rec.autos.simulators

by **Bart Brow** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 00:31:33

Don't know if anyone's read this (or cares), but the 2002 British GP is
in imminent danger of being cancelled -- or WORSE: there's a possibility
the event could be run at Paul Ricard (!!!) by the ***y frogs! Latest
Autosport has the gen; seems the FIA was NOT amused by last year's
complete parking and traffic***up, which apparently cut deeply into
the FIA Barbie? & Bernie Ecclestone? action figure concessions.

Paul Ricard! That's be like holding the USGP at Kandehar Airport...

BB

by **Douglas Elliso** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 01:18:57

The FIA's been looking for an excuse for pulling out of the UK because of
the iminant fag-advert ban.

Bernie complained about the Silverstone paddock 2 years ago - when it had
been completely rebuilt to his specification only 3 years before that.

But to send it to France seems completely mad as they have a fag advert ban
as well

Doug

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 01:31:33

Bernie and the FIA have also unanimously decided to make life easier for the
GP3 and F1-2001 car editors by enforcing a freeze on the numbering scheme,
so finishing order in the season has no bearing on numbers, except for the
number 1 team. Sauber is a bit pissed off, of course, but Briatore was seen
planting a big wet kiss on Bernie's forehead.

Stephen

by **Andy Laurenc** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 01:34:37

LOL! Would be even funnier if finishing position actually had any bearing
on number next year. They've been using any numbers they felt like for
years.

Andy
--
PC-Based Multimedia System
http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pcbmms

by **Txl** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 03:36:22

frog rulez....

After donington and it's ridiculous paddock area not comes the turn of
silverstone....

Do you know that Bernie OWNS Paul ricard, and that for the last 2 years it
has been CLOSED except to TOYOTA F1, now his toy is ready of course he'll
want to use it...

And besides that it is MUCH nicer to go to Paul ricard and to Bandol then to
silverstone which is located about as badly as magny cours....

by **SpeedFree** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 04:28:47

Its about time Silverstone lost the British GP, and what they have done for
2002 is so awful that they deserve everything they get. I've been to many
GPs over the years and I live in London, yet I have never been tempted to go
to Silverstone. Why? Because the track is ULTRA boring... you are so far
away from the cars (except in the slow boring stadium bit at the end), the
track is too flat to make for good spectator views, and the traffic problems
are legendary. And as for the pricing structure for next year... well, thats
the final nail in the coffin.

Spa is actually easier to get to from London than Silverstone imo. Waterloo
traffic queue for longer than that at Silverstone!!

Lol SpeedFreek.

by **David Ewin** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 05:42:57

> LOL! Would be even funnier if finishing position actually had any bearing
> on number next year. They've been using any numbers they felt like for
> years.

No they haven't. For the last few years, the teams' finish has been completely
dependent upon how they did the previous year ....

The World Champion driver is #1
His teammate is #2
All the numbers from there on down are based on team position in the
constructors championship.

For example, in 2000, Michael Schumacher won the the title for Ferrari. So in
2001, Schumacher was #1 and his teammate, Rubens Barrichello was #2. Since
Ferrari also won the constructors title that year, #3 and #4 went to the team
that finished second - McLaren. Williams finished third - #5 and #6. Benetton
finished fourth - #7 and #8. BAR finished fifth - #9 and #10. Jordan finished
sixth - #11 and #12. Arrows was seventh - #14 and #15 (they don't use #13
because it is deemed to be unlucky). Sauber was eighth - #16 and #17. Jaguar
was ninth - #18 and #19. Minardi was tenth - #20 and #21. And Prost was last -
#22 and #23.

This scheme has been used in F1 since 1996, I believe. Note: that the #1 (and
consequently #2) go with the driver, even if he changes teams. For example,
Schumacher was champion in 1995 for Benetton and the number went with him to
Ferrari in 1996. The same thing happened when Damon Hill won for Williams in
1996 and moved over to Arrows in 1997.

Prior to that, for many years, there was just a swap between the new champion
and the old champion and their teammates.

Dave Ewing

--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing

*****************************************************

by **David Ewin** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 05:54:32

> > LOL! Would be even funnier if finishing position actually had any bearing
> > on number next year. They've been using any numbers they felt like for
> > years.

> No they haven't. For the last few years, the teams' finish has been completely
> dependent upon how they did the previous year ....

That should have read "the teams' NUMBERS have been completely dependent upon how
they did the previous year ...."

--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing

*****************************************************

by **David Butte** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 06:37:07

<snip>

Send it to Castle Combe! ;-)

--
Sceptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which
deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense -- Carl Sagan

The GPL Scrapyard returns (slowly): http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

by **John DiFoo** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:34:03

> Its about time Silverstone lost the British GP, and what they have done for
> 2002 is so awful that they deserve everything they get. I've been to many
> GPs over the years and I live in London, yet I have never been tempted to go
> to Silverstone. Why? Because the track is ULTRA boring... you are so far
> away from the cars (except in the slow boring stadium bit at the end), the
> track is too flat to make for good spectator views, and the traffic problems
> are legendary. And as for the pricing structure for next year... well, thats
> the final nail in the coffin.

> Spa is actually easier to get to from London than Silverstone imo. Waterloo
> > Brussels (2.5 hours) then another 1.5 hours to get to Spa. You sit in a
> traffic queue for longer than that at Silverstone!!

> Lol SpeedFreek.

Refresh my memory-why was Brands Hatch deep-sixed in favor of
Silverstone? Is BH still extant (or does a shopping mall or something
now sit there...)?

JD

by **Rafe McAulif** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:58:47

I'm with you, Silverstone is one of the standard bore sessions each
year. Don't know how they make a profit. Oh yeah, by charging an
absolute shitload per ticket.

Rafe Mc

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 19:28:47 -0000, "SpeedFreek"

>Its about time Silverstone lost the British GP, and what they have done for
>2002 is so awful that they deserve everything they get. I've been to many
>GPs over the years and I live in London, yet I have never been tempted to go
>to Silverstone. Why? Because the track is ULTRA boring... you are so far
>away from the cars (except in the slow boring stadium bit at the end), the
>track is too flat to make for good spectator views, and the traffic problems
>are legendary. And as for the pricing structure for next year... well, thats
>the final nail in the coffin.

>Spa is actually easier to get to from London than Silverstone imo. Waterloo
>> Brussels (2.5 hours) then another 1.5 hours to get to Spa. You sit in a
>traffic queue for longer than that at Silverstone!!

>Lol SpeedFreek.

by **David Butte** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 20:49:10

<snip>

Still there... but nowhere near F1 standards these days, more's the
pity.

--
Sceptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which
deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense -- Carl Sagan

The GPL Scrapyard returns (slowly): http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

by **Richard Walke** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:52:36

Brands Hatch still exists. It's a lovely track. You can see the Superbikes
or the touring cars, or, well, loads of stuff there!

Brands Hatch was *never* going to host the GP. It was all a big bluff to
get Silverstone to up it's game, and/or join in with Octagon (which they
have now done).

*If* the 'plans' drawn up for 're-developing' Brands so it was suitable for
Formula 1 were ever implemented, one of the best racing tracks in the world
would have been 'modernised' (dumbed-down). This would have been
unforgivable. But, of course, it was never going to happen, and never will
happen. Hurrah!

If there was a choice, I'd rather see the F1 cars on the *present* Brands
Hatch track, than at Silverstone (which is *horrible*). But that won't
happen either! :-(

--
Richard.

"Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall."

by **Richard Walke** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 22:06:06

> > Is BH still extant (or does a shopping mall or something now sit
> > there...)?

> Still there... but nowhere near F1 standards these days, more's the
> pity.

Not at all. It's a *good* thing that Brands isn't turned into a sea of
gravel with second-gear chicanes!!!

--
Richard.

"The magical mystery tour is coming to take you away."

by **Dave Henr** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 22:56:19

"Richard Walker" <

I love being able to watch the touring cars run the short Brands
course...Hardly anyplace where you aren't setting up for a turn. I agree
about the modern F1 specs..it would castrate a great, fun, track.
dave henrie
Hall."

rec.autos.simulators

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?

OT: 2002 British GP cancelled?