Printable View
I think we all saw that passing is almost impossible once you get within a second or so of the car in front. Even if you're 2 seconds per lap faster.
Having a wide choice of tires with lower life expectancies will not change that fact.
Mercedes scored their points this week NOT because they had decent cars....it was because of the turbulence in their aero-wake. Don't you think Button & Webber would've passed them if not for that?
That Dijon clip always seems like it has been overdubbed with commentary. It is almost like Murray knows what has happened because he doesn't get as excited as usual.
Mark Webber (AussieGrit) on Twitter:Quote:
Originally Posted by edv
Quote:
Wow! New rules, not sure huh? Why do they keep dicking with it? Followed Mercedes power for the whole race, no chance to overtake - again
how true :(Quote:
Originally Posted by PitMarshal
Most races in those days weren't shown live, so that would likely be accurate. Murrays commentary when live compared to pre-recorded (e.g. BTCC) was always very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
1. There will a massive gap between teams and it's likely that one team will dominate from time to time which leads to borefests and lack of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by PitMarshal
2. The costs will spiral out of control and there will soon be 10 cars and the differences between cars will be bigger than anybody can imagine.
3. Cars will not run in practice sessions and cars will also run out of fuel.
Sorry but that's the way it goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
10min highlights:Quote:
Andrew Benson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewben...rand_prix.html
I was expecting France 1979 to be a hands-down winner this time because of the spectacular last three laps of racing between Ferrari legend Gilles Villeneuve and Renault's Rene Arnoux. But actually that race came last in the popular 'vote' which we use to influence - if not decide - which event to make our feature.
That is less a reflection on the famous duel, which remains as breathtaking as ever 30 years on, than it is of the fact that it is so famous. As so many of you pointed out, almost everyone who follows Formula 1 knows about Villeneuve v Arnoux at Dijon in '79 and, more to the point, has seen it already. And the rest of the race was not, it has to be admitted, that brilliant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/8269874.stm
Martin Brundle wearing rose tinted specs:
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/8568251.stm
Most of my F1 driving career was spent with no race refuelling. Back then the cars were generally much less refined and it was easier to make an error, especially with manual gearshifts. Also the cars carried a lot more drag and slipstreaming was more effective. They were certainly far less reliable and that mixed up the results considerably.
True...but neither is the current parade....Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Like briefly mentioned in another thread (how to improve show), it is amazing that FIA still thinks artificial methods improve the show. Well, if anything they distract the show, because although teams have to make compromises, they usually start making quite similar and most efficient compromises after successfully adapting to the rules.
But if everything is open to interpretation, there are more opportunities and hence harder ways of finding the most optimum strategy. Let the team decide, how many and which sets of tyres and pitstops they want to make during the race (also 0 should be possible). Hell, let the team even decide whether they actually want to refuel or not (1982 Brabham vs others) - and design a car accordingly. :p :
Very True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza