Vodafone Rally de Portugal 2014

[Zeakiwi]

Loeb will be the WTCC today?

[Tom206wrc]

Loeb will be the WTCC today?

First round of WTCC in Morocco is next week

[Lundefaret]

Try breaking up your posts to a smaller chunks. It's quite a task to read such long one (I did not bother).

So jonkka, what do you do if something requires that you read a book? Cut it up in small pieces and read them one at a time? Or do you write to the authour telling him to write shorter?

If you are not interested enough in the subject to read what would equal about one page in a book (a real book with writing, not those with mostly pictures), then you are probably not a member of the demografic group I am aiming for, and thats okay by me. I will continue to write long posts, and you will continue to read what you choose. Hope we still can be friends

[stefanvv]

I think you're taking it too literally. No, rally drivers can't physically see what the other drivers are doing like you can in circuit racing (the nearby other drivers, anyway). But the drivers can still have a good idea of what their opponents are doing through the splits, through the info that his team relays via radio, and through background info on their opponents' strengths and tendencies. You're still "seeing" what the other drivers are doing and thinking about (like when they are about to go on the attack, for example).

And though rallying (and all auto racing, let's be honest) is theoretically about driving as fast as possible and getting your best time, the drivers clearly can't go on maximum attack all the time. You mentioned one reason yourself: tire management. Mikko Hirvonen could very well be as fast as Ogier or Loeb if tire management were not an issue. But it is, so his driving style tends to wear down on the tires before they can be changed at service.

Another factor is each driver's specific endurance level, that is, how long he can sustain driving at his maximum ability. One driver may a bit slower than another driver at their respective maximum, but if the first driver is able to sustain his attack longer than the other driver, he can use that to his advantage. If the two drivers are separated by just a few seconds, the first driver can put more pressure on the second driver by driving to his maximum, which then forces the second driver is to go close to his maximum to keep up (or keep his lead). But after a while, the first driver is still driving fine at his maximum, but the second driver starts to make a few mistakes here and there because he's starting to lose concentration. Eventually, the second driver may make a big mistake and crash or spin out. When the first driver hears of the crash over the radio, he can then dial back his driving to a safer and more sustainable level.

Likewise, the drivers' individual abilities on different surfaces plays into the team and driver choosing when to attack, and when to "cruise" and try to limit mistakes.

Another factor is the driver's position in a rally. If the leader has a decent lead, he will try to preserve that lead for the win, and that usually means "cruising" by driving at a fast enough speed to maintain the lead, but not so fast as as to increase the risk of making a mistake. If the driver in second is within striking distance to the leader, he will then attempt to attack when he can while trying to limit his mistakes when he can. But if the leader has too large of a lead to overcome, then the second place driver will also "cruise" and try to maintain his pace for a second place finish.

And finally, there's championship points. If every rally was a race by itself with no effect on an overall championship, then the drivers should go all out and drive to their maximum abilities (within reason). But as it is, winning a rally is a nice prize, but the drivers and teams are mostly fighting for points to earn the bigger prize at the end. Going all out may allow you to win and earn the most points for a particular rally, but it may also lead to a crash and retirement and net you zero points. So in essence, the points race is another chess game that's being played over the course of a season.

So call it a chess game or whatever you would like (I would call it a game of risk management), but rally drivers and teams are indeed playing it. And the same goes for any auto racing type that's not an outright sprint. There's a reason that circuit drivers don't put up the same lap times during a race as they do in qualifying or time attacks, and it's not just because there are other cars on the track.

Some very good points there, I was thinking "more directly" to current situation, a driver can react more quickly on circuits - like block his opponent's move for example, in more "general plan" You're right. Don't forget though in circuit racing drivers also have to manage their tyres, then the game is transferred in the box, some are shorter with less worn tyres and reused for next stint, longer stints, etc.

[Franky]

So jonkka, what do you do if something requires that you read a book? Cut it up in small pieces and read them one at a time?

Technically chapters are small pieces of a book.

[dimviii]

[jonkka]

I did. Lot's of good points on the post. Try read in smaller chunks Jonkka

My comment was to mr Lundefaret. You know, it's possible to quote and reply to other posts one at a time.

[litifeta]

While all the discussion about drivers and their talent is interesting, it is very polarised.

Most world class sports people will tell you that talent will only get you so far. The rest is self belief, commitment, and courage.

If your mind is not in the right space, all the talent in the world will not get you anywhere. Ogier believes he is entitled. That belief raises his enthusiasm, concentration, and courage.

You must believe you are a winner to be a winner.

[jonkka]

So jonkka, what do you do if something requires that you read a book? Cut it up in small pieces and read them one at a time? Or do you write to the authour telling him to write shorter?

Reading a book is one-way experience, I have no way to reply to the author. Online discussion is, or at least should be, two-way communication.

Also, when I read a book, it's one I have chosen, usually after careful consideration and one I think I can enjoy. Online discussion is not about literary experience and enjoyment in form of story telling, rather it's discussion where opinions are debated - or at least discussed. I can remember a good book years from now but I don't think anyone remembers even a good discussion next week.

If you are not interested enough in the subject to read what would equal about one page in a book (a real book with writing, not those with mostly pictures), then you are probably not a member of the demografic group I am aiming for, and thats okay by me. I will continue to write long posts, and you will continue to read what you choose. Hope we still can be friends

Now, which way you think is more beneficial for the readers? Your way, where you take multiple posts and write a long reply to each of them in a single posting without quoting, or my way, where I take single post, quote the relevant part of it and say what I have to say in a single post before repeating that for the next?

Quoting provides the anchor point to the readers who know to which post and part of that post one is replying to. That post may be several pages back (and hence, several days old). If you do not want to quote and write several posts, it is your prerogative.

[Eli]

only 5 minutes to go for the PS..bet VW will win...let's hope i'm wrong...