Ferrari head says F1 humiliated by Singapore race

[truefan72]

http://f1.uk.reuters.com/f1/news/India-357320-1.php

whaaaat?

what a sore loser..

especially biting comment;
"When we race on tracks which should be used for the circus, anything can happen including the spectacle of the Safety Car," Montezemolo was quoted as saying in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper.

hmm, I didn't hear him bitching before the start of the GP, now that his team screwed up he instead blames the track. Massa and Raikkonen were 1'st and 3rd before the SC period 1 and in likelihood would have both finished in the top 5 if not of driver and team mistakes.

comments like these do nothing but agitate folks.

[F1boat]

I am a Ferrari fan and yet I am disgusted. Luca is indeed a sore loser, although he bashed Valencia as well. Singapore was the best race of the year IMO. The fact that it wasn't won by a Ferrari doesn't mean that it was bad. I am so disappointed with Luca's statement.
Fortunately Ron and Frank like the race and for once I agree with them.

[jso1985]

I guess Luca thinks too that Massa's incident can be blamed to the SC...

:rolleyes:

[jens]

Well, sore loser or not, but it can't be disagreed F1 is turning more and more into a circus with random seriously SC-affected finishing orders. Imagine if those reverse grids become a reality too...

[Corny]

He is absolutely right.. How can you blame a driver that lies 30 seconds ahead, for another one making a mistake? And how can you blame a driver that was planning to stop, but can't due another one's mistake?!

F*CK safety car.. But on the other hand, if we wouldn't have the SCs we would have got only 4 winners this year.. (Ferraris and McLarens)

[jens]

Vettel won a race absolutely on merit without any help of a safety car, so 5 winners actually. ;)

[FIA]

7 drivers, 5 teams have won a race thats amazing for a season and why not.

[truefan72]

Well, sore loser or not, but it can't be disagreed F1 is turning more and more into a circus with random seriously SC-affected finishing orders. Imagine if those reverse grids become a reality too...


The SC pit rules are a valid point of debate, but the need for a safety car for both incidents is completely justified. There is no way they could have continued racing, even under a yellow flag situation in both incidents.

Yeah, F1 is becoming a bit of a circus but the tracks are the least of the reasons why.

Perhaps if he stayed away and did not act as defacto prosecution in a hearing that had nothing to do with their team, we would have a bit less of a "circus atmosphere" surrounding the sport.

[F1boat]

If Ferrari can't win unpredictable races, this is their problem. I am all for CART-like races with SC and surprising winners.

[truefan72]

If Ferrari can't win unpredictable races, this is their problem. I am all for CART-like races with SC and surprising winners.

LOL

at least its better than NASCAr with their phantom yellow flags, competition yellows and excessive processional SC laps until the restart. almost unbearable

[jens]

I may be with outdated attitude, but IMO the goal of a competition is to see the best ones winning. If random ones start succeeding, it's no more a sport event, but a circus. Folks say that with random results F1 is interesting, but interest can be created in other ways too. Often people are nostalgic about the "good old past" (for example 80's) of F1 and how interesting racing then was. Well, we had no rules then, which created artificial rankings - interesting races took place in normal conditions. Why won't you want that?

[F1boat]

The cautions are irritating, but this debris are not harmless on an ovals. I like the fact that the cars are close to each other, but watching them behind the SC is a bit dull.
In F1 I like huge advantage only when the Ferrari are leading BUT I enjoyed Alonso's win very much, probably more that the victory of Massa at Valencia for example. Same about RK in Montreal. IMO it is up to the team to react well in such situation. MS and Ross were very strong in unpredictable situations.

[schmenke]

...Yeah, F1 is becoming a bit of a circus but the tracks are the least of the reasons why....

Not necessarily. Street circuits typically result in more SC incidents. Which is one reason I am not a fan of them.

[F1boat]

I may be with outdated attitude, but IMO the goal of a competition is to see the best ones winning. If random ones start succeeding, it's no more a sport event, but a circus. Folks say that with random results F1 is interesting, but interest can be created in other ways too. Often people are nostalgic about the "good old past" (for example 80's) of F1 and how interesting racing then was. Well, we had no rules then, which created artificial rankings - interesting races took place in normal conditions. Why won't you want that?

It depends on what you call a random result. IMO Renault had a risky strategy which paid off. They gambled and won. I like such victories. IMO they are not random. Back in 1998 Zanardi used this in CART and won many races. I loved that.
About good old times, I am young and unfamiliar with them, but for me to have winners only from two teams is less exciting than many different winners from different teams.

[jens]

It depends on what you call a random result. IMO Renault had a risky strategy which paid off. They gambled and won. I like such victories.

Depends on a point of view. I personally don't like to see a dominant driver losing all and dropping to last without any fault of his own. Or the reverse. Safety car is unpredictable. I find Piquet's P2 at Hockenheim as one of the biggest flukes of all times - his strategy wasn't even "risky", it was a normal strategy for someone, who started from nowhere. And yet such gain from nothing... If at Singapore Piquet hadn't crashed, everyone would bash Renault for an idiotic strategy...

I liked Barrichello's P3 at Silverstone, because this is what I call a gamble, which no-one else dared to take (despite everyone having an opportunity for this). Rain is a non-artificial and a predictable condition, safety car is not. With wrong tyre choices teams can blame only themselves, with safety car they can't - just pure luck or unluck.

If a race takes place (and especially if on a street circuit), then I'd imagine a lot of people think a'la "I wish a safety car, this is the only way something will happen in this race." If such attitude exists, I already find that something is not right in F1 - people see only artificial methods as a "solution" to excitement.

Talking about excitement. Who says without a SC Singapore wouldn't have been as interesting as it was? Hamilton was close to Massa and Räikkönen was closing - winner was unclear and we had two interesting pitstop rounds waiting. On the other hand after the SC mess Alonso's win looked quite clear already after half a race - doesn't seem much more exciting, does it? It looks like mainly a different name of a winner is what makes folks excited, not the racing process itself. Hill dominated the Hungarian GP in 97, but no-one thought it was boring, because an underdog was in the main role.

[jens]

--
but for me to have winners only from two teams is less exciting than many different winners from different teams.

I understand you, and for me too.

But IMO the main goal of a sport or competition is to clarify the best, not to try to be as exciting as possible (yes, in a current excitement-based world this statement sounds weird) - if someone is the best, he's bound to win. If others are not quick enough and unable to outsmart the leaders, they are not meant to win. Currently there is a straw for backmarkers: "There is no way we're going to beat top dogs, we're too bad, let's pit on Lap10 and wish for a huge luck and a safety car." There is no way leaders will do it, they can't afford it, because then they will lose the race to rivals - in case SC doesn't appear. SC is in every way a huge disadvantage to leaders and they can do little about it. They can't take the gambles backmarkers can, which can pay off together with coincidences.

