F1 is wrong!!!

Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands Hatch in 2002? I hope so. Finally, F1 is returning to the 'challenging' rather than 'safe' circuits. after all, safe is just another word for boring. Now the French GP can be held at Le Mans (I want to see F1 cars on the Mulsanne straightaway!). The German GP can go back to the Nordshleife (after the repair work and all that). It seems ironic that the German GP was moved to the Nurburgring because it was safer there! After Burti proving twice this season the resiliance of F1 cars, and the Belgian GP 98 showing how good safety is now, I think we can return to spectacular circuits. I don't personally see how Hockenheim is safer than the Nordshleife - imagine two F1 cars banging wheels at 215mph! And it killed Jim Clark. Remember the BAR crashes at Eau Rouge? All these things show that F1 cars are incredibly safe. Two deaths in soo many years - Ratzenberger was a mechanical failure (caused by him going off and not checking the car over in the pits - weakening the structure) and Ayrton Senna crashed because (in my opinion) of a steering wheel failure - caused by relocation of the wheel by Williams mechanics, sawing it off and rewelding it. And the fact that he died was due to extreme bad luck with the front suspension strut. Does anybody agree with me?

Catisfit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't > personally see how Hockenheim is safer than the Nordshleife - imagine twoF1 > cars banging wheels at 215mph! The problems (as I see it) with the old 'ring are: - the incredible number of marshalls you'd need to cover every corner - the distance that the safety car and ambulance have to travel... you'd almost need about 5 or 6 sets of those vehicles parked around the track. - complete inability to stop fans from wandering onto the track - complete inablilty to keep wildlife off the track - massive cost to bring that many km of track up to modern F1 standards - paving, barriers, dealing with the locations that have sharp drop-offs if you get off the track, and other costs. Other issues: - TV coverage... many, many cameras. What's that going to take, 100 cameras more than current F1 races? I love the 'ring but I wouldn't want to see it in modern F1. Dale.

From the mind of Mick... "Catisfit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands Hatch in > 2002? I hope so. Finally, F1 is returning to the 'challenging' rather than > 'safe' circuits. after all, safe is just another word for boring. Now the > French GP can be held at Le Mans (I want to see F1 cars on the Mulsanne > straightaway!). The German GP can go back to the Nordshleife (after the > repair work and all that). It seems ironic that the German GP was moved to > the Nurburgring because it was safer there! After Burti proving twice this > season the resiliance of F1 cars, and the Belgian GP 98 showing how good > safety is now, I think we can return to spectacular circuits. I don't > personally see how Hockenheim is safer than the Nordshleife - imagine two

F1 > cars banging wheels at 215mph! And it killed Jim Clark. Remember the BAR > crashes at Eau Rouge? All these things show that F1 cars are incredibly > safe. Two deaths in soo many years - Ratzenberger was a mechanical failure > (caused by him going off and not checking the car over in the pits - > weakening the structure) and Ayrton Senna crashed because (in my opinion)of > a steering wheel failure - caused by relocation of the wheel by Williams > mechanics, sawing it off and rewelding it. And the fact that he died wasdue > to extreme bad luck with the front suspension strut. > > Does anybody agree with me? > You've got more chance of Hell freezing over than going back to Brands. They can't get planning permission for the necessary changes. The last I looked was that the GP was going to be a *provisional* date in July at Silverstone. Anyway, have you ever been there? Access is worse than Silverstone. Cheers, Mick. Those that dream, cannot do Those that do, cannot dream I have done, now I dream... --- This message is virus free... So there! Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 05/09/01

"Catisfit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands Hatch in > 2002? I hope so. Finally, F1 is returning to the 'challenging' rather than > 'safe' circuits. Brands - after the necessary alterations - would be no more of a challenge than Silverstone. >after all, safe is just another word for boring. Rather a narrow minded - and ignorant attitude imho. From The entire period from mid 80's to 1994 of Formula One went without a signal fatal accident - and was certainly NOT boring. You should do your research. > The German GP can go back to the Nordshleife (after the > repair work and all that). 14 Miles of repair work - similarly 28 miles of armco, fencing, catch fencing, crowd control and marshalling - are you joking? I hope so. >Two deaths in soo many years - Ratzenberger was a mechanical failure > (caused by him going off and not checking the car over in the pits - > weakening the structure) and Ayrton Senna crashed because (in my opinion)of > a steering wheel failure - caused by relocation of the wheel by Williams > mechanics, sawing it off and rewelding it. And the fact that he died wasdue > to extreme bad luck with the front suspension strut. Incorrect. Two deaths in as many DAYS... and also a hospitalisation of another driver the preceeding day (Barachello), the injury of several spectators - AND several marshals. Anyone who took that horrific weekend in May 1994 as anything but a SEVERE wake up call that things couldnt carry on as they were is frankly - a fool. Ratzenberger's death was caused by a mechanical failure - they happen - no one is to blame. Further more -Senna leaving the track was NOT caused by a faulty steering column. If you bothered to research the matter properly - the most likely cause of his death was bottoming out on cold, soft tyres after the saftey car period - something that Michael Schumacher - who was chasing him at the time - obseved in saying he saw Senna almost go off the preceeding lap. > Does anybody agree with me? Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the root cause - not the venues. Doug

Dale Green <[email hidden]> wrote on 08 Sep 2001: <snip> >complete inablilty to keep wildlife off > the track<snip> Stefan Johansson + �sterreichring + 1987 + deer + 170mph (I think) = ouch... -- "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. What was he on about? See http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk !

Catisfit <[email hidden]> wrote on 08 Sep 2001: > Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands > Hatch in 2002?<snip> Nope. Well, I suppose one can never write off anything where Bernie is involved, but I'd say there isn't a chance in hell. Donington would take a lot less work to get up to standard, having hosted a GP in 1993, as against 1986 for Brands, and its access is better as well, especially after a lot of recent earthworks. I'm 90% certain there will be a GP at Silverstone in 2002. -- "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. What was he on about? See http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk !

have you ever benn into the pits in donington ? I was there in 99 with the trucks and this is a VERY sorry excuse for a racetrack, NOBODY wants to go there, in fact we don't go since 99 and the motorbikes are not going anymore from next year on, the track owner has been SWEARING every year that the repairs were "on the way" but he'd rather keep his money.... Once he dies and someone buys the track maybe, interesting layout... "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Catisfit <[email hidden]> wrote on 08 Sep 2001: > > > Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands > > Hatch in 2002? > <snip> > > Nope. Well, I suppose one can never write off anything where Bernie is > involved, but I'd say there isn't a chance in hell. Donington would > take a lot less work to get up to standard, having hosted a GP in 1993, > as against 1986 for Brands, and its access is better as well, > especially after a lot of recent earthworks. I'm 90% certain there will > be a GP at Silverstone in 2002. > > -- > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. > What was he on about? See http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk !

I have been working at Donington today, our FFord team is racing there this weekend. It is no where near F1 standards anymore, in 1993 they JUST got away with it (the paddock was pretty much flooded) and I think the circuit is too short for todays standards, they would be doing 1:05's round there now I reckon. The garages are woeful as well, but they are going to upgrade it in the next few years, putting the pits between Coppice and the Esses (where the Dunlop bridge is now).

Txl <[email hidden]> wrote on 08 Sep 2001: > have you ever benn into the pits in donington ?<snip> Yes. And I agree they're sub-standard by current standards. I was just opining that Brands was worse. -- "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. What was he on about? See http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk Banish those hardwood floors! http://www.carpetfoundation.com

Well, thank goodness that Donington was on the calendar in '93 - it gave us one of the most electrifying laps in F1 history (not to mention the mesmerizing drive that followed). Rick "MarsonFJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have been working at Donington today, our FFord team is racing therethis > weekend. It is no where near F1 standards anymore, in 1993 they JUST gotaway > with it (the paddock was pretty much flooded) and I think the circuit istoo > short for todays standards, they would be doing 1:05's round there now I > reckon. The garages are woeful as well, but they are going to upgrade itin the > next few years, putting the pits between Coppice and the Esses (where the > Dunlop bridge is now).

"Catisfit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands Hatch in > 2002? I hope so. Finally, F1 is returning to the 'challenging' rather than > 'safe' circuits. after all, safe is just another word for boring. Now the > French GP can be held at Le Mans (I want to see F1 cars on the Mulsanne > straightaway I'd lay some good American $$ that not a single F1 engine could survive the Mulsaane hehehehe(notice I didn't specify how much?) dave henrie

"Dale Green" <[email hidden]> writes: > Other issues: > - TV coverage... many, many cameras. What's that going to take, 100 cameras > more than current F1 races? I thought the F1 cars carried the cameras with them? -- -asbjxrn

>Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the >root cause - not the venues. >I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one. The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars AND the tracks. Tracks where we almost always get a good race: Malaysia, Canada, Austria, Hockenheim, Suzuka, Spa, Brazil. Tracks where we nearly always get a procession: Imola, Spain, Monaco, Nurburgring, Magny Cours, Silverstone, Hungary, Australia. We'll see what the US and Italian GPs throw at us shortly. The problem is a lack of a decent straight preceded by a reasonably slow-ish corner to allow any kind of chance. So you're fighting an uphill battle there. Additionally, the cars just need some damn mechanical grip. When will they bring back slicks? Can't they see that it's the SAFEST solution? Nothing other than tyre grip will slow you if you spin. Not to mention the fact that you can't lose mechanical grip in the other driver's "dirty air". Well, that's my 2cents worth anyway. Rafe Mc

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilstsome

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the > >root cause - not the venues. > > > I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one. > The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still > not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars > AND the tracks. > > Tracks where we almost always get a good race: Malaysia, Canada, > Austria, Hockenheim, Suzuka, Spa, Brazil.

WRONG - there have been boring races at these venues. > > Tracks where we nearly always get a procession: Imola, Spain, Monaco, > Nurburgring, Magny Cours, Silverstone, Hungary, Australia. Again - incorrect - there HAVE been exciting races at these venues. > Additionally, the cars just need some damn mechanical grip. When will > they bring back slicks? Can't they see that it's the SAFEST solution? > Nothing other than tyre grip will slow you if you spin. Not to mention > the fact that you can't lose mechanical grip in the other driver's > "dirty air". That's my point about the cars. Grooved tyres are the most dangerous element of an F1 car Doug

>> Tracks where we almost always get a good race: Malaysia, Canada, >> Austria, Hockenheim, Suzuka, Spa, Brazil. > >WRONG - there have been boring races at these venues. > Being a bit picky aren't we? Name one track in the world where you are GUARANTEED a great race? Don't be pedantic, I'm simply stating that we USUALLY get a half decent race. >> >> Tracks where we nearly always get a procession: Imola, Spain, Monaco, >> Nurburgring, Magny Cours, Silverstone, Hungary, Australia. > >Again - incorrect - there HAVE been exciting races at these venues. >Again, being ridiculous. Where would you rather watch a race at - Monaco or Spa? How many overtaking moves would you expect at each? Totally missing the point of my post here.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> Additionally, the cars just need some damn mechanical grip. When will >> they bring back slicks? Can't they see that it's the SAFEST solution? >> Nothing other than tyre grip will slow you if you spin. Not to mention >> the fact that you can't lose mechanical grip in the other driver's >> "dirty air". > >That's my point about the cars. Grooved tyres are the most dangerous >element of an F1 car

Something we can agree on - grooved tyres have to go. Rafe Mc

[email hidden] (Rafe McAuliffe) writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some > >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the > >root cause - not the venues. > > > I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one. > The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still > not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars > AND the tracks.

Bernie Ecclestone was at the GP races in Estoril yesterday, probably to see some real racing. Let's hope he realized how fun it was to watch drivers overtake each other. What a finish in the 125 class... 11 thousands of a second was the difference between 1. and 2. And about .1 second between 3. and 4. -- -asbjxrn

On 10 Sep 2001 08:45:31 +0200, [email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>[email hidden] (Rafe McAuliffe) writes: > >> >Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some >> >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the >> >root cause - not the venues. >> > >> I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one. >> The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still >> not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars >> AND the tracks. > >Bernie Ecclestone was at the GP races in Estoril yesterday, probably >to see some real racing. Let's hope he realized how fun it was to watch >drivers overtake each other. >What a finish in the 125 class... 11 thousands of a second was the >difference between 1. and 2. And about .1 second between 3. and 4.

Yep, the bikes are always good entertainment, no doubt about it. No aero aids is a beautiful thing :D Rafe Mc

What do you mean, no aero aids? Don't they put their legs close to the ground to produce ground effects ;)? -Gregor Rafe McAuliffe wrote: > > Yep, the bikes are always good entertainment, no doubt about it. No > aero aids is a beautiful thing :D > > Rafe Mc

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Something we can agree on - grooved tyres have to go. > > Rafe Mc What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances though? John

JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances > though? Easy - remove those bloody wings! Anton

"Anton Norup Soerensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances > > though? > > Easy - remove those bloody wings! > > Anton

Interesting point, when they had aeros on the BTCC touring cars it made it harder for them to brake effectively... cheers John

No carbon brakes. Known solution. "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Vb2n7.7159$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances > though? > > > John >

Mario Petrinovic <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9nj2uo$73pp$[email hidden]... > "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Vb2n7.7159$[email hidden]... > > > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in brakingdistances > > though? > No carbon brakes. Known solution. Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung mass, not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any case. Jonny

Not sure if that is really necassary - most teams would CHOOSE to run less wing. More mech grip means less need for aero grip. Braking distances therefore wouldn't change much IMO. Less efficient at high speed, more efficient at low speed. Also, more efficient when following another car. Rafe Mc On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Anton Norup Soerensen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances >> though? > >Easy - remove those bloody wings! > >Anton

> >Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung mass, >not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any case. Mostly true but not entirely. Carbon brakes allow the brakes to run a LOT hotter, resulting in better heat dissipation. Zanardi tested steel brakes a fair bit, he was usually only 2 secs off the pace. Depends on how you rate Zanardi's pace tho :P Rafe Mc

That's right. I think they should also ban the drivers from hiding behind the fairing on the straights. Doesn't that come under "moveable aero aids", which have been banned a long while??? :P Rafe Mc On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:39:42 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: >What do you mean, no aero aids? Don't they put their legs close to the >ground to produce ground effects ;)? > >-Gregor

Not necessarily; at high speeds when downforce is dominant there might not be enough braking power available to use all the tyre potential. I have no clue, though, whether this is true, but it is possible, and even if not, probably only the new materials would allow the brakes to operate at such a stopping power lap after lap. -Gregor Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung mass, > not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any case. > > Jonny

Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not necessarily; at high speeds when downforce is dominant theremight > not be enough braking power available to use all the tyre potential.I Probably true actually... but brake force is only a matter of friction materials and mechanical advantage, and according to Race Tech a while ago, cast-iron brakes can generate equal stopping power. > have no clue, though, whether this is true, but it is possible, andeven > if not, probably only the new materials would allow the brakes to > operate at such a stopping power lap after lap. As Rafe mentioned, they'll at least do so with better heat rejection which reduces cooling drag - but I stick to my original view that braking distances will not increase noticeably by banning carbon-carbon. Note that they have banned exotic alloys for calipers, though, which were used to provide better brake 'feel' - it appears this is now viewed as more significant than sheer friction. Jonny > Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > > > Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprungmass, > > not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in anycase. > > > > Jonny

Um, The British GP is secured at Silverstone for like 20years or something according to their contract. However, if it doesn't come up to scratch soon it'll be dropped totally and I'm glad to see Bernie agree with me when i say that it is unfair to say that Britain should be allowed use a substandard venue and facilities just because they are Britain and "we must have a British GP" when places like Imola (!!!) are under threat.! Catisfit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Is it true that the British GP is *really* to be held at Brands Hatch in > 2002? I hope so. Finally, F1 is returning to the 'challenging' rather than > 'safe' circuits. after all, safe is just another word for boring. Now the > French GP can be held at Le Mans (I want to see F1 cars on the Mulsanne > straightaway!). The German GP can go back to the Nordshleife (after the > repair work and all that). It seems ironic that the German GP was moved to > the Nurburgring because it was safer there! After Burti proving twice this > season the resiliance of F1 cars, and the Belgian GP 98 showing how good > safety is now, I think we can return to spectacular circuits. I don't > personally see how Hockenheim is safer than the Nordshleife - imagine two

F1 > cars banging wheels at 215mph! And it killed Jim Clark. Remember the BAR > crashes at Eau Rouge? All these things show that F1 cars are incredibly > safe. Two deaths in soo many years - Ratzenberger was a mechanical failure > (caused by him going off and not checking the car over in the pits - > weakening the structure) and Ayrton Senna crashed because (in my opinion)of > a steering wheel failure - caused by relocation of the wheel by Williams > mechanics, sawing it off and rewelding it. And the fact that he died wasdue > to extreme bad luck with the front suspension strut. > > Does anybody agree with me? > >

"9Wright7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9oajjn$ef3$[email hidden]... > Um, The British GP is secured at Silverstone for like 20years or something > according to their contract. > However, if it doesn't come up to scratch soon it'll be dropped totallyand > I'm glad to see Bernie agree with me when i say that it is unfair to say > that Britain should be allowed use a substandard venue and facilities just > because they are Britain and "we must have a British GP" when places like > Imola (!!!) are under threat.! Seing as Silverstone's paddock was rebuilt to Bernie's exacting standards in 1995 - what exactly does he want - and what is substandard about it. It's painfully obvious that the tobacco sponsor's are on at the governing body to pull out of countries where such advertising is banned - and as a result - the FIA are trying to find any excuse they can to do this. If the standard of the venue was the real issue - then Monaco, Hungaroring and Brazil would be under real threat - NOT Silverstone. Doug