>or are they going to set red cones all over the infield like many
Boy, that would really***off the golfers! I hope they do it for that
reason alone! I thought I'd seen the proposed layout somewhere, but
maybe that was just a hallucination based on a bad dream by Yogi Berra.
IMS sure has enough real estate to cram a decent road course into the
thing -- hope they do the right thing...
Bart
Good point. As for m***victories (though the unhappy result was a
byproduct of the zany points system in place at the time), how about
Moss losing -- by 1 point -- to Hawthorn in '58?
BB
Do you have _any_ evidence for this whatsoever?
: So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decompose in
: that respect.
The most blatant examples of cheating I can think of were from the 70s
when the sport was much less commercial. I suspect you're suffering
a chronic case of "golden age syndrome" - the tendancy to say "Oh it
was much better in the past" without actually remembering much of what
went on in the past in detail.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
Bob Curtin
Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
"If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"
--
Bob Curtin
Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
"If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"
> We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with our mid-***s
> through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before permanent
> partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times where our
> recollections are always "good".
> Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend, will
> be _EXACTLY_ the same!
> And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110%
> right!!! LOL! :o)
Matt
--
----------------------
The GPL Preservation Society
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
**GPLEA Member**
And I apologize, I didn't plow through the entire thread before replying.
That is true, and more often than not it's the differences in the race
strategies and how the strategies themselves are executed which make F1
racing interesting.
I guess we simply have different views on what is sportsmanlike and what
is not. Call me a fool, but I am inclined to believe in Dennis' word when
he says McLaren would not employ tactics which are strongly based on
*intentionally* slowing down their rivals. Looking at the lap times, MS
mysteriously drove 2s/lap slower when EI was in the lead and MH was
behind him, still he could accelerate away before his own pitstop. And
yes, I do think that blocking is quite possible and even effortless in
modern day F1, throughout the 90's we've witnessed how the race leaders
sometimes have difficulty even lapping the backmarkers when the slowest
ones fail to utilize their mirrors, on occasion they've managed to hold
up much more powerful cars for what has seemed like an eternity. Of
course it helped that MH was so reluctant to take the risk. Maybe that
was wise, he did know, sitting in that car, how difficult overtaking MS
would be, how MS had not as much to lose and how he'd still have the
championship in his own hands if he just finished 3rd (by winning at
Suzuka he can take the DWC). DC, otoh, took the risk, with less to lose,
and even the officials commented that his move was reckless.
All that said, MS was truly *** in Malaysia, MH couldn't keep up
with the pace when Schuey really put the pedal to the metal. It's unclear
whether MH could've caught even EI if MS would've driven at the pace he
was clearly able to. But to me, blocking it was nevertheless, and while
I'm not happy to see these kind of tactics employed, if someone does, I'd
rather see everyone do it. Maybe they'll learn, when Maranello is giving
them a lesson. It's their loss if they don't, but it's our loss if they
do.
---
Antti Markus Peteri
15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away
- Soul Asylum, Promises Broken
> Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1
> without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, but
> all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing.
--
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
>> Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1
>> without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history,
> but
>> all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing.
>F1 without Ferrari would be like F1 without Lotus...........
without Mr C & mr E.
Z.
Please remove my_pants when replying.
I was a big Lotus fan, but remember how quickly they went down hill with out
Colin? He was the "idea" man, the rest of the engineers just implemented
his concepts. His personality (and Enzo's) defined those teams. Today, I
agree, it's all corporate. The technology is better, but the personality is
gone.
Sorry - I didn't mean to excoriate you - that sounds painful by the way, I
suppose I should look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means....
The only relevance was that you mentioned James Hunt and the revocation of
James Hunt's dq seems to me to be relevant to the issue at hand :-)
I will do my best to keep my facts in order in future - can you help me by
telling me which of my facts was incorrect please?
Thanks
Lawrence
> > Barton
> > FYI James Hunt only won the championship because a decision to
disqualify
> > him for having a slightly under-width car earlier in the season was
> > overturned on appeal...
> And the relevance to what I said is...? My comment on Hunt concerned his
> largely unsponsored year with Hesketh, not his fluke championship year
> with McLaren -- a Championship that was morally Niki Lauda's. If you're
> going to take the the time and bandwidth to excoriate me, at least get
> the facts in order, OK?
> BB
From what I heard nobody complained, the oversize bodywork was discovered as
part of the routine scrutineering. I gather that not everything on the car
is measured every time it is checked so it is possible that it was missed on
previous occassions. It would presumably be impossible to check everything
as the rule book is so large. I personally don't buy into the ***
theories. I also believe and hope that the dq will be overturned.
I also think McLaren should be given credit for publically supporting
Ferrari - Mikka has been quoted as saying that he would prefer for the
championship to be decided on the track.
Lawrence
F1 certainly has its problems, I don't think anybody would deny that. Surely
all main sports are suffering from too much commercialisation etc? I also
think that this season has been relatively good for F1, at least better than
the last couple of years. I know there has been the usual politics but a lot
of people think this adds to the sport. Judging by the length of this thread
(which I am enjoying BTW) people still like to argue about every aspect of
F1.
Lawrence
> I've had no respect for F1 for years, John, so a failure to disqualify
would
> mean little.
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:49:27 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"
> > >I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's about
> time
> > >that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias that they
> have
> > >directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years.
> > I'd love to hear examples of that - if anything the FIA have bent over
> > backwards to keep Ferrari happy. Remember the "Draconian penalties"
> > for anyone caught infringing the rules? Oh, except Ferrari....
> > >As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a
> > >mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to
> recall
> > >the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at
> least
> > >one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as
> well.
> > Coulthard has been racing Hakkinen all year - no way would he be
> > holding up a Ferrari while Mika got away as Mika would be getting away
> > rom him as well.
> > >You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone, Denis
> and
> > >Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once
(deliberate
> > >spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teams vie
> for a
> > >Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are
> > >perfectly acceptable.
> > I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle
> > racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team
> > tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in
> > the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron
> > Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove
> > superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my
> > wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI
> > worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC
> > passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a
> > pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range
> > of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-)
> > >My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of
> sportsmanship
> > >that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged
> over
> > >10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and
> convincingly
> > >beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in
a
> > >whole string of them.
> > That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the
> > stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren.
> > >Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren.
> > >Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and
> Hakkinen
> > >would have still been up against it.
> > Probably, but we don't know that. Illegal is illegal, that's why the
> > rules exist. Suppose that an aero improvement brings big benefits, the
> > more area the better - how much over the regulations are you allowed -
> > 1mm? 5mm? 10mm? The answer is 0mm, that's why the rules exist. With a
> > budget of $100m+ if Ferrari can't find an irregularity on a car they
> > designed but which a steward spotted in a post-race check, they can
> > hardly point the finger at anyone.
> > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but
> > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari.
> > Cheers!
> > John
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers
Autosport 10/19/99:
Bernie sez:
<<Formula One ringmaster Bernie Ecclestone has criticised the FIA's
decision to disqualify both Ferraris from Sunday's Malaysian Grand Prix.
He described the action as 'nonsense' and has urged F1's governing body
to change its mind.
'What happened in Malaysia is bad for the sport,' he said.
'I would like what the public want - to see a great finish in JapanIt
is a shame if the world championship could be decided by someone quite
junior who has made a mistake in the factory.'
[editor's note: remember when it was "someone quite junior" who fiddled
with Benetton's fuel rig and nearly immolated Verstappen and the pit
crew? Just an historical note of interest.]
Despite his influence in the Formula One paddock, Ecclestone will have
no say in the appeal, which takes place in Paris on Friday.
Ferrari drivers Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher were ousted from
Sunday's race results when barge boards on both their cars were found to
be 10mm too short.>>
Ron Dennis sez:
<<The McLaren team has urged a Formula One appeal hearing to uphold the
FIA's decision to exclude Ferrari from the Malaysian Grand Prix.
The Woking-based team has issued a statement insisting that Formula One
rules must be upheld, even if they deny spectators the chance to see a
dramatic world championship finale in Japan.
'Whilst we understand the sympathy and requests for leniency that some
people have expressed, the fact that the outcome of the Malaysian Grand
Prix can decide this year's World Championship is irrelevant,' it
claims.
'The more important the outcome of a race, the more important it is that
the rules are applied consistently and fairly in accordance with the
procedures which have been strictly adhered to in the past.'
An independent court of appeal will meet in Paris on Friday to decide
whether to reinstate Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher in the Sepang
results.
McLaren has been invited to attend the hearing, and managing director
Martin Whitmarsh will represent the outfit.
It has also been given the option of making a presentation at the
meeting.
The appeal court's ruling will have a major effect on its 1999 season.
If Ferrari loses its appeal, Mika Hakkinen will take this year's
drivers' title, and McLaren will take the constructors' championship
[120-102].
However, if the Italian marque is reinstated, it would lead McLaren
118-114 going to Suzuka in the constructors' standings, and Eddie Irvine
would lead Mika Hakkinen by four points [70-66] in the drivers'
championship. >>
Guess it all depends upon whose ox is being gored at the moment, as
Dennis certainly lobbied hard enough earlier in the season to duck
(successfully, too) having Hakkinen sent to the back of the grid for his
self-admitted false start, and Dennis also argued long and loud
(successfully, too) about his flouting of the FIA's ban on "team
orders".
> Barton
> Sorry - I didn't mean to excoriate you - that sounds painful by the way, I
> suppose I should look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means....
None of your facts were incorrect, they just weren't germane to the
question at hand. More a solecism than canard, if you catch my meaning...
BB
