Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Luca's just using it as a bargaining tool, but wait a few days until we inevitably get the rumours of Alonso leading a Ferrari assault on le Mans in a couple of years, what with this and Alonso starting the race and all.
A bargaining tool for what? Ferrari crying doesn't get them what they want any more. The V6 shows that.
Its just a crazy old man stuck with delusions of a past time because his team can't make a fast enough car. Imagine how good Ferrari would be if they put as much energy into trying to win as they do into complaining about not winning.
Its just a crazy old man stuck with delusions of a past time because his team can't make a fast enough car. Imagine how good Ferrari would be if they put as much energy into trying to win as they do into complaining about not winning.
I do like how it was Ferrari who wanted to go to the V6 instead of the 4 cylinder.
Now they're complaining about it...
Well, it's your fault.
Ferrari wanted neither. They want NA V12s. They were just a major cause of ending up with the V6 after the stink they kicked up about the I4.
They wouldn't be saying anything like this had they built the fastest engine or were leading the championship.
They wouldn't be saying anything like this had they built the fastest engine or were leading the championship.
But to say your going to leave F1 because its too much about efficiency and instead go to Le Mans which is even more about efficiency, and using the same engine, is just pathetic.
That's not thinking about Ferrari, that's being an idiot.
That's not thinking about Ferrari, that's being an idiot.
Be fair guys. Ferrari saying that F1 is too efficiency-focused doesn't preclude them from going endurance racing. Formula One should be about the fastest, most expensive, most utterly ludicrous cars. It can't be about that right now of course, because too many forces would be aligned against it.
A couple of things spring to mind :
1) Who's going to make tracks that the most expensive, utterly ludicrous cars can race on safely?
2) I don't think you'd find many other takers. A Ferrari vs Red Bull F1 series would be sleep inducing. The manufacturers would be out as it's not relevant to their road car divisions, and the rest of the teams don't have the finances to take on the other two.
LdM thinks he's bigger than F1, and is in a strop becuase they're not winning at the moment. Boo Bloody Hoo.
Last time I checked, these cars were fitted with brakes. Don't have to go all-out if it looks a bit on the dangerous side. I'd much prefer to see guys driving at 9/10ths because they're scared rather than because they've only got a limited amount of engine life and fuel delivery and tyres and if they think about an overtake then the stewards might get involved and all the other complete and utter crap that infests modern F1.
I agree that a Ferrari vs. RBR formula would suck. Even more than the current formula sucks. But you seem to think that a 'proper' Formula One wouldn't be relevant to road car manufacturers - if they were allowed to develop anything beyond The Ultimate Diffuser™, you can bet that they'd find some way to make it relevant! And relevance then justifies the spending of money. And the spending of money makes F1 great again.
There's been some good stuff this year - I quite enjoyed the opening round, and it's nice to see Lewis delivering some decent performances again. But it's still all mired in a sea of poorly-thought out technical regs.
Sorry I don't see it. If you're proposing something like the Red Bull X2014 then it's beyone all sensible limits. When was the last time an F1 driver engaged his brain and didn't go all out when the opportunity presented? When those thoughts start occuring, they put in "poor" performances and retire quickly, or hit a wall and meet an unfortunate end.
It's F1, not DeathRace 2000.
While JRS often makes very good points, his "they have brakes" argument is one I don't get. Previously he's suggested they remove the pit limiter and let then drive as fast as they like, and if they feel scared then "they have brakes".
However the point about the stewards getting involved for every little piece of contact or overtake is a good one. The attitude that every single incident must have someone blamed for it is tedious at best.
Back on Luca, he's specifically said that "nobody watches racing for the efficiency" in a rant about the new engine rules, yet a move to sports cars would see them use that same engine. In fact it's the fact the new ACO regulations support the new F1 engine that have opened the door to sports cars for them anyway.
However the point about the stewards getting involved for every little piece of contact or overtake is a good one. The attitude that every single incident must have someone blamed for it is tedious at best.
Back on Luca, he's specifically said that "nobody watches racing for the efficiency" in a rant about the new engine rules, yet a move to sports cars would see them use that same engine. In fact it's the fact the new ACO regulations support the new F1 engine that have opened the door to sports cars for them anyway.
Last edited:
Not sure why, it's a pretty simple concept
- F1 cars have two pedals
- One makes the car go faster
- The other makes it go slower
- Drivers aren't prevented from using the one that makes them go slower just because it's a race
- I'd rather see drivers going slow because going fast would be dangerous, instead of drivers going slow because the rules effectively say that they have to
Yes, because the restrictive speed limits were brought in on shaky ground in the wake of that Imola weekend in '94. If anything it's made the pitlane quite a bit more dangerous at times, with drivers pulling out into the path of another one and duelling with them up the road. That never happened when there was no limit in the pits. And funnily enough, no-one ever charged through the pits flat-out either - they simply drove at a speed that they were comfortable with.
Now, did he really say 'nobody watches racing for the efficiency' or did he say 'no-one watches Formula One racing for the efficiency'? Because there's a world of difference. And journalists, much like OcUK Forum members, aren't above mangling a quote to make a story
Re Luca, all the write ups of his quote that I have seen say "nobody watches racing for the effiiency".
Obviously this could just be collective journalists skewing the story together, but I havent seen any record of him saying F1 specifically.
Obviously this could just be collective journalists skewing the story together, but I havent seen any record of him saying F1 specifically.
Good point, well made.
Formula 1 chiefs reject grand prix weekend overhaul plans
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114514
So it seems that those with a stake in F1 have a better understanding of how to make the sport successfull than those who are actually in charge of it!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114514
So it seems that those with a stake in F1 have a better understanding of how to make the sport successfull than those who are actually in charge of it!
I can only assume they say it would reduce travelling expenses by allowing one less nights stay in a hotel for some staff. Seems counter intuitive.
Tyre blankets aren't required IMO. CART/Indycar don't use them and it really shows who are the good drivers who feel the tyres and car under them.
Only testing in Europe will also save money.
Tyre blankets aren't required IMO. CART/Indycar don't use them and it really shows who are the good drivers who feel the tyres and car under them.
Only testing in Europe will also save money.