08:59

But Seb went for his own championship, and now he's leading the drivers' championship ahead of his teammate so he now knows they'll have to support him where they can... Nice guys don't win three titles in a row!

I would guess it's irrelevant to Sebastian - but it's being reported now that he didn't expect the global response to his actions, thus he's made a public apology...
-> http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-sebastian-vettel-surprised-by-reaction-says-christian-horner/

And now to go back to tires....
They've always been a factor, even back to days when they never pitted. On a more philosophical note, perhaps Goodyear drove themselves out by only catering to Ferrari & Schumacher and not the other Goodyear shod teams.....But then there was also the Indy debacle....:pop4:

EasyEd

March 31st, 2013, 11:08

Hey All

I am not judge, jury and executioner - I'll leave that to the ECB. All you had to do P was answer a direct question. I did in what I said.

I only use NASCAR as a comparison. Freeway driving is obviously hard as clearly indicated by the "success" of open wheel drivers in NASCAR.

From the article P referenced.

...“The situation was that he (Vettel) was very focused and very transfixed on making the most of the tire he had on the car, a new set of tires that he’d saved from the previous day, and capitalizing on that in the early laps after that final pit stop.

“He probably underestimated the effect of his actions. But he’s a race driver, he’s a fiercely competitive individual. You don’t win 27 Grands Prix and three World Championships and the amount of pole positions that he’s achieved without being a very driven individual.

...

“Team orders are permitted, they exist in F1. The constructors’ championship for the team has equal or more importance to the drivers’ championship, because the constructors’ championship is where the funds are distributed on.

“So, of course, there are different objectives going on within a Grand Prix, that of the drivers, and that of the teams.”

Vettel did the right thing - did not wreck his teammate and went for the lead.

The part in red is bogus and I have always believed so and I say so.

What matters is whether Massa wins - not whether Ferrari wins. Otherwise you sacrifice drivers for the owner and that is BS. It takes away from pure racing.

Now the excuse of having only 8 engines - who can tell me how many engine failures there were in F1 in 2012?

-Ed-

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 11:26

Hey All

All you had to do P was answer a direct question. I did in what I said.

-Ed-

You didn't even answer my previous direct question & instead chose to follow up with your question....
Why should I even bother to answer yours....

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 11:29

And if you don't like the part in red,
Then perhaps Jafo is correct in his generalized assessment below....

For a long time the US has never really had a clue about F1 [in general]

Jafo

March 31st, 2013, 16:44

And if you don't like the part in red,
Then perhaps Jafo is correct in his generalized assessment below....

I'm always correct...even when I'm wrong I'm right...;)

The relative systemic failure [popularity-wise] of various US GrandsPrix indicates generally Americans just don't 'get it' [F1] yet can have half a million turn up to the Indy. Parochial is the word.....and it likely stems from the comparatively low number of American F1 drivers [population/affluence-wise you'd expect more].

Re EasyEd's comment re 'Vettel did the right thing'....no, he did not.
The ONLY reason he didn't take out himself AND Webber was that Webber isn't a hot-headed child and was sensible enough and skilled enough to keep their wheels from crossing.

You can like or dislike 'team orders' all you like...but it's integral to Formula One specifically because F1 is NOT ONLY a Drivers' Championship.

Unlike Nascar where the cars used bear no real resemblance to anything either on the road [as they once were] OR from a recognizable manufacturer....if you're lucky they may have a car name on them vaguely related to the engine...F1 has a Constructors' Championship which is crucial to the teams on-going commercial viability.
The 'big guys' might be safe.... Fiat has a bottomless pit of cash for Ferrari....[it's actually a company that makes cars and isn't in self-destruct mode a la Detroit], but the little guys NEED the points to offset some of the costs.

Now, the issue here is the hopeless intent to actually explain what F1 is to the ignorant/uncaring. No amount of explanation will counter the attitude/opinion that 'Seb did the right thing'.
He wasn't steering a tank around a left-turn freeway. He was involved in the most sophisticated motor sport category on 4 wheels.

The team orders he ignored could be balanced in Mark's favor if he [Vettel] formally withdrew from the next race.
THAT would be fair.

If he had taken out Webber [and himself] there'd be an incident report written....it'd go to the FIA Stewards...the Observer and the Drivers would be summoned.... we'd all get introduced to each other... video would be replayed...the Observer would recount in his own words what he saw...and the drivers would be asked to add anything. We'd be thanked and requested to wait outside...then the drivers would be asked to return. I wouldn't hear the outcome until it was public knowledge...but in this case I'd bet serious money Vettel would have a 10 place penalty.

OK, last time I was with the FIA stewards it was Berger vs. Arnoux .... which was a long time ago.... but I know how it works...;)

Panther_99FS

March 31st, 2013, 17:24

You can like or dislike 'team orders' all you like...but it's integral to Formula One specifically because F1 is NOT ONLY a Drivers' Championship.

