|
|
Post by chrisb on Oct 29, 2019 9:00:22 GMT
I watched the start on youube and when the cars lined up at that camera angle they looked good, then what happened? Mark Hughes puts it very well and the too's and fro's of the ensuring discussions cannot hide the fact that barge boards are not aerodynamic devices but instruments to try and dislodge your opponent. I am still a bit of a loss how Lewis won, but he did, or was it a case of Ferrari lost
the McLaren's looked very good aside from a stupid mistake or two, and with Mercedes engines will they get back to their glory days, Albon impresses and the two Renaults are driven wholeheartedly but the same can't be said elsewhere. Even with a 7 minute slot it proved too much to maintain any lasting interest. I just wonder what the drop in TV audiences must be like now.
When we had tyre or fuel stops previously they just turned into a number of sprint races, we have even worse now, and it completely destroys the whole ethos of F1 to me, but,
Mikael, interesting point and one I had completely overlooked in my thoughts, yes the MotoGP's are too short by at least 30 minutes, and that really would change the whole picture as would having no pit stops in F1 again but with tyres that last and maintain their grip if treated with respect
the whole racing focus is based on the brief attention span of its audience and rather than remedy the basic flaws they look at gimmicks and quick fixes, the new rules saga is as boring as the political mess the lies and ineptitude has gotten us into in the first place
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:22:53 GMT
Mikael, I agree entirely about race distance and leaving drivers alone, but there are solutions. One would be to restrict steering wheels to ten dials and buttons per side. Another crying out for enactment is to stop playing games with 5 different dry tyres and provide one soft compound and one hard enough to go the distance. The earliest Grand Prix races could last several days, but eventually a distance of about 200 miles became the traditional standard. Modern tyres can easily go fast and go the distance. Somehow, Formula One embraced a frantic emphasis on single laps rather than race distance. The emergence of special qualifying compounds to allow 1200 turbocharged horsepower enough traction for about one and a half laps was wasteful and indulgent by definition, and therefore adored by the runt ecclestone. Brief spectacle has come to define Formula One, with some soft race compounds lasting only 15 laps. Grand Prix races are now essentially several short sprints in between pit stops. Why not further degrade the concept by having qualifying heat races and reverse order grids, as was recently suggested? The rules governing tyres are a glaring weakness that can easily be discarded. Eliminate the requirement to use more than one compound. Drivers on the soft compound would need a fresh set at some point during the race. Hards could easily be designed to last the distance. That would be far more honest than allowing mission control and computer algorithms to make decisions that should be made by drivers.
It's frequently even worse than that as there is often tyre management in the short 'sprint' phases either to make overly soft tyres last... or the monstrous sight as at Singapore of drivers deliberately driving slowly to try to make sure firstly that tyres last (they failed) but also to try to make sure that only they can drop into a 'pit window'.
Its a kind of racing i suppose, but its not the racing we all grew up with and its not the racing i want to see. I'm very glad Seb won in Singapore... but it was a dreadful race to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Oct 31, 2019 3:57:58 GMT
LH's bleating on the radio about his tyres and the strategy is tiresome at best, cheap gamesmanship at worst. Rob, there's a very interesting discussion, by Mark Hughes (MH), of this, on the MSM homepage, as an answer to a question in relation to MH's Mexico GP report. MH calls it "competitive paranoia". |
|
|
|
Post by René on Oct 31, 2019 11:01:23 GMT
LH's bleating on the radio about his tyres and the strategy is tiresome at best, cheap gamesmanship at worst. Rob, there's a very interesting discussion, by Mark Hughes (MH), of this, on the MSM homepage, as an answer to a question in relation to MH's Mexico GP report. MH calls it "competitive paranoia". The radio messages are fragments of conversations and selected by an editor. And the driver is working really hard so sometimes it's amazing how calm they sound. In the case of Lewis it's always the same. When he's in a 'comfortable' position he starts to hear and feel things he would not pay any attention to when in direct battle. It's apparently a consequence of focus and concentration so I don't mind. I always try to put the radio messages into perspective by imagining how drivers from the past would have sounded today. Like Nigel Mansell or Nelson Piquet. Or James Hunt or Niki Lauda. It would have been the same. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Oct 31, 2019 14:32:08 GMT
Yep Mark's view on the MS forum was very good and I think you are right René. I cringe at what Nigel would have been like but would have been fascinated by Senna and Lauda for the technical feedback. I just can't see Jimmy or Jackie giving away their thoughts and emotions on air.
Are the radios live all the time or is it at the driver's and engineer's discretion? LH is very smart and the conversation was very similar to his one at the Hungaroring where he also one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 31, 2019 16:35:41 GMT
Someone may have assumed that hearing driver/engineer conversations would be enlightening. Instead, they're more often dull commonplace instructions partly intended to mislead other teams, or else childish whining.
Whoever established the parameter for exchanges to be broadcast may simply be an idiot. Was David Croft involved? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Nov 1, 2019 20:10:15 GMT
I think it would be most amusing to guess what the likes of Jimmy or Stirling would have said on the radio-
Fangio whilst leading would probably be enquiring about the local restaurants, Stirling about the next race - Jimmy talking about a blond he has spotted on the toughest corner in the world, with Colin asking him about the car and Jimmy nonchalantly holding the gear lever with one hand saying it's fine Colin, Jackie would be complaining about Jack not changing gear or Jochen driving at impossible angles and Ronnie when asked how's the car doing saying it oversteers when it understeers, oh that would have been such fun
nowadays when the BS reaches such a high proportion of the exchanges it serves no purpose and we should revert back to hand signals, one finger means ?, two fingers does not
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Nov 2, 2019 17:08:25 GMT
I think it would be most amusing to guess what the likes of Jimmy or Stirling would have said on the radio- Fangio whilst leading would probably be enquiring about the local restaurants, Stirling about the next race - Jimmy talking about a blond he has spotted on the toughest corner in the world, with Colin asking him about the car and Jimmy nonchalantly holding the gear lever with one hand saying it's fine Colin, Jackie would be complaining about Jack not changing gear or Jochen driving at impossible angles and Ronnie when asked how's the car doing saying it oversteers when it understeers, oh that would have been such fun nowadays when the BS reaches such a high proportion of the exchanges it serves no purpose and we should revert back to hand signals, one finger means ?, two fingers does not I think most great drivers would agree with Kimi Raikkonen that silence is golden. |
|
