Wouldn't this even up the competition a little more? It seems like DC and RB constantly get shafted in terms of strategy, especially during yellow situations. Why don't they all have their own pit crew like in CART or NASCAR? Even if Ferrari or McLaren give their drivers the exact same cars, it seems like the #2 driver will always get the short end of the stick in terms of pit strategy. Maybe mandating the number of people on the pit crew team to about half what it is now and dividing them into two will jazz up the action without adding anything "artificial" just for entertainment. I'm not suggesting that DC and RB are better than their teammates, I'm just saying if they can make their own strategy without playing second fiddle, they might be able to challenge more and make more exciting races. Which is good fore everybody.
Each car should have it's own pit crew
Started by
BigWig
, Nov 07 2000 17:25
39 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
doohanOK
-
- 2,133 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 17:53
Firstly, pit buildings would e the length of a Drag Strip.
Secondly, we don't have in F1, situations in Champcars, where the field bunches up behind a safety car, and because F1 cars don't have the same pit strategies and fuel conservations modes, mainly because there are only 3 or 4 four different chassis in Champcars.
Thirdly, the cost of extra mechanics needed would be costly in terms of expenses, which include wages, travel and accommodation.
Good idea, but I don't think it would be worth it.
regards,
doohanOK.
Secondly, we don't have in F1, situations in Champcars, where the field bunches up behind a safety car, and because F1 cars don't have the same pit strategies and fuel conservations modes, mainly because there are only 3 or 4 four different chassis in Champcars.
Thirdly, the cost of extra mechanics needed would be costly in terms of expenses, which include wages, travel and accommodation.
Good idea, but I don't think it would be worth it.
regards,
doohanOK.
#3
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 18:22
Careful there, BigWig! 
You may be accused of abasing the sterling currency of F1 by suggesting Colonial Compromises like introducting separate pit crews -and, I presume, pit stops? - for each F1 car in a team.
Never mind that just about every team in F1 learned pit stop techniques in the first place from the Wood Brothers of NASCAR, as did Ford, Matra, Ferrari and Porsche when they first started competing at LeMans. . .
Actually, now that you bring this up, I would - ahem!!!- 'abase' F1 further with one or two other bastardizations from CART and - horrors!!! - The Cousins in NASCAR:
1. Allow single-car - and, if someone can afford it, three-car - teams in F1 again. (They used to do this. Ask Max Mosley. After all the 'M' in MARCH - who once supplied almost half the cars on the F1 grid - came from his name.)
2. Allow commercial chassis supply, just as they now permit commercial engine and tire supply.
3. Require cars to qualify in exactly the 'trim' they will use the next day in the race itself, except for fuel load. No more special qualifying engines, brake assemblies or ultra-light body panels.
Since we are destroying the, uhh, 'purity' of F1 here, let's do it up right.
Harald
DC
USA [Using only Some Assumptions]
You may be accused of abasing the sterling currency of F1 by suggesting Colonial Compromises like introducting separate pit crews -and, I presume, pit stops? - for each F1 car in a team.
Never mind that just about every team in F1 learned pit stop techniques in the first place from the Wood Brothers of NASCAR, as did Ford, Matra, Ferrari and Porsche when they first started competing at LeMans. . .
Actually, now that you bring this up, I would - ahem!!!- 'abase' F1 further with one or two other bastardizations from CART and - horrors!!! - The Cousins in NASCAR:
1. Allow single-car - and, if someone can afford it, three-car - teams in F1 again. (They used to do this. Ask Max Mosley. After all the 'M' in MARCH - who once supplied almost half the cars on the F1 grid - came from his name.)
2. Allow commercial chassis supply, just as they now permit commercial engine and tire supply.
3. Require cars to qualify in exactly the 'trim' they will use the next day in the race itself, except for fuel load. No more special qualifying engines, brake assemblies or ultra-light body panels.
Since we are destroying the, uhh,
'purity' of F1 here, let's do it up right.Harald
DC
USA [Using only Some Assumptions]
#4
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 18:51
basically CART racing but spread over 5 continents. I see, great idea....
#5
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 19:14
Okay, RedFever, I'll bite: What would you do?
Assuming, that is, you agree that something should be done to improve the competitiveness of F1 races.
And I am not being facetious here because I find your posts interesting and worth thinking about.
1. As I said above, one-car teams are nothing new in F1. Lotus and the ancestors of the present WilliamsBMW and Benetton-Renault both started life as one-car teams.
2. Ditto for commercial chassis supply in F1. Max Mosley made his first couple of millions working with Alan Rees and Colin Heard at MARCH, who had something like 46% of all the car chassis I saw on the grid at the 1973 USGP at The Glen.
3. I admit that third, 'qualify like you race', proposal may be a bit of a reach. But, hey, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. It certainly would make qualifying a better weather vane of the following day's race and it might actually give the DCs, Rubens and mid-grid teams a better shot at a better starting position for the race itself.
Anyway, if the idea is a bust, fine. Just shoot me and go back to the current arrangement. No big problem.
I propose these three particular ideas simply because it seems there is already rough consensus around here that tires should revert to being slicks and the cars could probably be permitted to go back to their former widths. So I just didn't bring those two ideas up.
Whatever. Let me know what you would do; assuming, again, that you think something should be done to 'tighten' F1 racing in the first place. (I actually had a poll here on this subject about a week ago.)
And, finally, I am frankly not that sure that, given a choice between these bi-weekly Parades of Would-Be Champions we have now in F1 and, say, what CART had this year at Fontana, Long Beach, Houston, Michigan or Vancouver, a large number of those people on those five continents you talk about might well opt for the latter and not the former.
Harald
DC
USA
Assuming, that is, you agree that something should be done to improve the competitiveness of F1 races.
And I am not being facetious here because I find your posts interesting and worth thinking about.
1. As I said above, one-car teams are nothing new in F1. Lotus and the ancestors of the present WilliamsBMW and Benetton-Renault both started life as one-car teams.
2. Ditto for commercial chassis supply in F1. Max Mosley made his first couple of millions working with Alan Rees and Colin Heard at MARCH, who had something like 46% of all the car chassis I saw on the grid at the 1973 USGP at The Glen.
3. I admit that third, 'qualify like you race', proposal may be a bit of a reach. But, hey, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. It certainly would make qualifying a better weather vane of the following day's race and it might actually give the DCs, Rubens and mid-grid teams a better shot at a better starting position for the race itself.
Anyway, if the idea is a bust, fine. Just shoot me and go back to the current arrangement. No big problem.
I propose these three particular ideas simply because it seems there is already rough consensus around here that tires should revert to being slicks and the cars could probably be permitted to go back to their former widths. So I just didn't bring those two ideas up.
Whatever. Let me know what you would do; assuming, again, that you think something should be done to 'tighten' F1 racing in the first place. (I actually had a poll here on this subject about a week ago.)
And, finally, I am frankly not that sure that, given a choice between these bi-weekly Parades of Would-Be Champions we have now in F1 and, say, what CART had this year at Fontana, Long Beach, Houston, Michigan or Vancouver, a large number of those people on those five continents you talk about might well opt for the latter and not the former.
Harald
DC
USA
#7
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 19:21
I am sorry, but this was one of the best F1 seasons in a long time. 99 was ruined by Schumi's crash, yet it went down to the last race. 98 and 97 again were very good solid seasons. All I would change in F1 is re-introduce slick tires, expand safety exits and get rid of some chicanes. The rest is just fine. You want to watch 33 cars all the same? why bother changing F1 when there is already an open wheel formula (and a pretty good one too) already fitting this descritpion??? if you don't like F1, watch CART. If you don't like CART either, I can't really help you.
#8
Alien
-
- 1,897 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 19:25
Harald, those ideas are pretty good, they can be a start for real competition in F1 (we´ve been through this already). Too bad some F1 fans don´t like to see passing every once in a while.
#9
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 19:34
too bad some CART fanatics are too stupid or blind to have noticed all the passes in 2000. I mean, real passes, like Mika in Spa or Schumi in Europe and Indy, Fis on JV in GP Europe, not simply trading places following someone else's wind. Passing....I pass you, you pass me, we are all a happy family...nah, that we gladly leave to oval-adict people who call passing overtaking by airflow.
Once again: you don't like F1?????? go watch CART. But leave your silly nascar inspired ideas in the US where they belong. We love F1 just as it is, thank you very much.
PS. Why is JPM coming to F1? why is deFerran saying hopefully his win will open doors in F1 in the future? why is JV, CART and Indy champ, in F1???? basically, why is the best CART talent pool dieing to get in F1?????
Once again: you don't like F1?????? go watch CART. But leave your silly nascar inspired ideas in the US where they belong. We love F1 just as it is, thank you very much.
PS. Why is JPM coming to F1? why is deFerran saying hopefully his win will open doors in F1 in the future? why is JV, CART and Indy champ, in F1???? basically, why is the best CART talent pool dieing to get in F1?????
#10
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 19:44
To Alien:
Thanks. Clearly, we agree.
Not to strain the already-strained CART-F1 comparison - which will superheat this off-season anyway because of Montoya's imminent - and eminent??? - arrival in F1.
You know, there were - count 'em: 11 different winners in CART this year. Going into the deciding race of the season five drivers still had a mathematical shot at the championship. The last time we had something like that in F1 was, I think, 1982. At the rate we're going now in F1, the next time will be 2082.
And, unlike F1, the championship went down to the last race of the season. {Although, of course, the constructors championship was still undecided at Sepang.}
We had a 500 mile race at Michigan decided by fifteen inches. (And I would still applaud that even if Montoya and not Andretti had lost.) But, then again, there have been three ALMS races decided by less than a car length and those races run in excess of three hours, so . . . Never mind, I digress again.
Whatever.
To RedFever: I see your point now. While the Tifoso and Schumacher (and Rory Byrne) fan in me was ecstatic about the outcome of this season, the 32-year F1 vet did miss a little more mixin'-'n'-matchin' to steal a term from the Good Ole Boys in NASCAR.
To be really exciting, and inject a little more opportunities for driving up through the field, it doesn't have to be fender-to-fender roughhousing because you're right: that is not racing in the traditional road competition sense of the word.
Besides Mika's pass at Spa and Michael's breakdown after MOnza, the thing I will most remember - and enjoy watching again and again - will be when Rubens came from 18th to win at Hockenheim. I am old enough to remember when, on average, something like a half to a third of all the races each season featured those kinds of comeback drives.
I saw Clark's fourth place at Monza, which he himself said was his best drive of his career. From Jim Clark mind you: his best drive was a fourth?? Yeah. Because of what he had to overcome to get that fourth. Something like Jacques and HeinzHarald at Indy, or Jacques and Mika at Sepang. So, perhaps, it is just my age showing here.
Anyway, I do take your point. We do agree that they should return to - or permit - slicks again.
Harald
DC
USA[p][Edited by Harald on 11-07-2000]
Thanks. Clearly, we agree.
Not to strain the already-strained CART-F1 comparison - which will superheat this off-season anyway because of Montoya's imminent -
and eminent??? - arrival in F1.You know, there were - count 'em: 11 different winners in CART this year. Going into the deciding race of the season five drivers still had a mathematical shot at the championship. The last time we had something like that in F1 was, I think, 1982. At the rate we're going now in F1, the next time will be 2082.
And, unlike F1, the championship went down to the last race of the season. {Although, of course, the constructors championship was still undecided at Sepang.}
We had a 500 mile race at Michigan decided by fifteen inches. (And I would still applaud that even if Montoya and not Andretti had lost.) But, then again, there have been three ALMS races decided by less than a car length and those races run in excess of three hours, so . . . Never mind, I digress again.
Whatever.
To RedFever: I see your point now. While the Tifoso and Schumacher (and Rory Byrne) fan in me was ecstatic about the outcome of this season, the 32-year F1 vet did miss a little more mixin'-'n'-matchin' to steal a term from the Good Ole Boys in NASCAR.
To be really exciting, and inject a little more opportunities for driving up through the field, it doesn't have to be fender-to-fender roughhousing because you're right: that is not racing in the traditional road competition sense of the word.
Besides Mika's pass at Spa and Michael's breakdown after MOnza, the thing I will most remember - and enjoy watching again and again - will be when Rubens came from 18th to win at Hockenheim. I am old enough to remember when, on average, something like a half to a third of all the races each season featured those kinds of comeback drives.
I saw Clark's fourth place at Monza, which he himself said was his best drive of his career. From Jim Clark mind you: his best drive was a fourth?? Yeah. Because of what he had to overcome to get that fourth. Something like Jacques and HeinzHarald at Indy, or Jacques and Mika at Sepang. So, perhaps, it is just my age showing here.
Anyway, I do take your point. We do agree that they should return to - or permit - slicks again.
Harald
DC
USA[p][Edited by Harald on 11-07-2000]
#11
Alien
-
- 1,897 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 20:01
Originally posted by RedFever
too bad some CART fanatics are too stupid or blind to have noticed all the passes in 2000. I mean, real passes, like Mika in Spa or Schumi in Europe and Indy, Fis on JV in GP Europe, not simply trading places following someone else's wind. Passing....I pass you, you pass me, we are all a happy family...nah, that we gladly leave to oval-adict people who call passing overtaking by airflow.
Once again: you don't like F1?????? go watch CART. But leave your silly nascar inspired ideas in the US where they belong. We love F1 just as it is, thank you very much.
PS. Why is JPM coming to F1? why is deFerran saying hopefully his win will open doors in F1 in the future? why is JV, CART and Indy champ, in F1???? basically, why is the best CART talent pool dieing to get in F1?????
We´ve been through this already....
I´d just hope to see more competition and passing in F1 that´s all, this is because races like the GP´s of Hungary and Spain are boring because there is not enough passing up front. I think that the changes proposed by Harald are better for the competition and don´t affect the "purity" of the sport you seem to own.... Please share F1 with us fans who like to see some competition.
[p][Edited by Alien on 11-07-2000]
#12
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 07 November 2000 - 20:05
Well, BigWig, I warned you. . .
I guess the logic here is 'vive la difference'.
Which, depending on how far back you go in motorsports, sort of begs the question of which difference are we trying to preserve here, since things like pit stops were once banned in F1 for just about the same reason that, apparently, separate pit crews - and single car teams, and commercial chassis suppliers - should be kept out now. . .
I mean, Colin Chapman and Peter Warr both predicted that permitting pit stops in F1 at all would 'collapse' the series. So. . . Pit stops are still around and Lotus isn't. Go figure.
Harald
DC
USA
I guess the logic here is 'vive la difference'.
Which, depending on how far back you go in motorsports, sort of begs the question of which difference are we trying to preserve here, since things like pit stops were once banned in F1 for just about the same reason that, apparently, separate pit crews - and single car teams, and commercial chassis suppliers - should be kept out now. . .
I mean, Colin Chapman and Peter Warr both predicted that permitting pit stops in F1 at all would 'collapse' the series. So. . . Pit stops are still around and Lotus isn't. Go figure.
Harald
DC
USA
#13
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 08 November 2000 - 17:40
I am sorry guys, but I think the missunderstanding is coming out from a somewhat arrogant point you guys are making.
Did I say I don't want changes in F1??? no. I want slicks, for examples. I don't want so many chicanes. Those are all changes I want.
At the same time. Do I want F1 to become like CART??? 1) NO; and 2) what's the point? there is already CART and it's sucessful, why a replica?????
Where I disagree is not with the need for changes, but the changes you guys suggest. One car team??? yes, why??? you might have missed that in F1 now there are Fiat, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Renault, Toyota (coming), Ford. More will eventually get Sauber, Prost, Minardi. So, money is not the issue anymore. These manufacturers can afford two cars as much as they can afford one. So, useless change.
Commercial chassis. Sorry, but it just contradicts the entire history and background of Formula 1, even if at times it has been used. Formula 1 is meant to be the most advanced technological racing formula in the world, the most extreme, with the best drivers, but also the best engineers and designers. If you give everyone the same chassis, you killed the technology behind developing unique chassis. Formula 1 is as much about what Newey or Byrne will come up with as it is about Mika passing Schumi in Spa. That is the way Formula 1 is and that's the way I want it to stay. I don't care if a Ferrari is 4 seconds faster than a Minardi. I don't want 30 cars within 2 seconds. If I feel like seeing that, I watch a CART race. When I watch Formula 1 I expect some cars to be lapped in 40 minutes. It's OK, if you cant take your eyes behind the first 2 rows and watch fights for back positions, if you can see talent in a Trulli or Fisi driving for Minardi. That is what is fun about F1, it's noy just about passing someone 30 times in 20 laps a la Andretti/Montoya. At least, not for me. Most F1 fans purely love the cars. The fact that each has different solutions, innovations. Different materials, berrylium or not, semi-automatic gearshitf or variable suspensions, all the innovations come from F1 because that is the spirit of F1. The same chassis idea basically kills the spirit of F1. That's why I hate the idea. I don't want a Ferrari to look like a McLaren. Period!!!
And why qualify with same car you race??? a ferrari and a McLaren will be a Ferrari and a McLaren anyway. Nothing would have changed. Actually, Mika and Schumi in race trim have been even more dominant, so chances are that you suggested change would have caused even more poles for the Mika/Schumi duo. Again, it's not about being an F1 snob, I just think it's a stupid idea.
So, before you label me snobbish, please, Alien and Harald, really look at what youy are saying and realize how arrogant it is.
I want Formula 1 to stay as Formula 1 (different chassis, no single car teams, qualifying separate from race, but count times from bith Friday and Saturday, like in the 80s)and I want CART to stay as CART (few chassis very similar, performances very close, many driver with a chance)
On the other hand, you love CART and pretend Formula 1 is changed to reflect you vision of racing. That is quite arrogant indeed. There are already two open-wheel formulas and both are competitive and both are successful. You are free to prefer one over the other, but I fail to see why one should be modified so that we have to identical formulas. For once, try to see the world with eyes not tinted with stars and stripes and realize that real diversity is this: different people in different countries have different tastes. You already have the formula with the passes and same chasssis. Leave Formula 1 the way it was intended to be in the pre-ESPN and Fox Sports days, thank you very much.
Did I say I don't want changes in F1??? no. I want slicks, for examples. I don't want so many chicanes. Those are all changes I want.
At the same time. Do I want F1 to become like CART??? 1) NO; and 2) what's the point? there is already CART and it's sucessful, why a replica?????
Where I disagree is not with the need for changes, but the changes you guys suggest. One car team??? yes, why??? you might have missed that in F1 now there are Fiat, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Renault, Toyota (coming), Ford. More will eventually get Sauber, Prost, Minardi. So, money is not the issue anymore. These manufacturers can afford two cars as much as they can afford one. So, useless change.
Commercial chassis. Sorry, but it just contradicts the entire history and background of Formula 1, even if at times it has been used. Formula 1 is meant to be the most advanced technological racing formula in the world, the most extreme, with the best drivers, but also the best engineers and designers. If you give everyone the same chassis, you killed the technology behind developing unique chassis. Formula 1 is as much about what Newey or Byrne will come up with as it is about Mika passing Schumi in Spa. That is the way Formula 1 is and that's the way I want it to stay. I don't care if a Ferrari is 4 seconds faster than a Minardi. I don't want 30 cars within 2 seconds. If I feel like seeing that, I watch a CART race. When I watch Formula 1 I expect some cars to be lapped in 40 minutes. It's OK, if you cant take your eyes behind the first 2 rows and watch fights for back positions, if you can see talent in a Trulli or Fisi driving for Minardi. That is what is fun about F1, it's noy just about passing someone 30 times in 20 laps a la Andretti/Montoya. At least, not for me. Most F1 fans purely love the cars. The fact that each has different solutions, innovations. Different materials, berrylium or not, semi-automatic gearshitf or variable suspensions, all the innovations come from F1 because that is the spirit of F1. The same chassis idea basically kills the spirit of F1. That's why I hate the idea. I don't want a Ferrari to look like a McLaren. Period!!!
And why qualify with same car you race??? a ferrari and a McLaren will be a Ferrari and a McLaren anyway. Nothing would have changed. Actually, Mika and Schumi in race trim have been even more dominant, so chances are that you suggested change would have caused even more poles for the Mika/Schumi duo. Again, it's not about being an F1 snob, I just think it's a stupid idea.
So, before you label me snobbish, please, Alien and Harald, really look at what youy are saying and realize how arrogant it is.
I want Formula 1 to stay as Formula 1 (different chassis, no single car teams, qualifying separate from race, but count times from bith Friday and Saturday, like in the 80s)and I want CART to stay as CART (few chassis very similar, performances very close, many driver with a chance)
On the other hand, you love CART and pretend Formula 1 is changed to reflect you vision of racing. That is quite arrogant indeed. There are already two open-wheel formulas and both are competitive and both are successful. You are free to prefer one over the other, but I fail to see why one should be modified so that we have to identical formulas. For once, try to see the world with eyes not tinted with stars and stripes and realize that real diversity is this: different people in different countries have different tastes. You already have the formula with the passes and same chasssis. Leave Formula 1 the way it was intended to be in the pre-ESPN and Fox Sports days, thank you very much.
#14
BigWig
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: October 99
Member
Posted 08 November 2000 - 19:43
All your ideas are crap. Mine are great. Bow down to me. BigWig knows best. On a more serious note, please send check or money order to BigWig the Genius incorporated, Amelia Island FL USA.
#15
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 08 November 2000 - 19:44
American pragmatism......
#16
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 08 November 2000 - 20:01
RedFever
I doubt we'll ever agree on why I advocate what I advocate, and certainly not on how I read the historical precedents for those changes specifically and uniquely as they might - might mind you - work in Formula One.
It does seem to me, though, that, if I follow you, Formula One should almost be deliberately 'specked' in a way that consciously - and not just accidentally - differentiates it from, say, CART. Because, depending on how far back you go in the (modern) history of the two series, most of the differences today are consequential, almost anecdotal, and not deliberate. Lord Max admits that much.
But, all that puts us back on the same merry-go-round, doesn't it? Whatever. I am too exhuasted and depressed this particular morning to pursue the point.
You may get your wish, over here anyway, whether we ever agree or not; since we may well be without an F1 TV contract for at least the beginning of next season anyway.
So, the 'problem' here may have solved itself.
Harald[p][Edited by Harald on 11-08-2000]
I doubt we'll ever agree on why I advocate what I advocate, and certainly not on how I read the historical precedents for those changes specifically and uniquely as they might - might mind you - work in Formula One.
It does seem to me, though, that, if I follow you, Formula One should almost be deliberately 'specked' in a way that consciously - and not just accidentally - differentiates it from, say, CART. Because, depending on how far back you go in the (modern) history of the two series, most of the differences today are consequential, almost anecdotal, and not deliberate. Lord Max admits that much.
But, all that puts us back on the same merry-go-round, doesn't it? Whatever. I am too exhuasted and depressed this particular morning to pursue the point.
You may get your wish, over here anyway, whether we ever agree or not; since we may well be without an F1 TV contract for at least the beginning of next season anyway.
So, the 'problem' here may have solved itself.
Harald[p][Edited by Harald on 11-08-2000]
#17
RedFever
-
- 9,408 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 08 November 2000 - 22:11
well, there is satellite TV.....
No, it's not about anedoctal differences. I simply do not want F1 to be a series with 2-3 chassis only. I don't know how to spell it anymore. I conisder F1 the most advanced formula from a technological, performance, designer/engineer, R&D, funding, drivers, etc, etc point of view. I want it to stay that way. Fair enough??? now, that doesn't mean it must stay different from CART. As long as F1 keeps these fundamental elements, I don't really care if CART differs or becomes the same. However, that would imply CART having teams build their own chassis, not F1 adopt the US system of one-size fits all.
That is the fundamental difference. As long as each team will develop their own car, thus guaranteeing the highest degree of technological competition, I am with you. Once you propose to place limits to the tech content in name of "passing", then I am not with you anymore and I invite you to watch CART rather than F1 if multiple passes and 11 winners a year is what excites you.
I personally have no interest in seeing 11 winners in one year in F1. This is the toughest racing formula in the world. If 11 drivers on several different cars are capable of winning, the formula itself gets diluted. You need to be the very best with the best team to win in F1. Look at DC: 5 seasons with the very best car in F1, not one title. Not even a 2nd place. That is F1. If 11 guyes starting winning in one year, can you tell me where is the challenge? just avoid crashing and your day will arrive. No, that's not the way it is in F1. It's a gradual climb to the top and there is no guarantee of ever arriving there.
With 11 winners, the championship would be decided more by an irrelevant factor like a third place in a race than by a solid, dominant, season-long performance, like the one required by Hakkinen in 98 or Schumacher in 2000 in order to win. I have to be honest with you: I found both the 1998 F1 season (Mika's title) and the 2000 F1 season (Schumi's title) extremely more exciting, demanding, stressful, consuming than the 2000 CART season. I don't care if in CART 7-8 teams won, 11 different drivers, and the average # of passes for race was 120. Mika's pass in Spa was worth all the passes between Montoya and Andretti on one of the ovals this year, where they passed each other 25 times!!! That pass was not just memorable, it was genius. What was genial about the 17th pass JPM performed over Michael Andretti in 25 laps??? can you tell any of them apart??? was the 5th pass of Michael better than the 8th pass of JPM?
Clearly we have a different philosophy to races. I am not saying F1 is better or CART is worst. They are very different. That simple. And I love F1 as it is. Yes, I would make a few chances to improve passing opportunities, like slick tires and less chicanes and less efficient brakes (no carbon brakes). Very few changes that would allow drivers to pass more often. But when you suggest to overturn the entire nature of the formula, limit its technological content, then you've lost me. But the beuty is exactly that: you like watching 50 passes per race and 11 winners? hey, there's CART. I like to see technological content, 11 different kind of cars, the 6-7 best drivers in the world, road-only courses, etc.? hey, there's F1. As I said, neither is better. But I am not asking you to ban or change the things I don't like about your way of conciving racing (I abor ovals, I hate limitations to chassis development, I hate extreme and repeated use of yellow lights just to improve the show). I don't like several things about CART racing, but I respect the fact that it appeals to a different audience. So, I am asking you to respect the fact that I don't want F1 to become like a formula I like less, just as much as you don't want CART to become like F1.
Thank you[p][Edited by RedFever on 11-08-2000]
No, it's not about anedoctal differences. I simply do not want F1 to be a series with 2-3 chassis only. I don't know how to spell it anymore. I conisder F1 the most advanced formula from a technological, performance, designer/engineer, R&D, funding, drivers, etc, etc point of view. I want it to stay that way. Fair enough??? now, that doesn't mean it must stay different from CART. As long as F1 keeps these fundamental elements, I don't really care if CART differs or becomes the same. However, that would imply CART having teams build their own chassis, not F1 adopt the US system of one-size fits all.
That is the fundamental difference. As long as each team will develop their own car, thus guaranteeing the highest degree of technological competition, I am with you. Once you propose to place limits to the tech content in name of "passing", then I am not with you anymore and I invite you to watch CART rather than F1 if multiple passes and 11 winners a year is what excites you.
I personally have no interest in seeing 11 winners in one year in F1. This is the toughest racing formula in the world. If 11 drivers on several different cars are capable of winning, the formula itself gets diluted. You need to be the very best with the best team to win in F1. Look at DC: 5 seasons with the very best car in F1, not one title. Not even a 2nd place. That is F1. If 11 guyes starting winning in one year, can you tell me where is the challenge? just avoid crashing and your day will arrive. No, that's not the way it is in F1. It's a gradual climb to the top and there is no guarantee of ever arriving there.
With 11 winners, the championship would be decided more by an irrelevant factor like a third place in a race than by a solid, dominant, season-long performance, like the one required by Hakkinen in 98 or Schumacher in 2000 in order to win. I have to be honest with you: I found both the 1998 F1 season (Mika's title) and the 2000 F1 season (Schumi's title) extremely more exciting, demanding, stressful, consuming than the 2000 CART season. I don't care if in CART 7-8 teams won, 11 different drivers, and the average # of passes for race was 120. Mika's pass in Spa was worth all the passes between Montoya and Andretti on one of the ovals this year, where they passed each other 25 times!!! That pass was not just memorable, it was genius. What was genial about the 17th pass JPM performed over Michael Andretti in 25 laps??? can you tell any of them apart??? was the 5th pass of Michael better than the 8th pass of JPM?
Clearly we have a different philosophy to races. I am not saying F1 is better or CART is worst. They are very different. That simple. And I love F1 as it is. Yes, I would make a few chances to improve passing opportunities, like slick tires and less chicanes and less efficient brakes (no carbon brakes). Very few changes that would allow drivers to pass more often. But when you suggest to overturn the entire nature of the formula, limit its technological content, then you've lost me. But the beuty is exactly that: you like watching 50 passes per race and 11 winners? hey, there's CART. I like to see technological content, 11 different kind of cars, the 6-7 best drivers in the world, road-only courses, etc.? hey, there's F1. As I said, neither is better. But I am not asking you to ban or change the things I don't like about your way of conciving racing (I abor ovals, I hate limitations to chassis development, I hate extreme and repeated use of yellow lights just to improve the show). I don't like several things about CART racing, but I respect the fact that it appeals to a different audience. So, I am asking you to respect the fact that I don't want F1 to become like a formula I like less, just as much as you don't want CART to become like F1.
Thank you[p][Edited by RedFever on 11-08-2000]
#18
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 09 November 2000 - 19:33
To RedFever
I have gotten something like 25 e-Mails asking me about - or to respond to - your last post here. I have answered all of them by referring them back to what I already have posted on this thread, since - like you - I think I have enough here to 'lay out' my opinion.
And I would like to think that, if Shrub and Lil Al had confined their differences to substance the way we all have on this thread, they wouldn't be re-counting the recount of the recount right now in Florida. {Wouldn't you agree, Andy?}
For the rest of it, I will just leave it that you and I agree to disagree. How's that?
Only one clarification, though, about the one suggestion of mine that I feel strongest about.
I certainly would not limit the number of chassis suppliers in F1. In fact, they are not limited now in CART, who have sometimes had almost as many unique chassis as they have had teams. The same rough sort of technological Darwinisn that you summarize in your posts is at work in CART as well.
Swift are just about out of CART as chassis suppliers for the very reason you put forward in your own posts: they just can't 'hack it' and no one wants their chassis. Also, Roger Penske stopped trying to produce his own chassis and now uses a Reynard. (Although it is so heavily modified once Malcolm Oastler's crew ship it to Roger, that it was jokingly called Reynske and Peynard in the paddock this year here.)
In fact commercial chassis supply in F1 could be set up so that, say, a particular Reynard chassis could be limited as to the number of chassis of that particular specification they suppied to an F1 team. Or to F1 teams.
Or, if that is too ripe an idea, the 'supplier' could be restricted to furnishing their F1 'customer(s)' with only the original software and CAD 'rough outs' (that's a Mike Gascoyne term I stole) that - according to him - all these chassis start life as, in F1 and every other major motorsports series, to begin with.
The point is only to modify the current FIA 'reg' that says, to be allowed in F1 in the first place, an entrant must demonstrate an ability to make at least two identical competition chassis for each race on the calendar; to something like an ability to furnish at least two identical competition chassis for each F1 race.
Anyway, I have yet to come across any argument in favor of allowing commercial engine supply in F1 that does not also justify commercial chassis supply.
Finally, precisely because F1 is the technological summit it is, I am under no illusions about the number of commercial chassis suppliers who, long-term, would actually be successful in F1. Probably no more than two if the requirement was to supply the design work only and not the actual fabricated end products.
The rest of the F1 teams (especially the 'super powers' up near the front) certainly would - as you point out - keep doing what they do now. Because it is obviously in their best interests to do so.
So, while I agree with you that, long term, this probably is a somewhat limited change, it might at least provide the teams at the back of the grid a better chance to occasionally finish in the points.
I doubt that, say, Lola or Reynard providing a chassis to Prost or Minardi will suddenly allow them to 'interfere' with the usual competition we see - and that you say defines F1's key differences from CART or perhaps even ALMS - in F1, between the top two or three teams at the front.
So that part of what you say you like to see in F1 is probably safe no matter what innovations or changes were introduced. There will always be backmarkers, even in a 'equalized down' series like NASCAR. And, of course, there is the very real possibility that there may be no - or only one or two - 'takers' in F1 actually willing to buy some other supplier's product, which renders this whole idea as moot.
Now. I do confess that I don't quite see the connection you make between some form of commercial chassischassis design supply and the presumption that that alone, limited as we both agree it probably would be, somehow dulls the technological leading edge F1 is known for.
Why? Just because the Lola wind tunnel does Gustav Brunner's Minardi chassis refinements for him instead of Minardi trying to scare up the cash to do it on their own? Since McLaren, Ferrari, WilliamsBMW and all the other front grid ladies-in-waiting would not change, how does the 'rot' set in?
These front-running usual suspects are not going to immediately can their own internal R&D staffs and start queuing up at the Porsche Centre, Dallara or CALSPAN just because that may the only option open farther back on the grid to a more cash-strapped team - who, as you rightly point out, should perhaps be allowed to drop out of F1 if they really can't stand the financial weight there.
This idea might be at least be worth a try to simply 'pull' the back of the field up a little. I am certainly under no illusion that any - or even all - of these suggestions would - or should - 'flatten' things at the front.
Oh BTW, according to OnTrack and several F1 news sites, apparently even Commander Ron and Sir Frank don't see why single car teams can't be permitted (back) in F1, but I did say I would confine this reply to one of those three ideas. . .
And I can't speak for any other US F1 fans here but, for me personally, satellite TV is not an option. But that is something for me to beat up on Bernie Ecclestone and Michael Eisner about.
Harald[p][Edited by Harald on 11-09-2000]
I have gotten something like 25 e-Mails asking me about - or to respond to - your last post here. I have answered all of them by referring them back to what I already have posted on this thread, since - like you - I think I have enough here to 'lay out' my opinion.
And I would like to think that, if Shrub and Lil Al had confined their differences to substance the way we all have on this thread, they wouldn't be re-counting the recount of the recount right now in Florida. {Wouldn't you agree, Andy?}
For the rest of it, I will just leave it that you and I agree to disagree. How's that?
Only one clarification, though, about the one suggestion of mine that I feel strongest about.
I certainly would not limit the number of chassis suppliers in F1. In fact, they are not limited now in CART, who have sometimes had almost as many unique chassis as they have had teams. The same rough sort of technological Darwinisn that you summarize in your posts is at work in CART as well.
Swift are just about out of CART as chassis suppliers for the very reason you put forward in your own posts: they just can't 'hack it' and no one wants their chassis. Also, Roger Penske stopped trying to produce his own chassis and now uses a Reynard. (Although it is so heavily modified once Malcolm Oastler's crew ship it to Roger, that it was jokingly called Reynske and Peynard in the paddock this year here.)
In fact commercial chassis supply in F1 could be set up so that, say, a particular Reynard chassis could be limited as to the number of chassis of that particular specification they suppied to an F1 team. Or to F1 teams.
Or, if that is too ripe an idea, the 'supplier' could be restricted to furnishing their F1 'customer(s)' with only the original software and CAD 'rough outs' (that's a Mike Gascoyne term I stole) that - according to him - all these chassis start life as, in F1 and every other major motorsports series, to begin with.
The point is only to modify the current FIA 'reg' that says, to be allowed in F1 in the first place, an entrant must demonstrate an ability to make at least two identical competition chassis for each race on the calendar; to something like an ability to furnish at least two identical competition chassis for each F1 race.
Anyway, I have yet to come across any argument in favor of allowing commercial engine supply in F1 that does not also justify commercial chassis supply.
Finally, precisely because F1 is the technological summit it is, I am under no illusions about the number of commercial chassis suppliers who, long-term, would actually be successful in F1. Probably no more than two if the requirement was to supply the design work only and not the actual fabricated end products.
The rest of the F1 teams (especially the 'super powers' up near the front) certainly would - as you point out - keep doing what they do now. Because it is obviously in their best interests to do so.
So, while I agree with you that, long term, this probably is a somewhat limited change, it might at least provide the teams at the back of the grid a better chance to occasionally finish in the points.
I doubt that, say, Lola or Reynard providing a chassis to Prost or Minardi will suddenly allow them to 'interfere' with the usual competition we see - and that you say defines F1's key differences from CART or perhaps even ALMS - in F1, between the top two or three teams at the front.
So that part of what you say you like to see in F1 is probably safe no matter what innovations or changes were introduced. There will always be backmarkers, even in a 'equalized down' series like NASCAR. And, of course, there is the very real possibility that there may be no - or only one or two - 'takers' in F1 actually willing to buy some other supplier's product, which renders this whole idea as moot.
Now. I do confess that I don't quite see the connection you make between some form of commercial chassischassis design supply and the presumption that that alone, limited as we both agree it probably would be, somehow dulls the technological leading edge F1 is known for.
Why? Just because the Lola wind tunnel does Gustav Brunner's Minardi chassis refinements for him instead of Minardi trying to scare up the cash to do it on their own? Since McLaren, Ferrari, WilliamsBMW and all the other front grid ladies-in-waiting would not change, how does the 'rot' set in?
These front-running usual suspects are not going to immediately can their own internal R&D staffs and start queuing up at the Porsche Centre, Dallara or CALSPAN just because that may the only option open farther back on the grid to a more cash-strapped team - who, as you rightly point out, should perhaps be allowed to drop out of F1 if they really can't stand the financial weight there.
This idea might be at least be worth a try to simply 'pull' the back of the field up a little. I am certainly under no illusion that any - or even all - of these suggestions would - or should - 'flatten' things at the front.
Oh BTW, according to OnTrack and several F1 news sites, apparently even Commander Ron and Sir Frank don't see why single car teams can't be permitted (back) in F1, but I did say I would confine this reply to one of those three ideas. . .
And I can't speak for any other US F1 fans here but, for me personally, satellite TV is not an option. But that is something for me to beat up on Bernie Ecclestone and Michael Eisner about.
Harald[p][Edited by Harald on 11-09-2000]
#19
tifosi
-
- 23,937 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 09 November 2000 - 20:12
Harold,
I hear you but, respectfully disagree. I enjoy F1 and CART and wish to remain much the way they are. One thing I think is overlooked is that in F1 the "competition everyone is looking for, actually takes place in Maranello, Woking, and like places, NOT Sepang, Suzuka, or Monza. That is the essence of F1. If your talking about the sprucing up the competitiveness that takes place during the entertainment spectacle on Sunday afternoons, then fine, you would start drifting towards more CART-like rules. But I prefer to see the engineers and technicians, working and developing their cars throughout the year to win races, that is what makes F1 to me.
Here I agree with Redfever (not on the CART-bashing), F1 is one series and CART is another, let them remain seperate. If you don't appreciate the work of the teams in January and Febuary then skip F1, no big deal. Likewise if you don't enjoy the Sunday afternoon spectacle of CART, then don't watch. Personally, although I prefer F1, I enjoy both series, along with ALMS fully. Sorry I haven't been able to get into NASCAR at all.
Advertisement
#20
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 09 November 2000 - 21:08
To Tifosi:
{
Shouldn't it be Tifoso?}
Now I think I am the one being somewhat mis-read here.
I agree (!) with what you and RedFever are saying about the differences between CART and F1.
In fact, I am about 11000th of the way through research on a book about exactly what you and he keep touting: the history and competition specifics of the clear technological supremacy of F1 as an arena for pushing the design and performance envelope of modern road racing. That was what actually created the earlier ancestors to what is now F1 and that is unarguably what sets it apart even from technical 'kissin' cousins' like LeMans-class sportsGT racing. {Although, well, Porsche might politely differ with us all here. . .}
I suspect I have more confidence than you and RedFever seem to that, in and of itself, this technological and innovative supremacy in F1 is not - almost by definition, never can be - somehow so vulnerable to whatever changes might be triggered by the kinds of suggestions I and some others sometimes make, that what you and probably most F1 fans clearly want to see in F1 - andf that really distinguishes this series from all the others - will be either lost or hopelessly adulterated.
Lost, because one team - almost certainly no more than two -buy rather than make their chassis?
And, again: why is commercial chassis supply such an unacceptable prostitution of F1 and commercial engine supply is not? Why not require each team to also fabricate their own engines, which would surely require more leading-edge technological innovation than we see now with every team on the grid - save Ferrari and Jaguar - buying their engines from some outside source. A source, by the way, that is actually encouraged to sell those same engines to yet other teams on that same grid. I just don't get it.
Adulterated, because one or two teams are, in fact, 'posting' a single driver to be backmarker on the grid instead of - as with Arrows in 1999 and perhaps Prost in 2000 - two backmarkers who couldn't stay out of each other's way? Wouldn't, in fact, more of the very 'work back at the factory in January and February' be better appreciated and more clearly in evidence if, say, Minardi bought one chassis, got one skilled driver to drive it and, thereby, had more money to put into the very leading technology that you - rightly - say F1 exists to exploit and flaunt?
Again: I just don't get it. Must be my Colonial lack of sophistication.
Seriously, though, this has been a great exercise because it made me think through just why I am suggesting these things. And, it appears, so have others.
And, to me, whenever that happens on these forums, the whole thing has been a big success.
Harald
{
Shouldn't it be Tifoso?}Now I think I am the one being somewhat mis-read here.
I agree (!) with what you and RedFever are saying about the differences between CART and F1.
In fact, I am about 11000th of the way through research on a book about exactly what you and he keep touting: the history and competition specifics of the clear technological supremacy of F1 as an arena for pushing the design and performance envelope of modern road racing. That was what actually created the earlier ancestors to what is now F1 and that is unarguably what sets it apart even from technical 'kissin' cousins' like LeMans-class sportsGT racing. {Although, well, Porsche might politely differ with us all here. . .
}I suspect I have more confidence than you and RedFever seem to that, in and of itself, this technological and innovative supremacy in F1 is not - almost by definition, never can be - somehow so vulnerable to whatever changes might be triggered by the kinds of suggestions I and some others sometimes make, that what you and probably most F1 fans clearly want to see in F1 - andf that really distinguishes this series from all the others - will be either lost or hopelessly adulterated.
Lost, because one team - almost certainly no more than two -buy rather than make their chassis?
And, again: why is commercial chassis supply such an unacceptable prostitution of F1 and commercial engine supply is not? Why not require each team to also fabricate their own engines, which would surely require more leading-edge technological innovation than we see now with every team on the grid - save Ferrari and Jaguar - buying their engines from some outside source. A source, by the way, that is actually encouraged to sell those same engines to yet other teams on that same grid. I just don't get it.
Adulterated, because one or two teams are, in fact, 'posting' a single driver to be backmarker on the grid instead of - as with Arrows in 1999 and perhaps Prost in 2000 - two backmarkers who couldn't stay out of each other's way? Wouldn't, in fact, more of the very 'work back at the factory in January and February' be better appreciated and more clearly in evidence if, say, Minardi bought one chassis, got one skilled driver to drive it and, thereby, had more money to put into the very leading technology that you - rightly - say F1 exists to exploit and flaunt?
Again: I just don't get it. Must be my Colonial lack of sophistication.
Seriously, though, this has been a great exercise because it made me think through just why I am suggesting these things. And, it appears, so have others.
And, to me, whenever that happens on these forums, the whole thing has been a big success.
Harald
#21
BigWig
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: October 99
Member
#22
Sudsbouy
-
- 623 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 15:19
Back to the original point of this thread...
I agree with the proposition that each car should have its own pit crew. F1 is supposed to be the highest expression of the motor racing art and they miss out on this basic element.
It would not require more mechanics. Rather, it would require allocating the army of people that service one car at a time over two. The issue of more pit space is again surprising because this supposed to be the big time.
The way things are now, one of the teams cars stands a good chance of being screwed because they may either have to wait, or go an extra lap before being serviced. Although, given McLaren's knack for missing strategic opportunities, I'm not sure their second car would even benefit from this change.
Thank you.
I agree with the proposition that each car should have its own pit crew. F1 is supposed to be the highest expression of the motor racing art and they miss out on this basic element.
It would not require more mechanics. Rather, it would require allocating the army of people that service one car at a time over two. The issue of more pit space is again surprising because this supposed to be the big time.
The way things are now, one of the teams cars stands a good chance of being screwed because they may either have to wait, or go an extra lap before being serviced. Although, given McLaren's knack for missing strategic opportunities, I'm not sure their second car would even benefit from this change.
Thank you.
#23
Taverol
-
- 1,823 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 16:33
And now you mention it DC is yelling for bigger pitlanes because he claims he missed out on chances last year.
#24
Sudsbouy
-
- 623 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 16:46
An F1 pitstop now has so many people 'working' on the car that there's almost enough to send someone out for coffee. It's ludicrous in terms of safety how many individuals are out in harm's way. There's no elegance to these procedures and it's very difficult to see the car. Fueling usually dictates how long a stop takes anyway.
I posted a thread some time ago on this issue (probably preceded by others) and was somewhat surprised at how little support the idea has here. I would urge people to ignore any 'DC' connections that may colour their view of the proposal.
It's a step that F1 should have taken long ago. Exceptions may need to be made for locations such as Monaco, but there shouldn't be too many of these.
Thank you.
I posted a thread some time ago on this issue (probably preceded by others) and was somewhat surprised at how little support the idea has here. I would urge people to ignore any 'DC' connections that may colour their view of the proposal.
It's a step that F1 should have taken long ago. Exceptions may need to be made for locations such as Monaco, but there shouldn't be too many of these.
Thank you.
#25
pRy
-
- 27,010 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 16:49
BigWig, are you DC in disquise?? 
He just pubicly said the same things.
He just pubicly said the same things.
#26
barry_island
-
- 4 posts
- Joined: December 00
New Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 16:57
Yet more DC moaning. hes already started again with the 'This will be the year I go for the championship' quotes
It must be really, if they removed every single obstacle that stopped you winning in the past you'd win all the time....
It must be really, if they removed every single obstacle that stopped you winning in the past you'd win all the time....
#27
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 17:05
To BigWig:
I see you still haven't learned your lesson around here and - now that you have DC arguing your case for you - you are back proposing more 'adulterations' of F1!!!!
Shame on you. Although having separate pit crews for each car in a team is a great idea - and was the rule back in the 1920s and 1930s in the predecessors of modern F1 - I doubt that this idea passes the F1 'purity' test, even with someone like DC also arguing the case.
I think you and DC should just resign yourself to seeing these 'lower order' racing innovations confined to where it appears people feel they belong: in the backwaters of international motorsports, such as CART and, perhaps, LeMans.
I assume, for example, that it is anathema - and inappropriately anti-Darwinian (or is it anti-Malthusian) - here to speculate about how much easier it would be for Minardi to remain - perhaps even be competitive - in F1 if, right now, Rumi and the Minardi family only had to finance engine and tire supply and all the rest of it for a one car team instead of two? I thought so.
Well, I'll take my extra pit crew, one-car F1 garage and the Lola-F1-chassis-for-sale signs and I will go away now.
The Faithless Elector
The Shrub Nursery (a.k.a. Washington DC)
PS- One last thing though: does all this, taken together, mean CART can get Bobby Rahal - and, I suppose, Juan Pablo - back???? And shouldn't Buddy Rice, Dereck Hill, Alex Gurney and Aaron Justus have to submit blood tests before track testing for F3000? I mean, if we really don't want F1 too adulterated by motorsports' equivalents of illegal aliens. . .
I see you still haven't learned your lesson around here and - now that you have DC arguing your case for you - you are back proposing more 'adulterations' of F1!!!!
Shame on you. Although having separate pit crews for each car in a team is a great idea - and was the rule back in the 1920s and 1930s in the predecessors of modern F1 - I doubt that this idea passes the F1 'purity' test, even with someone like DC also arguing the case.
I think you and DC should just resign yourself to seeing these 'lower order' racing innovations confined to where it appears people feel they belong: in the backwaters of international motorsports, such as CART and, perhaps, LeMans.
I assume, for example, that it is anathema - and inappropriately anti-Darwinian (or is it anti-Malthusian) - here to speculate about how much easier it would be for Minardi to remain - perhaps even be competitive - in F1 if, right now, Rumi and the Minardi family only had to finance engine and tire supply and all the rest of it for a one car team instead of two? I thought so.
Well, I'll take my extra pit crew, one-car F1 garage and the Lola-F1-chassis-for-sale signs and I will go away now.
The Faithless Elector
The Shrub Nursery (a.k.a. Washington DC)
PS- One last thing though: does all this, taken together, mean CART can get Bobby Rahal - and, I suppose, Juan Pablo - back???? And shouldn't Buddy Rice, Dereck Hill, Alex Gurney and Aaron Justus have to submit blood tests before track testing for F3000? I mean, if we really don't want F1 too adulterated by motorsports' equivalents of illegal aliens. . .
#28
Todd
-
- 18,936 posts
- Joined: September 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 17:19
Originally posted by BigWig
Coulthard agrees with me.
That should tell you something.
#29
Nikolas Garth
-
- 12,019 posts
- Joined: January 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 17:41
Harald,
I do wish you would address the comparison of Mika's pass at Spa to any one of the 25 between Montoya and Andretti.
I do wish you would address the comparison of Mika's pass at Spa to any one of the 25 between Montoya and Andretti.
#30
Nikolas Garth
-
- 12,019 posts
- Joined: January 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 17:44
Redfever,
Unless I have misread things here, I don't think anyone is wanting F1 passing to become as easy as CART's on an oval, but more like CART on a Road Course, or like F1 used to be.
Unless I have misread things here, I don't think anyone is wanting F1 passing to become as easy as CART's on an oval, but more like CART on a Road Course, or like F1 used to be.
#31
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 17:45
To Nikolas Garth:
Absolutely excellent point. But, like BigWig, you are spoiling the fine wine in the cellar around here by making these inappropriately anti-Malthusian references back to that - ahem!!! - other open wheel formula car racing series.
Hey! Maybe CART ought to= Colonial Appendage to Racing Today. . .
Like Juan Pablo at WilliamsBMW I fear there will be nothing but bread and water for you at supper. . .
The Faithless Elector
The Shrub Nursery (a.k.a. Washington DC)
PS - Or maybe CART really= Can Anyone here Race Today?[p][Edited by Harald on 12-14-2000]
Absolutely excellent point. But, like BigWig, you are spoiling the fine wine in the cellar around here by making these inappropriately anti-Malthusian references back to that - ahem!!!
- other open wheel formula car racing series.Hey! Maybe CART ought to= Colonial Appendage to Racing Today. . .
Like Juan Pablo at WilliamsBMW I fear there will be nothing but bread and water for you at supper. . .
The Faithless Elector
The Shrub Nursery (a.k.a. Washington DC)
PS - Or maybe CART really= Can Anyone here Race Today?[p][Edited by Harald on 12-14-2000]
#32
George Bailey
-
- 3,728 posts
- Joined: June 00
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 18:52
I don't think it would be a minor change at all to double the size of the pit areas at all the tracks, and if you put half the pits at a different location on the track - like the back stretch pits in Nascar - you might create even impact on the racing.
#33
Ursus
-
- 2,411 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 19:45
Personally I think the large no of mechanics during a pitstop is pretty fascinating. Everybody has a precice task and noone runs around more than necesary. In contrast to CART where the mechs seem to run around, throwing wheels and airhoses around.
#34
Mila
-
- 8,564 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 14 December 2000 - 20:48
I'd like to get my two cents in here (even though there's space only for one cent at a time).
I find it nearly unbearable that pitstops--virtually the antithesis of GP racing (that’s RACING)--have become such pivotal elements in F1.
please, if you like how CART teams pit their cars, then stick with CART. but I have to say that I'm getting a little weary of if-only-F1-were-more-like-CART propositions.
speaking of weary, when did the light bulb go off in DC's head concerning the pitstop follies of Hockenheim and Spa? and what do we make of his conclusions? low wattage, that's what.
look, if he wasn't too busy making a mockery of his supposed, lofty ethical standards--by dishing out payback to MS at the Hockenheim start--he would have been leading during the SC period, and, thus, would have been brought in first. aside from that, Mclaren still couldn't figure it out. seeing that their two drivers were a country mile ahead of the 3rd-place man, all they needed to do was have DC drop back a bit from MH.
at Spa, Mclaren (and DC) blew it again--nearly all of the competitors pitted two laps before DC, which was one lap prior to MH. wasn't Mclaren watching JA's lap times like every other team?
I find it nearly unbearable that pitstops--virtually the antithesis of GP racing (that’s RACING)--have become such pivotal elements in F1.
please, if you like how CART teams pit their cars, then stick with CART. but I have to say that I'm getting a little weary of if-only-F1-were-more-like-CART propositions.
speaking of weary, when did the light bulb go off in DC's head concerning the pitstop follies of Hockenheim and Spa? and what do we make of his conclusions? low wattage, that's what.
look, if he wasn't too busy making a mockery of his supposed, lofty ethical standards--by dishing out payback to MS at the Hockenheim start--he would have been leading during the SC period, and, thus, would have been brought in first. aside from that, Mclaren still couldn't figure it out. seeing that their two drivers were a country mile ahead of the 3rd-place man, all they needed to do was have DC drop back a bit from MH.
at Spa, Mclaren (and DC) blew it again--nearly all of the competitors pitted two laps before DC, which was one lap prior to MH. wasn't Mclaren watching JA's lap times like every other team?
#35
Smooth
-
- 10,359 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 00:36
Harald... I take it you want to see closer racing in F1, and are using CART as a benchmark, but the close racing in CART and NASCAR is a bit of a falsehood; The 'close' finishes are caused by the field being constantly bunched up by full course cautions, not allowing the best driver on the day to build any kind of gap, makes for a nice spectacle, but hardly satisfying racing for those of us who appreciate the nuance involved in F1. I agree that seeing F1 return to something similar to the early eighties would be wonderful, becoming more CART like is exactly NOT what F1 needs. F1 is about more than the racing; the engineering, the soap opera behind the scenes, the vast amounts of money, famous people, and great race locations are part of the allure. As far as the passing issue, I agree with RedFever: it is meaningless in Cart. The only one that matters is the last one. In F1 a driver may spend 3 or 4 laps setting up a pass, and then has to make it stick, it is much more meaningful, and demands much more skill than passing in CART (Which, on road courses, is less frequent than on most F1 tracks.) Parity between the teams in F1 would be interesting, but that isn't what the sport is about.
#36
baddog
-
- 30,547 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 11:15
on topic, I donbt agree about the extra pits.. purely on practical grounds it wouldnt work.
off topic about general changes.. what redfever said basically. I was going to type a lengthy reply here but on close reading it has all been said so I will stick with seconding it. essentially keep f1 as a CONSTRUCTORS championship not a 'teams who buy cars to enter' series. Also I would hate to see 11 winners in a season as it would mean the best teams were being falsely handicapped in some way as no way 11 drivers/cars deserve to win on merit.
Shaun
off topic about general changes.. what redfever said basically. I was going to type a lengthy reply here but on close reading it has all been said so I will stick with seconding it. essentially keep f1 as a CONSTRUCTORS championship not a 'teams who buy cars to enter' series. Also I would hate to see 11 winners in a season as it would mean the best teams were being falsely handicapped in some way as no way 11 drivers/cars deserve to win on merit.
Shaun
#37
MichiganF1
-
- 1,049 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 13:46
I'd be careful on emulating CART in just about anything. That series is in big trouble.
However, it's a big flaw in F1 that 18 cars have no chance of winning unless McLaren or Ferrari don't finish.
However, it's a big flaw in F1 that 18 cars have no chance of winning unless McLaren or Ferrari don't finish.
#38
RacerX
-
- 368 posts
- Joined: November 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 16:42
Right on MichiganF1. Something is wrong when only the top two teams have a legitimate shot at winning unless they have a problem. It is misleading to state that CART passes are meaningless when really it's only the superspeedways (Michigan and Fontana) where this is an issue. I agree that I don't want to see F1 become like those races. I would, however, like to see closer racing, more overtaking (without being ridiculous like the Hanford device races) and some different faces on the podium once in a while. I don't know how to make this happen, but, I like the fact that the teams build their own cars. This is what makes F1 unique.
#39
Harald
-
- 489 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 17:19
Okay.
One more question, one more time:
Why is it that commercial engine supply in F1 is not some sort of fundamental adulteration of whatever it is that makes F1 unique - and thereby distinguishable from CART and, say, LeMans-class sportsGT racing - but, judging by most of what I just read, commercial chassis supply is?????
I mean, I literally don't get it. I don't see the difference, other than those who argue against commercial chassis supply in F1 have gotten used to commercial engine supply and, therefore, accept it as part of the 'pure' F1 landscape.
I have yet to hear one justification for having Ferrari - or Honda for that matter - literally hawking their engines to two other teams on the grid, that would not also apply to, say, Lola, Dallara or someone like Reynard.
Someone who is arguing this side of this issue help me out here. Why wouldn't it be even more of a true constructors championship, and therefore and even more consequential and unique technological showcase, if F1 teams also had to build their own engines as well as their own chassis? And this, by the way, is why Enzo Ferrari was always half-serious when he used to contend that only Ferrari should be eligible for the constructor's cup since only they built the entire car.
Maybe I should be preaching to the - rather small true 'constructors' choir' in F1 today: Luca di at Red Reign, or Neil Ressler at Jaguar (and, after 2002, to Toyota and Renault). . . ?
Befuddled in Beirut
One more question, one more time:
Why is it that commercial engine supply in F1 is not some sort of fundamental adulteration of whatever it is that makes F1 unique - and thereby distinguishable from CART and, say, LeMans-class sportsGT racing - but, judging by most of what I just read, commercial chassis supply is?????
I mean, I literally don't get it. I don't see the difference, other than those who argue against commercial chassis supply in F1 have gotten used to commercial engine supply and, therefore, accept it as part of the 'pure' F1 landscape.
I have yet to hear one justification for having Ferrari - or Honda for that matter - literally hawking their engines to two other teams on the grid, that would not also apply to, say, Lola, Dallara or someone like Reynard.
Someone who is arguing this side of this issue help me out here. Why wouldn't it be even more of a true constructors championship, and therefore and even more consequential and unique technological showcase, if F1 teams also had to build their own engines as well as their own chassis? And this, by the way, is why Enzo Ferrari was always half-serious when he used to contend that only Ferrari should be eligible for the constructor's cup since only they built the entire car.
Maybe I should be preaching to the - rather small
true 'constructors' choir' in F1 today: Luca di at Red Reign, or Neil Ressler at Jaguar (and, after 2002, to Toyota and Renault). . . ?Befuddled in Beirut
Advertisement
#40
John
-
- 1,167 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 15 December 2000 - 18:39
Ah HA!
Harald, I'm glad you finally picked up on that issue because, technically, the F1 teams do NOT have the same engine supplies, despite the fact that they may come from the same parent company. BUT NONETHELESS, I don't think F1 would become diluted if the present "practice" is maintained, that a manufacturer generally does not supply more than 2 teams (Supertec had 3 customers, but I think you get the drift) for engines. So it can be done with Chassis, as it now is done with Engines, and we can include other multiple supply items such as Brakes, Electronics, Gear Boxes, etc.
If more tyre manufacturers got in on the game, I'm quite sure that would be a relief to Michelin and Bridgestone who often fear the need to supply most of the field.
Back to the SUBJECT: Pit stops.
Coulthard is whining. I like pit stops because they add another dimension to the race, and it constitutes a visible involvement on behalf of the team. It makes the entire team matter more during the race. I don't want both drivers in at once, as the strategy aspect may become less important. Ironically, the element that I don't like about pit stops is how they become the only tool for overtaking in some races. It's contradictory, but 2000 showed much promise in a more balanced relationship between pitstop overtaking and on-circuit overtaking. I can tolerate the odd race of "no overtaking" when we had the majority of races in 2000 where overtaking occured a reasonable number of times throughout the entire field. Like everything else debated here, its a matter of opinion and preference.
Harald, I'm glad you finally picked up on that issue because, technically, the F1 teams do NOT have the same engine supplies, despite the fact that they may come from the same parent company. BUT NONETHELESS, I don't think F1 would become diluted if the present "practice" is maintained, that a manufacturer generally does not supply more than 2 teams (Supertec had 3 customers, but I think you get the drift) for engines. So it can be done with Chassis, as it now is done with Engines, and we can include other multiple supply items such as Brakes, Electronics, Gear Boxes, etc.
If more tyre manufacturers got in on the game, I'm quite sure that would be a relief to Michelin and Bridgestone who often fear the need to supply most of the field.
Back to the SUBJECT: Pit stops.
Coulthard is whining. I like pit stops because they add another dimension to the race, and it constitutes a visible involvement on behalf of the team. It makes the entire team matter more during the race. I don't want both drivers in at once, as the strategy aspect may become less important. Ironically, the element that I don't like about pit stops is how they become the only tool for overtaking in some races. It's contradictory, but 2000 showed much promise in a more balanced relationship between pitstop overtaking and on-circuit overtaking. I can tolerate the odd race of "no overtaking" when we had the majority of races in 2000 where overtaking occured a reasonable number of times throughout the entire field. Like everything else debated here, its a matter of opinion and preference.
