"Jan Verschueren" <jan.no-spam.verschue...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:tmjonrp6rlos5b@news.supernews.com...
> "JM" wrote...
> > > <snip>
> > quote yourself, I never said that CART was shite due to
> > steel brakes or an influx of inexperienced drivers.
> > Which is what you were saying.
> > I said what I saw.
> So to you "yahoo" doesn't mean "gung-ho/devoid of skill" and "second rate"
> doesn't mean "inferior to"?
no yahoo doesn't mean devoid of skill. Explain the embarrassingly large
amount of time wasting and tedious accidents in another way then- divine
intervention?
second rate *cars*. Yes CART cars are technically inferior to F1, that is
unquestionable.
> > > <snip>
> > You assume too much. You inferred reasons behind
> > my comments that were not there (see use of
> > "because") steel brakes? who the hell mentioned
> > steel chuffing brakes?
> I did, as an example of a point where ChampCars are deemed technically
> inferior to F1 cars. I also used the less offensive term "inexperienced"
to
> describe some of the drivers. Don't play the semantics game with me John.
> Which ever way you turn it, you, without motivation, called CART's drivers
> hacks and labeled the cars as inferior to F1 cars.
Without motivation? My comments were directed to the previous (long since
lost) posts that the F1 racing was dull. I watched three races from three
formulae in the same week (the NASCAR is delayed a lot before hitting
eurosport) and it was an ideal opportunity to post a mirror comment
regarding NASCAR and CART.
I called CARTs drivers Yahoos, they were at the Molson. I stand by the
comment that CART cars are 2nd rate compared to F1.
It's not a question of semantics, it's a question of not assuming that my
argument vs your view point is the same as every other argument. In
response to my comments you have *added* words and ideas which I never
expressed, and thus altered the context. Most of your argument vs me
regarding the above comments seem to be directed more at someone else, or
some other comments that I'm not responsible for or privy to.
> I don't think I actually used the word procession, but let's not nick
> pick.<g>
> Seriously, I do believe that's a big part of it. Lesser teams like Minardi
> and Prost continue to improve all the time, otherwise they wouldn't be
able
> to qualify themselves for the races. However the rate of development at
> Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, being able to outspend them 10-1 (just a
> figure, I have no idea of the actual relative budget) is higher. Though
the
> increment are probably smaller, this still means the goalposts are being
> continuously moved. Not to mention the big budget teams will find it
easier
> to adapt to rule changes the FIA keeps applying to make things safer and
> "fairer" (cfr. traction control).
Ferrari won't have the kind of budget they've had recently for ever. They
had major backing from the factory to win the Driver's World Championship,
and a budget that even the likes of McLaren were complaining about.
Rich buisnessmen wouldn't keep buying these "poor" teams if there wasn't an
incentive. For some, just owning an F1 team is enough. A "poor" F1 car is
still better than a lot of other racing machines.
> Hmmm... I agree F1 has always been about winning, ruthlessly so in fact.
> Perhaps it's rather nowadays technology allows teams to pay more attention
> to details and variables which used to be able to upset even the best laid
> plans, making domination seem more clinical than it used to be?
You'll forgive me if I don't recall the exact details, I believe it was
1968, when wings were being fitted to F1 cars for the first time. One of
the Loti suffered an horrific accident due to failure of the rear wing.
Colin Chapman's immediate response? Saunter over to Bruce McLaren and tell
him he's pulling his cars out of the race, and "ooh, your wings are attached
just the same as our, that could fall off at any moment, guv."
(paraphrased).
A nice bit of footage, but it shows that the win at all costs mentality was
there always.
> > > <snip>
> > two x five drivers fighting for the championship is
> > more than enough. There will always be teams that
> > are "waxing" or "waning" in terms of success.
> There's only 3 or 4 in contention for the F3000 championship, where the
cars
> are supposed to be equal, so the teams getting somewhat on par shouldn't
> affect your premise
Indeed, even in "controlled" formulae there's an advantage. The only
exception that immediately springs to mind, is the Renault Clio Sport Cup
(don't even know if it's still running). All cars are leased, but
particularly, the cars are "swapped" between drivers based on performance,
so the poorest performing driver got the last race's winning car, likewise
the last race winner got the "worst" car for the next race, and so on up and
down the field.
That is a level playing field.
> It's interesting to note the differences in poise between the cars and to
> see how the drivers deal with that, yes.
I accept that someone who is "looking in from outside" as it were wouldn't
care much for individual cars, and watching them go through their paces, but
I've followed F1 for more than 16 years.
> > Watching the events unfold on a sunday is rivetting
> > - not in a wheel to wheel, five across the line at the
> > end (ala SBikes etc), sense, but in the broader picture
> > of strategy, reliability, tactics etc.
> There is that aspect, of course, what annoys me however is the driver's
> apparent inability to excercise their craft (getting ahead of the next
> guy!!).
All too often, when they do get to race, there's the drivers whining in some
way about "safety" even Rubens is quoted saying "It was fun, and exciting,
but was too close really" (paraphrase I don't have the article to hand)
maybe they do need a "wake up" call. Or maybe F1 needs an Aussie or two,
the kind of driver that would say "Bloody great race, nearly shit meself
through that bit though!" Instead of the usual sniping (RS about JPM, JV+DC
about red flags etc)
> > > <snip>
> > It's obvious to me every time I watch an F1 race,
> > every corner taken at speed. Sometimes it's almost
> > like someone hit the fast forward on the footage,
> > but it's real time driver reactions.
> I hold it's still a more detached viewing experience. Perhaps because of
the
> full face helmets in F1 and not being able to see facial expression. You
do
> not see the intensity in the driver's eyes, you do not see the strain of
the
> G-forces. Compare to in car footage of Francois Dellecours<sp?>
I'm more interested in the cars than the drivers, to be honest. Also
Richard Burns' constant whinging has marred my affection for WRC.
> Also, for someone who's been following F1 since the mid 70's the cars
> nowadays give far less visible cues of being on the edge.
Aye, powerslides aren't as sideways as they used to be, but it's always a
revelation to watch the hand movements on the in car footage.
> armco - 4 inches - you - 4 inches - buddy
> then come back here and talk about limits in NASCAR racing.
I'm talking about my perspective as a spectator. I know that it is fast,
dangerous, and skillful, but it looks dull to me as a spectator. Much like
speedboat racing.
> > Also the machines themselves hold no interest to me,
> > aesthetically, or engineering wise.
> Fair enough. As an engineer and aware of most of the physics behind the
> cars, though, I can assure you, despite the relative low-tech nature of
the
> cars, the average lap speeds acchieved by these stock cars are truly
> amazing. Had I not seen them done live on TV, I'm sure I would have said
> "impossible!!" if someone had put the premise to me.
some of the fastest cars ever built this century would be called dinosaurs
by todays standards. With rolling starts on super speedways, I can see
where the speed comes from (a sacrifice against acceleration) what's the rev
limit on those engines?
John
