Formula One 2009

[1,6 HF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peglegtom Face it! F1 has long abandoned the traditional road course for a "made for TV" mickey mouse" track. A few real tracks remain, including Brazil, but the rest of them have either lost their F1 dates or have modified the tracks to where they are no longer what they claim to be. I live near Road America, and would love to see a F1 race there, but Bernie would never allow it without drastic changes to the track to put in "chicanes" on every straight, and without charging the promoters much more than they could re-coup in ticket sales...

[Sprintn]

That was kind of my point a few posts ago. Although we have some great venues here, i would be amazed if anyone would be willing to front the bill and make the changes required... not to mention pay Bernie's fees just to hold an F1 race.

[Sprintn]

I must add... the New layout at Indy... created for the Moto GP Bikes... is MUCH nicer than the course use for the F1 races!

[Echo Leader]

Question for everyone: A few posts back, Romeo85 mentioned that there wouldn't be enough run-off area at many US road courses to support modern F1. Now, not that I want, in any way, for crashes and the associated risk of injury, but I think there's too much run-off designed into modern F1 tracks.

I realize that the FIA wants 'more cars on track' so that sponsers and fans both feel like they're getting their monies worth...But to me, the fact that a driver can completely dork up a corner or 6 and continue just seems to cheapen the experience. I'm not quite saying it right, but I'd like for there to be consequences for going off. Sometimes it ruins a lap, or even a race strategy, but other times it doesn't look like any significant amount of time is lost at all. As I said, I'm not looking for additional crashing, injuries or risk...

[Romeo85]

Your complaint then sounds more like them having asphalt and grass runoffs instead of gravel traps is not good. I would rather see all the cars on track then a couple stuck in the gravel which usually happens during the first lap of the race. Think back to Spa where Lewis and Kimi were fighting for the lead and running off the track. Had there been a gravel trap it would not have been that exciting.


The FIA already has consequences for running off, Lewis in Spa. Plus usually the consequence for running into the grass or asphalt results in falling back a bit. Only issue I remember was again at Spa with Kimi who ran the asphalt wide and didnt have to lift. Though had the had some kind of objects in his way to slow down it would have been a bit more fare. Was it Monza where if you miss the chicane you have to maneuver through barriers that slow you down.



If I want crashes, risky passes and exciting drives, just have to watch DTM, BTCC and Austrailian V8 Supercars

[Sprintn]

I think what the post you are reffering to was implying in regards to "Run off area" was clear area to go into prior to either hitting something very dangerous or going into the forest... or launching up and over a rolling hill.?.? I agree with you though that the EFFECT of sand traps, having more serious consequences for drivers that screw-up in coners is much better that having an airport's worth of tarmac for drivers to run off onto so that they can come back onto the track. Evidently though... the FIA does not think sandtraps to be as safe as tarmac... which i think is true. Plus... even if you were to have sand traps at some of the venues in this discussion... there might not be enough room for them with out clearing forest, water hazzards, or leveling hills.?.? But... then again... the LMP1 cars do okay on these tracks and they are getting pretty darn close to an F1 car in speeds and cornering speed.?.?
It is Ironic though... that in an ULTRA SAFE country such as the U.S. in which we do not want to risk anyone's safety for safety sake... not too mention for the sake of liability, because we will be sued and held Liable, the FIA wants safer couses than what some of our faster series' are racing on.?.?

[1,6 HF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo Leader Question for everyone: A few posts back, Romeo85 mentioned that there wouldn't be enough run-off area at many US road courses to support modern F1. Now, not that I want, in any way, for crashes and the associated risk of injury, but I think there's too much run-off designed into modern F1 tracks. I realize that the FIA wants 'more cars on track' so that sponsers and fans both feel like they're getting their monies worth...But to me, the fact that a driver can completely dork up a corner or 6 and continue just seems to cheapen the experience. I'm not quite saying it right, but I'd like for there to be consequences for going off. Sometimes it ruins a lap, or even a race strategy, but other times it doesn't look like any significant amount of time is lost at all. As I said, I'm not looking for additional crashing, injuries or risk...

