OT: Formula One 2005

Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's would suck too if I understood them. It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and gimmicks there. For heavens sake just let them RACE! Thank You. Parking validated at the front desk. -Larry

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's > would suck too if I understood them. > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and > gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE! > > Thank You. Parking validated at the front desk. > > -Larry

All designed to finally stop Michael Schumacher. Gascoyne admitted that the rule changes have been the biggest reason Toyota is now a contender. The changes have worked for three races, but I'm betting MS will be back on top at Imola. Also, if you want a sure bet........Father Dougle McGuire will be the next pope. :-) -- David G Fisher

Larry wrote: > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks hereand > gimmicks there. > The funny thing is... I believe CART/CCWS have dumped their pit strategy rules. I'm not in favor of controlling how teams decide to run a race. CART/CCWS has proven that the rules don't improve racing on the track. I thought it was great watching the St. Pete IRL race without all those stupid rules. Not a fan of the IRL, but it was the first open wheel race I've seen all year without pit strategy rules in place.

the problem is that bridgestone have lost the plot which means renault are running away with it - but as the season progresses, the one-tyre rule will give us some good racing for sure; but as for changing the rules to stop Ferrari from dominating in favour of Renault - well, I guess the French are happy ... as for me, I'd rather see reds car dominating ... "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's > would suck too if I understood them. > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and > gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE! > > Thank You. Parking validated at the front desk. > > -Larry >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06... > Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > Exactly wrong. > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's > would suck too if I understood them. > Exactly wrong. > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and > gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE! > Racing is exactly what we're seeing. It looks to me like 5 to 7 teams may win races this year. I can't remember the last time F1 was this interesting.

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4255dc79$0$27866$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06... >> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. >> >> F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! >> > > Exactly wrong. > >> The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's >> would suck too if I understood them. >> > > Exactly wrong. > >> It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and >> gimmicks there. >> >> For heavens sake just let them RACE! >> > > Racing is exactly what we're seeing. It looks to me like 5 to 7 teams > may win races this year. I can't remember the last time F1 was this > interesting.

You're wrong. F1 is a bunch of trumped up b.s. this year.

Larry wrote: > Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuelrule's > would suck too if I understood them. > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks hereand

Quoted text (7 lines)

> gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE! > > Thank You. Parking validated at the front desk. > > -Larry

Has it been good in comparison over say the last 5 years? I wouldn't have thought it could have got much worse and the season is actually shaping up to be quite interesting.

Larry wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's > would suck too if I understood them. > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and > gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE!

Really, something must be done to stop this Renault dominance! It's ruining the sport! :-) I'm not a big fan of rules which try to micro manage every little thing, but even though I'm a long time Ferrari fan I'm glad to see some different results. I was beginning to think that the Italian national anthem was the second verse of the German national anthem. Don McCorkle

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. > > F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! > > The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel rule's > would suck too if I understood them. > > It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here and > gimmicks there. > > For heavens sake just let them RACE! > > Thank You. Parking validated at the front desk. > > -Larry > >

I think it has been more intereseting than the last 5 or so years. I think Renault and Michelin have been on the ball during the off season, sore than the rest of the grid. Their is certainly more racing in the mid field. As for the rules trying to stop Ferrari and MS running away with things? Im not so sure, they are best friends with Bernie and Max after all. One things for sure they had to do something to try and improve things, their has been next no racing anywhere in the field for the last few years and costs are getting ridiculous. F1 has been pretty crap for nearly a decade now, the cars do most of the driving not the drivers..... Get rid of the downforce, get some bigger/softer tyres, add some clutches and manual gear boxes and lets see the drivers really drive... -- Im too young for this s**t! Live GamerTag - FooAtari My games collection and Live games: http://www.ajrparkst.f2s.com/allie/index.htm www.revs.tv - Motorsport Internet TV.

"JTS" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4255dc79$0$27866$[email hidden] > om.au... >> >> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06... >>> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. >>> >>> F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! >>> >> >> Exactly wrong. >> >>> The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel >>> rule's would suck too if I understood them. >>> >> >> Exactly wrong. >> >>> It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here >>> and gimmicks there. >>> >>> For heavens sake just let them RACE! >>> >> >> Racing is exactly what we're seeing. It looks to me like 5 to 7 >> teams >> may win races this year. I can't remember the last time F1 was this >> interesting. > > You're wrong. F1 is a bunch of trumped up b.s. this year. > > >

You're wrong. (Boy, this freedom of speech thing is really great!! :)

> As for the rules trying to stop Ferrari and MS running away withthings? > Im not so sure, they are best friends with Bernie and Max after all. When the single tyre per race rule was announced, it could well have been penned by Michelin themselves. Bridgestones rely a lot more heavily on mechanical grip than Michelins, which prefer chemical grip, so Bridgestones run hotter - which makes them wear more. Michelins suffer early graining and a dropoff in pace for a few laps early in the stint and then settle down to a consistent (and durable) laptime. Fewer pitstops = fewer graining periods for Michelin runners, and higher wear rates for Bridgestones-as soon as the tyres reach a certain temp, wear rates go off the scale. Coupled with the Renault rear-heavy design of recent years (all part of their startline launch package), which happens to reduce the wear on the rear tyres, and it's easy to see the basis for the start of this season, although factor in Renaults great off-season work to maximise their advantage, and Ferrari's (in hindsight) mistaken decision to devote resources to the F2004M.

"Harry C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (41 lines)

> "JTS" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > >> >> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:4255dc79$0$27866$[email hidden] >> om.au... >>> >>> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:rIe5e.23$B93.17@lakeread06... >>>> Ok. I can't stand it any more. I just gotta say it. >>>> >>>> F1 SUCKS THIS YEAR! >>>> >>> >>> Exactly wrong. >>> >>>> The tire rule sucks. The engine rule sucks. I'm sure the fuel >>>> rule's would suck too if I understood them. >>>> >>> >>> Exactly wrong. >>> >>>> It's turned half-assed into Cart with all it's little gimmicks here >>>> and gimmicks there. >>>> >>>> For heavens sake just let them RACE! >>>> >>> >>> Racing is exactly what we're seeing. It looks to me like 5 to 7 >>> teams >>> may win races this year. I can't remember the last time F1 was this >>> interesting. >> >> You're wrong. F1 is a bunch of trumped up b.s. this year. >> >> >> > > You're wrong. >

You're right! :) > (Boy, this freedom of speech thing is really great!! :)

You and me certainly have a different view of what racing is, but that's ok... -Larry "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4255dc79$0$27866$[email hidden]... > Racing is exactly what we're seeing. It looks to me like 5 to 7 teams > may win races this year. I can't remember the last time F1 was this > interesting. >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pLQ6e.8491$B93.5920@lakeread06... > You and me certainly have a different view of what racing is, but that's > ok... > Well, we all certainly love to see close, on track action and racing for the lead. But racing, and particularly F1, is about more than that. The race for the constructors Championship and also the drivers Championship should be a great fight 'til about the last race I'd say. It's certainly a lot better than wondering by what race MS will have tied up the title, that's for sure. Didn't like Trulli pushing Alonso earlier? It does require a little brainwork/imagination to appreciate F1 compared to some other forms of the sport. :)

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:425d78a1$0$27625$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pLQ6e.8491$B93.5920@lakeread06... > > You and me certainly have a different view of what racing is, but that's > > ok... > > > > Well, we all certainly love to see close, on track action and racing

for > the lead. But racing, and particularly F1, is about more than that. Therace

Quoted text (8 lines)

> for the constructors Championship and also the drivers Championship should > be a great fight 'til about the last race I'd say. It's certainly a lot > better than wondering by what race MS will have tied up the title, that's > for sure. > > Didn't like Trulli pushing Alonso earlier? It does require a little > brainwork/imagination to appreciate F1 compared to some other forms of the > sport. :)

I just don't like things being done to stop one man from winning. It should be up to the teams to get better, not rules and regulations being changed to bring one driver back to the pack. Might as well turn it into NASCAR and make it artificially competitive. I'm rooting for Ralf and Trulli this year, but I really want MS to come roaring back and win the title just so he can thumb his nose at everyone. -- David G Fisher

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > You and me certainly have a different view of what racing is, but > > that's ok... > > Well, we all certainly love to see close, on track action and > racing for the lead. But racing, and particularly F1, is about more > than that. The race for the constructors Championship and also the > drivers Championship should be a great fight 'til about the last > race I'd say. It's certainly a lot better than wondering by what > race MS will have tied up the title, that's for sure.

Was every other racing series on the planet just not enough for you? You had to have F1 too? Can't we have one for people who want to see the state of auto designing art advanced to the highest level possible? Just one? Is that too damn much to ask? I guess so. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:425d78a1$0$27625$[email hidden]... >> >> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:pLQ6e.8491$B93.5920@lakeread06... >> > You and me certainly have a different view of what racing is, but >> > that's >> > ok... >> > >> >> Well, we all certainly love to see close, on track action and racing > for >> the lead. But racing, and particularly F1, is about more than that. The > race >> for the constructors Championship and also the drivers Championship >> should >> be a great fight 'til about the last race I'd say. It's certainly a lot >> better than wondering by what race MS will have tied up the title, that's >> for sure. >> >> Didn't like Trulli pushing Alonso earlier? It does require a little >> brainwork/imagination to appreciate F1 compared to some other forms of >> the >> sport. :) > > I just don't like things being done to stop one man from winning. It > should > be up to the teams to get better, not rules and regulations being changed > to > bring one driver back to the pack. Might as well turn it into NASCAR and > make it artificially competitive. >

I doubt this is the case - I definantly don't want to see the results determined b4 the cars even roll off the trucks by who's the best money gathering team - anything to minimize this factor is a good thing. Ferrari's lateness at getting their new car ready is no ones fault but theirs - maybe a little complacency creeping in here.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I doubt this is the case - I definantly don't want to see the > results > determined b4 the cars even roll off the trucks by who's the best > money gathering team - anything to minimize this factor is a good > thing. Ferrari's lateness at getting their new car ready is no ones > fault but theirs - maybe a little complacency creeping in here. > >

The tire rules were pushed by Michelin and all their teams, they knew they had skins that would hold up better than Bridgestone. Next, Ferrari was not late with their new car. for the last 3 seasons they have taken the extra time to develop their new car. For the last 3 years the old car was more than capable of dealing with the 'new' cars of the other teams. So no conspiracy, just ego on the part of the Red Team, ego that has been deflated since several teams have finally stepped up to Ferrari's level. Finally somebody has brought the fight to Mr Schumacher. And this is partly due to the rules. Which were most definately 'aimed' at him. dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >> >> I doubt this is the case - I definantly don't want to see the >> results >> determined b4 the cars even roll off the trucks by who's the best >> money gathering team - anything to minimize this factor is a good >> thing. Ferrari's lateness at getting their new car ready is no ones >> fault but theirs - maybe a little complacency creeping in here. >> >> > > The tire rules were pushed by Michelin and all their teams, they knew > they had skins that would hold up better than Bridgestone. Next, > Ferrari > was not late with their new car. for the last 3 seasons they have taken > the extra time to develop their new car. For the last 3 years the old car > was more than capable of dealing with the 'new' cars of the other teams. > So no conspiracy, just ego on the part of the Red Team, ego that has been > deflated since several teams have finally stepped up to Ferrari's level. > Finally somebody has brought the fight to Mr Schumacher. And this is > partly due to the rules. Which were most definately 'aimed' at him. > > dave henrie >

Well in any case, I'd say if it's ok to pour extreme amounts of money into a race car then fiddling with the rules is just as acceptable - anything goes. Most of Ferrari's budget is probably mafia money anyway. Screw Ferrari!

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Well in any case, I'd say if it's ok to pour extreme amounts of money > into a race car then fiddling with the rules is just as acceptable - > anything goes. Money poured into technology produces something new and useful. Fiddling with the rules produces nothing useful. Historically, racing has been a way to develop newer and better things. Better breeds of horses, better bicycles, better cars, better planes. And most of those innovations have eventually trickled down to the common man. Pouring extreme amounts of money into a race car is both more true to the spirit of racing, and more useful to the man on the street. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> Well in any case, I'd say if it's ok to pour extreme amounts of money >> into a race car then fiddling with the rules is just as acceptable - >> anything goes. > > Money poured into technology produces something new and useful. > > Fiddling with the rules produces nothing useful. > > Historically, racing has been a way to develop newer and better > things. Better breeds of horses, better bicycles, better cars, better > planes. And most of those innovations have eventually trickled down > to the common man. Pouring extreme amounts of money into a race car > is both more true to the spirit of racing, and more useful to the > man on the street. >

Depends on what it's spent on. Ferrari's budget mainly adds up to more testing and refining of everything relative to other teams. The "man on the street" is gaining nothing from millions being spent to refine the same thing to the nth degree. Maybe, indeed, the "man on the street" is indeed out on the street because he has no job since conglomerates like Ferrari spent profits on a few cars instead of creating jobs? Close to a billion dollars per year for a few F1 cars??????????? - insane! Also, more money = less need for genuine innovation in many ways. If teams have less money to spend testing/refining then the engineers would spend more time trying to come up with something revolutionary rather than just refining the same old stuff. The rules do limit this though no doubt.

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > Well in any case, I'd say if it's ok to pour extreme amounts of money > > into a race car then fiddling with the rules is just as acceptable - > > anything goes. > > Money poured into technology produces something new and useful. > > Fiddling with the rules produces nothing useful. > > Historically, racing has been a way to develop newer and better > things. Better breeds of horses, better bicycles, better cars, better > planes. And most of those innovations have eventually trickled down > to the common man. Pouring extreme amounts of money into a race car > is both more true to the spirit of racing, and more useful to the > man on the street. > > jason

You've posted your F1 comments in a newsgroup which for some reason which I will never understand has a large % of people who like slow, old cars that handle like junk. :-) They even seem to prefer new cars that are slow and handle like junk. -- David G Fisher

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: > > You've posted your F1 comments in a newsgroup which for some reason > which I will never understand has a large % of people who like > slow, old cars that handle like junk. :-) > They even seem to prefer new cars that are slow and handle like junk. And that's cool. I don't mind limited racing, but there should be at least one unlimited class. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Depends on what it's spent on. Ferrari's budget mainly adds up to > more testing and refining of everything relative to other teams. > The "man on the street" is gaining nothing from millions being > spent to refine the same thing to the nth degree. Sure they do. The refining techniques themselves are useful. For example, the computer models required to tweak airflow over the body enough to get a competitive edge could very well be applied to passenger vehicles. Put a slightly better Cd on millions of passenger cars, and you've saved billions of gallons of fuel and billions of dollars. If Ferrari's willing to invest money in that kind of basic research to win some races, GOOD. > Maybe, indeed, the "man on the street" is indeed out on the street > because he has no job since conglomerates like Ferrari spent > profits on a few cars instead of creating jobs? Close to a billion > dollars per year for a few F1 cars??????????? - insane! It's Ferrari's money to spend. And all that money goes to keep researchers employed. More research money means more research jobs which means more people going to school to learn how to design better cars. That's a better job than just putting new cars together - which robots mostly do these days anyway - and contributes more to the future. > Also, more money = less need for genuine innovation in many ways. > If teams have less money to spend testing/refining then the > engineers would spend more time trying to come up with something > revolutionary rather than just refining the same old stuff. The > rules do limit this though no doubt. Automotive design is a mature art that's heavily limited by physics (gravity, air pressure, the strength of materials) and chemistry (there's only so much energy contained in the chemical bonds in gasoline, and only so much friction that can be had between rubber and asphalt). At this stage you're not going to see anything truly revolutionary. It's going to be a series of small refinements that slowly approach those limits over time. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jason Steiner wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Sure they do. The refining techniques themselves are useful. For > example, the computer models required to tweak airflow over the > body enough to get a competitive edge could very well be applied > to passenger vehicles. Put a slightly better Cd on millions of > passenger cars, and you've saved billions of gallons of fuel and > billions of dollars. > > If Ferrari's willing to invest money in that kind of basic research > to win some races, GOOD.

It will be a cold day in hell before any of us see a Ferrari road car marketed via it's fuel consumption figures...! There are some - no doubt Honda's work in F1 spawned many road car benefits in the early 90's, but in a general sense it's difficult to see how the F1 spend really equates into road improvements. Indeed many of the FIA rule changes that people complain about are designed to FORCE the teams to do exactly that. The purpose of the F1 teams is "how do I make my car go faster" - end of story. If there's a real-life application that's fine, but it's by lucky chance. The involvement of Mercedes, BMW etc on the engine side sees that changing, as Honda did in the past. These guys are looking for how to save some money, or how to get dual-benefit from their investment money, but the F1 guys surely are not.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Maybe, indeed, the "man on the street" is indeed out on the street >>because he has no job since conglomerates like Ferrari spent >>profits on a few cars instead of creating jobs? Close to a billion >>dollars per year for a few F1 cars??????????? - insane! > > It's Ferrari's money to spend. And all that money goes to keep > researchers employed. More research money means more research > jobs which means more people going to school to learn how to > design better cars. That's a better job than just putting new > cars together - which robots mostly do these days anyway - and > contributes more to the future.

Actually it's our money. We buy stuff, the people who make that stuff have advertising budgets, and that goes to Ferrari (who give it to Michael Schumacher). As for the more research money means more research jobs, that's a big leap - most of it will go on wind tunnel operation and computer analysis. Anyway, Ferrari hire a few more engineers, other teams forced to cut engineers because they need to find money to invest to keep up with Ferrari - if it's even a zero-sum game I'd be surprised.

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Jason Steiner wrote: > > > > If Ferrari's willing to invest money in that kind of basic research > > to win some races, GOOD. > > It will be a cold day in hell before any of us see a Ferrari road car > marketed via it's fuel consumption figures...!

So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing, by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth. > The purpose of the F1 teams is "how do I make my car go faster" - > end of story. If there's a real-life application that's fine, but > it's by lucky chance. Think of all the spinoffs from NASA. The reason you do this stuff is because you can't predict in advance what you're going to find. It's all lucky chance.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > It's Ferrari's money to spend. And all that money goes to keep > > researchers employed. More research money means more research > > jobs which means more people going to school to learn how to > > design better cars. That's a better job than just putting new > > cars together - which robots mostly do these days anyway - and > > contributes more to the future. > > Actually it's our money. We buy stuff,

And that's when it stops being your money. Don't like it? Don't buy products that advertise through Ferarri. > the people who make that stuff have advertising budgets, and that > goes to Ferrari (who give it to Michael Schumacher). As for the > more research money means more research jobs, that's a big leap - > most of it will go on wind tunnel operation and computer analysis. Wind tunnel operators and computer analysts need to eat too. And once you have the people and technology to do that kind of analysis, you can apply it in all sorts of ways. > Anyway, Ferrari hire a few more engineers, other teams forced to > cut engineers because they need to find money to invest to keep up > with Ferrari - if it's even a zero-sum game I'd be surprised. Invest in what? If it's technical innovation they need, they're going to have to invest in... engineers. You're talking about cutting engineers to buy more engineers. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> You've posted your F1 comments in a newsgroup which for some reason >> which I will never understand has a large % of people who like >> slow, old cars that handle like junk. :-) > >> They even seem to prefer new cars that are slow and handle like junk. > > And that's cool. I don't mind limited racing, but there should be at > least one unlimited class. >

Well then, define unlimited! No safety measures? Any dimensions? Jet/rocket engines? Trillion dollar budget per team? Etc, etc, etc............

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (52 lines)

> John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Jason Steiner wrote: >> > >> > If Ferrari's willing to invest money in that kind of basic research >> > to win some races, GOOD. >> >> It will be a cold day in hell before any of us see a Ferrari road car >> marketed via it's fuel consumption figures...! > > So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says > Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology > transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing, > by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth. > >> The purpose of the F1 teams is "how do I make my car go faster" - >> end of story. If there's a real-life application that's fine, but >> it's by lucky chance. > > Think of all the spinoffs from NASA. The reason you do this stuff > is because you can't predict in advance what you're going to find. > It's all lucky chance. > >> > It's Ferrari's money to spend. And all that money goes to keep >> > researchers employed. More research money means more research >> > jobs which means more people going to school to learn how to >> > design better cars. That's a better job than just putting new >> > cars together - which robots mostly do these days anyway - and >> > contributes more to the future. >> >> Actually it's our money. We buy stuff, > > And that's when it stops being your money. Don't like it? Don't > buy products that advertise through Ferarri. > >> the people who make that stuff have advertising budgets, and that >> goes to Ferrari (who give it to Michael Schumacher). As for the >> more research money means more research jobs, that's a big leap - >> most of it will go on wind tunnel operation and computer analysis. > > Wind tunnel operators and computer analysts need to eat too. And > once you have the people and technology to do that kind of analysis, > you can apply it in all sorts of ways. > >> Anyway, Ferrari hire a few more engineers, other teams forced to >> cut engineers because they need to find money to invest to keep up >> with Ferrari - if it's even a zero-sum game I'd be surprised. > > Invest in what? If it's technical innovation they need, they're > going to have to invest in... engineers. You're talking about > cutting engineers to buy more engineers. > > jason

Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd! The thing that makes me laugh about professional sport is that you could get most of the sportsmen to do what they do for free. Michael Schumacher would be on about $50Mil per year and that is nuts - what does the world get out of that? And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how good they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. What we have in formula one at the moment is NOT motorsport - it is an exercise in money gathering. Everything that happens on the track is pretty much proportional to the budget of each team. Ferrari have dominated on the track for years but it is simply a reflection of budget. F1 needs to introduce some sort of parity with respect to budget otherwise it will become a total joke to everyone.

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for > humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many > people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the > returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd! Apparently the investors think that the money is well spent. That might not be true, but it's their money, and in their opinion, the opportunity cost of advertising with F1 teams is not outweighed by other opportunities. The same is true of any sport. But I can say with certainty that the money spent on auto racing produces more technology than money spent on, say, basketball. > The thing that makes me laugh about professional sport is that you > could get most of the sportsmen to do what they do for free. > Michael Schumacher would be on about $50Mil per year and that is > nuts - what does the world get out of that? Ferarri gets a charismatic representative. Which in advertising, is everything. You could get a lot of people to play basketball for free too, but not very many will draw the kinds of crowds that the advertisers want. > And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how > good they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. > What we have in formula one at the moment is NOT motorsport - it is > an exercise in money gathering. Everything that happens on the > track is pretty much proportional to the budget of each team. All the more reason to have charismatic and talented personalities to attract an audience, investors, and money. > Ferrari have dominated on the track for years but it is simply a > reflection of budget. If that was all it was, they could burn the money and have the same results. But they don't. They invest it in technology and engineers to create technology, and that investment is wisely made. If another team can invest more wisely and obtain more with less, they'll win. Alternately, if another team can attract better talent and a larger audience, they can get a larger budget too. > F1 needs to introduce some sort of parity with respect to budget > otherwise it will become a total joke to everyone. You already have every other race on the planet. Why isn't that enough? jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > And that's cool. I don't mind limited racing, but there should be at > > least one unlimited class. > > Well then, define unlimited! > > No safety measures? Any dimensions? Jet/rocket engines? Trillion dollar > budget per team? Etc, etc, etc............

Assuming auto racing you've got to define what you mean by 'auto' and 'racing'. Presumably four wheels, fits within a standard lane, and follows a defined course for a specified number of laps. Beyond that, why should you limit it to, say, internal combustion when the next great engine might turn out to be a jet? Running jet engines in ground-based vehicles is an interesting problem. Turbines are efficient, but not well-suited to the varied loads of auto racing. I'd like to see someone come up with a turbine powered car that could stand up to the rigors of racing. Maybe enough other people would be interested in watching it to make it worth a trillion dollars to advertisers. Which might fund the research to make it practical in ordinary cars. But we'll never know. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jason Steiner wrote: > So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says > Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology > transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing, > by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth. The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed. > Think of all the spinoffs from NASA. The reason you do this stuff > is because you can't predict in advance what you're going to find. > It's all lucky chance. Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by prodding F1 more or less gently in useful directions. >>Actually it's our money. We buy stuff, > > And that's when it stops being your money. Don't like it? Don't > buy products that advertise through Ferarri. I don't, at least not where it can be avoided. > Wind tunnel operators and computer analysts need to eat too. Point is the money goes on the tunnel - not on more operators. > Invest in what? If it's technical innovation they need, they're > going to have to invest in... engineers. You're talking about > cutting engineers to buy more engineers. No, they need to invest in beryllium engines, or pay a Toyota to supply them a competitive engine, otherwise they get no advertisers and fall out of the business. That's the way the world works.

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >> > And that's cool. I don't mind limited racing, but there should be at >> > least one unlimited class. >> >> Well then, define unlimited! >> >> No safety measures? Any dimensions? Jet/rocket engines? Trillion dollar >> budget per team? Etc, etc, etc............ > > Assuming auto racing you've got to define what you mean by 'auto' and > 'racing'. Presumably four wheels, fits within a standard lane, and > follows a defined course for a specified number of laps. Beyond that, > why should you limit it to, say, internal combustion when the next > great engine might turn out to be a jet? Running jet engines in > ground-based vehicles is an interesting problem. Turbines are > efficient, but not well-suited to the varied loads of auto racing. > I'd like to see someone come up with a turbine powered car that could > stand up to the rigors of racing. Maybe enough other people would be > interested in watching it to make it worth a trillion dollars to > advertisers. Which might fund the research to make it practical in > ordinary cars. > > But we'll never know. > > jason > > -- > "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to > make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm > concerned, > they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking > things, > smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Actually formula one refers to the 'formula' for the types of racing cars allowed and which expires 2007 - it is why the manufacturers are pressing for their own series. It will, of course, be a disaster because without ferrari there is no F1 - or any other series worth noting. Also, marlboro pay Schumacher's salary, not Ferrari. And having said all this, the racing has always - with the narrow exception of the 70s - meant domination and it is NOT about money - FErrari do NOT have the biggest budget in F1, if it was merely a question of throwing money at the problem, Ferrari would not have taken 21 years between championships - while there is no chance for a minnow team winning, there is, also, no guarantee of a team like toyota burying around 400 million dollars a year chasing a win - and failing. Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking - then F1 is not for you. If you're not impressed at watching the greatest drivers on the planet driving a car that can accelerate to 100 and then brake to 0 in less than four seconds, then F1 is not for you. If you have never seen on these things in real life, then ... well, it really is a experience. But not for all - on the other hand, the crisis of F1 has seen its numbers fuel to 300million viewers per race. A crisis I'd like to be in for sure!

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Jason Steiner wrote: > > > So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says > > Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology > > transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing, > > by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth. > > The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things > which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed.

In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not necessarily. > > Think of all the spinoffs from NASA. The reason you do this stuff > > is because you can't predict in advance what you're going to find. > > It's all lucky chance. > > Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by prodding > F1 more or less gently in useful directions. Is it working? > > Wind tunnel operators and computer analysts need to eat too. > > Point is the money goes on the tunnel - not on more operators. So? Wind tunnels are assets. Once you've got the initial investment to build one, you have a resource that can be used by everyone, including road car makers. > > Invest in what? If it's technical innovation they need, they're > > going to have to invest in... engineers. You're talking about > > cutting engineers to buy more engineers. > > No, they need to invest in beryllium engines, Designed and built by engineers. You don't pay the engine, you pay the people who make it. > or pay a Toyota And its engineers. > to supply them a competitive engine, otherwise they get no advertisers > and fall out of the business. That's the way the world works. Yup. The engineers will get paid. It's a good thing. Money spent on R&D is rarely without benefits. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Kwc9e.2033$[email hidden]... > <snip> > Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not > impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at > something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking -then > F1 is not for you. <snip> That must be one hell of a long straight. ;o) Elrikk

<snip> <snip> That must be one hell of a long straight. ;o) Elrikk

"elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2Rg9e.129$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Kwc9e.2033$[email hidden]... >> > > <snip> > >> Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not >> impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at >> something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking - > then >> F1 is not for you. > > <snip> > > > That must be one hell of a long straight. ;o) > > Elrikk

Thanks mate, I needed that laugh! > > >

Jason Steiner wrote: >>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how >>good they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. > > And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and therefore still investors.

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Kwc9e.2033$[email hidden]... > Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not > impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at > something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking -then > F1 is not for you. If you're not impressed at watching the greatestdrivers > on the planet driving a car that can accelerate to 100 and then brake to 0 > in less than four seconds, then F1 is not for you. >If you have never seen on > these things in real life, then ... well, it really is a experience. Agree 100%. >But not > for all - on the other hand, the crisis of F1 has seen its numbers fuel to > 300million viewers per race. A crisis I'd like to be in for sure! I said the same thing a couple of years ago, and some here attempted to roast me for it. -- David G Fisher

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Jason Steiner wrote: > >>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how good >>>they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. >> >> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. > > How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and > therefore still investors.

Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well.

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4266a854$0$27630$[email hidden]... > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Jason Steiner wrote: > > > >>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on howgood

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >>>they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. > >> > >> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. > > > > How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and > > therefore still investors. > > Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce > something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include > being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat > offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key > word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well.

As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really just want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger. -- David G Fisher

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for >> humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many >> people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the >> returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd! > > Apparently the investors think that the money is well spent. That > might not be true, but it's their money, and in their opinion, the > opportunity cost of advertising with F1 teams is not outweighed > by other opportunities. >

Those in Russia that were exterminated, marking the beginning of communism thought it was "their" money too. > The same is true of any sport. But I can say with certainty that the > money spent on auto racing produces more technology than money spent > on, say, basketball. > No arguement there. Let's not forget F1 borrows much from the aircraft and motor industry as well. The returns from F1 back to these industries probably amounts to very little, especially these days were innovation is basically stamped out by the rules which virtually dictates the design of every car.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> The thing that makes me laugh about professional sport is that you >> could get most of the sportsmen to do what they do for free. >> Michael Schumacher would be on about $50Mil per year and that is >> nuts - what does the world get out of that? > > Ferarri gets a charismatic representative. Which in advertising, > is everything. You could get a lot of people to play basketball > for free too, but not very many will draw the kinds of crowds that > the advertisers want. >

So there are no charismatic people unless they get paid a lot of money? - rubbish. My fondest memories of rugby league here in Australia go back to it's amateur days and those players were much more rich in character since they weren't suffocated by the demands and conservativisms of all the sponsors. Professional sportsmen are a bunch of prototypical drones who are pathetically conservative in what they say - very boring. >> And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how >> good they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. > > And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. > It would be possible to have an F1 series with voluteering engineers and drivers with all funds put into the materials and machinery etc. But just a budget cap put on the entire team is most practical.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> What we have in formula one at the moment is NOT motorsport - it is >> an exercise in money gathering. Everything that happens on the >> track is pretty much proportional to the budget of each team. > > All the more reason to have charismatic and talented personalities > to attract an audience, investors, and money. >

This idea that charisma is dependent upon money is amusing.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Ferrari have dominated on the track for years but it is simply a >> reflection of budget. > > If that was all it was, they could burn the money and have the > same results. But they don't. They invest it in technology and > engineers to create technology, and that investment is wisely made. > If another team can invest more wisely and obtain more with less, > they'll win. Alternately, if another team can attract better talent > and a larger audience, they can get a larger budget too. >

This notion that winning is not related to budget is absurd. Ferrari's fortunes are due to poaching all the talented engineers developed in a host of other teams with obscene amounts of money - end of story. >> F1 needs to introduce some sort of parity with respect to budget >> otherwise it will become a total joke to everyone. > > You already have every other race on the planet. Why isn't that enough? > I think you said this b4 somewhere - wtf does it mean?

Jason Steiner wrote: >>The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things >>which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed. > > In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not necessarily. Not necessarily, but they are at present and have been in the short and medium term past. Without outside direction (i.e. rule manipulation) they are highly likely to remain so. >>Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by prodding >>F1 more or less gently in useful directions. > > Is it working? Hmmmmm..... Trouble is, road car research tries to automate as much as possible to stop us idiots driving into each other (ABS, CVT, TSC, ESP, TLA etc), whereas these are the work of the devil as far as racing is concerned. Racing is "money no object", road cars are fundamentally TS16949 "value chain efficieny" driven. > So? Wind tunnels are assets. Once you've got the initial investment > to build one, you have a resource that can be used by everyone, > including road car makers. In theory, sure, but in practice every F1 team runs their wind tunnel 365/24/7 in search of every molecule of advantage. > Designed and built by engineers. You don't pay the engine, you > pay the people who make it. In the case of beryllium, that will be miners. You don't "make it", you dig it up and pay a fortune for it. >>or pay a Toyota > > And its engineers. No, that's HALF the amount of engineers from your original point. The purchase team don't need to design an engine because they buy one. If ten team design engines you have ten lots of engineers - if all buy from one team, that's one tenth the number of engineers. Counting the same thing twice is something only our government get away with :-)

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce >>something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include >>being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat >>offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key >>word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well. > > > As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really just > want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger.

The NFL now differs to what it was like when people were younger - point is it's better also. I suppose your statement is intentionally provocative, since as a rebuttal it's a non-event. There is no correlation that older=worse / newer=better, or vice-versa. I can't see any evidence of people choosing on that basis either. On the other hand some people are saying "situation A (of which I have experience) was good, and situation B (of which I also have experience) is not. If someone has experience of only one of those, they can surely recognise they have less knowledge from which to draw a conclusion. That's not to say either is right or wrong, but it's a point of which to be aware.

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. > > If you introduce something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have > penalties that include being thrown out for the season and even > multiple seasons for repeat offenders, then himan resources are > preserved and the sport (and the key word here is indeed SPORT) is > better as well.

If by "sport" you mean "pointless diversion". If I want to see artificially created drama, I'll go watch an opera. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who reallyjust > want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger. > > -- > David G Fisher I can't speak for any of the others but I, for one, would be content if merely I were to become what I was when I was younger. Everything else could then stay just as it is. ;o) Elrikk

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Jason Steiner wrote: > > > > > Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by > > > prodding F1 more or less gently in useful directions. > > > > Is it working? > > Hmmmmm..... > > Trouble is, road car research tries to automate as much as possible > to stop us idiots driving into each other (ABS, CVT, TSC, ESP, TLA > etc), whereas these are the work of the devil as far as racing is > concerned.

Then there's no need to make them against the rules. If they're really detrimental to performance, teams will avoid them or lose. If they aren't, then we've learned something. > Racing is "money no object", road cars are fundamentally TS16949 > "value chain efficieny" driven. Yet race technology still comes to road cars. > > So? Wind tunnels are assets. Once you've got the initial investment > > to build one, you have a resource that can be used by everyone, > > including road car makers. > > In theory, sure, but in practice every F1 team runs their wind tunnel > 365/24/7 in search of every molecule of advantage. Even if they do, they're increasing the overall demand for wind tunnels, which leads to economies of scale, and lower costs for road car companies. > > Designed and built by engineers. You don't pay the engine, you > > pay the people who make it. > > In the case of beryllium, that will be miners. You don't "make it", you > dig it up and pay a fortune for it. Cool. Miners and metallurgists need to eat too. And once we have that demand for beryllium and knowledge of how to work it, there's no telling what'll be made out of that next. Titanium used to just be for aerospace. Now I've got titanium holding my right arm together, and a titanium watch on my left wrist.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > or pay a Toyota > > > > And its engineers. > > No, that's HALF the amount of engineers from your original point. > The purchase team don't need to design an engine because they buy > one. If ten team design engines you have ten lots of engineers - if > all buy from one team, that's one tenth the number of engineers.

Or the same number of engineers doing that much more R&D. Or maybe 1/10th the number of engineers, but the price of each engine is dropped, allowing teams to spend more money on engineers to refine other parts of their cars that will provide a greater return on investment. Either way, efficiency is good. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for > >> humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many > >> people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the > >> returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd! > > > > Apparently the investors think that the money is well spent. That > > might not be true, but it's their money, and in their opinion, the > > opportunity cost of advertising with F1 teams is not outweighed > > by other opportunities. > > Those in Russia that were exterminated, marking the beginning of > communism thought it was "their" money too.

I take it this means you want to storm the head offices of F1 like it was the Winter Palace and put all their money to work building Ladas for the proletariat. > > You already have every other race on the planet. Why isn't that enough? > > I think you said this b4 somewhere - wtf does it mean? It means that there are plenty of sports that are designed to create artificial drama in order to keep the masses drooling before their televisions. Many of them even involve vehicles. If that's what you want, you've already got plenty of choices to drool over. What so offends you about the idea that one sport might actually promote technological advancement first? jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jason Steiner wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. >> >>If you introduce something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have >>penalties that include being thrown out for the season and even >>multiple seasons for repeat offenders, then himan resources are >>preserved and the sport (and the key word here is indeed SPORT) is >>better as well. > > > If by "sport" you mean "pointless diversion". > > If I want to see artificially created drama, I'll go watch an opera.

Hmm, not a NASCAR fan....

Jason Steiner wrote: > Then there's no need to make them against the rules. If they're > really detrimental to performance, teams will avoid them or lose. > If they aren't, then we've learned something. These cost little, but are detrimental to "racing" since they cut down on human error. If you make it one automaton racing another then it's a world car championship, or more precisely a world bank balance championship. >>Racing is "money no object", road cars are fundamentally TS16949 >>"value chain efficieny" driven. > > Yet race technology still comes to road cars. As we agreed already, it comes purely by chance, and in extremely small doses. >>In theory, sure, but in practice every F1 team runs their wind tunnel >>365/24/7 in search of every molecule of advantage. > > Even if they do, they're increasing the overall demand for wind > tunnels, which leads to economies of scale, and lower costs for road > car companies. One extra wind tunnel is not an economy of scale. These come from fixed cost dilution over vast numbers of units.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>In the case of beryllium, that will be miners. You don't "make it", you >>dig it up and pay a fortune for it. > > Cool. Miners and metallurgists need to eat too. And once we have that > demand for beryllium and knowledge of how to work it, there's no > telling what'll be made out of that next. Titanium used to just be > for aerospace. Now I've got titanium holding my right arm together, > and a titanium watch on my left wrist.

So we'll be treating more countries like we have Burma and Indonesia, in order to pillage their precious minerals. I can't wait, it sounds like heaven.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>And its engineers. >> >>No, that's HALF the amount of engineers from your original point. >>The purchase team don't need to design an engine because they buy >>one. If ten team design engines you have ten lots of engineers - if >>all buy from one team, that's one tenth the number of engineers. > > Or the same number of engineers doing that much more R&D.

Why would you pay that when you're the only game in town? That is not economy of scale. > Either way, efficiency is good. Yes, but not necessarily for us.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > > >> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce > >>something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include > >>being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat > >>offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key > >>word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well. > > > > > > As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really

just > > want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger. > > The NFL now differs to what it was like when people were younger - point > is it's better also. Many things about the NFL are better now they ever were. The athletes are better. Bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than ever, but the league has certainly gone downhill somewhat int he past 10 + years. It's gone downhill precisely because it's done to itself what Jason wants F1 to avoid. The NFL has done everything it could to bring parity among it's teams. *Salary cap*. High player turnover. Rental players, and barely recognizable rosters of rivals makes for boring football. Without any effort, I used to know most of the starting rosters of division rivals, and most other teams. Hasn't been that way for about a dozen years now. No more teams with personality that develops over time. Rivalries have faded. As soon as you come to know a player, they are (usually) gone. I hate parity in the NFL. The Eagles are my local team, so I hardly have much to complain about btw. A perfect example is the current Eagles. They've won more games over the past five years than any team except New England, but even they aren't a team that wows you because *they are just a step above the forced parity* of the rest of the league. Super Bowl last year. Four straight Championship games. Boring as hell compared to the Eagles of the mid 80's to early 90's (before parity was introduced). The latter team had a large group of star players that were together for many years, and had a great team personality. Their division rivals were dominant, Super Bowl winning teams for a long period of time, which made for awesome football games that people still talk about today. It was Randall Cunningham vs. Lawrence Taylor. Reggie White vs. Phil Simms. Awesome MNF games. Now?? The Giants have had how many starting QB's in the past 5 years? Who are their linebackers? I still remember all three of their linebackers from about 1990 (P. Johnson, Carson, Taylor). There were exciting teams with recognizable rosters throughout the league during that pre-parity/salary cap era. Now, the Eagles division rivals are boring, unrecognizable teams who finish 6-10, 7-9, or 8-8 every year, and the games are completely forgettable. This has been going on for 5 years now. The Eagles don't win a SB though because they aren't really a dominant team either. Just a half step above the rest. Another team has managed to squeeze past them each year. Then, those teams that defeated them become just another 7-9/8-8 team the following years. Nothing memorable about them at all. THey just fade away. Everybody has a chance to make the playoffs until about week 13, and that's what the NFL wants. Isn't parity wonderful? Now we should make F1 so everbody has a chance to win? Just like NASCAR? Take away the high priced cars and high priced drivers? Ugh. > I suppose your statement is intentionally provocative, since as a > rebuttal it's a non-event. I've been reading posts in this newsgroup since 1997 from older sim racers who constantly say the same old boring thing. Basically, they say current F1 is boring, and the cars aren't *cars* like the cars from the late 60's and 70's were *cars*. Old F1/road racing good. Modern F1 bad. Who knows how many times I've rolled my eyes when reading that "good 'ol days" nonsense.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>There is no correlation that older=worse / > newer=better, or vice-versa. I can't see any evidence of people choosing > on that basis either. > > On the other hand some people are saying "situation A (of which I have > experience) was good, and situation B (of which I also have experience) > is not. If someone has experience of only one of those, they can surely > recognise they have less knowledge from which to draw a conclusion. > That's not to say either is right or wrong, but it's a point of which to > be aware.

Yes, that's what they are doing. I know that. The problem is, emotion and nostalgia are clouding their judgment. It's like the old timer who thinks an NFL player like Chuck Bednarik would shut down Terrell Owens, when in fact a player like Owens would of embarrassed him. -- David G Fisher

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Jason Steiner wrote: > > > Then there's no need to make them against the rules. If they're > > really detrimental to performance, teams will avoid them or lose. > > If they aren't, then we've learned something. > > These cost little, but are detrimental to "racing" since they cut > down on human error. If you make it one automaton racing another > then it's a world car championship, or more precisely a world bank > balance championship.

Another person who thinks racing is about competition (even artificially sustained competition) rather than going fast.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >>Racing is "money no object", road cars are fundamentally TS16949 > >>"value chain efficieny" driven. > > > > Yet race technology still comes to road cars. > > As we agreed already, it comes purely by chance, and in extremely > small doses.

That's something.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >>In theory, sure, but in practice every F1 team runs their wind > >>tunnel 365/24/7 in search of every molecule of advantage. > > > > Even if they do, they're increasing the overall demand for wind > > tunnels, which leads to economies of scale, and lower costs for > > road car companies. > > One extra wind tunnel is not an economy of scale. These come from > fixed cost dilution over vast numbers of units.

Economies of scale can happen at quantities as low as 2.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Cool. Miners and metallurgists need to eat too. And once we have that > > demand for beryllium and knowledge of how to work it, there's no > > telling what'll be made out of that next. Titanium used to just be > > for aerospace. Now I've got titanium holding my right arm together, > > and a titanium watch on my left wrist. > > So we'll be treating more countries like we have Burma and Indonesia, in > order to pillage their precious minerals. I can't wait, it sounds like > heaven.

If you're that much of an anti-capitalist luddite, you shouldn't be interested in racing at all. Go watch soccer, or another sport that can be played by kids with nothing more than a ball and a couple of sticks stuck in the ground. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Kwc9e.2033$[email hidden]... > But not for all - on the other hand, the crisis of F1 has seen its numbers > fuel to 300million viewers per race. A crisis I'd like to be in for sure! Is that 300 million figure the one based on Bernie Ecclestone's 'magic numbers' game, where if you happen to see the results on the evening news round up, you count as a race viewer? Tim -- ---------------- you've got to admire Austria, a country that convinced the world that Hitler was a German, and Mozart, Austrian Jim Richardson - Usenet out-take If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores. Currently listening to: 'Hurt (live)' - Nine Inch Nails

Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it is the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and world cup. "Helicon_One" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d495g5$mh$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Kwc9e.2033$[email hidden]... >> But not for all - on the other hand, the crisis of F1 has seen its >> numbers fuel to 300million viewers per race. A crisis I'd like to be in >> for sure! > > Is that 300 million figure the one based on Bernie Ecclestone's 'magic > numbers' game, where if you happen to see the results on the evening news > round up, you count as a race viewer? > > Tim > -- > ---------------- > you've got to admire Austria, a country that convinced the world that > Hitler was a German, and Mozart, Austrian > Jim Richardson - Usenet out-take > > If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores. > > Currently listening to: 'Hurt (live)' - Nine Inch Nails >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4266a854$0$27630$[email hidden]... >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > Jason Steiner wrote: >> > >> >>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how > good >> >>>they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing. >> >> >> >> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport. >> > >> > How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and >> > therefore still investors. >> >> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce >> something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include >> being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat >> offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key >> word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well. > > As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really > just > want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger. >

Just nonsense - but true in some ways. Up until about 1990 or so, motorsport was on the up and up - cars got faster every year. It had to end somewhere :( Whilst on this theme, though there's nothing wrong with mine, I must say I always feel a little envious when a tennis player gets a new set of balls to serve with.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (79 lines)

> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> David G Fisher wrote: >> >> >> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you >> >> introduce >> >>something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that >> >>include >> >>being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat >> >>offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the >> >>key >> >>word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well. >> > >> > >> > As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really > just >> > want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger. >> >> The NFL now differs to what it was like when people were younger - point >> is it's better also. > > Many things about the NFL are better now they ever were. The athletes are > better. Bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than ever, but the > league has certainly gone downhill somewhat int he past 10 + years. It's > gone downhill precisely because it's done to itself what Jason wants F1 to > avoid. The NFL has done everything it could to bring parity among it's > teams. > > *Salary cap*. > > High player turnover. Rental players, and barely recognizable rosters of > rivals makes for boring football. Without any effort, I used to know most > of > the starting rosters of division rivals, and most other teams. Hasn't been > that way for about a dozen years now. No more teams with personality that > develops over time. Rivalries have faded. As soon as you come to know a > player, they are (usually) gone. I hate parity in the NFL. The Eagles are > my > local team, so I hardly have much to complain about btw. > > A perfect example is the current Eagles. They've won more games over the > past five years than any team except New England, but even they aren't a > team that wows you because *they are just a step above the forced parity* > of > the rest of the league. Super Bowl last year. Four straight Championship > games. Boring as hell compared to the Eagles of the mid 80's to early 90's > (before parity was introduced). The latter team had a large group of star > players that were together for many years, and had a great team > personality. > Their division rivals were dominant, Super Bowl winning teams for a long > period of time, which made for awesome football games that people still > talk > about today. It was Randall Cunningham vs. Lawrence Taylor. Reggie White > vs. > Phil Simms. Awesome MNF games. Now?? The Giants have had how many starting > QB's in the past 5 years? Who are their linebackers? I still remember all > three of their linebackers from about 1990 (P. Johnson, Carson, Taylor). > There were exciting teams with recognizable rosters throughout the league > during that pre-parity/salary cap era. Now, the Eagles division rivals are > boring, unrecognizable teams who finish 6-10, 7-9, or 8-8 every year, and > the games are completely forgettable. This has been going on for 5 years > now. The Eagles don't win a SB though because they aren't really a > dominant > team either. Just a half step above the rest. Another team has managed to > squeeze past them each year. Then, those teams that defeated them become > just another 7-9/8-8 team the following years. Nothing memorable about > them > at all. THey just fade away. > > Everybody has a chance to make the playoffs until about week 13, and > that's > what the NFL wants. Isn't parity wonderful? > > Now we should make F1 so everbody has a chance to win? Just like NASCAR? > Take away the high priced cars and high priced drivers? > > Ugh. >

I smell a little bit of pot calling kettle black here with reguard to people wanting things the way they were. But I too have fond memories of my beloved Raiders from the early 80s, 49ers, Giants, Redskins and especially da Bears of 1985!

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > I suppose your statement is intentionally provocative, since as a >> rebuttal it's a non-event. > > I've been reading posts in this newsgroup since 1997 from older sim racers > who constantly say the same old boring thing. Basically, they say current > F1 > is boring, and the cars aren't *cars* like the cars from the late 60's and > 70's were *cars*. Old F1/road racing good. Modern F1 bad. Who knows how > many times I've rolled my eyes when reading that "good 'ol days" nonsense. >

Well the fact is that the last decade or so has been an exercise by the rulemakers to slow the cars down - and that is certainly boring even though it is necessary. Now more recently we have budget dictated outcomes and often processional racing. With the rules all but dictating the design of the cars there is no doubt that performance is more related to budget than ever b4. There is nothing exciting about races being decided by factors that have little to do with driver and team imo - other than that the best drivers and engineers are gathered in 1 place due to budget.

Quoted text (19 lines)

>>There is no correlation that older=worse / >> newer=better, or vice-versa. I can't see any evidence of people choosing >> on that basis either. >> >> On the other hand some people are saying "situation A (of which I have >> experience) was good, and situation B (of which I also have experience) >> is not. If someone has experience of only one of those, they can surely >> recognise they have less knowledge from which to draw a conclusion. > >> That's not to say either is right or wrong, but it's a point of which to >> be aware. > > Yes, that's what they are doing. I know that. The problem is, emotion and > nostalgia are clouding their judgment. It's like the old timer who thinks > an > NFL player like Chuck Bednarik would shut down Terrell Owens, when in fact > a > player like Owens would of embarrassed him. >

Well, not for me. I want to see extraordinary performances by drivers and teams deciding F1 races - not budget. I am enthusiastic about this, yes. I'm also completely rational and 100% correct as I always am! :)

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for >> >> humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many >> >> people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the >> >> returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd! >> > >> > Apparently the investors think that the money is well spent. That >> > might not be true, but it's their money, and in their opinion, the >> > opportunity cost of advertising with F1 teams is not outweighed >> > by other opportunities. >> >> Those in Russia that were exterminated, marking the beginning of >> communism thought it was "their" money too. > > I take it this means you want to storm the head offices of F1 like it > was the Winter Palace and put all their money to work building Ladas > for the proletariat. >

LOL.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> > You already have every other race on the planet. Why isn't that enough? >> >> I think you said this b4 somewhere - wtf does it mean? > > It means that there are plenty of sports that are designed to create > artificial drama in order to keep the masses drooling before their > televisions. Many of them even involve vehicles. If that's what you > want, you've already got plenty of choices to drool over. > > What so offends you about the idea that one sport might actually > promote technological advancement first? >

If that's what they were doing it would be ok - and with much less money. You realise that you're talking about a sport that has basically suffocated any substantial innovation due to the rules. The odd internal combustion engine upgrade, the odd aerodynamic gimmic, an electronic/computing trick here and there - for a mere 2.5Bil per year or so?????????????? All of which would have probably been developed by the automotive industry and others anyway? Ummm, I dont think so!

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> So we'll be treating more countries like we have Burma and Indonesia, in >> order to pillage their precious minerals. I can't wait, it sounds like >> heaven. > > If you're that much of an anti-capitalist luddite, you shouldn't > be interested in racing at all. Go watch soccer, or another > sport that can be played by kids with nothing more than a ball and > a couple of sticks stuck in the ground. >

If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who first claimed that humanity was getting great returns from F1 - that makes you the commy doesn't it? :) The rest of us have simply addressed the issue raised by you you commy bastard! :)

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. >> >> If you introduce something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have >> penalties that include being thrown out for the season and even >> multiple seasons for repeat offenders, then himan resources are >> preserved and the sport (and the key word here is indeed SPORT) is >> better as well. > > If by "sport" you mean "pointless diversion". > > If I want to see artificially created drama, I'll go watch an opera. >

If I want to see pre determined outcomes I'll join the mob and go and rig some baseball games. It's terrible when someone wont admit they're wrong and they then break down to pointless argument :)

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V%U9e.10827$[email hidden]... > Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it is > the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and world > cup. A mere consequence of more people with TVs.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it >> is >> the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and >> world cup. > > A mere consequence of more people with TVs. >

The fact that people watch F1 is because they have TVs? They could be watching nascar or scuba diving - but they're watching F1.

Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > What so offends you about the idea that one sport might actually > > promote technological advancement first? > > If that's what they were doing it would be ok - and with much less > money. > > You realise that you're talking about a sport that has basically > suffocated any substantial innovation due to the rules.

And you propose to fix that with even more rules. All I want is one mostly-unrestricted racing venue. Just one. jason -- "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned, they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things, smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jason Steiner wrote: > Another person who thinks racing is about competition (even artificially > sustained competition) rather than going fast. First off, racing *is* abot competition - going fast is purely incidental. Kart racing is massively slower than F1 - by that definition it should not be racing? A Boeing 737 is pretty fast - but watching two airlines fly quickly to New York isn't racing. >>One extra wind tunnel is not an economy of scale. These come from >>fixed cost dilution over vast numbers of units. > > Economies of scale can happen at quantities as low as 2. Where did I say they couldn't? But it doesn't happen with wind tunnels. > If you're that much of an anti-capitalist luddite, you shouldn't > be interested in racing at all. Go watch soccer, or another > sport that can be played by kids with nothing more than a ball and > a couple of sticks stuck in the ground. Jason, stop being a twat. If yuou can't debate without resorting to ridiculous pigeon-holing don't bother. As for soccer, there's a LOT more money in soccer than in F1, so what's your point?

alex martini wrote: > Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it is > the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and world > cup. Football is FAR bigger. Okay, not as many people watch each individual match, but over a weekend as a whole there are far more people watching football than watching F1 That's proper football btw, not American football.

Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1 (one event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise we are talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all football matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is that, as a one off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting event. "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> alex martini wrote: >> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it >> is the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and >> world cup. > > Football is FAR bigger. Okay, not as many people watch each individual > match, but over a weekend as a whole there are far more people watching > football than watching F1 > > That's proper football btw, not American football.

"Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: >> "Jason Steiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >> > What so offends you about the idea that one sport might actually >> > promote technological advancement first? >> >> If that's what they were doing it would be ok - and with much less >> money. >> >> You realise that you're talking about a sport that has basically >> suffocated any substantial innovation due to the rules. > > And you propose to fix that with even more rules. >

I'm really not interested whether humanity gets big returns from motorsport or not - other than entertainment. Having results dictated by budget is not entertaining to me. > All I want is one mostly-unrestricted racing venue. Just one. > You should hang out at late night burger joints then! :)

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Zo6ae.10913$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >>> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it >>> is >>> the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and >>> world cup. >> >> A mere consequence of more people with TVs. >> > The fact that people watch F1 is because they have TVs? They could be > watching nascar or scuba diving - but they're watching F1. >

And if F1 want that to contunue then budget dictated outcomes MUST go. Btw - GO WEBBER!

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Onuae.2204$[email hidden]... > Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1 (one > event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should > compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise we > are talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all > football matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is > that, as a one off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting event. Superbowl? Soccer World Cup? Wimbledon? It's different too. Many nations are represented in many ways at every F1 event.

alex martini wrote: > Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1 (one > event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should > compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise we are > talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all football > matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is that, as a one > off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting event. In that case your comparison is not exactly fair - one biggest football match is not made available to the entire audience the way F1 is. When it is (e.g. World Cup final) football is the largest. The original point was not about viewing figures - the assertion was that F1 was the biggest sport on earth, irrespective of what the numbers say. However as everyone outside the US knows, football is by far the biggest sport on earth.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > alex martini wrote: > > Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1(one > > event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should > > compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise weare > > talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all football > > matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is that, as aone

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting event. > > In that case your comparison is not exactly fair - one biggest football > match is not made available to the entire audience the way F1 is. When > it is (e.g. World Cup final) football is the largest. > > The original point was not about viewing figures - the assertion was > that F1 was the biggest sport on earth, irrespective of what the numbers > say. However as everyone outside the US knows, football is by far the > biggest sport on earth.

I suppose soccer is probably the biggest sport on earth, mainly because it's a sport that the poorest people on the planet can play. All you need is a ball to play soccer. You can fairly compare soccer to auto racing, but not soccer to F1. F1 is a league, like the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. F1 is a league within motorsport. There is no soccer league, even if you include all the games played in one week in whatever soccer league you choose, that comes close to the viewing numbers of one F1 race. No idea how many total viewers watch soccer throughout the world each weekend, but I do wonder though if it equals the viewers for one F1 race. As successful as the NFL is for example, it's total viewership for one weekend is dwarfed by F1 (same thing for NASCAR). Even the Super Bowl doesn't draw nearly as many viewers as tomorrow's Imola race. F1 is clearly the most successful league on the planet. It dwarfs the other leagues within it's sport, and all other leagues in other sports. Since nobody is trying to win the prize for #1 sport, but there are many striving for #1 league, I think F1 has a lot to celebrate considering it's dominance. -- David G Fisher

football world cup is once every four years - wimbledon is once a year (and nowhere close, as far as I know, to one F1 race) and the superbowl same "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:426a9390$0$27616$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Onuae.2204$[email hidden]... >> Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1 (one >> event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should >> compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise we >> are talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all >> football matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is >> that, as a one off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting >> event. > > Superbowl? Soccer World Cup? Wimbledon? > > It's different too. Many nations are represented in many ways at every > F1 event. >

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> alex martini wrote: >> Well I'm not sure you're rightto compare it this way - to compare F1 (one >> event) to ALL football matches in a weekend is hardly fair - you should >> compare it to the biggest match of the weekend to be fair - otherwise we >> are talking motor sports versus football (all racing series vs all >> football matches over one weekend) which wasn't my point. My point is >> that, as a one off "match", F1 has no competition from any sporting >> event. > > In that case your comparison is not exactly fair - one biggest football > match is not made available to the entire audience the way F1 is. When it > is (e.g. World Cup final) football is the largest. > > The original point was not about viewing figures - the assertion was that > F1 was the biggest sport on earth, irrespective of what the numbers say. > However as everyone outside the US knows, football is by far the biggest > sport on earth.

Certainly not my assertion - and big football matches nowadays are indeed available to a huge audience - chelsea-aresenal was shown in 110 countries ...

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:426a8cc2$0$27633$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Zo6ae.10913$[email hidden]... >> >>>> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say it >>>> is >>>> the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and >>>> world cup. >>> >>> A mere consequence of more people with TVs. >>> >> The fact that people watch F1 is because they have TVs? They could be >> watching nascar or scuba diving - but they're watching F1. >> > > And if F1 want that to contunue then budget dictated outcomes MUST go. > > Btw - GO WEBBER! >

Webber? who's he then ;-). But Schumi is amazing - 36 and he has what I consider to be his finest race in a decade. Amazing ... Alonso vs Schumi - just like it should have been Senna vs Schumi - looks like it's gonna be a great season eh!

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YIYae.11268$[email hidden]... > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:426a8cc2$0$27633$[email hidden]... > > > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Zo6ae.10913$[email hidden]... > >> > >>>> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to sayit

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >>>> is > >>>> the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and > >>>> world cup. > >>> > >>> A mere consequence of more people with TVs. > >>> > >> The fact that people watch F1 is because they have TVs? They could be > >> watching nascar or scuba diving - but they're watching F1. > >> > > > > And if F1 want that to contunue then budget dictated outcomes MUST

go.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > Btw - GO WEBBER! > > > Webber? who's he then ;-). But Schumi is amazing - 36 and he has what I > consider to be his finest race in a decade. Amazing ... Alonso vs Schumi - > just like it should have been Senna vs Schumi - looks like it's gonna be a > great season eh!

Schumacher was incredible today. The pass on Button was worth all the passes in 20 NASCAR races. Alonso wasn't even close to his pace in that race. I said somewhere in this thread last week that I hope MS comes back and wins the championship so he can thumb his nose at those who have celebrated the changes made in F1 to try and stop him. Looks like he may be back on top again. Renault wasn't close today. -- David G Fisher

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YIYae.11268$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:426a8cc2$0$27633$[email hidden]... >> >> "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:Zo6ae.10913$[email hidden]... >>> >>>>> Indeed; whatever the numbers though, I think it would be safe to say >>>>> it is >>>>> the biggest sport on earth - with the exception of the olympics and >>>>> world cup. >>>> >>>> A mere consequence of more people with TVs. >>>> >>> The fact that people watch F1 is because they have TVs? They could be >>> watching nascar or scuba diving - but they're watching F1. >>> >> >> And if F1 want that to contunue then budget dictated outcomes MUST go. >> >> Btw - GO WEBBER! >> > Webber? who's he then ;-). But Schumi is amazing - 36 and he has what I > consider to be his finest race in a decade. Amazing ... Alonso vs Schumi - > just like it should have been Senna vs Schumi - looks like it's gonna be a > great season eh! >

Great race! But yeah, wtf happened to Webber and Williams???????????????????? :(((((

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YIYae.11268$[email hidden]... >> > Webber? who's he then ;-). But Schumi is amazing - 36 and he has what I > consider to be his finest race in a decade. Amazing ... Alonso vs Schumi - > just like it should have been Senna vs Schumi - looks like it's gonna be a > great season eh! Highly entertaining. The rate Massa was catching the two gives a clear indication of how ragged Alonso's car was, and what a good job he was doing to keep Schumacher at bay.

David G Fisher wrote: > Schumacher was incredible today. The pass on Button was worth all the passes > in 20 NASCAR races. Alonso wasn't even close to his pace in that race. I > said somewhere in this thread last week that I hope MS comes back and wins > the championship so he can thumb his nose at those who have celebrated the > changes made in F1 to try and stop him. Looks like he may be back on top > again. Renault wasn't close today. MS certainly was sensational, but if indeed he had that raw pace relative to Alonso, where was he in first qualifying? Why in "flat out mode" did he not have the legs of Alonso and/or Raikkonen? In terms of rule changes, what is pretty disappointing is how rule changes designed to avoid the problem of following another car's dirty air seems to have been exacerbated. MS is 2+ seconds a lap faster and can't pass his brother?! I actually thought the Button pass was pretty lucky - well taken opportunist move, but more of a daft error by Button (stumbling over the backmarker) than a sensational move by MS. Still, with Raikonnen's pace, Alonso and the rebounding Ferrari, the combination of the three *might* be enough even to make Barcelona interesting.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David G Fisher wrote: > > > Schumacher was incredible today. The pass on Button was worth all thepasses > > in 20 NASCAR races. Alonso wasn't even close to his pace in that race. I > > said somewhere in this thread last week that I hope MS comes back andwins > > the championship so he can thumb his nose at those who have celebratedthe > > changes made in F1 to try and stop him. Looks like he may be back on top > > again. Renault wasn't close today. > > MS certainly was sensational, but if indeed he had that raw pace > relative to Alonso, where was he in first qualifying? Why in "flat out > mode" did he not have the legs of Alonso and/or Raikkonen? Maybe the other cars just aren't as fast when they have some fuel on board. > In terms of rule changes, what is pretty disappointing is how rule > changes designed to avoid the problem of following another car's dirty > air seems to have been exacerbated. MS is 2+ seconds a lap faster and > can't pass his brother?! Trulli held up a long line of cars, including both Schumacher brothers, for a long time because nobody could pass anyone due to the track. MS couldn't get past Alonso, not so much because Alonso was so good (even he said he was 99% sure MS wouldn't be able to get by) but because of the track. I like Imola, but they need to widen the track (if possible), or at least drop the curbs. It has a nice layout and it's picturesque, but the modern cars are just too fast for that track. I don't think the rule changes were the problem. >I actually thought the Button pass was pretty > lucky - well taken opportunist move, but more of a daft error by Button > (stumbling over the backmarker) than a sensational move by MS. I really disagree with this. That chicane is a very tricky spot for the drivers when alone, and to pass Button there the way he did amazed me. Maybe not in another type of race car (much slower), but in a F1 rocket, it was pretty fantastic and daring pass. . > Still, with Raikonnen's pace, Alonso and the rebounding Ferrari, the > combination of the three *might* be enough even to make Barcelona > interesting. -- David G Fisher

John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > In terms of rule changes, what is pretty disappointing is how rule > changes designed to avoid the problem of following another car's dirty > air seems to have been exacerbated. MS is 2+ seconds a lap faster and > can't pass his brother?! I actually thought the Button pass was pretty > lucky - well taken opportunist move, but more of a daft error by Button > (stumbling over the backmarker) than a sensational move by MS. >

In the post-race press conference, Michael said Button got onto some dirt thrown up by the squabbling Wiliams. He conceded that allowed him to slip through, so no not a daft error on Button's part.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > >> Schumacher was incredible today. The pass on Button was worth all the >> passes >> in 20 NASCAR races. Alonso wasn't even close to his pace in that race. I >> said somewhere in this thread last week that I hope MS comes back and >> wins >> the championship so he can thumb his nose at those who have celebrated >> the >> changes made in F1 to try and stop him. Looks like he may be back on top >> again. Renault wasn't close today. > > MS certainly was sensational, but if indeed he had that raw pace relative > to Alonso, where was he in first qualifying? Why in "flat out mode" did he > not have the legs of Alonso and/or Raikkonen? > > In terms of rule changes, what is pretty disappointing is how rule changes > designed to avoid the problem of following another car's dirty air seems > to have been exacerbated. MS is 2+ seconds a lap faster and can't pass his > brother?! I actually thought the Button pass was pretty lucky - well taken > opportunist move, but more of a daft error by Button (stumbling over the > backmarker) than a sensational move by MS. > > Still, with Raikonnen's pace, Alonso and the rebounding Ferrari, the > combination of the three *might* be enough even to make Barcelona > interesting.

bridgestones are not competitive yet on one lap qual - which is why schumi didn't have the pace - as for passing, it is as old as F1 itself - Senna vs Mansell almost 20 years ago (can it be?), Villeneuve versus about a dozen, Brabham in the 60s who was notorious for being impossible to overtake - a pass in F1 is art because it is so difficult - althouth sato took webber to school big time with his pass -