...F1 has a Constructors' Championship which is crucial to the teams on-going commercial viability.
The 'big guys' might be safe.... Fiat has a bottomless pit of cash for Ferrari....[it's actually a company that makes cars and isn't in self-destruct mode a la Detroit], but the little guys NEED the points to offset some of the costs.

Now, the issue here is the hopeless intent to actually explain what F1 is to the ignorant/uncaring. No amount of explanation will counter the attitude/opinion that 'Seb did the right thing'.
He wasn't steering a tank around a left-turn freeway. He was involved in the most sophisticated motor sport category on 4 wheels.

The team orders he ignored could be balanced in Mark's favor if he [Vettel] formally withdrew from the next race.
THAT would be fair.

If he had taken out Webber [and himself] there'd be an incident report written....it'd go to the FIA Stewards...the Observer and the Drivers would be summoned.... we'd all get introduced to each other... video would be replayed...the Observer would recount in his own words what he saw...and the drivers would be asked to add anything. We'd be thanked and requested to wait outside...then the drivers would be asked to return. I wouldn't hear the outcome until it was public knowledge...but in this case I'd bet serious money Vettel would have a 10 place penalty.

OK, last time I was with the FIA stewards it was Berger vs. Arnoux .... which was a long time ago.... but I know how it works...;)

Thank you for laying this out for EasyEd.... :jump:

Ferry_vO

April 1st, 2013, 02:14

The 'big guys' might be safe.... Fiat has a bottomless pit of cash for Ferrari....[it's actually a company that makes cars and isn't in self-destruct mode a la Detroit], but the little guys NEED the points to offset some of the costs.

Actually Ferrari might be the only part of the Fiat group making any money at the moment....

Red Bull on the other hand sell a whopping 4 billion cans of their crap every year and probably can afford to spend more on their F1 team than any other car manufacturer. (And still have enough left for a hangar full of aircraft, a soccer team and a lot more!)

Panther_99FS

April 1st, 2013, 04:44

I read somewhere (I'll try and dig up the source) that in the super-secret world of F1 monies,
Red Bull won an estimated $98 million in 2011....

EasyEd

April 1st, 2013, 06:53

Hey All,

I get what Jafo said but it starts from a flawed premise - that it is appropriate that the constructor is what matters. F1 SHOULD PRIMARILY be a DRIVERS Championship with a constructor title being secondary.

Then you wouldn't have these "messes" like Schumacher and Barricello. You see the two - erector championship and driver championship - can conflict. Get rid of the conflict. The "ban" on team orders after that incident failed because the powers that be failed to change the fundamental basis for F1 - to take the spotlight and hence much of the power and control off the owners and put the light on the drivers and teams. They then needed to allocate season end money based on driver finishing positions at the end of the season to the owners of the teams. Drivers don't want to wreck each other - not with what is at stake.

If you want to base a series on constructors fine but don't then try to BS everybody by saying it is the pinnacle of racing. It isn't racing at all it is a strategy game among 11 so called "teams" simply trying to get points. Maybe to those who don't understand it is even entertainment.

Americans probably "get it" far better than you think and prefer racing. To each their own.

-Ed-

wombat666

April 1st, 2013, 07:06

We're spending a few days at Bells Beach for the traditional round of the World Surfing Championships (men's finals Tuesday) and I was annoyed to see intrusive 'Red Bull' logos all over the place!
Even a few highly decorated boards wore the bloody thing.
When you take a careful look at where they place their advertising money I really get ticked off, aside from the fact that the product marketed is NOT a 'Health Food' the influence wielded internationally by this company is not healthy.
It's all Colin-Bloody-Chapmams fault!!

Here's one for the days of the real Grands Prix, I paid for several of my favourite Louis Lemantaski photographs (not cheap either) and this is a great favourite, dripping with atmosphere.

83995

Thoe6969

April 1st, 2013, 12:28

Jafo

April 1st, 2013, 14:53

Nope...they still don't get it.
There is no drivers...and team...and constructor. The Constructor IS the team.
It's not a 'flawed premise' simply because it does not follow the Nascar 'method' of doing things..... and the focus on the drivers specifically in Indy is simply because precious few in the US even knew who or what Lola and/or March actually were....there was no relevance to them [the viewing public] re manufacturer.

It is only the very real parochial nature that is the American public who would NOT consider F1 as the pinnacle of Motor Racing.
The same occurs with the American Superbike series.....suddenly there's a dose of reality when they [the American riders] think they will automatically dominate in the SBK. But they don't.
Maybe it's something to do with that old french fries animosity towards France...which is the home of both the FIA and FIM.

Of course...my history with officiating with the bikes isn't quite as long....got my 20 year certificate for the SBK in Feb [Phillip Island] and should have the MotoGP one this October.

Back to F1 being the pinnacle..... what other category could you find a 1.5 litre engine pumping out 1200 horse power? OK, that was the Brabham BMW ....and was called a 'detonator engine' cos it was for qualifying and would only last about 3 laps... but race tune would see 800 for 2 hours+ .... not bad for something the size of a Toyota Corolla.

I can describe first-hand how quickly an F1 accellerates ... one year I push-started Senna out of pit exit [on my own...all 700 kilo] in Adelaide. It only had 2 speeds....my push speed....and then gone. I ended up A over T in his wake.

Anyway...it's quite a safe bet that F1 won't change its ways simply to suit the taste of one closetted potential audience...not when the rest of the world follows it avidly now as it is.

Every year there are attempts to slow the cars down to maintain a sensible level of safety and/or price...and every year about half way through the cars end up faster anyway. That's what the pinnacle of Motor Racing is all about...pushing the envelope.

There is NOTHING in the technology of F1 that is eclipsed by any other category...and it's equivalent on 2 wheels is the Moto.

Now, re the bikes... Phillip Island has just been resurfaced...accurate to 2mm via GPS ...it's super-smooth...seeing all sorts of lap records broken in the SBK ... terminal velocity went from 310 to 320 kph ...so it'll be interesting in the Moto...as currently the fastest recorded speed is 336. I think 350 kph going into turn 1 might just separate the men from the boys....[but I bet Randy will try...on the 2 seater]...;)

Panther_99FS

April 1st, 2013, 15:02

Amen Ed,Americans get it,thats why 98%of american racers and fans can;t stand F1.Let us have our racing and keep F1 across the big pond where it belongs.

Let's see here...

1) You guys don't like F1. Nothing inherently wrong with that

However.....

2) Even though you don't like F1, you guys proceed to read F1 threads. (why?)

3) Then you guys post nothing but anti-F1/negative comments within the F1 thread. (If you don't like F1, why bother even reading F1 threads & posting in them?)

Jafo

April 1st, 2013, 20:50

Let's see here...

1) You guys don't like F1. Nothing inherently wrong with that

However.....

2) Even though you don't like F1, you guys proceed to read F1 threads. (why?)

3) Then you guys post nothing but anti-F1/negative comments within the F1 thread. (If you don't like F1, why bother even reading F1 threads & posting in them?)

Because they are trolling the argument that if it isn't Freeway Racing or at least run like Freeway Racing then it clearly isn't motor sport....;)

Don't get me wrong...my job [in motor sport] is as easy as piss with Nascar....blind Freddie could see/read the numbers and be able to report who did what to whom.... whereas on the startline one year at Adelaide I had to formally call the car number of the winner as he got the chequered....and I calculated that at 260 kph [at startline] I had the grand total of 0.2 seconds to eyeball the number. It was behind the front wheel but in front of the side pod.

BTW.... incidentally...the reason the F1 cars now have coloured camera pods was down to us Comms/Observers in Oz several years ago. We asked for them because the helmet colours weren't reliable [and we had test drivers AND 'T' cars back then]....and the teams provided them for us...;)

wombat666

April 2nd, 2013, 05:54

Let's not get carried away here, different strokes and all that stuff.
:173go1:

Panther_99FS

April 2nd, 2013, 15:49

So back to the subject topic of tires.....
This just in from Pirelli:--> http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-pirelli-to-review-tires-after-bahrain/

Panther_99FS

April 10th, 2013, 17:58

Yet even more :pop4:
-> http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-red-bull-scraps-team-orders-after-malaysia-affair

wombat666

April 11th, 2013, 00:33

If this is implemented it will make for interesting times!
As a matter of interest I came across an article in Autosport that stated how angry Dietrich Mateschitz is with 'Team Vettel', as he has been a staunch supporter of Webber from the beginning.
Marko must be a very unhappy bunny.
I really can't see how this 'No Team Orders' proclamation will work out just the same.
A wait and see exercise ........... :kilroy:

Jafo

April 11th, 2013, 06:02

Yet even more :pop4:
-> http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-red-bull-scraps-team-orders-after-malaysia-affair

The comments on that item just show how dim-witted many F1 'fans' really are.

But.... the controversy entertains them... and it's a diversion from their usual.....watching a fly walk up a wall....;p

Rebels-without-a-clue.

*********************
No team orders..... it's the sort of thing for these two that can only end in tears. Eventually Webber will tire of being mature and careful....and the next time Vettel tries to over-drive he'll get punted into the weeds..... just as so many other driver 'spats' have ended.

As soon as all the controversy and publicity turns 'negative' for the brand/image ... where the injury outweighs the 'No.1 Driver/Team' title.... there'll be a "punting into the weeds" of a different kind... and it may not necessarily be the guy with the shorter contract...;)

aeronca1

April 11th, 2013, 06:29

I used to be a rabid F1 fan, not anymore. Current F1 has lost all of it's "flavour" for me. As wombat666's pic shows, there used to be a special atmosphere to F1. They should rename the current incantation to Bernie1 or B1. If one team was far ahead of the others, then so be it. F1 was supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing. "Artificial" limitations have ruined it for me personally. I haven't attended or even watched a race in years. I used to attend 3-4 a year and watch all the rest via cable TV. No longer.