[Echo Leader]

Ed,

Well, I thought I had pretty clearly stated that I didn't really want a return to the days when the first object a car met when exiting the track surface was a tree. If not, I can state it some more. But a "bold" overtaking move, ala the Kimi/Lewis duel, isn't bold at all when there's virtually no risk associated with it. Now, optimally, the 'risk' would be solely to the car's ability to finish and there'd be no possibility of driver injury. Obviously that's a non-starter, but the concept that "bold" can only truly be such when there's risk is truth. If a driver can outbrake a guy, blow through the corner and just rejoin to try again... Putting the entirety of the 'penalty' in the hands of the FIA doesn't seem to please anyone. Half the world was bitterly commenting that Lewis shouldn't have been penalized, while the other half was screaming that it should have been an immediate penalty which would have allowed Kimi to finish as he would likely not have crashed out under pressure.

Just to restate my already clear message. I'm not looking for additional physical risk to the drivers. I was watching Ayrton in 1994. It was sickening and still isn't something I can think about without an emotional reaction. So I am one of "those who remember the pre-run-off days".

At no point did I advocate a return to forrested 'run-off' areas or to using helmets that are essentially decorative. So I don't know that its entirely fair to follow any 'logical consequence' if I wasn't actually proposing anything. I was just commenting that it is a bit sterile when a guy can blow consecutive corners and dither about on a parking lot's worth of asphalt.

[1,6 HF]

James,

My 'logical consequence' comment was unfair, for which I apologize. I don't think we'll ever achieve a perfect balance between risk and safety; the sport is inherently dangerous and will always be so unless it is reduced to the level of glorified video game. As I said in the PM I sent, it's a subject on which I'm probably prone to overreaction, having seen some of those consequences in person.

As I said, I completely understand that you're not in any way advocating putting the drivers at greater risk, and I'm sorry if that's how you read my post, as it wasn't my intent to suggest that or to unfairly characterize your comments, many of which I share. I completely agree (if I didn't make it clear) that a number of the current tracks have been rendered utterly sterile in the name of safety--as fine a goal as that is.

So I'd agree that, for example, the paved run-off at La Source at Spa is simply a bad joke--not only is there no risk but there's no penalty for driving an alternate version of the circuit. You're right--if that's the answer, someone's asking the wrong question.

[Echo Leader]

Ed,

You rock. That is all.

-James

[Alex Csank]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo Leader Ed, You rock. That is all. -James

[Sprintn]

SO... we are now getting a better idea of what the new cars will look like, as the teams have been testing thier 08 cars in relatively close to 09 trim. I think they look great... all escept for that front wing that protrudes completely across the front of both front tires! It looks like a big protective bumper of sorts! Pretty ugly if you ask me.

[1,6 HF]

from Autosport:

Ecclestone: Medal system next year
By Charles Bradley Wednesday, November 26th 2008, 10:35 GMT


Bernie Ecclestone has declared that his controversial medal system to decide the Formula One world drivers' champion will be introduced next year.

Speaking at the announcement of a technology partnership between F1 and Korean electronics giant LG in London today, Ecclestone said he expects his plan to be ratified at the next FIA World Motorsport Council meeting.

"It's going to happen," said Ecclestone. "All the teams are happy. The whole reason for this was that I was fed up with people talking about no overtaking. The reason there's no overtaking is nothing to do with the circuit or the people involved, it's to do with the drivers not needing to overtake.

"If you are in the lead and I'm second, I'm not going to take a chance and risk falling off the road or doing something silly to get two more points. If I need to do it to win a gold medal, because the most medals win the world championship, I'm going to do that. I will overtake you."

Ecclestone added that his system would promote a more exciting world championship fight.

"This year, we saw on a number of occasions Lewis not overtaking Massa for that reason," said Ecclestone. "If he'd driven for me, tried it and made a mistake, I would have complained. It's just not on that someone can win the world championship without winning a race."

When asked of the timescale for implementing his plan, Ecclestone replied: "Next year. I'm hoping it will be approved at the next FIA meeting."

When then asked if it was fair that someone who wins six races but doesn't finish any others, beats someone who had finished every race in second place, Ecclestone replied: "He'll have to try harder next year."

Under the proposed medal scheme, Felipe Massa rather than Lewis Hamilton would have won this year's world championship with six race victories to Hamilton's five.

[Echo Leader]

So a second place finish only helps you win the Driver's WC if you tie with someone in 'Gold Medals'? I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on winning versus placing well, but I think this idea just plain goes too far.

[1,6 HF]

It's an idiotic proposal. Winning is important, but so is consistency. Adjust the points to put a higher premium on 1st place, but this is just nonsense.

Under this new system, a driver with 5 wins and 12 2nds (146 points under the current system) would lose the championship to a driver with 6 wins and 12 DNFs or even 12 DNQs (60 points under current).

Bernie is clearly past his 'sell by' date as F1 Fuhrer.