Why does there seem to be such a consensus that to "improve F1" aero grip
should be lessened and mechanical grip increased – why, in the face of that
does F1 do the opposite?
First tires get grooved. Now we have ludicrous proposals – drivers play
musical chairs! What’s next – lap dances during pit stops to "improve the
show"? How about on the podium the 1st three have to eat a box of Cream
Crackers and the first to whistle God Save the Queen is the winner?
Dear me. We seem to be losing CART and these people seem intent on taking
F1 down faster.
Keith
so need say about travel information so push up .
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:35:14 GMT, "Keith Crossley"
<eccle…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why does there seem to be such a consensus that to "improve F1" aero grip
>should be lessened and mechanical grip increased – why, in the face of that
>does F1 do the opposite?
F1s regulators have attempted for years to control the amount of aero
grip available by regulating the size and position of aerodynamic
appendages. The designers always find a way of clawing it back.
>First tires get grooved.
Grooved tyres were introduced because cornering speeds were still
increasing despite ever more stringent aero restrictions and many
circuits had reached the point where they really couldn’t be modified
much further in terms of increased run offs, etc.
They will have to stay, so get used to them. Nobody is going to accept
the immediate increase in cornering speeds which would be involved in
a switch back to slicks because nobody is ever going to get agreement
on regulations which lose sufficient downforce…..and keep it lost.
If there were easy or obvious solutions they would have been
implemented years ago. It just ain’t that simple.
> Now we have ludicrous proposals – drivers play
>musical chairs!
That’s just an attention-grabber. A bit of fun and a teaser for the
serious proposals on qualifying, testing and cost-cutting. I see di
Montezemolo came out in favour of the qualifying proposals yesterday.
>Dear me. We seem to be losing CART and these people seem intent on taking
>F1 down faster.
There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
> Grooved tyres were introduced because cornering speeds were still
> increasing despite ever more stringent aero restrictions and many
> circuits had reached the point where they really couldn’t be modified
> much further in terms of increased run offs, etc.
> They will have to stay, so get used to them.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to chnage the tyre regulations to require a road
tread pattern instead of the grooves? Admittedly I only did physics to GCSE
level (for what that’s worth!) but I find it difficult to understand the
difference between grooved tyres and just slightly narrower slick tyres.
At least with road grooves, the tyre manufacturers could factor the
developments back into their road type business };*)
It would also get rid of the ridiculous in-out-shake it all about business
we have during wet-dry sessions. It’s got to be safer };*)
> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
lead. I don’t see it quite as penalising success. Perhaps if it were
rearranged so that the amount of ballast added were based on the lead each
driver had over the car behind at the end of the last race, divided by their
average speed over that race.
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:43:00 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>Wouldn’t it make more sense to chnage the tyre regulations to require a road
>tread pattern instead of the grooves?
Yes, and that was the plan. We should have moved to an all-weather
treaded tyre by now. It is the tyre manufacturers who want to maintain
the status quo.
> Admittedly I only did physics to GCSE
>level (for what that’s worth!) but I find it difficult to understand the
>difference between grooved tyres and just slightly narrower slick tyres.
The theory is that the grooves allow the surface rubber to move around
and heat up more.
>At least with road grooves, the tyre manufacturers could factor the
>developments back into their road type business };*)
Smiley noted. They are interested in advertising their success and
developing their knowledge of constructions and compounds. Nothing
else would be directory applicable to road tyres.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:43:00 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
>> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
>> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
>> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
>Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
>lead.
But a dominant team is entitled to pull out a huge lead. It is up to
the other teams to do better.
> I don’t see it quite as penalising success.
What else would you call it?
> Perhaps if it were
>rearranged so that the amount of ballast added were based on the lead each
>driver had over the car behind at the end of the last race, divided by their
>average speed over that race.
You are missing the point. The entire concept of penalising success –
whether you do it by points gap or lap times or race gap or any other
artificial system – is entirely against the ethos of F1, which is
about being the best. The second you start penalising teams for being
successful by artificially slowing them down, that is the end of F1.
It is finishished. It becomes just another game…just another minor
formula. Why bother to watch it over DTM or IRL or ETC or anything
else? It just won’t make any sense any more. Why put all that effort
in to something which has become meaningless because you are not going
ot be allowed to profit by it? Why bother to watch it when you know it
has been artificially ‘equalised’. Why care about who wins when
winning has been made less meaningful? For that matter, why try to win
if you are going to get punished for it? It might be good strategy not
to win too often over a season.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
> But a dominant team is entitled to pull out a huge lead. It is up to
> the other teams to do better.
Oh yes, definately. But I predict that a weights handicap system would mean
that a dominant team would only be dlightly less dominant – I don’t predict
Ferraris trawling round in 12th place by the end of the season because they
won the first 3 races.
> > I don’t see it quite as penalising success.
> What else would you call it?
I knew I should have taken that out. I see it just as another part of the
Formula.
> You are missing the point. The entire concept of penalising success –
> whether you do it by points gap or lap times or race gap or any other
> artificial system – is entirely against the ethos of F1, which is
> about being the best.
It’s about being the best within an artificully limited set of rules and
regulations. Weight handicapping would force the teams to think more
long-term through the season. They would need to develop more fuel-efficient
cars so the weight penalty would be less of a problem. Their choices over
pit strategy would lean towards 3 or more stops as the season goes on.
> For that matter, why try to win
> if you are going to get punished for it? It might be good strategy not
> to win too often over a season.
In what way is this more artificial than having to discount some of your
points finishes because the FIA say so (as used to be the case years ago)?
Or not being allowed to use technology that’s been in *road* cars for years?
Or practically being able to drive the cars using a joystick from the pits
<grin>?
I don’t see it as being the end of F1 as we know it. Plenty of sports work
well with a handicap system. Tiger Woods just keeps on winning in golf for
example despite being the best player };*)
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Paul Harman wrote:
> From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
>> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
>> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
>> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
> Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
> lead. I don’t see it quite as penalising success.
I would have to agree with David. I can’t see it as anything but penalizing
success. A bit to much like "Harrison Bergeron" for me…
I don’t see this as being something that race fans in general would accept,
and would be worried if they did…
> Perhaps if it were
> rearranged so that the amount of ballast added were based on the lead each
> driver had over the car behind at the end of the last race, divided by
> their average speed over that race.
> Paul
–
Ken Sodemann
stuffleh…@bigfoot.com
http://webpages.charter.net/stuffle
NASCAR fan, Packer fan | Go #17, #19, #20, #24, #26, #97 | Go Pack!!
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:02:40 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>I don’t see it as being the end of F1 as we know it.
I do. At the moment, I’m so disgusted by the idea that I doubt I’d
bother to watch atall.
> Plenty of sports work
>well with a handicap system.
For instance?
>Tiger Woods just keeps on winning in golf for
>example despite being the best player };*)
There is no handicapping in professional golf.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:02:40 GMT, "Paul Harman"
> >Tiger Woods just keeps on winning in golf for
> >example despite being the best player };*)
> There is no handicapping in professional golf.
Shows what I know };*)
Not wanting to go too far off topic… is there a weight handicap in horse
racing?
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
From: "Ken Sodemann" <stuf…@charter.net>
> I would have to agree with David. I can’t see it as anything but
penalizing
> success. A bit to much like "Harrison Bergeron" for me…
Penalising success… but in a series where if you come out with a great
technology that puts you miles out in front, that technology gets banned on
you "on safety grounds".
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:51:56 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:02:40 GMT, "Paul Harman"
>> >Tiger Woods just keeps on winning in golf for
>> >example despite being the best player };*)
>> There is no handicapping in professional golf.
>Shows what I know };*)
>Not wanting to go too far off topic… is there a weight handicap in horse
>racing?
I believe that most forms of horse racing (flat, jump, and ‘chariot’)
have weight handicapping in some if not most of the race categories.
The relevence of this to F1 eludes me as handicapping in horse racing
is designed to get all the horses across the finish line at exactly
the same time, which is very different to the professed aim of F1
racing.
–
AlanB
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Paul Harman <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> Not wanting to go too far off topic… is there a weight handicap in horse
> racing?
Yes. And anyone who saw Panorama the other week will realise just how
much of a "sport" that is these days.
pete
—
p…@fenelon.com "there’s no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Paul Harman <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> but I find it difficult to understand the difference between
> grooved tyres and just slightly narrower slick tyres.
The rubber ridge (?, the part between the grooves) deforms more
(since it is quite narrow), which means it heats more, which means
it has to be made of harder rubber. So a grooved tyre is slower
than a slightly narrower slick tyre.
> Perhaps if it were rearranged so that the amount of ballast added
> were based on the lead each driver had over the car behind at the
> end of the last race, divided by their average speed over that race.
