Malaysian Grand Prix 2010, Sepang - Race 3/19

Tracks should be like some Wipeout tracks, there should be different routes which takes same time to travel which could help faster cars get by, by breaking from the dirty air.
 
I would watch F1 more intently if the cars had a driver and two passengers. The first passenger would be an on-board engineer (if they could make this a robot all the better), whilst the second would be tasked with dumping oil behind the car and firing missiles in front mario double dash style. This would make enjoyable F1.
 
So long as there are a few jumps and stuff.

Rather than KERS could they put the speed booster things on the floor like they're is on wipeout?
 
I've heard F1 teams claim that their cars produce so much downforce that they could travel while upside down. Well there we have it, shortcuts, but you have to go through an upside down part of track to use it. That'll seperate the men from the boys.
 
Just turn it into robot wars, with an epic 80s cult movie twist.

There's been just as much interesting racing in F1 today as there was in the BTCC and it's support races. I think that the length of a gp makes it too much of a strategy race. Have 2/3 20 lap shoot outs and you've got some reason to make drivers go for it.
 
Dup said:
Just turn it into robot wars, with an epic 80s cult movie twist.

There's been just as much interesting racing in F1 today as there was in the BTCC and it's support races. I think that the length of a gp makes it too much of a strategy race. Have 2/3 20 lap shoot outs and you've got some reason to make drivers go for it.
Click to expand...

The 9 engine rule doesnt help either :rolleyes:
 
guessnn2.jpg


One of them is a seven times world champion - guess who the other one is... :)
 
Setroc said:
I've heard F1 teams claim that their cars produce so much downforce that they could travel while upside down. Well there we have it, shortcuts, but you have to go through an upside down part of track to use it. That'll seperate the men from the boys.
Click to expand...
That would bring a whole new meaning to the word overtake! :eek::D
 
I still think they should give an oval a go in F1, that will make for interesting racing :)
 
Baz said:
I still think they should give an oval a go in F1, that will make for interesting racing :)
Click to expand...

F1 drivers wouldn't be able to cope with most oval tracks. Way too difficult for them. I can't imagine a race at, say, Daytona ending in anything except a series of big crashes. Too bumpy, too fast, too difficult.

Talladega could be an option since it was repaved (much smoother now), and they could go back to Indianapolis as long as Michelin don't come back to provide tyres. I reckon a race at a short track like Bristol would be an utter riot, but probably not do-able. So take your pick out of the 1.5-2 mile speedways and the superspeedways.

Actually, I wonder if Rockingham (Rockingham, Corby rather than Rockingham, North Carolina) could be brought up to F1 standards for facilities and safety. Move the British GP there on alternate years with Silverstone, like it used to be shared with Brands Hatch. It held a great Champ Car race back in '01.
 
Setroc said:
I've heard F1 teams claim that their cars produce so much downforce that they could travel while upside down.
Click to expand...

This was actually achievable at around 1992. In 2010, with such an increase in downforce, an F1 car could probably drive upside down, while carrying a VERY HEAVY weight.
 
JRS said:
F1 drivers wouldn't be able to cope with most oval tracks. Way too difficult for them. I can't imagine a race at, say, Daytona ending in anything except a series of big crashes. Too bumpy, too fast, too difficult.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ on this one.

Mansell went straight from F1 to IndyCar racing and was immediately dominant on the ovals.

I agree that we will have lots of safety car periods, but for variation, it might be worth it. Ovals could work
 
sunama said:
I beg to differ on this one.

Mansell went straight from F1 to IndyCar racing and was immediately dominant on the ovals.
Click to expand...

Mansell made his oval debut at Phoenix International Raceway, Arizona in the 1993 CART season. He crashed, hurting himself rather badly in the process. You may have a different definition of "immediately" to me....
 
What you forgot to mention was what happened later that season.

In Mansell's opening season at Indycar:
1st Oval (Phoenix) - crashed out (as pointed out by JRS).
2nd Oval (Indy500) - Mansell finished 3rd at Indianapolis.
3rd Oval (Milwaukee Mile) - Mansell Wins.
4th Oval (Michigan) - Mansell Wins
5th Oval (New Hampshire) - Mansell Wins
6th Oval (Nazareth, Pennsylvania) - Mansell Wins

Summary
6 ovals in total
4 x wins,
1 x 3rd place
1 x DNF

The above is what I would define as dominating, immediately (in his very first season).
 
JRS said:
F1 drivers wouldn't be able to cope with most oval tracks. Way too difficult for them. I can't imagine a race at, say, Daytona ending in anything except a series of big crashes. Too bumpy, too fast, too difficult.
Click to expand...
Also, modern day F1 drivers have proved time and again that they cannot run in close formation with other cars without hitting each other.

The track would look like a carbon-fibre bomb had gone off within seconds of the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom