Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78
  1. #71
    Senior Member truefan72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    5,943
    Like
    1,228
    Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    If it was any other track, l would agree with you. If you have ever driven around Spa, you would have a completely different perspective. The steep downhill elevations with corners on them or at the end of them are the danger. Hard racing under those conditions and in continuous rain is a recipe for disaster.

    And we would be the ones heavily criticizing F1 for racing in those conditions if someone gets killed in the race.
    and we all know what happened the last time they tried to race in very wet conditions in Japan. which has less elevation than Spa.
    you can't argue with results.

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,123
    Like
    634
    Liked 666 Times in 464 Posts
    Apparently there are already some type of talks being considered to discuss the rules as they currently stand.

    https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...n-drenched-spa

    Good to see.



    As for the non race, I think it was smart not to run it myself. Visibility was way down and the drivers wouldn't be able to see much of anything. We don't need a crash fest, especially with the current budget restrictions.

    As for the rule as it is, stupid IMHO. Granted qualification is work for the teams and drivers, and should be worth something. But that could be written into a new rule that breaks things down better. Make qually worth XX% - only if the race is called off. Make the race a race only if they race without the pace car leading them and can change positions. Up to say 50% race distance, make it worth partial points that are more than qually points. Beyond 75% make it full race points.

    As for the rain and delays, there are much better ways to deal with things. If they think there is a valid chance to race, they have to get the cars on track to clear some water. Fuji 2007 the cars did 19-20 laps behind the safety car, then went racing. Better for the spectators to see at least cars on track, and they cleared enough water to race. These days we could do even better, since we have the VSC option. Run the safety car a few laps, run VSC laps at speeds higher than the safety car but reasonable for conditions, and then if things clear enough go racing. They could let the cars bunch back up for a rolling start on the last VSC lap.

    Changing the current full wets would help also. Back when tire wars existed they could almost race in typhoons, now not so much.

    With all the tech and money in F1 they could easily figure out a fairly precise way to gauge rain intensity, and make guidelines from there are to when the race is a no go, a maybe, or a go. Leave some room for safety crew input, differing conditions around the track (drainage, fog, etc), the medical helicopter flight abilities, and anything else needed to make a safe and reasonably consistent decision when these things happen.


    Spa is usually my favorite race of the season. I'm bummed that it couldn't happen this year, and that the current rules suck. But those rules have been in place for many years, and they suck because they have never been tested in this way. With what was learned this year, they should be changed IMHO.



    As for this time, I'm glad nobody was forced to decide whether or not to have a demolition derby with F1 cars. Only the guy in the very front said for a period he thought it was ok to race, and he had the most advantage to gain if they raced. But as a whole, I trust all the drivers, especially considering there were 14 years worth of WDC titles that thought it wasn't safe to race. I'm not thrilled with the current rule on points, but the rule is what it is for now. And at least everyone had the same chance on Saturday to determine where they started, so it's not as if anyone was really just "handed" points.

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,123
    Like
    634
    Liked 666 Times in 464 Posts
    This is a pathetic attempt at compensation.

    https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/10190...oney-back.html

  4. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,610
    Like
    301
    Liked 180 Times in 140 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    This is a pathetic attempt at compensation.

    https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/10190...oney-back.html
    Indeed. And what kind of message does offering F1TV access send to the spectators - "Next time, just stay at home and watch the race on TV rather than go to the circuit"?
    Oct. 31, 1999 - one of the blackest days in motorsports.

  5. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gm99 View Post
    Indeed. And what kind of message does offering F1TV access send to the spectators - "Next time, just stay at home and watch the race on TV rather than go to the circuit"?
    At present , it's safer to stay home .

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    Now , while blaming the tires might seem like the thing to do , it was the visibility issue that really put paid to that race .

    But , we may have less issue this year , if I understand correctly , as much more of the wake will stay tighter and higher behind the leading car .
    Cars were not only having trouble with the wake directly behind , but also with the wake beside the leader , making it doubly difficult to pass .

    Whereas before , travelling too close lost you 50% of your downforce , it's been stated that you may only lose 15% in the same situation this year .

    I'm hoping , though I know it's a big ask , that it's so effective that it negates the need for DRS .



    I'm trying to be positive here , as that finale left me a bit disappointed in my favourite sport .

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,123
    Like
    634
    Liked 666 Times in 464 Posts
    I hope you are right about the wakes and visibility Bagwan. I think they had a chance to run at Spa but blew it really. Even with the new cars I think they need to run some laps at higher speed to get rid of the water, then maybe just go with a rolling start.

    BUT.... these days they play it safe most of the time.

  8. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    I hope I'm right , too , Shifter .

    I know it's a long-shot on the DRS thing , but as it sounds , they were looking at the width of the wake being as being as much of an issue as the rear low pressure area , so I'm cautiously optimistic about it .

    F1 has been in an accidentally ironic age for a long time now , with teams designing cars to produce an un-drivable wake , and , at the same time , complaining so incessantly that it resulted in the invention of the dopey idea that is DRS .

    I won't pretend to say I understand fully , but as I read it , the wake will be higher and thinner , and that sounds like it could help with visibility in the rain .
    If I'm right , with much more of the downforce created by the underside of the car , it may create more suction and possibly clean the track faster when they do run at speed .
    Couple that with the higher , thinner wake potentially blowing off easier and we may have a winner in heavier weather .



    Remember , I'm trying to feel good about this coming season .
    I know my glasses are seeming a little rosy , but a guy can dream .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •