***Official 2010 F1 thread***
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
I really hope they aren't planning on using that chicane before the tight hairpin with the big stands all around it.
Its a shame you can't really see any of the waterfront, its a bit monotone at the moment, although it might be down to a dull day with a rubbish camera. lol.
No way is that it??? Pit times will be more like 40 seconds!
Are they absolutely sure he is healed, looks like the hit on the head is still messing with his brain.
Oh well, one more reason to cheer when a scarlett car finishes without points.
Same here. What the hell was they thinking of building the Pit exit that narrow?
To many slow corners for me.
....
Now, I should just like to point out that this idea is silly. Now, nobody like a good laugh more than I do. Except my wife. And some of her friends. Oh yes, and Captain Johnson. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point! This idea is silly!
....
Seriously guys, on what level can you possibly think a split track is a good idea?
If the track splits in a way that they may be able to T-Bone each other and the drivers wear helmets that makes them look like crash test dummies.
Man I used to love that 4x4 toy I had as a kid with crash test dummins that flew out and all the parts fell off it.
Last edited:
lol JRS, very appropriate.
It's probably one of the worst ideas ever, along with reverse grids etc.
Oh c'mon, reverse grids aren't as bad as Sunama's idea!
It works well in GP2. They should have a weekend format similar to GP2 IMO.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 May 2007
- Posts
- 851
- Location
- Swansea
With the refuelling ban I don't see the need to limit the engines as much - if each car has a set ammount of fuel available the only way to get a more powerful engine that would last the full race distance would be to design a more efficient engine and make the most out of every bit of fuel - be it through turbocharging, KERS, water-injection etc.
Surely this is a better goal with more trickle down benefits to the larger motor industry than to constantly constrict the ways in which the cars can be developed.
IMO engines are way too limited already, most of the interesting corners like R130 in Suzuka and Eau Rouge are flat out nowadays, the limiting factor should be grip or driver guts.
Why is it a bad idea?
Now thats just silly. When the track rejoins, no one will be T-boning, as the track would rejoin at an angle of around 45 degrees, hence, giving the overtaking driver (ie. the driver who entered the diverging junction behind) a chance to come out side by side with the lead driver (who entered the diverging junction in front).
Oh and BTW, we used to have no-refuelling in the early 90s. For whatever reason, cars didnt used to run a leaner/richer fuel mixture or save fuel. What generally used to happen is if you were fast on laps 0-10, you were also fast in laps 30-40 and so on. At least with refuelling, you get some variation, with various fuel strategies playing out during the race, such that the audience don't actually know who will win the race until the last fuel stops have played out.
I for one, think that going back to no re-fuelling will make the race much more boring as there will be less variation in pit-stop strategies. In the late 80's and early 90's most cars used to pit to within 2 laps of eachother, which means the car leading in the before the pitstops will almost certainly be leading after the pitstops and will also be leading when the race ends.
Personally, I love excitment. I don't like processions. I like to see unpredictability. Splitting tracks, alternative (non-standard) fuel strategies, poor aero downforce and greater mechanical grip is the way to go.
Bang on.
Reducing aero grip will also require drivers to lift off in some areas. With reduced power engines and high grip, corners which used to be taken in lower gears, with the driver feathering the throttle, are now taken in top gear, flat out, with less skill/bravery.
Is that ever going to be a limiting factor in top teams / cars, surely they will all go as fast as possible given the car setup is correct?
I agree engines are already too limited (and due to be even more so next year - with all being set to be "equal" to the Cossy) - removing a lot fo bias towards aero would make it more exciting relying more on mechanical grip - but while I would love to se "efficiency" being rewarded, it doesnt exactly make for exciting racing (ie over 60 laps x team requires 10kilos less fuel due to efficiency of the engine), baring in mind they are all the same power /revs.....
It's not a bad idea per se, but it is a silly and gimmicky one. If you need me to explain that, then there really is no hope for humanity.
Um.....what?
Of course they leaned fuel mixtures to save fuel and richened to go all out. I've got tapes of races where the commentary talks about it. AND they had to adjust to cars that changed weight dramatically over the course of a race AND they had to set cars up with much more of a compromise thanks to that AND the tyre construction was necessarily different due to the higher starting weight AND the same goes for the brakes.
As rpstewart on here pointed out, you used to get more than one scenario being played out:
If you really think it will be utterly dull next year....well, I think you'll be wrong. And as we know, you have on occasion proved to be wrong
So you hate modern F1 then
Eh, I've got to admit - it does add an element of unpredictability when you don't know what the stewards/FIA are going to come up with next to screw McLaren over/let Renault off!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Whoa up there JRS, you just hang on one dog-gone minute!
Since when did Ferrari International Assistance start helping Renault