I most of all like those achievements, where underdogs have really managed to surprise everyone with great performance. Vettel's win was a great example. I think even Fisi's win in 2003 was more deserving than those safetycar-helped results in the past two years - especially in the second half of the race Fisi was among the fastest and rose rapidly up the field in his crappy Jordan - great showing. :up:

[jens]

If Ferrari can't win unpredictable races, this is their problem.

Same about RK in Montreal. IMO it is up to the team to react well in such situation.

Now think for a moment. If... IF at Montreal Hamilton had smashed into the back of Kubica on the pitlane instead of Räikkönen you would have a very different talk...

Folks admired Hamilton's dominant drive at Silverstone, but... but if a safety car had appeared right before his final pitstop (it was raining heavily, the possibility was there), he would have lost everything... and no-one would have praised him for a great drive after the race, but trashed him for being a loser - despite any fault of his own.

Safety car rules not only create unfair results, but also unfair conclusions.

[V12]

There's definitely a touch of sour grapes in this I'm sure. But having said that, I can't find anything in his comments that I actually disagree with...

[Zai]

IMO a safety car should never be the excuse. Some form of control is needed when u have cars at 290km/h heading towards danger. We can never eliminate mechanical and human errors.

Ferrari was unfortunate by the SC but remember, they could have shared the spoils had it not be for them crashing with 3 laps to go.

Maybe F1 should consider having a restart which allows teams to retain their track positions.

[mstillhere]

I am a Ferrari fan and yet I am disgusted. Luca is indeed a sore loser, although he bashed Valencia as well. Singapore was the best race of the year IMO. The fact that it wasn't won by a Ferrari doesn't mean that it was bad. I am so disappointed with Luca's statement.
Fortunately Ron and Frank like the race and for once I agree with them.

Best race of the year? Average speed: 105 Km/h? I drive that fast everyday, are you kidding me? To me it looks like more and more people like races for the show not for it's primery purpose: speed and technology. I was against this race before it started and also after. The whole thing looked like a video game. Continuing standardizing of all the teams, of all the engines, of all the tires, of the budgets, no refueling during with the SC out so that cars run out of gas and they even stop all together (can't go any slower than that). It's castrating the whole sport. Not to mention the rain. Please rain come down so that everyone slows down and we can see car crashes and finally see Lewis win. All these exciting SLOW tracks and rules are turning this sport into COMMUNISM. Every thing the same. No more room for innovation, no competition. All the teams pathetically trying to find speed by working on the spoilers or winglets. How pathetic. On the contrary I see involution. Let's slow the whole thing down -speeding after all is dangerous, right? - as much as possible so that the races become more and more "exciting". After all if we reduce the speed of all the cars to 60 Km/h I am sure the winners would be always different and not the usual Ferrari and Mclarens winners. With slow speeds everyone would have a chance to win, even Alonso who is fully aware that on a fast track (remember? F1?) had no chance whatsovever to win he can win too. Uhm.. let's see what we can do for Fisichella, and Bourdays, and Nakajima, and so on. We don't want deprive them of a victory either, right?

[janneppi]

There's definitely a touch of sour grapes in this I'm sure. But having said that, I can't find anything in his comments that I actually disagree with...
Indeedydoo. Valencia and Singapore are poor tracks for racing, if you're going to build a new track, make it out something where people can actually attempt a pass at a car that isn't 3 secs slower than you.

[pino]

I personaly agree with Luca about Singapore, same goes for Valencia, both circuits shouldn't be in F1 calender :down:

[ShiftingGears]

IMO a safety car should never be the excuse. Some form of control is needed when u have cars at 290km/h heading towards danger. We can never eliminate mechanical and human errors.

That is what waved yellow flags are for.

[ShiftingGears]

They should modify both circuits so theyre something other than stop-start circuits.

[F1boat]

IMO a safety car should never be the excuse. Some form of control is needed when u have cars at 290km/h heading towards danger. We can never eliminate mechanical and human errors.

Ferrari was unfortunate by the SC but remember, they could have shared the spoils had it not be for them crashing with 3 laps to go.

Maybe F1 should consider having a restart which allows teams to retain their track positions.

I agree. I can't find what was wrong with the race. To me it was exciting from start to finish. I guess that we have different tastes, but this means that in F1 there is place for races like Singapore and Valencia, because some people love them. Of course, there is also place for races like Silverstone, because other people prefer this race. That's why the calendar has 18 races, they should satisfy all people. I personally love this beautiful new street courses, and I was sceptical about them, because I wasn't a huge fan of CCWS (I loved CART, however). Now I want more of them...

[Dave B]

The safety car rules ARE farcical. But let's look at how other teams dealt with the situation in Singapore.

Renault had no worries as one of their cars was alreay out (the cause of the SC period in the first place!) and their strategy was such that Alonso had already refuelled a lap previously.

Red Bull reacted perfectly the moment they saw Piquet's crash, bringing in both cars legally before the Safety Car was deployed.

Williams and BMW had little option but to bring in one of their drivers and take the penalty. Better than running out of fuel and not finish, and in the event it worked out peachy for Rosberg.

Honda and Toyota had at least one driver each on a 1-stop strategy so weren't affected as they had plenty of fuel on board.

Everybody else dived into the pitlane as soon as it was opened and made perfectly good pitstops. Only one team managed to make an absolute balls-up of it, somehow signalling to their lead driver that he could leave (into the path of a Force India again!) despite the fuel hose still being firmly attached to the car.

Could somebody please explain to me how Ferrari's mistakes are in any way the fault of the circuit?

Yes the rules are dumb, but they're equally dumb for everybody.

[Zai]

I personaly agree with Luca about Singapore, same goes for Valencia, both circuits shouldn't be in F1 calender :down:
Why not make Monaco the third one! As far as overtakings and crashes are concerned, Monaco is similar to Valencia and Singapore.

[SGWilko]

Monaco is a great circuit at a great venue, it provides a change in pace and often throws up odd results. That is fine, variety is after all the spice of life.

Why are people so against street circuits? Overtaking is only difficult because no-one is prepared to take the risk. ANd why is that? because F1 is ever more becoming a contact sport.

I remember how the cars were much wider than now, with fragile suspensions, and yet they still managed to overtake at Monaco.

So, Luca me old Italian mucca, take a chill pill and relish that we have such well prepared and funded tracks. If we tidied up the rules to punish heavily the now norm of aggressive driving - whether it be Lewis pushing Glock wide, or Kimi doing the same to Lewis. There should be a rule, non accidental contact will result in a grid drop at the next race, non negotiable.

[Tonieke]

http://f1.uk.reuters.com/f1/news/India-357320-1.php

whaaaat?

what a sore loser..

especially biting comment;
"When we race on tracks which should be used for the circus, anything can happen including the spectacle of the Safety Car," Montezemolo was quoted as saying in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper.

hmm, I didn't hear him bitching before the start of the GP, now that his team screwed up he instead blames the track. Massa and Raikkonen were 1'st and 3rd before the SC period 1 and in likelihood would have both finished in the top 5 if not of driver and team mistakes.

comments like these do nothing but agitate folks.

He seems to be good at it...bitching at others while his own team is to blame for most...look at last year

[Knock-on]

I think he does have some valid points especially about the SC.

But, as Dave says, teams need to manage these situations.

When I saw NP spin, I knew there was going to be a SC and was screaming at McLaren to pit. But, they didn't for whatever reason. Possibly because they were too far from the pit before it closed or they made a mistake. Whatever, if they had of pitted, they would have won and the same for Ferrari (fuel rigs excluded)

[PolePosition_1]

To be fair, I do feel for Luca, and can see why he is angry, at the end of the day, the SC caused his team to lose up to 18 points. So its understandable.

However, its the same for everyone. Safety cars are part of F1, and have been for a while (introduced in early 1990's I think). Its a good compromise between letting the race continue safety for a period, rather than red flagging an event. I can't really see any other viable options really.

Sure the front runners tend to be more at risk, but its the same for every front runner, any team at the front know this.

So while I understand his fustration, its just part of F1, just like wet weather etc etc. Sure it distaughts the real fastest car, but in todays era, fastest car isn't the only factor in winning races, wet weather, SC etc and handling these situations are part of F1.

[ioan]

Best race of the year? Average speed: 105 Km/h? I drive that fast everyday, are you kidding me? To me it looks like more and more people like races for the show not for it's primery purpose: speed and technology. I was against this race before it started and also after. The whole thing looked like a video game. Continuing standardizing of all the teams, of all the engines, of all the tires, of the budgets, no refueling during with the SC out so that cars run out of gas and they even stop all together (can't go any slower than that). It's castrating the whole sport. Not to mention the rain. Please rain come down so that everyone slows down and we can see car crashes and finally see Lewis win. All these exciting SLOW tracks and rules are turning this sport into COMMUNISM. Every thing the same. No more room for innovation, no competition. All the teams pathetically trying to find speed by working on the spoilers or winglets. How pathetic. On the contrary I see involution. Let's slow the whole thing down -speeding after all is dangerous, right? - as much as possible so that the races become more and more "exciting". After all if we reduce the speed of all the cars to 60 Km/h I am sure the winners would be always different and not the usual Ferrari and Mclarens winners. With slow speeds everyone would have a chance to win, even Alonso who is fully aware that on a fast track (remember? F1?) had no chance whatsovever to win he can win too. Uhm.. let's see what we can do for Fisichella, and Bourdays, and Nakajima, and so on. We don't want deprive them of a victory either, right?

:up: Well said!

[F1boat]

To be fair, I do feel for Luca, and can see why he is angry, at the end of the day, the SC caused his team to lose up to 18 points.

It was the comedy moments in the pit and not the SC.

[PolePosition_1]

It was the comedy moments in the pit and not the SC.

Thats quite true actually, nicely spotted :) .

Although it should be noted it cost Kimi too, he was only heading for 5th anyway. Without, he looked set for a podium.

[555-04Q2]

Cant believe it :down:

Ferrari cant get their pitstop system right, dangerous pit exists for Massa, the head makes stupid statements, Kimi cant get the car to the finish line. Where will it ever end :(

Bring back RB, JT and MS, please please please !!!

[ShiftingGears]

I remember how the cars were much wider than now, with fragile suspensions, and yet they still managed to overtake at Monaco.

The width of the cars has little to do with it. Actually its more likely to be an advantage when overtaking, since the cars have a better mechanical footing, so the drivers can control slides more easily, if that eventuates, when passing.


Also, braking distances were larger, and there was probably more mechanical grip, relative to aerodynamic grip.

[pino]

Why not make Monaco the third one! As far as overtakings and crashes are concerned, Monaco is similar to Valencia and Singapore.

Monaco is 3rd on my list that must go ;)

[93VTEC]

Why are street circuits all of a sudden a big deal. Monaco has been around for ever. Luca has valid points, but they were made because he is sore loser. It's all in the timing. Had he expressed his opinion before the GP about not liking the circuit, his comments following the race would have been well justified. Now he appears and is a sore loser.

[Mark]

Motorsport Forums head says Ferrari humilited by Singapore race.

[schmenke]

Comparing Monaco to Valencia and Singapore is like comparing apples to orangres :mark:

[jas123f1]

http://f1.uk.reuters.com/f1/news/India-357320-1.php

whaaaat?

what a sore loser..

especially biting comment;
"When we race on tracks which should be used for the circus, anything can happen including the spectacle of the Safety Car," Montezemolo was quoted as saying in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper.

hmm, I didn't hear him bitching before the start of the GP, now that his team screwed up he instead blames the track. Massa and Raikkonen were 1'st and 3rd before the SC period 1 and in likelihood would have both finished in the top 5 if not of driver and team mistakes.

comments like these do nothing but agitate folks.

Luca di Montezemolo is absolutely right in his comments.

If you use BIG money and develop a Formula One car, make all tests and then use the result of your work on a track suitable for cart .. it's stupid – at least.

Monaco should be enough for that kind of racing in Formula One..

I don’t understand what Bernie was thinking?
Big business – maybe - or if he is thinking at all..

However stupid is the word. :down:

One crash of a slower car and stupid safety car rules and all your work and money has gone..

[Firstgear]

Maybe Luca needs to go start his own breakaway series.

[elinagr]

f1 is NOT humiliated by gifting massa the win in Belgium? lol

[jas123f1]

Singapore was the best race of the year IMO.

Really ?? :hmph: best race of the year IMO.. ??
So you should like move Formula One to streets in Tokyo, London, Berlin, New York, Peking and so on ... That's easy, only build up a 10 meter high fence to both side and build 5 km long bumpy corridor of streets and put 1600 lamps on it ..

ready.. :up: for carting

but not for Formula One :down:

[MrJan]

I think that the most humiliating thing from Brazil was that a team still hasn't got the hang of a pitstop :down: Ferrari are just sore because people are laughing at them for their ineptness at the minute.

[mstillhere]

Why are street circuits all of a sudden a big deal. Monaco has been around for ever. Luca has valid points, but they were made because he is sore loser. It's all in the timing. Had he expressed his opinion before the GP about not liking the circuit, his comments following the race would have been well justified. Now he appears and is a sore loser.

If Monty is sour loser he sure is in good company. I recall someone last year after losing the world championship trying to score complaining and getting the FIA involved complaining about gas temperature in other cars. How is that for sour losers?

[mstillhere]

f1 is NOT humiliated by gifting massa the win in Belgium? lol

Not funny. You tell you driver to keep his car on the track.

[jas123f1]

I think that the most humiliating thing from Brazil was that a team still hasn't got the hang of a pitstop :down:

Yeah - I newer forget Brazil and what a team made.. :D

[Easy Drifter]

I think Luca was mispoke. He meant Ferrari was humiliated by all their f--- ups.
However, to be serious how many races this year have been screwed up by the SC and penalties handed down by mostly incompentent stewards combined with convoluted rules that are open to multi interpretations?
I have said it before and will say it again: The stewards need to be former racing drivers. They do not need to be former F1 drivers but people with racing experience. Probably best not to be ex F1 drivers as less chance of bias.
The safety car rules need tweaking for sure.
The more rules and regulations you have the more chance of creative interpretation (been there, done that) and grey areas. The simpler the regs the harder it is to be creative (cheat).
Just an old f-rts thoughts.
By the way I have worked on everything from production racing cars and FV's to Indy cars, Can Am (the original) and F1 and everything in between. I have also designed aero parts, skirt systems and engine bays.
I also raced for several years at the pro level and I would hate to be a F1 steward!

[truefan72]

Indeedydoo. Valencia and Singapore are poor tracks for racing, if you're going to build a new track, make it out something where people can actually attempt a pass at a car that isn't 3 secs slower than you.


but somehow this track managed to have the 2nd most overtakings in any race in 2008

Its got plenty of spots to overtake. If you want to blame something, blame the tires that can't hold up for more than 5 laps, causing many a driver to back off after a few laps.

i like both tracks and have no real qualms with them. I just get tired of drivers bitching about stuff and then going out and disproving their own argument, then after the race based on their finish, return to the same unwarranted argument.

Massa claimed the track was tough to pass...I blame massa, he doesn't pass anyone, on any track, anywhere, unless it is at the start or because giys in front of him made a mistake.

Other drivers complained about passing,and that has more to do with their equipment and aero/ than the cars.

We didn't see much passing in Monza or Spa (and when we did that driver was penalized so maybe drivers are a little gun shy now) We didn't see much passing in Australia another high speed long straights track, so that argument is fairly weak IMO.

[truefan72]

One crash of a slower car and stupid safety car rules and all your work and money has gone..

so is the argument about SC rules or about Singapore. because I see the need to bring out the SC in any situation that deemed too dangerous for the drivers.marshalls and track workers to function in terms of a vialoent and debris filled track.

It could happen at any track under any condition. Did they not bring out the Safety car in Spain after the Vettel/Syutil incident, and again on lap 23 with the Kovaleinen incident. Same rules, different track, the difference. Ferrari went on to win 1-2 and no one was bitching about a circus track then. Very little overtaking in that race too.

[ioan]

but somehow this track managed to have the 2nd most overtakings in any race in 2008

Four of them were other passing Trulli who was 5 seconds/lap slower! You call that a track with passing opportunities?
The big balls guy, also known as Hamilton, managed only one overtaking with some help from Alonso.


Its got plenty of spots to overtake.

Where???



Massa claimed the track was tough to pass...I blame massa, he doesn't pass anyone, on any track, anywhere, unless it is at the start or because giys in front of him made a mistake.

What a load of rubbish, FYI Massa overtook Bourdais in Singapore. :rolleyes:



Other drivers complained about passing,and that has more to do with their equipment and aero/ than the cars.

:eek: :?: Not sure about what exactly you are trying to say there! Are drivers competing using other equipment than the cars? :confused:



We didn't see much passing in Monza ...

I doubt you watched the Monza race.
As I doubt that you watched the Singapore race before posting the fiction above! :rolleyes:

Take a friendly advice and next time you post a comment about a race make sure it's one of the races you saw while you were sober.

[truefan72]

Not sure about what exactly you are trying to say there! Are drivers competing using other equipment than the cars?


I meant to say track not cars



I doubt you watched the Monza race.
As I doubt that you watched the Singapore race before posting the fiction above! :rolleyes:

Take a friendly advice and next time you post a comment about a race make sure it's one of the races you saw while you were sober.

It's pretty funny that you like to throw around insults and then are the first to cry like a baby when anyone challenges your biased and mostly fictional comments when it comes to matters of Ferrari.

Unlike you, I do watch all the races and pretty much without the need of Alcohol which you probably consumed a large quantity of to get you through the Massa/Ferrari fiasco.

Unlike you, my points are grounded in reality and backed up by facts while yours are usually accompanied by insults to mask the utter fiction that you present as points of view.

go back, watch the race and then engage in a proper discussion. otherwhise I really have no need to respond to your insults which hide the fact that there is really nothing there.
The amont of passing in monza was just about average, and that was pretty much aided by the wet conditions.

"The certainty of a clever man is backed by the facts
The certainty of a fool is backed by his own delusion"

[Daniel]

I agree with Luca too. Monaco is good because of the history but it makes for crap racing just like Singapore and Valencia did. Sure it was interesting to see the cars driving at night but Singapore was a crap race and that was before Ferrari started screwing themselves over.

That or Luca is racist towards black people or something :p

[PolePosition_1]

If Monty is sour loser he sure is in good company. I recall someone last year after losing the world championship trying to score complaining and getting the FIA involved complaining about gas temperature in other cars. How is that for sour losers?

To be fair to McLaren, there was actual rule breaking with that. Its only right it should be punished.

[PolePosition_1]

Not funny. You tell you driver to keep his car on the track.

Again, to be fair, lots of cars have gone off track and not been punished.

[ioan]

I agree with Luca too. Monaco is good because of the history but it makes for crap racing just like Singapore and Valencia did. Sure it was interesting to see the cars driving at night but Singapore was a crap race and that was before Ferrari started screwing themselves over.

That or Luca is racist towards black people or something :p

:D

[ioan]

What people do is attacking LDM without understanding what he says.

He stated that it is a humiliation that we got to the point where F1 needs to have night races in exotic places in order to keep the interest in the sport at an acceptable level.

I agree with him, F1 shouldn't be about night races or other show gimmicks, F1 should be about technical excellence in automotive racing.

[longisland]

Luca di Montezemolo is absolutely right in his comments.

If you use BIG money and develop a Formula One car, make all tests and then use the result of your work on a track suitable for cart .. it's stupid – at least.

Monaco should be enough for that kind of racing in Formula One..

I don’t understand what Bernie was thinking?
Big business – maybe - or if he is thinking at all..

However stupid is the word. :down:

One crash of a slower car and stupid safety car rules and all your work and money has gone..

I paid good money for the ticket & I expect to be entertained rather than watching cars zipping by for an hour and a half. Chaos & carnage float my boat.

[Daniel]

If you seriously like crashes you're not going to be popular on this forum.

[ShiftingGears]

I paid good money for the ticket & I expect to be entertained rather than watching cars zipping by for an hour and a half. Chaos & carnage float my boat.

Watch the Talledega 500 instead.

[F1boat]

Watch the Talledega 500 instead.

Why not? I will.
And jas, matter of taste, as I said. They should be different kinds of tracks to satisfy different tastes, so I see nothing wrong with having 3 or 4 night and street races.

[Knock-on]

I agree with Luca too. Monaco is good because of the history but it makes for crap racing just like Singapore and Valencia did. Sure it was interesting to see the cars driving at night but Singapore was a crap race and that was before Ferrari started screwing themselves over.


I agree to a certain degree but are they really as bad as some other traditional circuits like Hungary?

Perhaps if we had some fundamental changes to the aero rules and placed more emphasis on mechanical grip, they would be spectacular.

[quote:3hadnw8r]That or Luca is racist towards black people or something :p [/quote:3hadnw8r]

Why do you include such stupid comments :rolleyes:

[Dave B]

I paid good money for the ticket & I expect to be entertained rather than watching cars zipping by for an hour and a half. Chaos & carnage float my boat.
If you understand what you're watching then the cars aren't simply "zipping by". Being at the race affords you a wonderful insight into different driving styles, and an opportunity to see every car on every lap unlike TV where you're at the mercy of the director.

Add to that the sensation of noise and smell which are missing from television coverage and I'd say that if you still don't feel entertained then you're probably watching the wrong sport.

As an aside, do you watch football and rugby to see people breaking their legs? :dozey:

[mstillhere]

Again, to be fair, lots of cars have gone off track and not been punished.

I know it's the.............conspiracy against McLaren...sssshhhhhhh........

[mstillhere]

To be fair to McLaren, there was actual rule breaking with that. Its only right it should be punished.

If I recall correctly the "honest" team would not disclose what was the gas temperature in their own cars.

[mstillhere]

I paid good money for the ticket & I expect to be entertained rather than watching cars zipping by for an hour and a half. Chaos & carnage float my boat.

I pretty much would expect to see that at the circus

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71089

Well, he's got it in for Valencia and Singapore (though surprisingly not Monaco :confused: )

And accordingly, he will "make himself heard".

Bernie has the commercial rights and won't want that to happen but Max can sanction, or otherwise, a circuit.

Hmmm, wonder who will win that one.

Soon find out when they're dropped :D

[markabilly]

I personaly agree with Luca about Singapore, same goes for Valencia, both circuits shouldn't be in F1 calender :down:


As I said about sing a port, in the other thread.......unless you like the chances of bump the wall, drag out SC, add some rain, and maybe someone other than Mac or ferrari might win, then you should love it.....and yeah Monza was nice, but take away the rain, and you take away Vettel's first win, for sure.....

[Somebody]

Vettel won a race absolutely on merit without any help of a safety car, so 5 winners actually. ;)
Uhhh... the race started under the SC. Given how starts are in F1, it's quite possible he would have been jumped (or taken out) had it been a standard, dry, start.


What people do is attacking LDM without understanding what he says.

He stated that it is a humiliation that we got to the point where F1 needs to have night races in exotic places in order to keep the interest in the sport at an acceptable level.

I agree with him, F1 shouldn't be about night races or other show gimmicks, F1 should be about technical excellence in automotive racing.
Ever the apologist, eh ioan?

The "night races in exotic places", incidentally, are a result of F1 being mortgaged to the hilt and needing lotsa £$€s to pay the compound interest. The "exotic places" pay more.

[F1boat]

Luca is really annoying me now. There are plenty of tracks which are wide and allows passing - Malaysia, China, Turkey, Bahrain, Fuji. There are only three street races and ONE night race and he wants them to be dropped - why? Because his team is useless!
I never believed that I would say it, but after this idiotic comments, I hope that Lewis Hamilton and McLaren win both championships!

[PolePosition_1]

F1 shouldn't be about night races or other show gimmicks, F1 should be about technical excellence in automotive racing.


Surely an argument could be made that an F1 race at night in the middle of Singapore as we had is a great way of highlighting F1's cars technical excellence, in equally excellent surroundings.

[PolePosition_1]

I know it's the.............conspiracy against McLaren...sssshhhhhhh........

lol, I'm not saying that. Just saying its fair to say what you said with hindsight. But it can't be denied many cars go off track throughout a race, going against the rules technically, and yet not penalised.

Cars have even done same as Hamilton, and not got punished.

[PolePosition_1]

If I recall correctly the "honest" team would not disclose what was the gas temperature in their own cars.

You'll have to source me that, I have not heard about this. I highly doubt McLaren wouldn't have to declare their temperture.

[leopard]

Having said that the current problem of Ferrari is the team, their car is technically capable, combination of their drivers and the car are supposed to produce furious speed of racing. Their effort to use LED instead of lollipop man might be aimed at supporting the more accuracy and effective work during in the pitstop.

That failure was purely technical error, as such recipe prescribed have the same potency of efficacy of error, it has nothing to do with impurity resulted by night races. Although Massa doesn't seem the right person for the penalty being imposed upon and looks like they were trying to offset suspiciousness penalty against Hamilton previously were made in favor of Ferrari, Singapore gp has promoted Mecca-laren to the better place ...

[F1boat]

Surely an argument could be made that an F1 race at night in the middle of Singapore as we had is a great way of highlighting F1's cars technical excellence, in equally excellent surroundings.

Well said.

[ioan]

Surely an argument could be made that an F1 race at night in the middle of Singapore as we had is a great way of highlighting F1's cars technical excellence, in equally excellent surroundings.

if anything was highlighted it was the track, not the cars. Or maybe one car, the SC! :laugh:

[PolePosition_1]

if anything was highlighted it was the track, not the cars. Or maybe one car, the SC! :laugh:

Dunno, seeing the cars handling the bump, the sparks from the undertray hitting the bumps, only Singapore this season has provided that. Personally, I thought Singapore was a very good showcase for F1.

Not the best circuit on the calender for highlighting racing, but for showing off the F1 cars themselves, I thought it was good, one of the best on the calender.

[ioan]

Dunno, seeing the cars handling the bump, the sparks from the undertray hitting the bumps, only Singapore this season has provided that.

And in what way those that highlight the F1 technology? I really don't see why a bumpy track that produces some sparks due to the bolts from the undertray hitting the tarmac = highlight of technology!

If those sparks highlighted anything than it must be how a poor track the Singapore one is, luckily it was well lit.

And BTW, the cars bottom out in Eau Rouge year after year, only that the sparks are less obvious due to the race being not held in the dark! :p :

[jas123f1]

Luca is really annoying me now. There are plenty of tracks which are wide and allows passing - Malaysia, China, Turkey, Bahrain, Fuji. There are only three street races and ONE night race and he wants them to be dropped - why? Because his team is useless!
I never believed that I would say it, but after this idiotic comments, I hope that Lewis Hamilton and McLaren win both championships!

What!?

Which is team is useless! :o hplease: Ferrari!?

When speaking about exaggeration - you take the price. Absolutely .. :D

Ferrari at the moment - just now 2 x World Champions and has a big chance to be it again and probably will be it again .. useless ... :)

[Knock-on]

And in what way those that highlight the F1 technology? I really don't see why a bumpy track that produces some sparks due to the bolts from the undertray hitting the tarmac = highlight of technology!

If those sparks highlighted anything than it must be how a poor track the Singapore one is, luckily it was well lit.

And BTW, the cars bottom out in Eau Rouge year after year, only that the sparks are less obvious due to the race being not held in the dark! :p :

I didn't mind Singapore but I concentrate less on the technology showcase you desire and more on the overall driving spectacle.

The ideal showcase to highlight technology would be a boring, flat Tilke circuit in perfect daylight, 30 degree temprature and no wind or dust but it is likely to be boring.

I like a slightly unpredictable track with the driver wrestleing to get the best out of the car and although Singapore was dramatically altered by the SC, I felt that the driving was great.

[ioan]

Spa and Suzuka are my favorite circuits (some time ago Hockemheim was in that list too). And I believe that technology excellence can be showcased very well on these 2 circuits, as there is everything: fast straight, fast sweeping bends, slow corners and chicanes.

Singapore on the other hand only seemed to have some 90 degree turns, and it was as boring as watching Nascar turn left for hundreds of laps.

[F1boat]

Spa and Suzuka are my favorite circuits (some time ago Hockemheim was in that list too). And I believe that technology excellence can be showcased very well on these 2 circuits, as there is everything: fast straight, fast sweeping bends, slow corners and chicanes.

Singapore on the other hand only seemed to have some 90 degree turns, and it was as boring as watching Nascar turn left for hundreds of laps.

OK, ioan, you enjou Spa and Suzuka. Tis OK. I like them too. But I do enjoy Singapore as well. What's wrong to have different tracks in the calendar?

[Knock-on]

OK, ioan, you enjou Spa and Suzuka. Tis OK. I like them too. But I do enjoy Singapore as well. What's wrong to have different tracks in the calendar?

I agree.

The best drivers need to be tested on different tracks with different characteristics to find the best car and driver.

[Daniel]

Why do you include such stupid comments :rolleyes:

Someone who won't be named accused me of being racist towards Lewis once. It's a bit of a running joke that I have.....

[truefan72]

Someone who won't be named accused me of being racist towards Lewis once. It's a bit of a running joke that I have.....

no one accused YOU of being racist, you just chose to see it that way. So the joke...which really isn't one at all under any circumstance, is on you. As I said. People fail to see the humor in your comments and don't make the weak connection either.

[ioan]

no one accused YOU of being racist, you just chose to see it that way. So the joke...which really isn't one at all under any circumstance, is on you. As I said. People fail to see the humor in your comments and don't make the weak connection either.

I do see the humor in his comments! But hey, one needs to have a sense of humor for that. You clearly don't.

[ShiftingGears]

I agree.

The best drivers need to be tested on different tracks with different characteristics to find the best car and driver.

I just don't think a street circuit full of the same corner is the best at showcasing driver abilities. That's why I like Monaco. It may be slow and processional, but the circuit is undulating, unique, and all the corners flow onto each other. Which is where the driver can make quite a difference.



Personally, if theres more circuits added to the calendar, I hope they are in locations that undulate/have variable bankings/cambers. They're always the best circuits.

[harsha]

i don't mind unpredictable races....

but it hurts when teams base their strategy on a SC period

[truefan72]

i don't mind unpredictable races....

but it hurts when teams base their strategy on a SC period

I don't think anyobody based their strategy on the SC period. That would be impossible. How do you know when an accident is goint to happen?

Alonso and Renault were the only ones smart enough to do a short stint on the terrible super softs, run light, try and overtake as many cars as possible in the first few laps, then come in and do two solid stints on the harder compound. I congratulate them on that approach and wished McLaren had done the same.

As I said, even without the SC period, it was a good strategy based on the circuit. and they deserved to win the race. To attribute that victory to them having some stategy based in the SC is by its very nature an impossible thing to do
...unless you think Piquet purposely wrecked his car at that precise lap per team orders to benefit Alonso. Which I can't possibly beleive and would be a whole other discussion to have ;)

[ioan]

...unless you think Piquet purposely wrecked his car at that precise lap per team orders to benefit Alonso. Which I can't possibly beleive and would be a whole other discussion to have ;)

That's a very interesting theory, made even more interesting by the fact that it happened just after Alonso had pitted. Not to mention that is interesting that a car that starts 16th will go lightest on fuel, by quite a margin!

Now that I think about it, it seems that everything adds up! Thanks for the ideea! :D :p :

[jens]

Basically I'm not against street circuits (if there are 2 or 3 of them it's OK), but I'm against this lottery-SC rule, which has a harsher effect on street circuits (higher probability of SC appearance + harder passing, making a comeback of a top car more difficult).

Singapore and Valencia circuits itself are actually quite fine for a street circuit. I stress this phrase, because due to narrow track and close walls it's hard to expect that kind of circuits having as many overtaking places as "conventional circuits". If a street circuit offers any passing opportunities, it's already quite positive.



As I said, even without the SC period, it was a good strategy based on the circuit.

Sorry, but this is impossible. After his pitstop Alonso was dead last and was going to get stuck behind Fisichella! Without a safety car session Alonso would have finished outside Top10 with this strategy...

[ShiftingGears]

Sorry, but this is impossible. After his pitstop Alonso was dead last and was going to get stuck behind Fisichella! Without a safety car session Alonso would have finished outside Top10 with this strategy...

Maybe NPJr is the ultimate team player :p :

[truefan72]

Sorry, but this is impossible. After his pitstop Alonso was dead last and was going to get stuck behind Fisichella! Without a safety car session Alonso would have finished outside Top10 with this strategy...

I'm not saying he would have won the race, but he would have certainly lofted himself up into the points solidly. Most cars struggled with the softs on and he would have been able to lap at a much faster pace for longer than the others on his harder compounds, while making up valuable time and possibly being able to outbrake and overtake a few cars.

It was a good strategy that was made even better by the SC

[F1boat]

IMO it was a risk. Renault thought, IMO, that a SC is very likely and gambled.
And won.
It was beautiful :)

[PolePosition_1]

And in what way those that highlight the F1 technology? I really don't see why a bumpy track that produces some sparks due to the bolts from the undertray hitting the tarmac = highlight of technology!

If those sparks highlighted anything than it must be how a poor track the Singapore one is, luckily it was well lit.

And BTW, the cars bottom out in Eau Rouge year after year, only that the sparks are less obvious due to the race being not held in the dark! :p :

I was thinking along the lines of how low the ride height the cars run at, how cars must run literally mm off the surface, at speeds of 180mph through normal roads. Its pretty impressive, and gives a good sense of how precise F1 is.

Thats just my opinion, I think Singapore was a good way for showing what F1 cars can do. Was good for F1. If you disagree, thats fair enough.

[SGWilko]

And BTW, the cars bottom out in Eau Rouge year after year, only that the sparks are less obvious due to the race being not held in the dark! :p :

Not so long ago, the Titanium skid plates caused lots of sparks at the start of races, but that was mainly due to cars carrying fuel to last the whole race.

That was when F1 was a proper sport, not the false racing it is now. The skill of setting up the car to run both heavy and light, of managing tyre wear and fuel consumption is but a distant memory.

It's not a drivers sport at all now, just a playground for the guys with big foreheads and more money than sense.

[Daniel]

Poleposition. You should be a marketing man. Way to dress a turd up as a gold bar dude! Singapore sucked and it sucked bad.

[F1boat]

I was thinking along the lines of how low the ride height the cars run at, how cars must run literally mm off the surface, at speeds of 180mph through normal roads. Its pretty impressive, and gives a good sense of how precise F1 is.

Thats just my opinion, I think Singapore was a good way for showing what F1 cars can do. Was good for F1. If you disagree, thats fair enough.

Yes. IMO too see F1 cars at night was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen

[Daniel]

I agree it was different but they do have evenings elsewhere. It's not something specific to Singapore you know.

[F1boat]

No, but the city itself is very beautiful and makes the atmosphere even better. If I become rich one day I will visit this race :cool:

[Daniel]

Lots of cities are beautiful. Beauty isn't something specific to Singapore. It's the race that should be important! Not the surroundings.

[pino]

No, but the city itself is very beautiful and makes the atmosphere even better.

If that's the case my own City Sanremo should have a F1 circuit too then :p :

[Daniel]

I think Helsinki is nice. Why not have a gp there! :p

[ShiftingGears]

Montreal is pretty nice. They should have a gp there too.

[F1boat]

Lots of cities are beautiful. Beauty isn't something specific to Singapore. It's the race that should be important! Not the surroundings.

And the race was cool. About the other cities, Singapore wanted that race and did it.

[Daniel]

The racing was rubbish. There was very little passing and so on and so forth.

[pino]

I think Helsinki is nice. Why not have a gp there! :p

Exactly :up: besides Finland has a great F1 tradition unlike...

[SGWilko]

The racing was rubbish. There was very little passing and so on and so forth.

Sorry, which race are you describing, it could be one of many..........

[Daniel]

:rotflmao: so true sg.

[pino]

Sorry, which race are you describing, it could be one of many..........

We didn't had many rubbish races this year, I think Singapore was one of them :p :

[Daniel]

You're Italian! You must be biased! That or you actually like PROPER motorsport :p

[ioan]

No, but the city itself is very beautiful and makes the atmosphere even better. If I become rich one day I will visit this race :cool:

The city is nice? Don't know, didn't see much of it.
Maybe if you see it during the day as all I could see during the race was a dark city with a few lit skyscrapers.

[Dave B]

I wonder if we'd be reading these criticisms of Singapore (both from the team and from members of this forum) if it had been a Ferrari 1-2?

[Daniel]

I wonder if we'd be reading these criticisms of Singapore (both from the team and from members of this forum) if it had been a Ferrari 1-2?
I think you'd see people on the forum criticising it yes :) It was a boring track to watch on. I had no problem with the fact the race was held at night and think it made for a bit of spectacle in that sense and I quite liked the fact that a deserving guy like Alonso got the win but the track and the track layout didn't in my opinion make for good racing just like Valencia made for crap racing even if Massa won there. As for Ferrari you're probably right. Who is going to complain about a crap track if they win on it? That's how it's always been with all the teams.

Just because someone is biased doesn't mean they're wrong all the time :)

[ioan]

I wonder if we'd be reading these criticisms of Singapore (both from the team and from members of this forum) if it had been a Ferrari 1-2?

I posted before the race that it's a boring track with mostly 90 degree turns and a few chicanes, one of which can be taken almost straight, and with lack of overtaking possibilities.

As for being kept at night, I've been against it since the first time I heard about this being the case.

[pino]

I wonder if we'd be reading these criticisms of Singapore (both from the team and from members of this forum) if it had been a Ferrari 1-2?

Mate, I've survived 21 years without a title, so I am used to Ferrari's defeats and that doesn't change my point of view about circuits ;)

[schmenke]

I'm sure Singapore is beautiful; I'd like to see it one day, even if only on t.v.

[jens]

I'm not saying he would have won the race, but he would have certainly lofted himself up into the points solidly. Most cars struggled with the softs on and he would have been able to lap at a much faster pace for longer than the others on his harder compounds, while making up valuable time and possibly being able to outbrake and overtake a few cars.


It's a nice theory, but on a street circuit like this the bigger possibility is always to get stuck behind other cars, which would ruin a strategy. Hence the main goal of a strategy on a street circuit should be to try to avoid getting stuck behind slower cars.

Alonso was behind Fisichella after the safety car. He didn't pass him before the Italian's pitstop right before half-distance, so how many laps did FA spend behind him? Without the safety car Alonso would have fought with Fisi for the last position for the whole first half of the race. Doesn't quite enable a driver to finish in a good position at the end of the race?

[F1boat]

That's it. You guys are like Star Wars fans. Every change which comes is bad. Everything which is not like the "good ol'days" is bad. I quit arguing.

[ioan]

That's it. You guys are like Star Wars fans. Every change which comes is bad. Everything which is not like the "good ol'days" is bad. I quit arguing.

The good ol days were better in so many aspects that I could write a book about the subject.

[Robinho]

The good ol days were better in so many aspects that I could write a book about the subject.

i bet it wouldn't be as good as the books written in the good ol days! ;)

[PolePosition_1]

That's it. You guys are like Star Wars fans. Every change which comes is bad. Everything which is not like the "good ol'days" is bad. I quit arguing.

I agree, at the end of the days, F1 evolves. Just like everything. F1 in the 1950's and F1 in the 1980's was totally different. What we're seeing is a continued change. And just how we view the 90's and 80's as an amazing era of F1, come 20 years, I think people will feel the same of what we are witnessing now.

We've seen the total domination of Ferrari and Michael Schumacher, and now entering an era of number of drivers capable of winning a title. Whilst everyone is laying into F1 at the moment, and threatening to quit watching the sport, I personally love F1 more than ever, and feel privilaged to watch F1 at the moment. I feel this current era will be looked back with great affection in years to come.

[schmenke]

...F1 in the 1950's and F1 in the 1980's was totally different. ...

That's right; back then it was a sport.

[ioan]

i bet it wouldn't be as good as the books written in the good ol days! ;)

I'm no Shakespeare, you know! :)

[ioan]

That's right; back then it was a sport.

I wholeheartedly agree!

[F1boat]

That's right; back then it was a sport.

Maybe it was you. You were young then, I suppose, you met with the sport than. So these years seem special to you.
I have watched replays of that era. It's close, but I can't feel anything extraordinary. The cars are easier to overtake, but look kinda ordinary to me.
I like the modern era. It is high-tech, glamorous and for me it is entertaining. IMO it's all a matter of taste.

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe it was you. You were young then, I suppose, you met with the sport than. So these years seem special to you.
I have watched replays of that era. It's close, but I can't feel anything extraordinary. The cars are easier to overtake, but look kinda ordinary to me.
I like the modern era. It is high-tech, glamorous and for me it is entertaining. IMO it's all a matter of taste.

You can't argue that F1 is more of a sport now than it was in 1950.

Business dictates what F1 should be now. That wasn't the case in 1950, certainly not to as great of an extent.

[F1boat]

Yes... but how many people watched F1 back then? I think that without this business mode F1 would have been less popular...

[ioan]

Maybe it was you. You were young then, I suppose, you met with the sport than. So these years seem special to you.
I have watched replays of that era. It's close, but I can't feel anything extraordinary. The cars are easier to overtake, but look kinda ordinary to me.
I like the modern era. It is high-tech, glamorous and for me it is entertaining. IMO it's all a matter of taste.

F1 was always high tech, and also glamorous, even more glamorous than it is now.

And I agree with you, it's a matter of taste, however I don't like gimmicks and kitsch.

[ArrowsFA1]

You can't argue that F1 is more of a sport now than it was in 1950.

Business dictates what F1 should be now. That wasn't the case in 1950, certainly not to as great of an extent.
:up:


Yes... but how many people watched F1 back then? I think that without this business mode F1 would have been less popular...
How many people were able to watch F1 in 1950? Quite possibly more attended events than 'watched' them by other means. Often people knew about the races by reading race reports sometimes weeks after the event.

It is television which has transformed F1, and that transformation didn't really begin until the 1970's after sponsorship took a grip on the sport.

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe it was you. You were young then, I suppose, you met with the sport than. So these years seem special to you.
I have watched replays of that era. It's close, but I can't feel anything extraordinary. The cars are easier to overtake, but look kinda ordinary to me.
I like the modern era. It is high-tech, glamorous and for me it is entertaining. IMO it's all a matter of taste.

I like watching clips of grands prix from the 70's and prior to that, because I like seeing the cars getting sideways through turns, racing on better circuits built for driver challenge and not for safety regulations, and racelong slipstream battles. F1 was high tech then, too. Glamour isn't a concern for me if I'm watching a motor race.

[ShiftingGears]

And I agree with you, it's a matter of taste, however I don't like gimmicks and kitsch.

Agreed. Still, 2008 has been a great year for F1. More on track action than 2007 and 2006, for sure.

[ShiftingGears]

Yes... but how many people watched F1 back then? I think that without this business mode F1 would have been less popular...

There's a great clip of Nurburgring during a grand prix in the 30's - enormous crowds, over 100000 on race day, easily.

I wonder how many people would complain about overtaking opportunities at the Nordschliefe if it was still on the calendar.

Some people think it is much better to have every circuit having hairpins than challenging corners with varying camber and radius.

[schmenke]

Maybe it was you. You were young then, I suppose, you met with the sport than. So these years seem special to you.
I have watched replays of that era. It's close, but I can't feel anything extraordinary. The cars are easier to overtake, but look kinda ordinary to me.
I like the modern era. It is high-tech, glamorous and for me it is entertaining. IMO it's all a matter of taste.

Back then, the priortiy of formula one was to provide competition for the best of motor-racing teams.

Today, the priority of formula one is to maximise revenues for motor-racing shareholders.

[F1boat]

I wonder how I will comment F1 after 30 years... maybe I will be like you.

[schmenke]

F1 will cease to exist well before 30 years from now.

[Bagwan]

F1 will cease to exist well before 30 years from now.

No , you're wrong .
Bernie will have had his backroom scientists work out the cryogenic re-animation thing , and he'll actually be getting younger by then .

That's when they plan on going back to the good old days of grooved tires , when there was more than one car manufacturer in the world .

[F1boat]

I think not. It is very strong, with millions of fans all over the world, strong TV ratings and numerous fans. And very good drivers.

[ioan]

No , you're wrong .
Bernie will have had his backroom scientists work out the cryogenic re-animation thing , and he'll actually be getting younger by then .

That's when they plan on going back to the good old days of grooved tires , when there was more than one car manufacturer in the world .

Excellent! :rotflmao:

[ShiftingGears]

I wonder how I will comment F1 after 30 years... maybe I will be like you.

It's not a subjective opinion - business dictates F1, and before, that was not the case.



Anyway, another stupid opinion from Ecclestone:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71282


"The Singapore GP originated from the need of making F1 visible to Europe at an acceptable time that isn't dawn. So this is a matter restricted to the Asian and Oceania races," he added.

"Every GP from that side of the world could in theory be moved to a night slot. But in 2009 it will just be Singapore. As for Europe I see no reason to stage a race after sunset."


Also mentioning that an Indian grand prix is on the cards for 2011.