03-01-2005, 09:25 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Midlands, UK.
Posts: 573
|
|
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hit an Apex
Actually it was Irvine. And Ferrari made sure he was at the back because they didn't want him to look better than Schumacher. Also, when an F1 car is slow, they rebuild the car. When a Champ Car is slow, it's setup devolopment 101.
Champ Cars > Formula 1.
|
Ferrari would never deliberately drop Irvine to mid-pack simply to make Michael look good. He has driven the wheels off any team mate he has had.
But to get a car to go quickly under all circumstances like F1 is a lot harder than going straight and turning left. You watch what you want, and I will watch what I want. End of discussion.
__________________
And on the 7th day, he made Alfas....
There are only 10 types of people.... those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
03-01-2005, 09:50 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 167
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GreyGTV6
Hey RTBRACER, I have to disagree with you completely. F1 is driver skill and car setup which is the reason it is the Premier racing series in the world. Look what happened to Ruebens when Schumi broke his leg a few seasons back. There was no input for car setup for the team and he fell to the back of the grid for qualifying when Michael was missing.
It's far easier to get a car to go quickly in a straight line, than around bends. Then to set gear, suspension, diff ratios, LSD, etc. settings at optimum levels for each bend on the track makes the difference between a mutiple world champion and a multiple runner up in the same car.
There is a lot to be said for racing where there is a lot of overtaking and multiple lead changes, but that's all Nascar has going for it.
Go straight and turn left, repeat 4 times. Duh!
|
In Formula 1, every car is different, so car setup has very little to do with it, but how advanced the car is does have everything to do with it. The driver is very important in coming up with what needs to get developed and learning to reign that power and finess it into every corner. Michael Schumacher helps with the development of the car. He is also more capable to control it. Road course racing requires very good drivers in very good cars. Take a look at ALMS about 2 years ago with Prodrive Ferrari and the Corvette. The corvette was 8 mph off the Ferrari in the sebring straight. THEY LOST. I still think that some of the drivers corvette and the ferrari were very equal. However, the car won the race, not the drivers, not the strategy, not the "set-up." It was simply that the ferrari was more aerodynamic and had more horsepower, while the corvette had torque. The corvette would kill coming out of a corner, and get killed in the following straightaway.
Now when I think of "set-up" I refer to it as suspension and aerodynamic set-up for a particular track. This has very little realm in formula 1. If it did you could say that Michael Schumacher is just a god of knowing what set-up to have. I doubt that very much. It is simply plain that his car seems to have more power, more brakes, and more suspension than a renault, or a minardi, or even the bmw or mclarens. As for strategy of pitting. THEY DON'T GET TIRES ANYMORE. The same set you get drive on for qualifying is the same as the ones you go on the whole race for. What strategy is there anymore. When to put gas in? When to start pushing on the tires for more speed? Thats it, they got rid of the old strategy of 2 or 3 or 4 stops in a race. Now it is almost useless to think strategy is gonna be involved.
Now if you look at last weekend's races at California speedway. The busch race and the cup race was won by pit strategy. In the busch race, the leader with 6 to go ran out of gas, leaving the lead to the guy who decided to come in for only 2 tires not 4 and a full tank of gas. Meanwhile the next guy to take 4 was back in 5th. Interesting strategy ending. The same is true for the cup race. the top 2 cars didn't pit with 30 to go. They had both pit 6 green laps previously to the pits of the next 25 cars. So when it went green, they broke away to a 4 second lead. It took 30 laps for the nearest quickest by set-up 4 tire stop car to come up to 2nd and nearly one, but it wasn't enough. Take a look at the last 50 laps of the races, it was won due to strategy.
Just a thought, I didn't say I like Nascar, I don't Road Racing is the way to go. However, you can't overlook the brilliance of the crew chiefs.
Richard
|
03-01-2005, 10:16 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Midlands, UK.
Posts: 573
|
|
|
Richard I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I must admit I seldom watch Nascar or other oval racing. But to minimize the influence a driver has on car development is over looking a huge part of racing. Granted, if a car is quicker over the course of a lap then a mediocre driver will beat an excellent one.
But I've read many reports and a lot of mags. The engineers and team appreciate it when the driver lets them know what the car is doing and can even input suggestions. The engineers cannot feel the car the way the driver can, and the driver cannot fix it the way the team can. There have been champions who can and cannot give feedback, but by far the majority of champions can. Even the weekend racer practices, goes back to the pits and makes changes as he feels best.
But F1 has become boring. You cannot argue that fact. And like I said Champ and Nascar have lead swops and overtaking. This fact is not lost on Bernie and co. but F1 need Ferrari in the sport to attact the audience and continue making the millions they do. And they are cut a lot more slack than any other team would get. This also applies to other forms of racing where Ferrari are a big drawcard.
No doubt the biggest budgets normally win races. And I agree 100% that the team should be on the podium with the driver.
__________________
And on the 7th day, he made Alfas....
There are only 10 types of people.... those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
03-01-2005, 10:32 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 776
|
|
|
"In Formula 1, every car is different, so car setup has very little to do with it.....Now when I think of "set-up" I refer to it as suspension and aerodynamic set-up for a particular track. This has very little realm in formula 1.....THEY DON'T GET TIRES ANYMORE".
You need to check your facts. F1 teams use different setups for each track. The myriad changes include: spring & damper rates, aero packages, ride height, cooling systems, gearboxes and v important - software settings.
As for tyres, well I must confess I watched a lot less last season than previous ones, but I don't recall that they don't get tyres any more.
My vote for best motorsport to watch live would have to be ALMS. Really blows me away. Although I've not been to Goodwood yet...
|
03-01-2005, 11:15 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 1,084
|
|
|
Road racing relies "very little" on set-up??????
"Road racing has very little to do with set-up..."
I'd really have to disagree with that. Even Kart racing relies VERY heavily on set-up... and Karts are about the simplest things out there. I don't know how it is with VIntage racing... but most of the time people worry too much about small gains in horse power when there is much more to be gained if your set-up is spot on. (That's not just my H.O.) Look at how well Renault (sp?) was able to hang in there in 2003 & "04" when they were so down on power... that car handled incredibly well.
|
03-01-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 167
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveH
You need to check your facts. F1 teams use different setups for each track. The myriad changes include: spring & damper rates, aero packages, ride height, cooling systems, gearboxes and v important - software settings.
As for tyres, well I must confess I watched a lot less last season than previous ones, but I don't recall that they don't get tyres any more.
|
Now as for Sprintn
I'd really have to disagree with that. Even Kart racing relies VERY heavily on set-up... and Karts are about the simplest things out there. I don't know how it is with VIntage racing... but most of the time people worry too much about small gains in horse power when there is much more to be gained if your set-up is spot on. (That's not just my H.O.) Look at how well Renault (sp?) was able to hang in there in 2003 & "04" when they were so down on power... that car handled incredibly well.
That is absolutely true for Spec racing where everyone is running the same stuff. Also known as: Karting, Nascar, IRL, Grand-am...etc.
This is not applicable to Formula 1. This has alot to do with who has the BEST designed car for that year. Last year it seemed like FERRARI had the best of everything, while BAR seemed to have the best motor, renault had the best handling car, the mclaren couldn't last a weekend, the williams....etc. Throughout the year, it didn't seem to matter how much camber someone put into their cars.
This isn't true in Nascar.
When asked why he couldn't lead many laps until the end of the Daytona 500 Dale Earnhardt Jr. responded that the car wasn't handling through the corners and couldn't be taken flat out through the corners without dragging the brakes. There were 42 other cars out there, some of them didn't complain. Such to the likes of Tony Stewart, who led 106 out of the 200 laps in the race. He said the car would just go through the corner flat out. This was a true admission of the importance of set-up in their circuit. The same could be said about Karting, Grand-am, spec-miata.....etc.
I am not making any arguement that set-up doesn't count in road course racing. The only way I made my GTV get from a 1:37 at willow to a 1:33 was a set of shocks and paying attention to the ride height, and alignment. My only arguement is that it doesn't have high priority in the Formula 1 Series, where everyone knows how to dial their cars into the track, but some cars still are just quicker at the edge.
thanks,
Richard
|
03-01-2005, 02:20 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 1,084
|
|
|
Okay... That I will agree with. The statement was just a bit vague the first time.
Cheers
Quentin
|
03-01-2005, 03:24 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,476
|
|
|
Champ Car Races in the following countries,
America
Canada
Mexico
Argentina
Australia
Korea
Not international?
|
04-22-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveH
[I
My vote for best motorsport to watch live would have to be ALMS. Really blows me away. Although I've not been to Goodwood yet...
|
NASCAR needs to join the 21st century. The cars they run are obsolete, they all look the same except for the advertising on the cars, & the races get very boring. All except the road races, they are not bad.
It would be good if the speed channel would show more european road racing,
since there isn't much here in the USA, & less NASCAR but as long as NASCAR is paying most of the bills they will get most of the air time! That is probably like wishing for a new Alfa to be sold in the USA! 
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
