OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

BTW, what no one at ESPN wants to say publicly is that they were outbid at the last minute by, of all entities, FoxSports. Even though there are many Fox affiliates around the US, they don't all carry FoxSports, and local affiliates have a much freer hand in deciding what to run and what not to run... I've already heard wildly varying times for the Oz F1 rebroadcast. That's right -- REbroadcast. ONLY SpeedVision will have live qualifying AND race coverage -- and that's for EVERY race on the calendar... ESPN keeps mumbling about the lost coverage being "at least for the first GP", but that's horse hockey -- FoxSports got the rebroadcast rights, and SpeedVision has ALL the live rights for the US, period. In fact, I just finished watching Qualifying on SpeedVision, and Hobbs and Posey were already crowing about SpeedVisions coup -- as well they might. Bart Brown

Quoted text (8 lines)

>ESPN keeps mumbling about the lost coverage being "at least for the >first GP", but that's horse hockey -- FoxSports got the rebroadcast >rights, and SpeedVision has ALL the live rights for the US, period. In >fact, I just finished watching Qualifying on SpeedVision, and Hobbs and >Posey were already crowing about SpeedVisions coup -- as well they >might. >Bart Brown

The problem is that only about 10 people in the entire US *get* SpeedVision! This is a big blow to ESPN, F1 and all racing fans. Rob

Well those of us who don't even get ESPN2 made the transistion 2 years ago to DSS and haven't looked back so quit your crying. ESPN gave it up IMHO 2 years ago when they reduced coverage to the deuce. Far smaller market and I think F1 told them to stuff it. ESPN can stick with the Nascar joke... Buy yourself a DSS or Primestar and drop the cable. Costs have really dropped since I got mine 2 years ago and it is far superior in quality, variety, etc. Besides, you get to hear Sam Posey .... :-) Jeff Haas

>Buy yourself a DSS or Primestar and drop the cable. Costs have really >dropped since I got mine 2 years ago and it is far superior in >quality, variety, etc. Besides, you get to hear Sam Posey .... :-) >Jeff Haas Unfortunately, this really isn't a viable option for the many millions of people, like me, that live in an apartment. Rob

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>Buy yourself a DSS or Primestar and drop the cable. Costs have really >>dropped since I got mine 2 years ago and it is far superior in >>quality, variety, etc. Besides, you get to hear Sam Posey .... :-) >>Jeff Haas >Unfortunately, this really isn't a viable option for the many millions of >people, like me, that live in an apartment. >Rob

Not Really, I know several people that have a DSS in their apartment. As long as you have a balcony to put your dish.... There's still hope.... Craig

Quoted text (19 lines)

>> >Buy yourself a DSS or Primestar and drop the cable. Costs have really >> >dropped since I got mine 2 years ago and it is far superior in >> >quality, variety, etc. Besides, you get to hear Sam Posey .... :-) >> >Jeff Haas >> Unfortunately, this really isn't a viable option for the many millions of >> people, like me, that live in an apartment. >> Rob >Or like me, you could live in a condo development that bans dishes >alltogether. >No ESPN coverage, I can't get Speedvision (it's the old Time Warner vs. >Rupert Murdoch scenario), and even though I have Fox Sports network >available, it seems that in my section of the country, the Fox Sports >affiliate has decided that we don't want to see F1. This freaking sucks >bad. There is no life after F1.

i think they show a rerun of the race on NESN( New England Sports Network)

That's a good thing?

When was qualifying on on speedvision? I looked everywhere at the guides, so unless it wasn't listed on the DSS guide or on their web site, I don't know why I didn't get it. Its definitely going to be on live on SV, and is properly scheduled, but I've been watching for qualifying on it and no luck. Regarding ESPN, just as well. I get so sick of their obsession with NASCAR. Often my favorite open-wheel events are given poor coverage, RPM 2Nite is 80% NASCAR and when something has to get shuffled its always the open-wheeled series that get bumped. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

> When was qualifying on on speedvision? Randy -- It was on last night, from 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm Eastern; and a pretty good hoot it was. I agree completely about ESPN -- they're laying all the blame on FOCA, but as much as Ecclestone is the spawn of Satan, it's pretty hard to accept that ESPN would be so inept as to get outbid at the eleventh hour by as lame an entity as FoxSports. The strange thing now is that, though last night Speedvision was claiming they would be the Only live US broadcast of F1 qualifying AND races this year, today Fox is saying that they will be tape-delaying qualifying, but showing the races live, as well. Of course, my local Fox affiliate had the usual Saturday night fare (Cops, More Cops, America's Most Wanted, News, Simpsons), so I think whatever FoxSports' coverage is going to be, it's going to vary wildly all over the country as far as local affiliates are concerned. My take from all this is that though ESPN has been cut out of the negotiations, the situation is still somewhat fluid among Fox, Speedvision, and FOCA. A weird start to the season, and an equally bizarre race, which demonstrated either the greatest act of sportsmanship since Peter Collins turned over his Ferrari to Fangio at Monza, or a total ballsup on the part of Team McLaren, or possibly both. Can't wait to hear the postmortems on THIS one! Bart Brown

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Buy yourself a DSS or Primestar and drop the cable. Costs have really > >dropped since I got mine 2 years ago and it is far superior in > >quality, variety, etc. Besides, you get to hear Sam Posey .... :-) > >Jeff Haas > Unfortunately, this really isn't a viable option for the many millions of > people, like me, that live in an apartment. > Rob

Or like me, you could live in a condo development that bans dishes alltogether. No ESPN coverage, I can't get Speedvision (it's the old Time Warner vs. Rupert Murdoch scenario), and even though I have Fox Sports network available, it seems that in my section of the country, the Fox Sports affiliate has decided that we don't want to see F1. This freaking sucks bad. There is no life after F1.

> Or like me, you could live in a condo development that bans dishes > alltogether. By FCC regulation, if the condo development does not ban ALL antennas, you are permitted a dish under 1 meter, and they cannot stop you... I'm sure one of the DSS companies would be more than happy to give you more advice and specific citations on this (to get your business). ---Jim

Most of the races are in Europe, so the early Sunday morning lineup is more a concern for the US folks for most races. ---Jim

Those of you who don't own a DSS dish. Use this for an excuse to get one. You won't regret it. It gives you more bang for the buck, more choices and higher quality. I haven't missed cable one bit in ANY way. Randy

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>ESPN keeps mumbling about the lost coverage being "at least for the >>first GP", but that's horse hockey -- FoxSports got the rebroadcast >>rights, and SpeedVision has ALL the live rights for the US, period. In >>fact, I just finished watching Qualifying on SpeedVision, and Hobbs and >>Posey were already crowing about SpeedVisions coup -- as well they >>might. >>Bart Brown >The problem is that only about 10 people in the entire US *get* SpeedVision! >This is a big blow to ESPN, F1 and all racing fans. >Rob

>Or like me, you could live in a condo development that bans dishes >alltogether. I put up a dish at our condo. I find that many of the regulations that concern dishes were written with the big dishes in mind, not the mini-dishes. The rules are there, but they are outdated and can be challenged for revision. Its not like a DSS dish is an eyesore like one of the big uglies. Randy

>well. Of course, my local Fox affiliate had the usual Saturday night >fare (Cops, More Cops, America's Most Wanted, News, Simpsons), so I >think whatever FoxSports' coverage is going to be, it's going to vary >wildly all over the country as far as local affiliates are concerned. It is *NOT* the Fox network that is carrying the races. It is the Fox Sports Network, a cable channel, that will carry the races. Melbourne was broadcast here by Fox Sports Southwest at 1:00pm EST. I wonder if they will still be the "winners" of the race after the protest is decided? Rob

Nascar's a big joke eh? Look at F1. They can go ahead and feel like gods, when they cry about having to deal with 3 g's in the corners. I won't miss F1 not being on TV, all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for 2 hours. Oh yeah, tell the millions of Nascar fans around the world that its a joke. F1 is dying. All's I have to say is, 'Oh well.' Justin Kirby

Put a Nascar driver into a REAL racecar and see how he goes. That's all I have to say. -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

At least they don't have pre-race agreements and "team orders"-besides; why are we comparing the two? Two totally different forms of racing. Oh yeah at least in nascar the teams on the lower end of the $$ scale actually have a chance to win, in F1 it's the same 4 teams. George

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >> }And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......? >> Well, in NASCAR, they actually race. >Uh-huh. For the last 10 laps after the yellow flag has brought the field >back together. >Why not just have a 10-lap race and be done with it? >Bruce.

Just to correct you an F1 corners at 4.5 G's, and there will never come a point in time where Nascar will ever be on the same level as Formula One. F1 dying I don't think so a full season of Formula one is viewed by 42 billion people worldwide. If you can't stand to watch F1 than don't it's not like it matters anyway.

> all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for > 2 hours. And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......? -- Bruce (Fyshwick) "I hate music, especially when it's played." (Jimmy Durante)

> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell > }And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......? > Well, in NASCAR, they actually race. Uh-huh. For the last 10 laps after the yellow flag has brought the field back together. Why not just have a 10-lap race and be done with it? Bruce.

Yeh, they race around in circles continually, with the car biased into the turns. Thats real racing is it ? How often do NASCAR drivers have to break from 200mph down to 60mph at a hairpin ? How often do NASCAR drivers actually have to use the brake in a race ? and I mean proper braking, not just slowing down a little bit ! Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. NASCAR is just too boring to watch. IMHO. Regards Andrew

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell > }> all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for > }> 2 hours. > } > }And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......? > Well, in NASCAR, they actually race. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dave Starr > Professional Shop Rat - 33 years in an Auto Plant

-- __ / \ , , _._ _ |oo| _ / \__/ \ _|||| ((/ () \)) / \ Andrew Carroll |||||/| ( ==== ) |oo| Kodak Ltd, \____/ _`\ /'_ / \ Hemel Hempstead / /.-' /\<>/\ `\.( () )_._ UK | ` / \/ \ /`'--'////) | |. | \___/\___/ | |. | | | "All views expressed here are entirely my own and should not be taken to represent the views of Kodak Ltd or Eastman Kodak Company"

> Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. Not in the US 2 McLaren's lappin' the rest of the field isn't? How much passing was going on? Did the race get the right winner? The GP of Australia was a joke. Harald

Even though the Australian Grand Prix was a walkover it was still far from boring. The battle for third, fourth, fifth etc was quite intense for most of the race. At least the drivers have to turn the wheel in more than one direction. I can't see the attraction of watching cars go around in circles for 2 hours. Regards Andrew

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. > Not in the US > > NASCAR is just too boring to watch. IMHO. > 2 McLaren's lappin' the rest of the field isn't? How much passing was going > on? Did the race get the right winner? The GP of Australia was a joke. > Harald

-- __ / \ , , _._ _ |oo| _ / \__/ \ _|||| ((/ () \)) / \ Andrew Carroll |||||/| ( ==== ) |oo| Kodak Ltd, \____/ _`\ /'_ / \ Hemel Hempstead / /.-' /\<>/\ `\.( () )_._ UK | ` / \/ \ /`'--'////) | |. | \___/\___/ | |. | | | "All views expressed here are entirely my own and should not be taken to represent the views of Kodak Ltd or Eastman Kodak Company"

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:45:43 -0800, Andrew Carroll

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Even though the Australian Grand Prix was a walkover it was still far >from boring. The battle for third, fourth, fifth etc was quite intense >for most of the race. >At least the drivers have to turn the wheel in more than one direction. >I can't see the attraction of watching cars go around in circles for 2 >hours. >Regards >Andrew

You Brits obviously have no appreciation for the finer points of hauling a load of moonshine to market. :-) :-) :-) Actually, I found Nascar to be very boring until just a few years ago. Then I actually payed attention to one of the races and watched a little closer to see what was really going on. You might say it's a "Southern Thang" or you might say that it's (like beer) an "acquired taste" or you might just choose not to watch it. Either is fine.

Brad, I have to compliment you. Well done for not resorting to harsh language and insults as many people have already done. As you've said any sport is an acquired taste. I'm a big fan of most American sports, and most forms of Motor racing, but I just can't seem to get interested in NASCAR. On "proper" tracks (non-oval) the racing is quite good, but when watching a race on an oval I just can't seem to stay interested. I don't know if it's a coincidence but I don't drink beer either ! :-) On the other hand, my favourite drink is Southern Comfort ! :-) I don't what's going on here :-) It's nice to be able to have a civilised conversation and express your opinions without being flamed by half of USENET. Thanks again Regards Andrew

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:45:43 -0800, Andrew Carroll > >Even though the Australian Grand Prix was a walkover it was still far > >from boring. The battle for third, fourth, fifth etc was quite intense > >for most of the race. > >At least the drivers have to turn the wheel in more than one direction. > >I can't see the attraction of watching cars go around in circles for 2 > >hours. > >Regards > >Andrew > You Brits obviously have no appreciation for the finer points of > hauling a load of moonshine to market. :-) :-) :-) > Actually, I found Nascar to be very boring until just a few years ago. > Then I actually payed attention to one of the races and watched a > little closer to see what was really going on. You might say it's a > "Southern Thang" or you might say that it's (like beer) an "acquired > taste" or you might just choose not to watch it. Either is fine.

-- __ / \ , , _._ _ |oo| _ / \__/ \ _|||| ((/ () \)) / \ Andrew Carroll |||||/| ( ==== ) |oo| Kodak Ltd, \____/ _`\ /'_ / \ Hemel Hempstead / /.-' /\<>/\ `\.( () )_._ UK | ` / \/ \ /`'--'////) | |. | \___/\___/ | |. | | | "All views expressed here are entirely my own and should not be taken to represent the views of Kodak Ltd or Eastman Kodak Company"

1) How was the competition for tenth through twenty second? Must have been exciting wondering who was going to drop out of the "race" next. 2) I guess two hours is too much time to devote to watching a "race." Why spend all that time when all you have to watch in an F1 "race" is the battle into the first turn. Then you can turn the "race" off, confident in the knowledge that you have just seen the only passing for the lead to occur for the entire "race."

No team orders in NASCAR? Since when? I seem to remember a couple of years ago that the a team entered another car in the last race with the expressed purpose of ensuring that the championship leader finish at least second last (the position he needed to secure his championship.) In other words, they ran an extra car and driver who had orders to remain behind the Champ-leader and if the Champ-leader (cant remember which driver or team this was) was to drop out or crash, the "dummy" car was to fall out before passing the Champ-leader, thus ensuring the championship win. This is only one of many "team-orders" examples that I have witnessed in NASCAR, so don't try to tell me the situation doesn't apply here. Anyway, we are comparing apples to oranges here; lets just enjoy each form of motorsports for what it is. Paul > At least they don't have pre-race agreements and "team orders"-besides; why > are we comparing the two? Two totally different forms of racing. Oh yeah at > least in nascar the teams on the lower end of the $$ scale actually have a > chance to win, in F1 it's the same 4 teams.

>>Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. >Not in the US Thank you for stating the obvious, but I guess we were talking worldwide. Yes, considering Mika H?kkinen lead the race most of the time, and lost his lead only because the grease monkeys ordered him for an extra tire change uselessly. *** http://www.netlife.fi/users/ttammi/

Like someone already said, Nascar have had similar "arranged victories" too. *** [link lost in import]

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No team orders in NASCAR? Since when? I seem to remember a couple of > years ago that the a team entered another car in the last race with > the expressed purpose of ensuring that the championship leader > finish at least second last (the position he needed to secure his > championship.) In other words, they ran an extra car and driver who > had orders to remain behind the Champ-leader and if the Champ-leader > (cant remember which driver or team this was) was to drop out or > crash, the "dummy" car was to fall out before passing the > Champ-leader, thus ensuring the championship win.

I believe it was Hendrick Motorsports ensuring Jeff Gordon's first Winston Cup at the season ender at Atlanta. ---Jim

>Like someone already said, Nascar have had similar "arranged >victories" too. Name one.

> >>Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. > >Not in the US > Thank you for stating the obvious, but I guess we were talking > worldwide. Who said so? It's the car that crosses the finishline first that wins, not who led the most laps. There have been races lost for sillier things( although, I admit this one was very silly) soCoulthard should have won. He didn't make a mistake. Btw, you're from Finland, so you're not entitled to speak (too much biased), hehe. It seems that the only time I'll enjoy F1 this year is by playing GP2/F1RS/GPL. Oh well, Luckily enough, Eurosport is covering the full NASCAR/CART season :-) Cheers! Harald

>>Like someone already said, Nascar have had similar "arranged >>victories" too. >Name one. From an earlier post by Jim Sokoloff....

