everything from stock car to gt3.
2010 F1 regs - quick question
- Thread starter Mr_Sukebe
- Start date
everything from stock car to gt3.
So you have been to the odd race here and there and you still think F1 is a spectacle, is exciting, is something that does anything more than, bar one or two exceptions, provides 2 hours of TV on a Sunday that has some cars on it? Have you ever spoken to any of the blokes who raced through the generations, people with much more insight than you or I can ever hope to have. I urge you to do so, get their opinion from the coal face. I can't think of many that race for the technology....or enjoy it either, well unless it's all they have ever known of course...
You also seem to think I am against technology or am trying to take the regulations back to the olden days, which I am not. I am saying that setting rules and sticking by them that help the racing is not something that need be detrimental to the sport. You have only known modern racing because though you may have been watching it since a baby I find it hard to believe that everything in your 26 years has sunk in, it didn't in my 42 years. I grew up with racing, my father built race engines which is why I have it in the blood and though I don't for a second think it means my view holds sway over yours I would suggest it makes it a little more objective and rounded.
When I hear people mention computer aided design of F1 cars, though a fact it shows that we are perhaps looking at it from different perspectives. CanAm was a tour de force of technology and by christ it created some of the most epic cars on the plannet, they just did it with drawings, fag packets and pencils behind the ears, not CNC machines and Autoclaves. I want racing I don't want precessions and I think they have rules that do not permit this and that has NOTHING to do with technology.
Steel brakes would be detrimental to the sport. F1 is the pinnacle and it is crazy for it's little brothers to be faster.
That is the point I raised. I did not say the rules should not be changed in certain areas..
So FFS get of your bloody high horse. It doesn't matter what people watch, the point stands.
Don
Should this thread to get merged into the 2010 discussion thread?
I am not on a high horse at all, I just think you're taking a throw away line and getting worked up and to suggest that having steel brakes would make F1 slower than F2 is silly. You used the childish roll eyes, forgive me for taking time to explain my rationale....I'll know better next time, soundbites it is....
explain rationaly? you haven't explained anything, apart from ask a bunch of unrelated question about how much sport I watch. That has nothing to do with it. And yes f2 would be faster at braking they would be better.
I deleted the rest of your post so I assume it was clear I was talking about steel brakes only. And not any other rules. The way you talk you are certainly on a very high horse.
No, this thread should just be retitled into the old man vs young man love-in that it's fast becoming.
I don't see why we still have speculation.. do the teams not have set regs for next year yet? How are they developing cars for regs they don't have?
Most of the rules which affect deisgn have been decided, this years with a few diffrences. Still a bit confused about the concord agreement and the Homologation of front and rear wings. Wish there was more info on this. It's almost like a news black out.
I suggest you read what you wrote again. I told you my point about steel brakes was a throw away but you wanted to get on a high horse and use a childish and dismissive icon. You also stated the bold stuff and it was THIS I took issue with, I sense you missed that....hope it's clearer now.
FF1600 are lighter cars, lets change the rules quick for they are lighter and therefore better....see my point?
This is f1 fore running of technology and pushing the boundaries. Not some 70's rubbish. Where even road cars can brake in shorter distances. All the other Formula series would be braking harder and faster. It's one of the most stupid ideas which people keep saying.
Fine I thought you where talking about what I said.
It's not technology which is a big part of F1.
By rubbish I meant old technology that has been superseded. After all F1 is massively influenced by Technology and that should never be removed.
The roll-eyes is because people keep saying it with out think about the technology side of the sport and the different formulas below it.
Lets leave it at that.
Don
Would you make a comparable comment in a Football thread?
Don
I think they are given an all up minimum car weight. Have to make it work however they can within the regulations. So, the more fuel efficient your engine, the less weight is needed to be taken up with the fuel tank and fuel. This means you can use the weight elsewhere, either as ballast/kers/or additional systems. (Perhaps even increasing the weight of existing systems to reduce costs of manufacture/materials)
except their is no engine development allowed. It sucks..
Soldato
Yes, no refueling means they cannot refuel.
exactly that, they have to carry all the fuel from the start. Whys it silly?
So at the end of the last few laps you will see a number of cars in the middle of the track stationary because they ran out of fuel?