rec.autos.simulators

by **John Walla** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

>for interesting watching. Otherwise, F1 is more about technology, politics,
>personalities and (I suppose if one is really keen enough) watching very
>precision drivers, than it is about watching exciting *racing*.

That _is_ racing. Passing is just one facet of racing, and a series
artificially engineered to provide constant fan stimulus is as devoid
of true "racing" as any other.

Cheers!
John

by **Paul Jone** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

> Well, I bet Schumi's run from last (after stall) to about 10th made
> for interesting watching.

Sorry to be a pedant, but Schume made it up to 4th. :-)
Cheers,
Paul

by **David Mast** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

>>for interesting watching. Otherwise, F1 is more about technology, politics,
>>personalities and (I suppose if one is really keen enough) watching very
>>precision drivers, than it is about watching exciting *racing*.

>That _is_ racing.

I assume you are refering to the latter point, ie "precision drivers". I'd
agree, except...what percentage of fans do you think can discern a top tier
driver (except perhaps Schumacher) from a second tier, or a second tier from a
third (except perhaps Rossett :-)). I can't. And if I generalize and
externalize, well, surprise, that's what most do on the net :-)
*For the most part* people look at the times and say "good lap" or "good
driver". Just take a peek over at the F1 ng for such debates. Hey, everyone
can take from it what they want. To me, F1 seriously lacks in actual racing
action and interest. When a pit stop is the most exciting part... (yeah, I
can see you say "that's part of racing"). To each his own.

Anyway, if you want to watch precision, who needs the race? Just watch
practice (okay, I'm getting far afield here...).

But a course like Monaco or Hungaroring where you pretty much have to have the
car come apart to be passed??

by **Daniel Lichtenberg** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Well, I think you can't expect a complete new team to win the first
race in their very first season in formula one.

Yeah, but I can't understand why they wouldn't use stronger rear
spoiler suspensions - most cars in fact are too _light_, so they have
to carry metal plates or something like that with them. And actually
Jacques was *very* lucky, this could've been a horrible accident.
BTW, Alex Wurz' rear wheel suspension broke at high speed, too.

Crashed in the first lap (IIRC after collision with a Prost).

Daniel

--
Daniel Lichtenberger, Vienna/Austria
"If I ate spinach I'd be called spinach D"

by **Ian Parke** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Nice One, maybe he should have used shift -R..
Oh sorry it was a GP race so no shift-R :)

--
Ian Parker

ICQ 21772592

>If I recall correctly the puntee claimed he hadn't really touched Hill,
>it was just a bad warp or clock-smash. Therefore Damon shouldn't be too
>upset.

by **David Mast** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

>>Too bad for BAR who was supposed to win their FIRST race !!!

>Well, I think you can't expect a complete new team to win the first
>race in their very first season in formula one.

He might have been referring to Reynard's record for winning their first race
in every form of racing they entered. (The BAR is a Reynard design, right?)

by **Wosc** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

HAHAHAHA, thats a good one. He said something about him being there, then
not there and the next thing he knew, they were on top of each other and
spinning.

>% Damon got punted at the first corner. Pity cuase I reckon he was faster
than Irvine.

>If I recall correctly the puntee claimed he hadn't really touched Hill,
>it was just a bad warp or clock-smash. Therefore Damon shouldn't be too
>upset.

>--
>**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **DMFin** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

> COmpard to GP bike racing F1 is about exciting as soggy Cornflakes. When Irvine got stuck

I know wht ya mean kinda like Nascar!

by **Ronald Stoe** » Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:00:00

> Hi Paul,

> >- unless you count M. Shumacher's escapades - strange to see him make so many mistakes.

> I wouldn't call a faulty steering wheel a mistake. I do wonder how he
> did manage to bent his front wing and get a flat tire, though. I did
> see his 2 wheel on the grass trip, but I don't think that was the
> reason of formentioned problems. Any clue?

He drove over some pieces of bodywork on the track, it was shown in a replay.

<soap box on>
Damn those TV directors! I don't understand how they decide what to show.
Schumacher was at the back of the field, so you can be sure a lot of passing
will be going on. Instead they show the first 5 cars following each other!
There must be a rule to show the lead group no matter how boring or
uneventfull...
<soap box off>

--
How to get rid of censorship in German game releases
<http://www.gamesmania.com/german/maniac/freedom/freedom.htm>

|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

by **Mark C Dod** » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

I don't think he has showed any potential at all so far. Either in pre
season or at Melbourne. Compare him to Villeneuve's first GP!
Franchitti....now that is somebody who I want to see in F1.

> >Alex Zanardi was a big dissapointment!

> Hey now , come on! The first GP of any season is always a ***shoot.
> The GP in Oz was one of the strangest (but entertaining) I've seen. It
> was great to see the new faces on the podium but, it is in no way
> indicative of how the rest of the season will play out. Alex bleeds
> black and white so I wouldn't give up on him just yet.

by **Mark C Dod** » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

COmpard to GP bike racing F1 is about exciting as soggy Cornflakes. When Irvine got stuck
behing Zolta it showed that this year will be the same as the last 10, The aerodynamics make
it impossible to overtake due to "Dirty air" syndrome.

> >If your gonna post spoilers then at least space it so that you have to
> >scroll down to the results.

> Geez, you just can't please some people.

> At the risk (hell, certainty) of starting a tired debate...

> 8 cars finish, winner wins due to the fastest cars not surviving. How much
> passing was done outside of that due to pitting and attrition? The usual
> near-zip? Well, I bet Schumi's run from last (after stall) to about 10th made
> for interesting watching. Otherwise, F1 is more about technology, politics,
> personalities and (I suppose if one is really keen enough) watching very
> precision drivers, than it is about watching exciting *racing*. I'm still
> sometimes amazed at the popularity of this. This from someone who, yes,
> watches the races (when available!).

> Followups to alt.my.racing.is.better.than.yours ? :-)

by RL » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

It may have been interesting to watch, but we never got to see any of his move
throught the field here on Speedvision, just Eddie going round and round. I
think part of the problem with F1 is that the TV coverage just plain sucks.

>> Well, I bet Schumi's run from last (after stall) to about 10th made
>> for interesting watching.

>Sorry to be a pedant, but Schume made it up to 4th. :-)
>Cheers,
>Paul

Remove the "u"s from my address to reply via email.

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

> It may have been interesting to watch, but we never got to see any of his move
> throught the field here on Speedvision, just Eddie going round and round. I
> think part of the problem with F1 is that the TV coverage just plain sucks.

Yeah, the tv coverage wasn't too hot at Melbourne. We didn't see Baricello going
for it either. The producer did a very bad job - I would have thought with all
those cameras, he would have had a bank of screens from which he could see all the
action and be able to switch from one to the other to get the good bits. Probably
Bernie wouldn't let them do that because they didn't pay him enough money. :-)
Cheers,
Paul

by **Remco Moe** » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

> Schumaker was off-track, by a couple wheels or so, several times during
>the race. I'd attribute it to frustration at starting on the tail matched
>with overdriving the car to try to get back to the front...

Thx.

Remco.

by **Remco Moe** » Tue, 09 Mar 1999 04:00:00

>> It may have been interesting to watch, but we never got to see any of his move
>> throught the field here on Speedvision, just Eddie going round and round. I
>> think part of the problem with F1 is that the TV coverage just plain sucks.

>Yeah, the tv coverage wasn't too hot at Melbourne. We didn't see Baricello going
>for it either. The producer did a very bad job - I would have thought with all
>those cameras, he would have had a bank of screens from which he could see all the
>action and be able to switch from one to the other to get the good bits. Probably
>Bernie wouldn't let them do that because they didn't pay him enough money. :-)

Hmmm, I guess I was lucky then. I watched the C***+ footage, and I
saw the "official" footage later. There seems to be different kinds of
footages, because the one C***+ broadcasted did show all the passing
of Schumacher (and Barrichello aswell). Maybe C***+ did pay Bernie
some extra money.....Puzzling.

Remco

rec.autos.simulators

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)

Melbourne G.P. (spoiler)