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No team orders in NASCAR? Since when? I seem to remember a couple of > years ago that the a team entered another car in the last race with > the expressed purpose of ensuring that the championship leader > finish at least second last (the position he needed to secure his > championship.) In other words, they ran an extra car and driver who > had orders to remain behind the Champ-leader and if the Champ-leader > (cant remember which driver or team this was) was to drop out or > crash, the "dummy" car was to fall out before passing the > Champ-leader, thus ensuring the championship win.

I believe it was Hendrick Motorsports ensuring Jeff Gordon's first Winston Cup at the season ender at Atlanta. ---Jim -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Nascar's a big joke eh? Look at F1. They can go ahead and feel like gods, > when they cry about having to deal with 3 g's in the corners. I won't miss > F1 not being on TV, all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for > 2 hours. Oh yeah, tell the millions of Nascar fans around the world that > its a joke. F1 is dying. All's I have to say is, 'Oh well.' > Justin Kirby

So F1 is dying - the biggest worldwide TV audience for a regular sporting event. Crying about 3G corners - the fact is that the drivers are decrying the slowing down of circuits and the removal of 3+G corners All they do is stay in line - yes there may be more overtaking in NASCAR but the circuits have more than one racing line. The skill in overtaking in F1 is finding the place where overtaking is possible and safe. The cars are not carved from solid billets of steel, you can't just push the guy in fron out of the way and get away with it. If you look at some of the more recent moves in F1 you can see how for a number of laps the car behind has spent time cleaning the track, looking for a gap and then making a calculated and safe move. Then there's the minor point of proper racing circuits - sure a NASCAR lap can approach a 200mph average but that's on a two or four turn oval. Before F1's obsession with slow corners both Silverstone and Hockenheim had average lap times in excess of 150 mph, in the case of silverstone this also included a 50 mph hairpin. I'd like to see a NASCAR car come anywhere close.

Please move this childish discussion somewhere else. Thank God for personal taste, vive la difference etc. Matt Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut) "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

> > Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. > Not in the US Who cares what the US think it's what the world thinks that is important.

Damn, that's only 8 times the population of the world. Bristol holds more than that! Lessee, 16 or 17 Races, divided in to 42 billion, gives 2470588235.294 viewers per race. Are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the population watches F1? Also, maybe that 4.5 Gs would impress me more if it was done somewhare besides a 35mph chicane, which is the predominent feature of F1 'tracks'.

As opposed to a race from the start to the first turn? MW

RCR had an 'extra' car in the field for the last race of Earnhardt's last champ season, also. MW

snip I am sure about CART on Eurosport, but NASCAR? I hope the coverage is really better than last year... Is there any updated source (forget their VideoText) where you can find out when the rained out Atlanta race is shown? Website? Eurosport is the channel I swear the most when watching! Screwed up sound, missed interviews, European commentary for CART races (no offense to the British commentary, but I prefer the original),... l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

: >>Like someone already said, Nascar have had similar "arranged >>victories" too. >Name one. Dale's win this year at Daytona? Except in NASCAR, it's the organiser's who fix races, not the Teams.

You got it wrong. NASCAR has at least a decade (if very, very lucky) to go before it could compete with F1 for popularity- only the most important soccer matches in the world cup beat F1 out- F1 is, per event, the most watched sport in the world, with well over a billion people watching each race. But americans don't like it- they choose NASCAR. Even over CART, which is almost surely the most interesting form of racing in the world, in terms of althetic ability and intelligence combined with speed. F1 may look like just a bunch of guys "driving in line", but if an average driver took one of those cars out- *he wouldn't be in that line*; you are watching the best of the best, and the worlds most highly paid athletes- yes, even beating american basketball players. Schumacher was contracted for nearly $40 million last year, if I remember right. If Jeffy got offered a drive in a formula one car, you think he'd hang on to NASCAR? The only reason I could imagine he'd stay with NASCAR is that he wouldn't want to have it displayed to the world that he probably couldn't earn any points the whole season. You have to be an athlete to win in open-wheel cars. This is one reason IROC has to go with the stock car format; indaycar racers, who maintain heartrates of 165 for periods of 2 or more hours, and perform complex, almost balletic manouvers with machinery while 4 or 5 G's are ripping through them, are athletes. Not to mention the fact that open wheel cars are *orders of magnitude* less safe than stock cars- no "trading paint", no sloppiness allowed, without dire consequences. NASCAR drivers are... well, billboard drivers. And yet, because of an intese emphasis on drafting with big, un-aerodynamic bodies, it ends up having some very interesting qualities, and is a sport I don't hate. All this said, I *hate* formula 1. Elitist, snobbish, and tends to stress it's althetes to the point of personality fracture. People go in to formula one as one personality and leave quite another.

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:45:43 -0800, Andrew Carroll >I can't see the attraction of watching cars go around in circles for 2 >hours. I used to think similarly until I stopped trying to dislike the sport and started trying to understand it. Most people dislike NASCAE because it is a "false" style of racing, the yellows closing up the field and rule changes bringing the cars close together when an advantage begins to happen. It is only "false" when compared to sports like F1 which are considered more "pure". NASCAR is not F1, and in any racing formulae you race to the rules that are laid down and use them to your advantage. NASCAR is no different in that respect, and when you try to predict the yellows or the possibility of a yellow against a car's strategy, you begin to appreciate the subtlety and the strategy involved. I still don't enjoy NASCAR anything like as much as I enjoy CART or especially F1, but I can certainly understand why many people do enjoy it. More to the point, despite my love affair with F1 I can readily agree with anyone who hangs the boredom flag on the Australian race. It has to be the most boring race I have ever seen, and while I don't agree with what Coulthard did I have to love him for adding at least one iota of e***ment or controversy to what was a monumentally dull "race". Some may say the racing for third was close, but anyone who knows F1 knew there was no way Fisichella could get close enough to actually put a move on Villeneuve, and once that is established it's no longer racing - it's just driving close together. Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>>Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. >>>Not in the US >>Thank you for stating the obvious, but I guess we were talking >>worldwide. >Who said so?

I just said so. Usenet is worldwide, and there are lots of non-Americans in this newsgroup. Look in the mirror sometime. ;-) Only inside one team between two drivers (still I think that kind of arrangement sucks, but fortunately it was only between two drivers), and as you have probably read already, Nascar has had its arranged victories too. I thought you'd mention that. ;-) Anyways, your question was whether the right driver won the race. Since H?kkinen lead most of the race anyway, lost his lead only because of a mishap by the team manager/grease monkeys, and was superior in qualifications too, I feel he was the right driver to win. If anything, Coulthard should have been commanded to drive through the pit uselessly too, just like H?kkinen (for obvious reasons he wasn't, since there were other teams on the track too! ;-)). If he had won after that, he would have been the right driver to win the race. But I must say it was disappointing to see how overwhelming that one team was because of its cars. Hopefully the others catch up soon. No I don't think H?kkinen is the best driver (too inexperienced I guess), but IMO he was the right driver to win that particular race. He had the right car under him (compared to other teams), and overall performed better than the other driver in the same team. *** [link lost in import]

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > F1 > >dying I don't think so a full season of Formula one is viewed by 42 billion > >people > Damn, that's only 8 times the population of the world. Bristol holds more > than that! > Lessee, 16 or 17 Races, divided in to 42 billion, gives 2470588235.294 viewers > per race. Are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the population watches F1? > Also, maybe that 4.5 Gs would impress me more if it was done somewhare besides > a 35mph chicane, which is the predominent feature of F1 'tracks'.

If you had any idea about physics you would realise that it's impossible to generate anything like 4.5g in a 35mph chicane - which there are very few of BTW, most tend to be of the order of 70-100mph. FYI 3-4.5g cornering forces are generated on at least one corner per track and in many cases more than that. Silverstone - Copse, Becketts(2 different sides), Bridge Spa - Eau Rouge(twice), Stebelot, Blanchimont, Les Fagnes Estoril - Turn 1,Turn 2, Parabolica Monza - Curva Grande, Lesmo 1, Lesmo 2, Parabolica Magny Cours - Grande Curve Interlagos - Perihinio to Senna esses Barcelona - Final 2 turns of lap Also braking from 180mph+ to 50mph will generate somewhere of the order of 2g depending on the level of downforce being run - the more downforce the shorter the braking distance and thus greater forces involved.

It Shows... Regards DM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- To reply please remove < .nospam > from my e-mail address ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue." - PC Bios Message

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >}> all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for >}> 2 hours.

Have you ever experienced 4.5G? Or even 3G which is achieved under heavy braking? Ever gone from standstill to 160mph in less than 4seconds? Or from 0-160mp and back to 0 in 4.5secs? -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

Yikes, Only while trying to teach my son to drive!!

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >> F1 > >>dying I don't think so a full season of Formula one is viewed by 42 billion > >>people > >Damn, that's only 8 times the population of the world. Bristol holds more > >than that! > >Lessee, 16 or 17 Races, divided in to 42 billion, gives 2470588235.294 viewers > >per race. Are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the population watches F1? > >Also, maybe that 4.5 Gs would impress me more if it was done somewhare besides > >a 35mph chicane, which is the predominent feature of F1 'tracks'. > Have you ever experienced 4.5G? Or even 3G which is achieved under > heavy braking? Ever gone from standstill to 160mph in less than > 4seconds? Or from 0-160mp and back to 0 in 4.5secs? > -- > Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors > - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - > - V8Supercars - CART -

>At least they don't have pre-race agreements and "team orders" How do you know? Coulthard could easily have slowed down by a second or so per lap, faked a mistake to let Hakkinen "race" his way past and you would have been none the wiser - how do you know NASCAR doesn't do that? I'd guess that Coulthard made it as obvious as possible since that puts so much more pressure on Hakkinen to reciprocate in the next race. Personally I dislike it, but it's a reality and often a necessity in any form of racing. The reason for that is because the rules are structured specifically to give even the small teams a chance of a win. You race within the rules you are given (or, more precisely) within what you think you can get away with undetected). Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1) How was the competition for tenth through twenty second? Must have been > exciting wondering who was going to drop out of the "race" next. > 2) I guess two hours is too much time to devote to watching a "race." Why > spend all that time when all you have to watch in an F1 "race" is the battle > into the first turn. Then you can turn the "race" off, confident in the > knowledge that you have just seen the only passing for the lead to occur for > the entire "race."

Comparing Nascar to F1 is a joke. 1 or maybe 2 Nascar races/year is more than enough for me. Once you get over the roar of the engines and the speed shots it's all over. The only reason I see Nascar as being so successful in the U.S. is because it's the family sedan out there doin 200mph. Same thing here in Aus with the touring cars and the heavy Ford Vs GM thing. That aside, I'd say Nascar lovers race arcade sims and F1/Cart lovers are into the proper (very snobby here) sims. Now, lets have a look at CART Vs F1. Firstly, F1 barely has the right to call itself F1 anymore. F1 has always meant to me the most open form of motorsport on planet Earth bar none. Over the last decade we have seen the clueless rules makers actually seek ways to make the cars slower and kill inovations like ABS and Active suspension. The only good thing they have done recently is get rid of that ridiculous traction control nonsense. Still, to me, F1 is easily the most entertaining form of motorsport there is. It's just so much more professional than anything else and the people involved in it are massively dedicated. Also, F1 drivers are second to none. Mansell goes CART and bingo. Andretti comes to F1 and is simply outclassed completely. Blundell, a lower level F1 driver excelling in CART. Jacques takes 3 seasons to get a F1 title in the best car. Etc. However, CART has a very big thing going for it - similar machinary and the accompanying test of drivers. It's very interesting watching ex F1 drivers competing with similar machinary. Losing Indy was a blow but CART has come a long way from having Indy as it's centre piece. All in all, the superiority of F1 is still obvious and the sights and sounds are brilliant. Also, the characters of the ultra competitive drivers adds to things dramatically. You can't beat tradition! Coulthard's actions at the Aus GP made me spew. I was suprised he didn't give Mika a big sloppy kiss in the post race interview - probably not ready to come out of the closet yet. There we were, watching in anticipation to see if Mika could catch and pass Davey poo when Davey poo decides to move over and let his lover pass. Hopeless! Maybe these guys are related to the F1 rules makers. Come to think of it it seems racing is in a slump everywhere. Can't get a perfect sim! Can't have a perfect F1 series. Modify the tracks or build new ones and lets see 1500hp race trim turbo F1 cars with ABS, Active Susp, BIG *** etc and lets see who can build the most awesome cars and who can drive them! (Shit, did I type all that?)

I agree. Most sports are boring to somebody with little knowledge of the sport. Try watching a rowing race. Utter tedium if you don't know the nuances of the race. And as for cricket, where a hundred little things go on with each delivery ... well , maybe you see what i mean. Certainly before nascar the game I had no appreciation of how hard it is to drive in a circle! And while I'll agree F1 is processional at times, there is still a whole lot going on all the time. No way is it dying out. Last season was the most interesting for a long time. This season has already had a controversial start... brian -- remove 'bye' from address to reply

> Also, F1 drivers are second to none. Mansell goes CART and bingo. >Andretti comes to F1 and is simply outclassed completely. I'm sorry but I just can't let this one slide. Its been argued to death, but the simple fact of the matter is that the two situations were entirely different in terms of the situation with the teams, the learning curve of the circuits, and various other factors that contributed to the success/failure of each driver. He wasn't excelling last year, and Zanardi didn't excel his rookie year. Christian Fittipaldi (as much as I like him) has yet to win his first race. Gugelmin finally won a race last year. Not everyone comes in and wins it all. Blundell's comments about CART on record are that when he came to CART from Formula One, he was surprised to find himself in "the most competitive open-wheel series in the world". Most F1 drivers have said similar things. There *is* less of a learning curve in CART than F1, but that's mainly because a fair portion of the tracks are ovals, where your team's ability to set up the car is vastly more important than it is on a road circuit. As Bobby Rahal said of ovals: "if you try to go fast before the car is setup to go fast, you crash". Wrong. He won the title in his 2nd season. get your facts straight. he was also a close runner up to Hill in only his rookie season in spite of never having driven most of the circuits before. AND he was put in easily the best car in F1. Do you think he'd have won at all in a Minardi? A Tyrell? How did Damon Hill do in an Arrows, anyway? In F1 the car makes up a greater % of the chances for success. In CART the driver makes up a greater % than in F1. CART is more of a driver's series. The F1 drivers are ALL excellent -- they wouldn't be there if they weren't -- but they are all so close in talent that its more the team that determines the success of the driver than anything else. Don't think for a moment that if Alex Zanardi goes back to F1 for a top team he won't get a world championship. That's right. CART is competitive and a great driver can make a bigger difference than they can if they're stuck with a backmarker F1 team. ...to you perhaps. But its a matter of opinion. Some people felt it was OBVIOUS that the world was flat and that Jews and Blacks were inferior races, and would suffer no critique of their position. In MY opinion, CART is the best. But that's my opinion. I'm not so intolerable as to come on here and claim that my opinion is the one and only truth or is "obvious". Randy

There's also the opening complex of corners (left, right, left, right) that can pull as many as 7g laterally on the flick from left to right. It's unversally acknowledged that F1 drivers experience G's usually limited to test pilots. And (for a dig at Nascar) at least F1 wasn`t born from criminal activities:) Bootleggin' rednecks:) --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

>Blundell's comments about CART on record >are that when he came to CART from Formula One, he was surprised to >find himself in "the most competitive open-wheel series in the world". >Most F1 drivers have said similar things. Mmmm, but then what would you expect him to say when being interviewed on U.S. TV on a program about CART while employed by a CART team?! Mansell said the same thing but was back at Williams like a shot - I wouldn't put tooooo much faith in what a driver says at a given moment. Perhaps after they retire. Cheers! John

>Mmmm, but then what would you expect him to say when being interviewed >on U.S. TV on a program about CART while employed by a CART team?! Not every driver is so cowed as you might think. Look at Jacques' comments last year about the rules changes in F1. Just because someone says something nice about their place that they are in does not mean that they must be lying. In his book, "My first year in Formula One" he also pays some compliments CART's way with regards to how competitive it is and how good the drivers are. This was AFTER he'd left CART. At any rate, I think that F1 drivers who come to CART do realize that suddenly they are in a position where at least half the cars in the field are capable of winning a race with the right driver. Whereas in F1 if you're not in one of maybe 4 teams you can forget it: your driving, however brilliant, will not overcome the car deficit. We need no more evidence of this than Damon Hill's adventures. A champion in Williams, a backmarker in Arrows, and a midpacker in a Jordan. I think you just see more of the driver and less of the car in CART. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > All in all, the superiority of F1 is still obvious > ...to you perhaps. But its a matter of opinion. Some people felt it > was OBVIOUS that the world was flat and that Jews and Blacks were > inferior races, and would suffer no critique of their position. In MY > opinion, CART is the best. But that's my opinion. I'm not so > intolerable as to come on here and claim that my opinion is the one > and only truth or is "obvious". > Randy

How many different chassis in CART? Engines? Etc. How many different countries involved at all levels? F1 is a true International sport whereas CART is still primarily U.S based, though that is changing. The less rules a competition has the greater it will be and I doubt I'm wrong in saying that even in these days of ridiculous F1 rule changes that F1 is still a more open format than CART. This brings the Engineering/team aspect to the fore and makes the overall championship far greater than any strictly moderated formula. It has always been my understanding that one of the key elements of F1 is the developement of new technologies for the automobile and science in general and this, IMcorrectO :), makes it greater overall than a competition designed to *** the engineering element for the sake of close racing. There's nothing like watching an F1 car with the latest and greatest gizmo's tear up a track! I have suspected that the deliberate de-evolution of F1 is designed to let CART catch up and I expect a merger soon. Btw, how is it that the U.S. has no GP races anymore? I was not paying much attention to motorsport at the time. As CART moves forward and F1 goes backwards something funny is bound to happen soon.

I have, in aircraft, but no one was paying to watch me. You ignored the other part of my statement, about 35mph chicanes. THAT's what I won't pay to watch, especially on 'street' circuits resembling medium-security prisons. Racing, to me, should at least include cars going fast in close proximity to other cars, on a track I can see more than 150 feet of without looking at a "Jumbotron". MW MW

Well, it LOOKS like 35mph, just like soccer LOOKS like no one's exerting any effort for hours at a time. Besides, carrying this raw number stuff to its logical conclusion leads to drag racing (the Gs, the ACCELERATION, the TOP SPEED, the sport of the ADD generation). Racing, to be ENTERTAINING as opposed to a technogeekfest, should involve a quantity of cars in proximity to each other, that can be seen for more than 2 seconds every minute and a half. The admittedly beautiful tracks mentioned above are almost all shadows of their former selves with ugly additional kinks installed. If these techno-wonder cars are so great, why not remove the chicanes and let them run? MW

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > All in all, the superiority of F1 is still obvious > > ...to you perhaps. But its a matter of opinion. Some people felt > it > > was OBVIOUS that the world was flat and that Jews and Blacks were > > inferior races, and would suffer no critique of their position. In > MY > > opinion, CART is the best. But that's my opinion. I'm not so > > intolerable as to come on here and claim that my opinion is the one > > and only truth or is "obvious". > > Randy > How many different chassis in CART? Engines? Etc. How many > different > countries involved at all levels? F1 is a true International sport > whereas CART is still primarily U.S based, though that is changing.

I'd say, technically, they are both dominated by the U.K Like byrylium brake calippers? Carbon brakes? Gaining downforce in obviously irrelevant ways? 4 pedals? Disagree. Lots of different race cars are amazing to watch. 60s F1s, 90s Cart, 70s Prototypes, Group C etc etc. You don't see much of the gizmos...:) In General, the public in the Us are not that into F1. I'll tell you, as soon as Eurosprt started showing CART and NASCAR here in Norway, people opened their eyes. BTCC is much more popular here! Matt, Race Fan -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

> Racing, to be ENTERTAINING as opposed to a technogeekfest, should involve a > quantity of cars in proximity to each other, that can be seen for more than 2 > seconds every minute and a half. This is exactly why the rest of the world has stereo-typed Americans. Short little attention spans. I have to agree with you here... The greatest racing circuits in the world are being destroyed little by little. But, as the cars get faster, safety is more of a concern. Remember, these rockets are *open***pit* and weigh in well under 2000 lbs. So try adding a couplea hundred HP to your redneck taxi-cabs, strip off the sheetmetal, lose the plexi-glas and remove 2000 pounds of steel and see how long that lasts... Bill -- "NASCAR- the professional wrestling of motorsport"

> >I believe it was Hendrick Motorsports ensuring Jeff Gordon's first > >Winston Cup at the season ender at Atlanta. > RCR had an 'extra' car in the field for the last race of Earnhardt's > last champ season, also. I might want to retract the pinning of that on Hendrick then. My recollection is vague, and I find it hard to believe that both RCR and Hendrick would have had to do similar things two years in a row. In any case, there's absolutely no shame in my book in doing what they did. After all, NASCAR laid down the rules, and the team strategists devised a way to ensure a win under those rules in the situation. That's using their heads, and I applaud rather than chastise them for it. ---Jim

<snip> % Also, F1 drivers are second to none. Mansell goes CART and bingo. % Andretti comes to F1 and is simply outclassed completely. Blundell, a <snip> And Mansell goes back to F1 and squat..... So your point is? -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> How many different chassis in CART? Engines? Etc. How many different > countries involved at all levels? F1 is a true International sport F1 is primarly U.K. based, technology-wise. And the drivers come primarly from Europe and South-America. It has already changed(drivers).and there's a Jap engine. No Well observed ;-) Again NOT! No, the technology has not been developed for the automobile-industry and science in general. All the new technologies are being developed for one purpose: WINNING!!That, now and then, a new technology can be used for other purposes, o.k., but primarly F1 is used as a marketing-tool for participating manufacturers. ??????To me there's nothing like close wheel to wheel racing. If that can come together with high-level technology, that's fine, but otherwise, to hell with technology! Look at BTCC, it's popularity is primarly based on close door to door banging. 2 more season's like 1997 and BTCC is done.(DTM/ITC is a good example of how to destroy racing with high technology) Hmmm, I went to a lot of racing-events last year (incl. F1) and I have to say that the most exciting thing I've seen was the International Supersportscup( Historic CAN-AM, and Sportscars).So it's all a matter of personal opinion. It seems that Max and Bernie have got it all wrong with the changes, but don't expect a merger. If the EU is done with Bernie and the FIA, then CART will conquer Europe! Harald

It should also have braking duels and differing lines into corners. Nascar resembles a biff and barge autobahn. -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > The > > less rules a competition has the greater it will be and I doubt I'm > > wrong in saying that even in these days of ridiculous F1 rule changes > > that F1 is still a more open format than CART. This brings the > > Engineering/team aspect to the fore and makes the overall championship > > far greater than any strictly moderated formula. It has always been my > > understanding that one of the key elements of F1 is the developement > > of > > new technologies for the automobile and science in general and this, > > IMcorrectO :), makes it greater overall than a competition designed to > > *** the engineering element for the sake of close racing. > Like byrylium brake calippers? Carbon brakes? Gaining downforce in > obviously irrelevant ways? 4 pedals?

So you think it's nonsense? LOL. Remember ABS. See all the aerodynamical inovations in the modern family sedan? You are surely joking! I don't need to see the gizmos. I just need to know they are there and that the cars on track are state of the art in every way possible. Are you trying to say you don't want to see such a format? Once again, you are surely joking! Well it's no wonder that the U.S. public has little comparitive interest in F1 because there are no races held there and no U.S. drivers in F1. And I'll bet a lot of U.S. residents are none to happy about that situation either. I'd say if your not into F1 then your not a dried piece of shit on a real motorsport fan's arse!

> Mansell said the same thing but was back at Williams like a shot ... He was? My memory says he attempted to return to F1 with McLaren but they couldn't get the***pit to fit his fat arse :) I don't know the exact story but it seemed he just said "stuff it" and has not been heard of since! I think that idiot running up his arse coming out of the pits at Indy and ending up on top of Mansell's head and the consequent scolding he got from a little radiator water was a large prompt for him to kiss CART good bye. That and the fact that he'd already been there, done that.

> <snip> > % Also, F1 drivers are second to none. Mansell goes CART and bingo. > % Andretti comes to F1 and is simply outclassed completely. Blundell, a > <snip> > And Mansell goes back to F1 and squat..... So your point is? Well actually, that's what good ole Nige' needed to do in fact - a few squats. Then he may have fitted into a McLaren. Mansell proved his domination and just retired as far as I know. The point is obvious - F1 is still a cut above the rest! But, unfortunately, it's changing. What's the bet CART and F1 merge soon?

Quoted text (11 lines)

> } > }>Racing, to me, should at least include cars going fast in close > proximity to > }>other cars, on a track I can see more than 150 feet of without > looking at a > }>"Jumbotron". > } > }It should also have braking duels and differing lines into corners. > }Nascar resembles a biff and barge autobahn. > It should also have RACING, something I haven't seen in CART or F-1.

Look again. If you appreciate engineering/tactics then you appreciate F1 and to a slightly lesser extent engineering wise, CART. If not, your stuck with Nascar, etc.

Yeah, they race...between yellows. A 5 lap Sprint Car race is like the last 5 minutes of an NBA game, it can take 30 minutes to complete with all the interruptions from yellows/time outs. Don

Just downloaded the F1RS demo, since the sim has not yet been released in the U.S. Now I can see why F1 is so popular - the simulation is outstanding w/ a 3dfx card - smooth frame rate, and the graphics are incredible. Just a couple of things: In the demo, I was in the Ferrari at Monza, and was in the lead coming out of turn one. Imagine my heart-stopping reaction when my teammate, Eddie Irvine, came WITHIN FIF*** FEET OF MY CAR in curva grande, and PASSED ME!!! Now, I understand that this is only a demo, but: 1) Are "team orders" programmed into the full version of the sim, just like real life, so I don't have to worry about a team car passing me? 2) If they are programmed into the sim, are they only reserved for the McLaren cars? 3) I put a tire on the grass accidentally on a straight-away, and it didn't fall off. Is damage realistically modeled in the full version? 4) What the heck was a Ferrari doing in the LEAD? Thanks! TC

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > The > (snip) > > > new technologies for the automobile and science in general and > this, > > > IMcorrectO :), makes it greater overall than a competition > designed to > > > *** the engineering element for the sake of close racing. > > Like byrylium brake calippers? Carbon brakes? Gaining downforce in > > obviously irrelevant ways? 4 pedals? > So you think it's nonsense? LOL. Remember ABS. See all the > aerodynamical inovations in the modern family sedan? You are surely > joking!

ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with F1 aerodynamics? Tell me, how long have you been following F1? I think you are being a bit ignorant here. It's about racing. Besides, the cars are built cramped to a restricting set of rules, like CART. If you would like to see technology, a "formula None" should be created (as P.Van Valkenburgh discussed in Racecar engineering). Now that would be exciting! Do you know how much money goes into developing two top-line F1s? Three years ago, Williams had a budget on development of GBP 70 million. Now how can anybody justify that when all you see are a bunch of glorified ciggarette packets following a line?In the top days of group C, those cars were embarrasingly quick for the F1 guys....and in the days of the group B rally cars, Henri Toivonen drove his Lancia Delta S4 quick enough around the Silverstone GP circuit to outqualify several F1s..... I consider your little philosophy here real deep. F1 was in the US. It's a question of money. Bernie and hiscircus are expensive guests. Nobody wants to risk spending that much money with nothing in return. BTW, just saw the CART *race* from Homestead. Enjoyed it! Matt -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

> Engineering - multimillion dollar cars that break at the least > provocation. Engineering that can't seem > to build a car Nigel can fit into? They break because there made to be as light as they can. Not much point having an unbreakable car that laps 10 sec/lap slower than the field. If you can understand that this point is exactly what makes the eng side so critical ie making the pieces light enough whilst trying to get them to go the distance, then you appreciate the eng side of things. Much like drag racing where this is paramount. Oh, and Nigel's too fat :) Superior eng by McLaren! I'll be interested to see if they have the extra brake pedal come next race. But I think their edge is more than that. Seemed to me they had superior straight line speed as well. Sprints are great but we're off topic now. Actually, a sim of Sprints wouldn't be too bad :)

> ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction > control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with > F1 aerodynamics? Once again, your implying that F1 is not a test bed for the auto industry. As are many forms of motorsport, F1 being the most important. As long as I can remember, but not particularly closely. Close enough though to know this. This would be 1 restriction I would agree with. Budget! Just don't kill innovation! There is nothing like different cars with different technology and seeing how they match up. Thanks for being one of the people that did not tell us the result. (Don't get race here in Aus till about 18 hours later) Unfortunately someone else already did :( I just hope CART remains a driver's series and F1 remains a drivers/engineers series. Being a mech eng dropout I will always favour a format that puts the engineering side of things to the fore.

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with >F1 aerodynamics? >Tell me, how long have you been following F1? If I remember correctly, ABS was pioneered on aircraft landing gear first. However, the commercial applications to cars has been enhanced from the technology in F1. ABS systems from 20 years ago are almost too primitive to call ABS compared to todays systems. You could also argue that F1 cars help Renault, Ford, Honda, Peugeot and Ferrari to develop new technology and materials which we will see in future cars. -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Mansell said the same thing but was back at Williams like a shot ... > He was? My memory says he attempted to return to F1 with McLaren but > they couldn't get the***pit to fit his fat arse :) I don't know the > exact story but it seemed he just said "stuff it" and has not been heard > of since! I think that idiot running up his arse coming out of the pits > at Indy and ending up on top of Mansell's head and the consequent > scolding he got from a little radiator water was a large prompt for him > to kiss CART good bye. That and the fact that he'd already been there, > done that.

Your memory is correct, Mansell didn't fit the original MP4/10 monocoque so was replaced for the first two races by Mark Blundell (who is not all that slim himself) who had no complaints. When he did return in Spain he drove around in the mid field complaining that the car was undriveable. Question is, if it was that bad why was Hakkinen running a strong third in an identical car??? Bottom line is Mansell has a somewhat overinflated opinion of himself. His failure to recognise that he was gifted the F1 WC by Williams thanks to team orders only underlines that.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >Have you ever experienced 4.5G? Or even 3G which is achieved under > >heavy braking? Ever gone from standstill to 160mph in less than > >4seconds? Or from 0-160mp and back to 0 in 4.5secs? > I have, in aircraft, but no one was paying to watch me. You ignored the other > part of my statement, about 35mph chicanes. THAT's what I won't pay to watch, > especially on 'street' circuits resembling medium-security prisons. > Racing, to me, should at least include cars going fast in close proximity to > other cars, on a track I can see more than 150 feet of without looking at a > "Jumbotron". > MW > MW

OK so that would be circuits like Silverstone where the Copse grandstand affords a clear view of the full 600yd length of the start/finish straight, through one of the fastest turns on the circuit and virtually the full run down to Stowe (1 mile) including the fast Beckets complex. Brands Hatch - Most sites will allow a complete view of the Indy Circuit and most of the GP circuit.

> >If you had any idea about physics you would realise that it's impossible > >to generate anything like 4.5g in a 35mph chicane - which there are very > >few of BTW, most tend to be of the order of 70-100mph. > Well, it LOOKS like 35mph, just like soccer LOOKS like no one's exerting any > effort for hours at a time. It would appear to me that you have a problem appreciating skill when you see it. Just because neither team scores over 100 points it doesn't mean that the teams aren't putting the effort in. Remember soccer isn't like American sports, you can't just change the team if your losing or stop the game if you're getting tired. The cars would run quite happily with the chicanes removed but the FIA, in their infinite wisdom, believe that the chicanes improve safety. I would tend to agree that a driver has a better chance of surviving a short trip into the kitty litter than a 200+ mph head on impact into a concrete wall followed by 10 further secondary impacts due to the following pack whose cars are so heavy and unwieldy that they are unable to avoid the poor corpse.

Surprisingly enough, I think F1 and NASCAR have more in common than you might think. Mostly, I think they are both races of "subtlety". The die-hard fan of each of these leagues enjoys them because they have spent enough time watching them to see that there is more there than a casual observation would indicate. There's plenty of exitement, stategy, skill and plain old racin' goin' on in both. You just have learn what the subtleties are. Now, saying that one has more skill or is more difficult than the other is completely inane. Apples and oranges, man. Gritz (long time reader, first time poster) "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out"? Roy Rogers

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Yeh, they race around in circles continually, with the car biased into > the turns. Thats real racing is it ? How often do NASCAR drivers have > to break from 200mph down to 60mph at a hairpin ? How often do NASCAR > drivers actually have to use the brake in a race ? and I mean proper > braking, not just slowing down a little bit ! > Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. NASCAR is just too boring to > watch. IMHO. > Regards > Andrew > > On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell > > }> all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for > > }> 2 hours. > > } > > }And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......? > > Well, in NASCAR, they actually race. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dave Starr

Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and see? -- Suck The Goat

ahem. Where were you last year? I seem to remember poor Olivier touching the tires, breaking his car in two, and crushing his legs. I also remember the crashes of Luyendyk and Zanardi at Fontana. Corpse my back. Matt -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut) "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

David, obviosly being an autoworker, would seem to imply that you arenot exactly educated, so your feeble brain is unable to grasp what true racing is all about. Bill France needs the lower forms of life, in order to keep his series growing. I have been to Europe quite often, and I can tell you that they see Nascar as amusing, but trite. They have Touring cars that would put your stock (if a rear wheel drive Taurus is stock) to shame.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Peter said, wisely: > > The cars would run quite happily with the chicanes removed but the > > FIA, > > in their infinite wisdom, believe that the chicanes improve safety. I > > would tend to agree that a driver has a better chance of surviving a > > short trip into the kitty litter than a 200+ mph head on impact into a > > concrete wall followed by 10 further secondary impacts due to the > > following pack whose cars are so heavy and unwieldy that they are > > unable > > to avoid the poor corpse. > ahem. Where were you last year? > I seem to remember poor Olivier touching the tires, breaking his car in > two, and crushing his legs. I also remember the crashes of Luyendyk and > Zanardi at Fontana. Corpse my back. > Matt > -- > Matthew Birger Knutsen > Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut) > "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" > -Cale Yarborough

I was actually watching the Canadian GP last year. Panis suffered a suspension failure which caused the car to pitch into the wall. This was a head-on collision which caused no structural damage to the monocoque. Unfortunately for Panis the tyre barriers directed him across the track and into the opposite wall. In normal circumstances hitting the second wall would again have caused little damage to the car because the wheel/suspension assembly is a very good energy absorber. Unfortunately the wheels had been ripped off in the initial impact and the side area of the monocoque took the impact. As a direct result this years monocoques are wider and stronger in this area.

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with >F1 aerodynamics? Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology. I take it he was driving the short course and the F1 car running the full F1 circuit? That was either a figment of someone's imagination or the F1 car wasn't allowed out of third. Cheers! John

Actually his memory isn't all that correct :-) Mansell returned for two (three?) races with Williams after his Indycar career finished (Suzuka, Adelaide and perhaps Estoril?). He moved to McLaren only after he couldn't get a Williams drive. Yeah, his 22 GP wins prior to that were obviously just flukes....? Mansell does have an overinflated opinion of himself, but he is a lot more talented than you appear to be giving him credit for. Where were Williams in 1990 when he joined them? Occasional race winners, but nothing more than that. In the very next season Mansell pulled them together and almost won the championship - the season after that he did (only to have his second championship gifted to a certain French magpie...). Of modern times I'd place Mansell behind only Senna, Schumacher and Prost in terms of ability, and F1 is much poorer for the absence of real characters like him. Like him or loathe him, there was always something controversial happening to him! Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > We need no more evidence of this than Damon Hill's adventures. A > > champion in Williams, a backmarker in Arrows, and a midpacker in a > > Jordan. > Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he > bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a > testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and > see?

But we can't forget that he was out-qualified on several occasions by his team-mate, Pedro Diniz, who was thought of as a lowly pay-driver who only got the ride due to close ties with sponsors=money. Damon is quick, but his motivation is questionable sometimes. Paul

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen > >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction > >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with > >F1 aerodynamics? > Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being > furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly > F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but > they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then > there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo > days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle > shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology. > >Henri Toivonen drove his Lancia Delta S4 quick enough around the > >Silverstone GP circuit to outqualify several F1s..... > I take it he was driving the short course and the F1 car running the > full F1 circuit? That was either a figment of someone's imagination or > the F1 car wasn't allowed out of third. > Cheers! > John

Well I can`t say that it "is" true as I was not present at the time, but it was reported in several major car magazines, read it in "Auto Motor und Sport" myself. It has to be said that The Group B rally cars of the time had more horsepower than the backmarkers in F1 running customer Ford V8 engines, I think the Delta S4 produced some 650-700 HP at sprint events, maybe even more. Talk about engineering on the loose, Turbocharging AND supercharging + waterinjection, I was fortunate enough to see those cars run in anger in Sweden the last year they were running (1986 ?), and they were truly awesome, ugly as sin and quick as ...., well you get the picture :-). And then there was the sound, one journalist described it as a "chainsaw on the loose", and I have to say it sounded like nothing I have ever heard before, although soundwise I preferred the MG Metro 6R4 Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy Unclegoy on TEN

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen > >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction > >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do > with > >F1 aerodynamics? > Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being > furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly > F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but > they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then > there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo > days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle > shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology.

Engine managemet has been helped by F1 - yes. Active ride was used by Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:)) Porsche had the PDK gearbox system out many years before sequential gearshift was used in F1 (in the 962 Group C car), "paddle shift", well, I believe the studebaker had a push-button system<g>. Safety, well, naah. Carbonfibre is still to expensive for the family saloons. And it doesn't rust.... Since Goodyear has had a monopoly the last few years (until now, Brstone gets it..), I would say it's , more a case of motor racing in general. A formula 1 tire has nothing to do with standard tyres. Radial tyres was a nice idea, but Michelin, Firestone, Bridgestone, Nokia and other brands have participated in other forms of motorsport of more relevance. Actually, there's more thruth to it than the sound of it....modern day F1s are no match for other racecars in bumpy, slow, twitchy sections because they have virtually no suspension movement, and rely pretty much on their aerodynamics. Just look at how poorly they react to bumps and hairpins.. I have a poster in the workshop where a magazine arranged a Duel between , i think, the 1993 Williams and a Rallycross Metro with a twin-turbo 6R4 engine. Naturally, the metro was blown away above 100 MPH, but did'nt do too bad before that! If they let a proper set-up rally car out at Monaco, I think we would be surprised. After all, Super Tourers aren't that far away from Formula 3 times.... Matt -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

>It has to be said that The Group B rally cars of the time had more >horsepower than the backmarkers in F1 running customer Ford V8 engines, >I think the Delta S4 produced some 650-700 HP at sprint events, maybe >even more. Power is only one small aspect of an F1 car's performance, and the mechanical and aerodynamic grip combined with the very low cg have a far greater effect. Perhaps in a straight line such a rally car could acquit itself well (although with the difference in weight and aerodynamics I doubt it), but around the twists and high speed turns of Silverstone? I very much doubt it. The ground effect / active ride / venturis / <whatever> would more than offset any perceived power difference. IMHO of course! :-) Cheers! John

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:30:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen >Active ride was used by >Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:)) I think Lotus' and Williams' systems were slightly more advanced....!! It is only now that it has been brought to road cars in the form of the Ferrari F355-F1, BMW M3 etc, although Porsche's tiptronic has been around for a while - again F1 has an effect though. I meant in terms of crash testing and understanding the collision dynamics and kinetics involved, carbon fibre is many years off I guess. I know for a fact that this is not true. Racing in general is the focus which pushes forward the technology of companies like Bridgestone and Goodyear, and advertising is only one part of the reason why they are there - the technical feedback and development is hugely enhanced. It states "around Silverstone" - not very twitchy or bumpy! If an F1 car was required to run on a track more bumpy you raise the ride height, soften the car up etc etc - the power to weight ratio alone would see off any rally car, never mind the huge difference in grip. I seriously doubt it. The cg of a rally car is way too high for the precise twists required at Monaco. Perhaps on a "point and squirt" track like Argentina a rally car could do some good, but still waaaaay short of F1 or Indy levels. Cheers! John

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Power is only one small aspect of an F1 car's performance, and the > mechanical and aerodynamic grip combined with the very low cg have a > far greater effect. Perhaps in a straight line such a rally car could > acquit itself well (although with the difference in weight and > aerodynamics I doubt it), but around the twists and high speed turns > of Silverstone? I very much doubt it. The ground effect / active ride > / venturis / <whatever> would more than offset any perceived power > difference. > IMHO of course! :-)

Well John, I wasn't really going to get into the tech details of the GroupB rally cars, that's why I only mentioned the power. The cars also had kevlar (?) bodies, high tech computer controlled differentials (all 3 of them) , fairly advanced suspension, aerodynamics (not F1 standards, but still :-) and no limitations when it came to tires, all this made for a pretty quick tarmac car when properly set up. The backmarkers in F1 at the time did not have active ride, and due to F1`s obsession with aerodynamics, they do not have the mechanical grip they could have had (interview with Patrick Head in CAR magazine some time back, and I guess it was no better back then), meaning that in slow corners they don`t have "that" much grip. No, I`m not saying that the Delta S4 would outrun a McLaren of the era with Senna or Prost behind the wheel, THAT would have been stupid :-), only that it (supposedly) had lapped some F1 circuit (Silverstone ? I don`t remember, but I always thought it was Estoril) fast enough to qualify in the back, and I don`t think it is that unbelievable, and yes I remeber the McLaren vs Porsche911 vs Peugot306 test that was done at Silverstone a few years back, pretty impressive if you ask me Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy Unclegoy on TEN

% >Your memory is correct, Mansell didn't fit the original MP4/10 monocoque % >so was replaced for the first two races by Mark Blundell % Actually his memory isn't all that correct :-) Mansell returned for % two (three?) races with Williams after his Indycar career finished % (Suzuka, Adelaide and perhaps Estoril?). He moved to McLaren only % after he couldn't get a Williams drive. % >Bottom line is Mansell has a somewhat overinflated opinion of himself. % >His failure to recognise that he was gifted the F1 WC by Williams thanks % >to team orders only underlines that. % Yeah, his 22 GP wins prior to that were obviously just flukes....? % Mansell does have an overinflated opinion of himself, but he is a lot % more talented than you appear to be giving him credit for. Where were % Williams in 1990 when he joined them? Occasional race winners, but % nothing more than that. In the very next season Mansell pulled them % together and almost won the championship - the season after that he % did (only to have his second championship gifted to a certain French % magpie...). Of modern times I'd place Mansell behind only Senna, % Schumacher and Prost in terms of ability, and F1 is much poorer for % the absence of real characters like him. Like him or loathe him, there % was always something controversial happening to him! In actuality, I think the numerous concussions he received in CART accidents may have affected his mental capabilities and led him to believe that golf was more competitive than F1. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:30:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen > >Active ride was used by > >Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:)) > I think Lotus' and Williams' systems were slightly more advanced....!!

Actually neither of these systems was by any defenition Active, they were innovative & very clever but purely reactive, Citroen only started using active ride on Desert raid cars after Lotus had used it in GPs, and only on road cars a couple of years ago. Oh and please tell what Sir Alec Issigonis did that was active. The original PDK system used torque converters, a smaller version of the system that's been used on busses and lorries for even longer. And some Mercedes trucks have had a proper sequential system for 5 or 6 years now. Absolutely, road tyres have benefitted from ALL forms of motorsport. Tyre companies would have to be stupid not to capitalise on developments made in motorsport. Hmm MAYBE, but F1 cars are not designed for Monaco, and given a choice I think most F1 teams would prefer not to race there, so this is irrelavent. When it comes down to it, all major F1 teams sell technology to road car manufacturers, as I expect do teams in other formulae. Road car ability and safety has benefitted from ALL motorsport in ways most car owners probably don't even know about. Steve

> Oh and please tell what Sir Alec Issigonis did that was active. There were two smileys at the end of that line.....I think some people took my post a bit too seriously...I was referring to the hydrolastic system!:) Oh, and wasn't it a system...BTW, there were'nt too many monocoques around at that time, and not too many road cars with a transversely mounted engine and gearbox up front. And the Mini was designed for Mom to go shopping with. Alec did not want it to be raced. And look what that car did for modern day road cars! Yeah, I know. First time I saw, or heard, the PDK ws at the Norisring, Germany, in1988 I think, on a 956/962. Boy, was that weird at the time, a racecar sounding like it was an automatic! Like I said, motorracing in general.... Silly discussion anyway.... I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit unclear, is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling over to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a road car! And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is a front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive. Matt -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut) "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > We need no more evidence of this than Damon Hill's adventures. A > > > champion in Williams, a backmarker in Arrows, and a midpacker in a > > > Jordan. > > Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he > > bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a > > testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and > > see? > But we can't forget that he was out-qualified on several occasions by > his team-mate, Pedro Diniz, who was thought of as a lowly pay-driver who > only got the ride due to close ties with sponsors=money. Damon is quick, > but his motivation is questionable sometimes.

To be fair, I think you hit the nail on the head wrt motivation. -- Suck The Goat

> In actuality, I think the numerous concussions he received in CART > accidents may have affected his mental capabilities and led him to > believe that golf was more competitive than F1. <s***> -- Suck The Goat

Amen brother! A. Renault

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Surprisingly enough, I think F1 and NASCAR have more >in common than you might think. > Mostly, I think they are both races of "subtlety". > The die-hard fan of each of these leagues enjoys them >because they have spent enough time watching them to see that >there is more there than a casual observation would indicate. > There's plenty of exitement, stategy, skill and plain old >racin' goin' on in both. You just have learn what the subtleties >are. > Now, saying that one has more skill or is more difficult >than the other is completely inane. Apples and oranges, man. >Gritz (long time reader, first time poster) > "If stupidity got us into this mess, > why can't it get us out"? > Roy Rogers

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:21:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen >I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit unclear, >is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling over >to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a road >car! >And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is a >front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive. Not if you live in America or Australia where the front engine REAR wheel drive is pre*** (in Australia), and going to be re-launched in new Caddilacs etc (America) A Ferrari F355 F1 has a transmission directly related to the one in the Ferrari F1 cars btw, and its much more obtainale than an F50. F1 developments dont come straight away. Semi-auto gearboxes...carbon fibre panels/casings etc all took a long time to reach the road. Maybe in 10 years we will see the benefits of current GP racing. Especially with the switch back to aluminium brake calipers! -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:21:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen > >I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit > unclear, > >is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling > over > >to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a > road > >car! > >And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is > a > >front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive. > Not if you live in America or Australia where the front engine REAR > wheel drive is pre*** (in Australia), and going to be re-launched > in new Caddilacs etc (America)

Well..you are following suit I'd say (Not Neccessarily A Good Thing, Though) with road cars. Rear wh. drive is becoming obsolete. Look at the Chrysler Stratus, Neon, the smaller Chevrolets; Most Opels (Holdens) are becoming front wh drive as well, Astra, Vectra etc....not to mention all the Asian cars. Even all Volvos are Front wheel drive now! Well, obtainable...hmmm. I wish it was.. Aluminium what? Remember, aluminium and road cars are not always a happy marriage. Alu brake calippers would last half a season up here in scandinavia:)) > -- > Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors > - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - > - V8Supercars - CART - Looks like you've got your racing priorities right! We've got NARSCAR here in Norway, the closest we get to your V8s:)) Best, Matt -- Matthew Birger Knutsen Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw" -Cale Yarborough

>Though the Ferrari's gearbox differs greatly from Porsche's Tiptronic, >Chrysler's Autostick, BMW's, etc. Ferrari has an automatically shifted manual >box, whereas the others are automatics that can be shifted manually. As far >as I know, the F355-F1 is the first road car with an F1-style box. Are you sure? I was under the impression that the M3's version was a semi-auto shifted manual 'box as well, although I'm not 100% sure. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but people who have tell me it's a bit lazy on the upshift, fine for someone who wants more control of an auto 'box but not really for those who want a more convenient manual 'box. Cheers! John

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:21:53 +0100, Matthew Knutsen >Well..you are following suit I'd say (Not Neccessarily A Good Thing, >Though) with road cars. Rear wh. drive is becoming obsolete. Look at the >Chrysler Stratus, Neon, the smaller Chevrolets; Most Opels (Holdens) >are becoming front wh drive as well, Astra, Vectra etc....not to mention >all the Asian cars. Even all Volvos are Front wheel drive now! For America and Australia, and some parts of the MIddle East, RWD is booming. GM wants to introduce more RWD cars into its range (Through Buick and Cadillac I think) based upon the AUSTRALIAN Commodore platform. The Commodore is alreayd being produce in LHD for the Middle Eastern markets. Try Telling BMW and Mercedes Benz that people want a front wheel drive 750 or 600SEL! -- Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo - - V8Supercars - CART -