In that case you would see a parade at the end of each race, with
each driver letting the following driver getting as closer as
confortably possible.
–
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young’-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
In article <hs3tqug37rnu55tsv9esr2bcet0bj75…@4ax.com>, David Betts
<dav…@motorsport.org.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:43:00 GMT, "Paul Harman"
> <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> >From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
> >> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
> >> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
> >> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
> >Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
> >lead.
> But a dominant team is entitled to pull out a huge lead. It is up to
> the other teams to do better.
Exactly. If Ferrari can build the F2002, there’s no reason that any
other team can’t build it too, IYSWIM. Granted the lower teams won’t
have the same engine power unless they get some inspired engine
builder who’ll work for peanuts in F1 terms, but the top four or five
should be able to produce cars on a par with each other.
–
Mike Fleming
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:51:56 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:02:40 GMT, "Paul Harman"
>> >Tiger Woods just keeps on winning in golf for
>> >example despite being the best player };*)
>> There is no handicapping in professional golf.
>Shows what I know };*)
>Not wanting to go too far off topic… is there a weight handicap in horse
>racing?
There is weight handicapping in the equine gambling industry, yes.
>.
That’s one of the ways they fix the races
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:54:09 GMT, Ken Sodemann <stuf…@charter.net>
wrote:
>Paul Harman wrote:
>> From: "David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk>
>>> There is only one seriously dangerous proposal in the nine, and that
>>> is success ballast. It does scare me that the idea has even been
>>> mentioned. It would, of course, kill F1 stone dead.
>> Would it? It just makes it harder for a dominant team to pull out a huge
>> lead. I don’t see it quite as penalising success.
>I would have to agree with David. I can’t see it as anything but penalizing
>success.
Apparently Luca di Montezemolo is suggesting it would be a
deal-breaker for Ferrari. If success ballast was imposed, they would
look for another series in which to prove their technical superiority.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
From: "Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <r…@rena.mat.uc.pt>
> Paul Harman <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> > Perhaps if it were rearranged so that the amount of ballast added
> > were based on the lead each driver had over the car behind at the
> > end of the last race, divided by their average speed over that race.
> In that case you would see a parade at the end of each race, with
> each driver letting the following driver getting as closer as
> confortably possible.
Which differs from the 2002 season in what way, exactly? };*P But yes, I
realised that one last night when I was AFK.
I still believe that the ballast could be made to work. Despite my
devil’s-advocating here I don’t actually like the idea. I’m sure that there
would be outrage for a couple of races, but then the usual teams would find
a way to work with/around the ballast and would continue to dominate.
There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
as successful as they expected late in the season?
I’d expect that kind of thing would be fascinating… for the kind of people
who think F1 championships should be settled whilst stationary in the pits,
rather than by drivers actually overtaking each other and driving the
cars };*P
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:27 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
>would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
>points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
>of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
>the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
>relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
>as successful as they expected late in the season?
This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
winning all the races….then take advantage later.
>I’d expect that kind of thing would be fascinating… for the kind of people
>who think F1 championships should be settled whilst stationary in the pits,
>rather than by drivers actually overtaking each other and driving the
>cars };*P
It might look like there was more of a battle for the championship
between the two Ferrari drivers if Rubens was allowed an early-season
advantage. but we’d all know who was going to be the champion in the
end.
Basically, it would be a phoney battle, so why should anybody get
excited about it?
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Paul,
> I still believe that the ballast could be made to work. Despite my
> devil’s-advocating here I don’t actually like the idea. I’m sure that there
> would be outrage for a couple of races, but then the usual teams would find
> a way to work with/around the ballast and would continue to dominate.
Depends to an extent on how one can use it. I thought that when
Barrichello hit the wall at Indy and they lifted the car, to my unwashed
eye its front end was hanging WAY lower than the back end.
Guy
—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com Racing forum
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
David Betts <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:27 GMT, "Paul Harman"
> <chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> >There’s an interesting strategic side to it though. Wins early in the season
> >would penalise you (assuming the ballast accumulates according to total
> >points score over the season, rather than say results from the last handful
> >of races). So what does a team do? Go out and build a comfortable lead at
> >the start of the season and try to grimly hand on to it as their cars get
> >relatively slower… or ‘pretend’ to be slow at the start and risk not being
> >as successful as they expected late in the season?
> This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
> success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
> dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
> Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
> reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
> winning all the races….then take advantage later.
May I respectfully disagree? Imagine your team has an advantage at the
beginning of the season. You have two choices:
- Use the existing advantage to win early. Weight is added. After
some (one or more) events the field is levelled. Let’s be generous
and assume the field is actually tilted the other way. Now the
opposition begins to win. Let’s be generous and assume a new
dominant team emerges (as opposed to a whole pack of contenders
splitting the available wins). Weight is added to *them*. Let’s be
generous and say that they manage to pull level on points. Now the
two teams have the *same* weight penalty on points. Let’s be
generous and say that your advantage at the beginning of the season
has been negated by [both teams] running at a higher weight. But
*you’ve* been running at a higher weight longer, so have gained more
relevant development time. You can hardly say you are now at a
disadvantage for the rest of the season; you *might* be, but it isn’t
certain (and to me looks somewhat improbable).
- Give up the existing advantage by stroking. Weight is added to your
opponents. At some point you calculate that *now* is the time to
exploit your advantage. You start to win, draw level with the leader
on points, and approach the next race at the same (higher) weight,
against an opponent who has been running at that weight longer than
you have.
Can you really say that the second scenario is advantaged over the
first? Can you really believe, after Austria 2002, that Ferrari would
forego points they could win *now* (scenario A) even if they thought
scenario B *might* turn out to be an advantage? Would they *really*
leave points on the table even if a later advantage were probable,
given that it is far from certain?
GrandPrix.com had this to say today:
Williams did say that in principle he and his partner Patrick Head are
opposed to the idea of weight penalties in F1, despite some reports
that the team is in favour of the handicapping system. Our
understanding is that if such a move is deemed to be absolutely
necessary for the future of the sport, he would consider voting for it
but at the moment he is not convinced that it is what is needed.
This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed. This is
different from being opposed *on* principle, which some people are. I
accept that, and there’s really no arguing against that position. But
I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.
–
Mark Jackson – http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
How can anyone be expected to govern a country with two
hundred and forty-six cheeses? - Charles de Gaulle
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Mark,
Fully agree with your message. A personal opinion about:
> I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
> haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.
It’s one of the points that I could live with if I had to. Still I’m
wondering about these two minor points:
a) cars would be built to accomodate additional weight once it is known
how the ballast would be added to the car; the richer teams could test
more extensively; I’d expect a heavy Ferrari to still be better than a
light Minardi;
b) would there not be a risk that cars could be weakened in some areas
when designers would start including ballast in their thoughts?
Similarly, how would additional ballast affect safety? More crash
testing under different weights would be needed which would put an
additonal burden on the teams.
Guy
—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com Racing forum
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:30:09 GMT, mjack…@alumni.caltech.edu (Mark
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jackson) wrote:
>David Betts <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> writes:
>> This is such a strong argument against the proposal. Suppose we have
>> success ballast next year and Ferrari is once again in a position to
>> dominate and control the races. Doesn’t it seem logical that
>> Schumacher would spend the first half of the season picking up
>> reasonable points, but not building up a huge ballast disadvantage by
>> winning all the races….then take advantage later.
>May I respectfully disagree? Imagine your team has an advantage at the
>beginning of the season. You have two choices:
> Can you really believe, after Austria 2002, that Ferrari would
>forego points they could win *now* (scenario A) even if they thought
>scenario B *might* turn out to be an advantage? Would they *really*
>leave points on the table even if a later advantage were probable,
>given that it is far from certain?
I’m sure you’re right, but there would inevitably by some sandbagging
at some point or other in the season. Anyway, it’s just such a horrid,
phoney idea. I’m simply not in favour of artifiially ‘equalising’ the
races. Not only do I hate it in principle, but I don’t even believe it
will work.
>GrandPrix.com had this to say today:
> Williams did say that in principle he and his partner Patrick Head are
> opposed to the idea of weight penalties in F1, despite some reports
> that the team is in favour of the handicapping system. Our
> understanding is that if such a move is deemed to be absolutely
> necessary for the future of the sport, he would consider voting for it
> but at the moment he is not convinced that it is what is needed.
Old quotes. They lifted them from Autosport <g>. Ferrari and McLaren
are implacably opposed…and good for them. Ferrai are saying they may
well pull out and seek to demonstrate their technical superiority
elsewhere.
>This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
>convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed.
How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
and McLaren to do a better job.
>This is
>different from being opposed *on* principle, which some people are. I
>accept that, and there’s really no arguing against that position. But
>I do not accept that the concept is fatally flawed – or at least I
>haven’t seen a practical argument I find convincing.
Other than the fact, of course, that it against the entire ethos of
F1.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:buv1ru8f08l92qmfqrii0qehij3semp9q2@4ax.com…
> >This more or less reflects my opinion – opposed in principle,
> >convinceable in practice only if it is absolutely needed.
> How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
> and McLaren to do a better job.
OK, you said ever, so let me be hypothetical for a moment. Would F1 survive
if the next 5 years were repeats of this one, or even getting more polarised
and with more distance between the competitors? I am already convinced, that
my interest is at a point where, if the first couple of races turns out like
the continuation of this season, that I will probably not bother watching.
Well at least not as I did, where I said a side the time to watch. Then I
will only watch if I’m not doing anything else. I cannot remember a season
as boring as this, in the 7-8 years I have been following F1. However, in
the future, if/when people are comparing to the records Ferrari and MS set
this year, I can say I saw that, but seriously, I would rather have seen
exciting and close racing.
Joakim
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:19:42 GMT, "Joakim Lauridsen" <a…@li.is>
wrote:
>"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:buv1ru8f08l92qmfqrii0qehij3semp9q2@4ax.com…
>> How can artificiality ever be ‘needed’. What is needed is for Williams
>> and McLaren to do a better job.
>OK, you said ever, so let me be hypothetical for a moment. Would F1 survive
>if the next 5 years were repeats of this one, or even getting more polarised
>and with more distance between the competitors?
How would any attempt at artificial equalisation help make it more
interesting? Surely that would be a complete turn-off. I can’t imagine
having any interest atall myself….and that would be breaking a
46-year habit.
> I am already convinced, that
>my interest is at a point where, if the first couple of races turns out like
>the continuation of this season, that I will probably not bother watching.
>Well at least not as I did, where I said a side the time to watch. Then I
>will only watch if I’m not doing anything else. I cannot remember a season
>as boring as this, in the 7-8 years I have been following F1.
Well, that explains it. You’re a newbie
>.
> However, in
>the future, if/when people are comparing to the records Ferrari and MS set
>this year, I can say I saw that, but seriously, I would rather have seen
>exciting and close racing.
We all want to see close racing, but it has to *mean* something. If
you know teams are being artificially handicapped, then it become
meaningless. Who cares who wins under those circumstances? It’s just
another ‘entertainment’. What could be duller?
Wouldn’t a better way be to plough more of the money which comes into
F1 from TV rights back to the teams – and to distribute it more
equitably – than is done at the moment. That would be equalising by
raising standards, not by dumming down……but then of course it
isn’t the sort of ‘instant-fix, instant-gratification’ solution people
seem to expect these days.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dgd2ru4n2q1joj6jalpf8rgcl5qu08qtco@4ax.com…
> How would any attempt at artificial equalisation help make it more
> interesting? Surely that would be a complete turn-off. I can’t imagine
> having any interest atall myself….and that would be breaking a
> 46-year habit.
Maybe not for the "oldies" such as your self, but for the more casual fans,
that make up the big numbers in F1 closer racing is less boring. Again, I’m
not saying I’m for it myself. Yet anyway.
> Well, that explains it. You’re a newbie
>.
Well, yes, and I am also only n my twenties. I did follow F1 before that
too, but on a way more casual basis.
> We all want to see close racing, but it has to *mean* something. If
> you know teams are being artificially handicapped, then it become
> meaningless. Who cares who wins under those circumstances? It’s just
> another ‘entertainment’. What could be duller?
Again, it may becoame meaningless too you, but you are probably a "dying
breed" in todays super comercial business of F1.
> Wouldn’t a better way be to plough more of the money which comes into
> F1 from TV rights back to the teams – and to distribute it more
> equitably – than is done at the moment. That would be equalising by
> raising standards, not by dumming down……but then of course it
> isn’t the sort of ‘instant-fix, instant-gratification’ solution people
> seem to expect these days.
I hear you, I hear you. Something like what is done in the NFL, where tv
money is shared. I’d also like all cars to forego their sponsorship deals,
and let F1 have all the rights, and distribute any income that way to.
Economic equalization is the only "sporting" way to amke the series closer.
But do you see that happening, with the big teams having so much more to say
than the little teams?
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm