101 replies to this topic

[Bladrian]

Hooray for Uncle Max - he's finally got it right. Anyone seen the rule changes yet?

"The changes will bring about the following:

* Cars will go into Parc Ferme between final qualifying and the race (teams will be unable to work on them, except under strict supervision)

* Traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes are banned (though gearbox)

* Pit-to-car and car-to-pit telemetry is banned

* No radio communications between car and driver

* Allow only two cars per team (ie: no spare cars except in certain circumstances and allowable by stewards i.e. crashes) "

From here - http://www.planet-f1...ory_10481.shtml

I love it.

[Don Capps]

I switched freqs to monitor the discussion on these changes on a companion forum and while many seemed to be in general agreement with the changes, there were many bemoaning the death of F1. Personally, I am curious as to how all this will pan out. I have been completely underwhelmed with F1 for some time now and I wonder if this use of the FIA cattle prod on the teams -- who failed to take the hint earlier when they were asked to "pretty please" do something -- will have the desired effect. I don't want to get my hopes up that sanity just might prevail, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Actually having to shift, corner, and start without any techtroic aids just might change the perceptions of a few currently sitting in the cockpits -- indeed, it just might shift the balance in certain ways to some unlikely teams. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Ray Bell]

There's some dynamite in them thar rules...

Like this one:

4. Under Article 71a, each car will be required to go into parc fermé immediately after making its second qualifying run. All cars will be released simultaneously from parc fermé shortly before the start of the race, when all checks on all cars will have been completed.

Yeah, yeah... when a team usually spends several hours on the car between qualifying and the race, I can just imagine them letting this happen!

But then again... how ambiguous is the whole thing? How long has this rule existed and not been used?

Originally posted by the Colonel
I don't want to get my hopes up that sanity just might prevail.....

'twould be a wonderful thing, wouldn't it?

And I agree, there might be a shift in the power balance if these changes do take effect.

[rdrcr]

"1. Under Article 61, there will be a complete ban on:
(i) telemetry from car to pit;
(ii) telemetry from pit to car;
(iii) radio communication between driver and pit."

Overall I think the changes should reveal quite a bit about driver and crew adeptness... but this particular rule swings the pendulum a bit too far IMO.

This rule should be rescinded in light of safety concerns. Without communication between driver and pit there could be all sorts of problems. Further, I don't see how communications of this nature are detrimental in any respect.

With all of this retro-rule making going on, I hope that the paddle-shift remains...

[RedFever]

"Without communication between driver and pit there could be all sorts of problems."

yep, it will be a lot harder for Todt to ask Rubens to let Schumacher win........

[ensign14]

Originally posted by rdrcr
This rule should be rescinded in light of safety concerns. Without communication between driver and pit there could be all sorts of problems. Further, I don't see how communications of this nature are detrimental in any respect.

Well, they are meant to be looking where they are going...

I think the problem with being detrimental is that it would be easy to disguise car-altering transmissions as forbidden by the regs amongst verbal traffic.

Well, let's see what happens. I'm encouraged by it so far.

[Felix Muelas]

I knew something had to happen now that I just stopped buying Autosport

When is the first race of the WC taking place? Might be tempted...;)

Excellent Coup d´Etat, Mr Mosley. Hope it lasts.

Felix

[Barry Boor]

I gather we must wait until 2004 for some of these changes but.... - I HOPE!

[WGD706]

Under Article 71a), each car will be required to go into parc fermè immediately after making its second qualifying run. All cars will be released simultaneously from parc fermè shortly before the start of the race, when all checks on all cars will have been completed.
The FIA is prepared to discuss with the teams the possibility of releasing cars temporarily from parc ferme to run in free practice on race morning under Article 115 and allowing a brief (eg 30-minute) supervised safety check on the cars immediately afterwards. However, any such release would be subject to strict conditions agreed with the Technical Delegate, which would certainly exclude any work on the car except essential repairs and safety checks.


"Exclude any work on the car except essential repairs and safety checks"......does this mean they qualify in race trim or race in qualifying set-up?

[Eric McLoughlin]

Without two way radios, they'll have to do what Moss did in the TT at Goodwood one year by tuning the car radio in his Ferrari into the BBC to get regular race updates.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by ensign14
Well, they are meant to be looking where they are going...

I think the problem with being detrimental is that it would be easy to disguise car-altering transmissions as forbidden by the regs amongst verbal traffic.

Well, let's see what happens. I'm encouraged by it so far.

... those dastardly tech-gurus... If they elminated the scramble on the transmissions and the on-board CPUs only had direct feed from plug-ins, that might work no? The transmissions could then be monitored by the FIA officials. Everything would be above mother board.

They've still got pit-boards, but if there was a problem with another car or on track, the ability for notification could be compromised quite a bit...

[bobbo]

This is interesting, for me at least, especially with a current thread on 1952 - 53 when the WC was for F2 cars . . .Cost being one of the factors in going to F2 rather than F1.

I think the changes are a great idea, but maybe the whole formula needs to be changed!

And I agree, there will likely be some strange looking grids and finishing orders!

Too bad Arrows couldn't hold on . . .

Let's revisit this next January.

Bobbo

[Arturo Pereira]

I also agree with Bladrian about these rules. I would also hope that somebody at the FIA would be responsible for checking drivers' attitudes in the tracks

The rules can be excellent, but if nobody is going to enforce them, then they can turn useless ... and this had happened before


Arturo

[Leif Snellman]

Originally posted by Bladrian

* Traction control, launch control and fully automatic gearboxes are banned (though gearbox)
* Pit-to-car and car-to-pit telemetry is banned

Well, for once it indeed looks promising. Let's see what happens.

[maxie]

With the ban of two-way radio, the pit boards will be back. I love these boards. I miss the time when the pit crews scrambling for the right number plates to be put on the boards and shown to the driver. It's a crucial part of motor-racing IMHO.

[kos]

What do you mean pit boards will be back They are used currently

[maxie]

Oh, I mean they will have to completely rely on it for communication.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Are F1 drivers dumber than the average club racer.? 90% of motor races do not feature two way radio communication. The drivers totally rely on pit signalling and flag marshalling. It makes me laugh that (up to now) the so called "best frivers in the world" have less work to do in the cockpit than your average amateur weekend warrior.

[MichaelJP]

Maybe the radio ban thing is to try to throw Schumacher off his stride.

Apparently when he's leading a race by a country mile he chats incessantly to Ross Brawn to stem the boredom.

What's he going to do now if they take that away?

I for one will welcome the return of the ambiguous hand signal from the driver while passing the pits:)

- MichaelJP

[ehagar]

Just a thought... it says, 'radio communication between driver and pit'.
That doesn't necessarily mean that radios could be banned. It would be smart to have a radio for marshals or FIA types to warn drivers of Safety car periods, accidents, or there is oil coming out of the back of a car.

I find myself not minding all of the changes being proposed. This little paragraph got my attention:

'By way of clarification, the FIA confirms that teams which wish to do so can share components. The teams are invited to agree unanimously to delete the provision in Schedule III to the Concorde Agreement which prevents a constructor using a component (other than an engine or a gearbox) designed or manufactured by another constructor. In default of such unanimous agreement, the FIA confirms that provided a component is manufactured and designed by a separate company or other third party, there is nothing to prevent two different constructors using the same component(s) on their respective cars.'

How about this Mr. Mosley... privateer teams. Buying one year old chassis and competing. A seperate privateers cup even... how about:

'The Rob Walker Memorial Trophy' - Presented to the top privateer (non chassis constructor).

and maybe:

'Stirling Moss Trophy' - Top privateer driver.

I guess I'm nuts...

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by MichaelJP
I for one will welcome the return of the ambiguous hand signal from the driver while passing the pits:)

- MichaelJP

I for one will welcome the return of the unambiguous hand signal from the driver while passing the pits:) - the one Jimmy Clark used when crossing the line ......

Why does this all remind me of rule changes when racing was in crises of various sorts in 1924, 1927, 1938, 1952, 1969 .... hell, you can go back to the death of GP racing pre-1912 - the issues are fundamentally the same!

Who knows, I might even make the effort to watch a GP or two this year ....

[Ross Stonefeld]

The rules really make me uncomfortable.


these rules, I feel, arent going to do much to improve the show. So we're left with the same on track product, but with some of the technical sophstication removed, so thats a net loss

I particularly dont like the parc ferme/spare car rules, how many people will even make the grid at Monaco this year? There's a lot of incidental incidents that can 'kill' your car over the course of a weekend under these rules.

And they definately need to allow radios, if only for safety. These are seriously quick machines, the drivers need headsup if the thing is about to fal lin half or explode, and those arent allways things you can feel in the seat in time.


Also its going to make races even MORE predictable. I hate strategy races, but with the absencse of on tracka ction the bes twe're going to get is those races where Michael & Co make a wild strategy change mid-race and drive their nuts off for the remaining 60 minutes to try to nip ahead. Thats now gone. So now whatever happens at the start, will literally decide the race. And what will happen if a driver has a tire delfating with a few corners before hte pits, is he going to pull in turn off the car and shout? What about early calls for wets/slicks? However at the same time it will be interesting to see Ross Brawn's strategy and radio-relaitonship with Schumacher killed

[Eric McLoughlin]

Radio schmadio. What a load of old tosh. There's an equally strong argument that yakking on the radio to your pits is distracting and likely to lead to an accident. Senna's famous "off" at Monaco in 1988 was due to his over concern with the gap between him and Prost and the ensuing radio conversation on the subject with Ron Dennis.

There are so many "amateur" racers out there who ply their sport every week without the benefit of two way radio communications. These F1 pilots hold themselves out to be the best drivers in the wotld. Make them work a bit harder for their millions I say.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
Radio schmadio. What a load of old tosh. There's an equally strong argument that yakking on the radio to your pits is distracting and likely to lead to an accident. Senna's famous "off" at Monaco in 1988 was due to his over concern with the gap between him and Prost and the ensuing radio conversation on the subject with Ron Dennis.

There are so many "amateur" racers out there who ply their sport every week without the benefit of two way radio communications. These F1 pilots hold themselves out to be the best drivers in the wotld. Make them work a bit harder for their millions I say.

Club racers use radios

Club racers dont make pitstops. Club racers dont run near as close to the mechanical limits of the car and so dont need to be warned the V10 is about to go thermonuclear.


Just because there werent radios back in the day, doesnt make it a good thing.

[bobbo]

Originally posted by ehagar
. . . How about this Mr. Mosley... privateer teams. Buying one year old chassis and competing. A seperate privateers cup even... how about:

'The Rob Walker Memorial Trophy' - Presented to the top privateer (non chassis constructor).

and maybe:

'Stirling Moss Trophy' - Top privateer driver.

I guess I'm nuts...

Ehagar:

This is an absolutely delightful idea. Bring back the little guy!

Bobbo

[BRG]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
Radio schmadio.

I agree with Eric.

Teams can always put out a pit board, like they used to ( and not that long ago, either!). Anyway, with no telemetry, the pits won't know that the engine is about to go bang or whatever. And didn't we used to have gauges in the car to tell the driver about that? And if the car is about to fall in half and the driver hadsn't noticed, he must be so dim that telling him over the radiow would be pointless anyway (come back, Brambles, your time has returned!)

My word, what with changing gear, having to control the throttle, looking at gauges, watching out for pitsignals - ain't the boys going to be busy bunnies in future?

[ian senior]

Don't suppose there is any chance of another new rule to ensure that all the cars don't look the same......

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by BRG
I agree with Eric.

Teams can always put out a pit board, like they used to ( and not that long ago, either!). Anyway, with no telemetry, the pits won't know that the engine is about to go bang or whatever. And didn't we used to have gauges in the car to tell the driver about that? And if the car is about to fall in half and the driver hadsn't noticed, he must be so dim that telling him over the radiow would be pointless anyway (come back, Brambles, your time has returned!)

My word, what with changing gear, having to control the throttle, looking at gauges, watching out for pitsignals - ain't the boys going to be busy bunnies in future?

Good points, but thats not how an F1 car works. They dont fade and die, they blow up suddenly. If im hauling ass out of Spoon curve at Suzuka and the team notices my front suspension is starting to have problems, I dont want to find out when the front end collapses upon turning in for 130R.

Yeah there werent radios and safety in the good ole days, but those werent exactly good ole days either. Racing needs to be as safe as it can be within the current context of technology. I see no reason to ban radios and telemetry from the car to pits. Banning pits to car telemetry is fine though.

[Darren Galpin]

Yes, by ruling that God is not allowed to apply the normal laws of physics, and hence aerodynamics, at each race. Each team is to be given a different set of laws of physics, so that each car will be optimised differently. These laws are allowed to be duplicated within the teams respective wind tunnels, but are not to be shared with other teams less ideas are transferred.

[Eric McLoughlin]

By not revving to bursting point and not building the cars to such critical limits, maybe they'll hang together better. That surely will be good for both safety AND costs.

All of a sudden I'm so looking forward to Melbourne. Reinstate Spa and I might even get enthusiastic.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by ian senior
Don't suppose there is any chance of another new rule to ensure that all the cars don't look the same......

Originally posted by Darren Galpin
Yes, by ruling that God is not allowed to apply the normal laws of physics, and hence aerodynamics, at each race. Each team is to be given a different set of laws of physics, so that each car will be optimised differently. These laws are allowed to be duplicated within the teams respective wind tunnels, but are not to be shared with other teams less ideas are transferred.

Okay, how about a ruling that every car MUST have an area of solid vertical bodywork of (say) 150 sq cm, not more than 15cm and not less than 10cm wide, forward of the front wheels - that should exercise the minds of the aerodynamicists!

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld



Good points, but thats not how an F1 car works. They dont fade and die, they blow up suddenly. If im hauling ass out of Spoon curve at Suzuka and the team notices my front suspension is starting to have problems, I dont want to find out when the front end collapses upon turning in for 130R.

Heck, Ross - if you need your team to tell you that your front suspension is going squiffy, you really shouldn't be behind that wheel ........

[Ross Stonefeld]

It goes back to my earlier post that an F1 car is a yes or a no, there isnt a maybe. Either its in perfect running condition, or its in kit form on the side of the road. Its not something you nurse to the finish or really get a lot of warning with but for the telemetry sensors.

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It goes back to my earlier post that an F1 car is a yes or a no, there isnt a maybe. Either its in perfect running condition, or its in kit form on the side of the road. Its not something you nurse to the finish or really get a lot of warning with but for the telemetry sensors.

True. They do run them very much on the edge these days, mechanically speaking. However, the 'parc ferme' rule will mean that they are going to have to build considerably more tolerance into the package, to get the cars through qualifying AND a race session. Which will also mean that mechanical survival is going to have to, in part, be driver-managed. Welcome back, mr oil pressure gauge!

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
Radio schmadio. What a load of old tosh. There's an equally strong argument that yakking on the radio to your pits is distracting and likely to lead to an accident. Senna's famous "off" at Monaco in 1988 was due to his over concern with the gap between him and Prost and the ensuing radio conversation on the subject with Ron Dennis.

There are so many "amateur" racers out there who ply their sport every week without the benefit of two way radio communications. These F1 pilots hold themselves out to be the best drivers in the wotld. Make them work a bit harder for their millions I say.

Perhaps in your club they don't use them... But out here, 90% of most classes use them. And, even in club racing there is some sort of data gathering system. Pi sells a lot of units in the Southwest region, I see them everywhere.

As for Senna's off due to his distraction, perhaps a one time incident where a valuable lesson was learned.

[Don Capps]

I think I can see a major schism boiling up here. There are those who seem to pretty much support the changes based upon the concept that technology isn't the point of F1 but that racing is -- and there are those who think that F1 is the technology and the reason for racing. Not quite Luddites versus Engineers, but pretty close.

I fail to get the point that many are so excited about -- severing the radio link twix the driver and the pits. This may have as much to do with the culture of saturation which abhors silence -- or at least the absence of "information" (noise) -- and cannot grasp life without instanteous communications. Everyone will adapt. Get over it.

There is a small but very vocal minority of F1 fans who are obviously very unhappy with the basic thrust of the new regs. Most have known nothing but the current generation of F1 and will have trouble adjusting. Welcome to Life.

[MichaelJP]

Interesting point of Luddites v. Engineers. Not sure where I count myself but I trained as a Mechanical Engineer, work in computers, but definitely am a Luddite where motor racing is concerned!

From DSJ in The Racing Driver (1958) :-

"...perhaps the day is not far off when we can install anticipation and judgement into a mechanism of a sufficiently high degree of efficiency to deal with all the conditions prevailing in motor racing. If that is so, then the days of the human being as a Racing Driver are numbered, just as the days of the pilot are rapidly coming to an end. That would be so, of course, if motor racing were a science and not a sport, and if it were supported by governments and not by philanthropists."

Well there aren't many philanthropists left in Formula 1! Logically though, technology unchecked does remove the driver from the equation, and I don't think anyone really wants that?

- MichaelJP

[Ross Stonefeld]

Drivers have been overrated in the scheme of things. Teams and cars show up to race, drivers are and should be just another team employee. I dont see the need to even everything up to make it about the drivers.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by Don Capps
"...I fail to get the point that many are so excited about -- severing the radio link twix the driver and the pits. This may have as much to do with the culture of saturation which abhors silence -- or at least the absence of "information" (noise) -- and cannot grasp life without instanteous communications. Everyone will adapt. Get over it..."

Frankly, I'm surprised you don't get the point. I'm pretty sure there will be such a stink about this rule by the teams that it will be rescinded.

The attributes are obvious; the more information that is able to be relayed via radio communication, be it the cars performance, tactical and fuel strategies, track conditions, problems with another car (that may not be apparent by the ever-watchful corner workers) inure to the benefit of not only the racers performance, but to their safety as well.

Surely you're not against all that... right?

Just because, "they used to do it", doesn't mean we should get over it and just accept sacrificing technology in spite of the fact that it does exist. Controlling the cars performance from the pits is one thing, but this is altogether something else IMHO.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Drivers have been overrated in the scheme of things. Teams and cars show up to race, drivers are and should be just another team employee. I dont see the need to even everything up to make it about the drivers.

Honestly, Ross, which scenario would give you more of a kick (as a viewer)?

(A) The team of engineers, in conjunction with the weather-forecasters, number-crunch their way (unseen) to the optimum traction-settings and what-nots, and modify the car (again, unseen) to allow Driver X to pull off a brilliant win in changing weather.

(B) Driver X, without the backing of engineers and the ability to fiddle with traction-settings and the like, keeps the car as close to the limit as he possibly can to pull off a brilliant win in changing weather.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by wawawa

Honestly, Ross, which scenario would give you more of a kick (as a viewer)?

(A) The team of engineers, in conjunction with the weather-forecasters, number-crunch their way (unseen) to the optimum traction-settings and what-nots, and modify the car (again, unseen) to allow Driver X to pull off a brilliant win in changing weather.

Id rather be an Astronaut than a fighter pilot.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by rdrcr
Just because, "they used to do it", doesn't mean we should get over it and just accept sacrificing technology in spite of the fact that it does exist. Controlling the cars performance from the pits is one thing, but this is altogether something else IMHO.

I agree, but I doubt the FIA are mad enough to compromise the safety aspect. I imagine that some sort of FIA-regulated radio channel will be left open to warn drivers about on-track dangers.

The telemetry issue is much trickier. Of course, there is a very valid argument that it might be a life-saver, but once you allow telemetry in one direction, it will be almost impossible to police two-way telemetry. But how about the following (obvious) approach:

The sensors used to gather data can be left on the car. Instead of sending data to the pits, they can be hooked up to some kind of readout for the driver indicating just the basics - something simple such as "red light for major fault" (like Ross' suspension example), "orange light for something not so bad" (like Kimi's engine problem at the USGP). That should work just fine - even though it is cruder.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Id rather be an Astronaut than a fighter pilot.

Fine, but which would you rather watch.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dunno, that shuttle launch this morning was pretty nifty

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dunno, that shuttle launch this morning was pretty nifty

Yeah, but I bet it didn't to a barrel-roll like the F-16 I saw three days ago!

Seriously, though, technology is so damn advanced that its suffocating all the other aspects. Admittedly, it can be very very cool, but at this rate, the driver's going to get almost redundant, and how much fun will that be? The most recognizable faces in any team are the drivers - those are the guys we watch and react too more often than not. If they become a cog in a big wheel, it won't make for much excitement.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Even fighter pilots are systems managers these days. The REAL pilots worth watching are competition aerobatic participants. What's interesting is that their mounts (Extra 350s, Pitts Specials, Sukhoi 29s tc) are essentially low technology in concept but are constructed from the most modern materials available - a brilliant combination. If you popped a 1930s pilot into a Sukhoi 29 he'd feel instantly at home but would be totally gobsmacked with the capabilities of the machine. If Tazio Nuvolari sat in a 2002 Ferrari he wouldn't even know where to start. The only control he might recognise in the car would be the brake pedal.

Maybe this is the direction F1 should be heading. Ultimate performance from the minimum of technology.

[Don Capps]

Frankly, I'm surprised you don't get the point. I'm pretty sure there will be such a stink about this rule by the teams that it will be rescinded.

The attributes are obvious; the more information that is able to be relayed via radio communication, be it the cars performance, tactical and fuel strategies, track conditions, problems with another car (that may not be apparent by the ever-watchful corner workers) inure to the benefit of not only the racers performance, but to their safety as well.

Surely you're not against all that... right?

Yes, I am against all that. Perhaps it will result in the concept of consequences finally taking on some real meaning and that "racing" is much more than a matter of putting your foot on the throttle and letting the car -- and the engineers -- take care of the rest.

Drivers have been overrated in the scheme of things. Teams and cars show up to race, drivers are and should be just another team employee. I dont see the need to even everything up to make it about the drivers.

Ross, this statement proves that you have the makings of a great crew chief in NASCAR or team principal in F1. When Sir Frank steps down, it is obvious that you should be the heir to the throne.

Maybe this is the direction F1 should be heading. Ultimate performance from the minimum of technology.

Wasn't this what it it once was, even if by default? Despite the vaulted status of the German Era of 1934 to 1939, look at what happened to "racing" and the "racers" -- the number of events declined significantly and the Voiturette class blossomed and boomed.

Call me totally out of touch, call me old-fashioned, but what sparked my interest and love of motor sports five decades ago were the drivers first and the rest second.

[Arturo Pereira]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Drivers have been overrated in the scheme of things. Teams and cars show up to race, drivers are and should be just another team employee. I dont see the need to even everything up to make it about the drivers.

Bernie would love those words !!!! Sadly for Bernie (as for now ) drivers'butts are the ones located into the cars when the red lights are turned off (is the FIA going to reinstate the checkered flag ?? ) ...... and I really doubt that anybody would be glad to pay even a cent to see Ron Dennis driving a McLaren Mercedes from the pits using a joystick ........ wow, this looks more like an arcade game !!!! who would need drivers then ??

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Don Capps


Yes, I am against all that. Perhaps it will result in the concept of consequences finally taking on some real meaning and that "racing" is much more than a matter of putting your foot on the throttle and letting the car -- and the engineers -- take care of the rest.

Originally posted by Don Capps

Ross, this statement proves that you have the makings of a great crew chief in NASCAR or team principal in F1. When Sir Frank steps down, it is obvious that you should be the heir to the throne.

Exactly my thoughts Don - Sir Frank to a T!

Originally posted by Don Capps

Wasn't this what it it once was, even if by default? Despite the vaulted status of the German Era of 1934 to 1939, look at what happened to "racing" and the "racers" -- the number of events declined significantly and the Voiturette class blossomed and boomed.

Call me totally out of touch, call me old-fashioned, but what sparked my interest and love of motor sports five decades ago were the drivers first and the rest second.

For "five" read "four" as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise - YES! Me too!

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by Don Capps
... "Yes, I am against all that. Perhaps it will result in the concept of consequences finally taking on some real meaning and that "racing" is much more than a matter of putting your foot on the throttle and letting the car -- and the engineers -- take care of the rest..."

I was speaking solely of driver to pit communications, me thinks that you've read too much into my verbiage... I was trying to be exact.

Guess I should try harder...

Originally posted by Vitesse2

: