The State of Formula One

Hehe, this is a big rant, but I don't care. You're thoughts are appreciated... --- They made up new rules. I don't know what the bigtime F1 fans in here think of them (please tell me!), but I absolutely hate them. Single-lap qualifying, and especially that single-lap 'qualifying qualifying' is absurd. There was no problem with the old qualifying setup (in fact, I didn't think it could get any better than that). Those of you who watched the Digital F1 service last year will know that it's not confusing at all when the director knows what he's doing. Checking the timesheets for purple times and switching to the cars which are on hot laps isn't that difficult, and it worked a treat. The new system is just boring and strange. What happens if it starts raining halfway through? Ferraris at the back, Minardis at the front? That's an accident waiting to happen. What if Minardi fuel their cars with about 5 laps of fuel in qualifying, when everybody else is on 20? Every GP has a Minardi front row? I'd sure be feeling great about my investment if I was Ferrari, McLaren or Williams, knowing that the grid was decided on pure chance... Qualifying with race fuel? Only one shot? We (well, I) want to see people really going for pole at the death, like they used to. With 20 cars out on track in the last few minutes of qualifying, all looking for that little bit extra. Then being allowed to decide their strategy based on their grid position. One bad lap on Saturday could ruin a drivers' whole weekend, so there's no point really going for it. Better to get on the front couple of rows than put it in the wall. How boring... That wet tyre rule was abysmal. Luckily it was shown up early on and there weren't any serious casualties. I couldn't believe it at the time it was announced. Fortunately it has been rescinded. The new points system rewards consistency rather than winning. Do we want a situation where a 17 race season is won by a driver with just one win (as happened with Richard Burns in the WRC)? That's much more unlikely with 10-6-4-3-2-1 (although it did happen in the WRC), than with 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. I'm all for extending points to 8th place, but the gaps have to be kept the same, something like 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1?. What's the point in challenging for the lead when it's gambling 8 points for an extra 2? Might as well follow him home, play for the championship, be boring... If they want to see some better racing, then get rid of the blue flags (maybe not at a place like Monaco)! The leaders would bunch up, and the midfielders could carry on fighting each other. Also, the cameras which are incessantly pointed at the leader will catch some of the midfield scuffles too. I don't have a problem with Ferrari winning all the time, but I do have a problem with the cameras being on them all the time. Last year I was able to see some fantastic racing in the midfield, using the Digital F1 coverage. It's all happening, they just aren't looking. They remove the 2nd best track on the Grand Prix schedule because of some politics, even though the underlying political philosophy of tobacco sponsorship is flawed. And now, to top it all off, they go to the best track on the calendar and they change it to make it easier. Jeez, I thought F1 was just racing at IMS, not taking advice from the IRL on how to ruin some great racing... Nick, looking forward to the British GP at Rockinham oval with single-make cars in F1 2004... ;-)

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bb7qqa$6q9h1$[email hidden]... > Hehe, this is a big rant, but I don't care. You're thoughts are > appreciated... > --- > > They made up new rules. I don't know what the bigtime F1 fans in herethink

Quoted text (8 lines)

> of them (please tell me!), but I absolutely hate them. > > Single-lap qualifying, and especially that single-lap 'qualifying > qualifying' is absurd. There was no problem with the old qualifying setup > (in fact, I didn't think it could get any better than that). Those of you > who watched the Digital F1 service last year will know that it's not > confusing at all when the director knows what he's doing. Checking the > timesheets for purple times and switching to the cars which are on hot

laps > isn't that difficult, and it worked a treat. The new system is just boring > and strange. What happens if it starts raining halfway through? Ferrarisat > the back, Minardis at the front? That's an accident waiting to happen.What > if Minardi fuel their cars with about 5 laps of fuel in qualifying, when > everybody else is on 20? Every GP has a Minardi front row? A fair comment before the season started - but experience has shown that basically - the new rules have changed things very little Doug

"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bb7ril$6n28l$[email hidden]... > A fair comment before the season started - but experience has shown that > basically - the new rules have changed things very little Unlike most people I decided to give the new rules a shot before having a dig. These were my thoughts at the end of last year, and nothing has changed them. Nick.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bb7tud$6e04n$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bb7ril$6n28l$[email hidden]... > > A fair comment before the season started - but experience has shown that > > basically - the new rules have changed things very little > > Unlike most people I decided to give the new rules a shot before having a > dig. These were my thoughts at the end of last year, and nothing has

changed > them. > > Nick. But little if any of what you described has happened. Minardi are STILL tail end charlies, the grid is NOT decided on pure chance, little has changed Doug

"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bb7ual$6vpab$[email hidden]... > But little if any of what you described has happened. The recurring word throughout my post was 'boring'. Apparently, F1 last year was boring, when I thought it was a damn good season if you look past P2. This season, it really is boring. The only thing this season which isn't boring is Jenson Button, and strangely enough ITV seem set on not showing him at all. Maybe it's because Martin Brundle is best mates with David Coulthard...

On Fri, 30 May 2003 15:44:33 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Single-lap qualifying, and especially that single-lap 'qualifying >qualifying' is absurd. I like the first round of qualifying as it stands now a lot. I've never really cared for the "you have an hour and 12 laps to go as fast as possible" approach, since it inevitably leads to the same race lineup week in and week out. They can kill the 2nd round as far as I am concerned tho, and the "race on qual fule" crap. And yes, if it rains partway through, Minardis at the front, Ferrari at the back. If Michael Schumacher can't make clean passes to the front, maybe he doesn't belong there to begin with. Having someone besides Ferrari up front at the start has certainly made the races more interesting so far. First time I've actually felt obliged to tune in to a live racecast. Jason

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Single-lap qualifying, and especially that single-lap 'qualifying > qualifying' is absurd. There was no problem with the old qualifying setup > (in fact, I didn't think it could get any better than that). Those of you > who watched the Digital F1 service last year will know that it's not > confusing at all when the director knows what he's doing. Checking the > timesheets for purple times and switching to the cars which are on hot laps > isn't that difficult, and it worked a treat. The new system is just boring > and strange. What happens if it starts raining halfway through? Ferraris at > the back, Minardis at the front? That's an accident waiting to happen. What > if Minardi fuel their cars with about 5 laps of fuel in qualifying, when > everybody else is on 20? Every GP has a Minardi front row?

Don't really see a problem here. In fact it has (IMO) improved the Qual sessions. There is now a reason to watch the Q sessions, although the 1st day Q thing IS absurd, a qual for the qual?? WTF? In reality, did anyone think that a car not bearing a Ferrari, BMW or Mclaren logo was going to take a pole last year? Without checking for myself, I'll say it never happened and if it did, it was a one time deal. Now, you have strategy being planned BEFORE the race even starts. If Jag or Minardi or Toyota want to run a Q lap with 5laps of fuel onboard...great. In about 3 laps they will pit and the whole field will go by and they will never be heard from again. The top teams are still the top teams no matter where they start and (for the most part) will finish out front as well. > > I'd sure be feeling great about my investment if I was Ferrari, McLaren or > Williams, knowing that the grid was decided on pure chance... What chance? The low fuel chance?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Qualifying with race fuel? Only one shot? We (well, I) want to see people > really going for pole at the death, like they used to. With 20 cars out on > track in the last few minutes of qualifying, all looking for that little bit > extra. Then being allowed to decide their strategy based on their grid > position. One bad lap on Saturday could ruin a drivers' whole weekend, so > there's no point really going for it. Better to get on the front couple of > rows than put it in the wall. How boring...

The "pole at the death" (to the death?) was good admittedly. I can't recall seeing 20 cars on the track all at once recently in that system as the top teams had already secured there spots and were unlikely to risk an encounter with a backmarker on a Q run. Now it is a pole to the death, but one lap at a time. With the 2 day Q session, you know based upon your Q starting order what the best times are and what you need to beat. Addtionally, I want to see the best laps for Q day, not ones ruined by a slower car that impedes a possible record run or pole. One at a time allows the driver to determine where he starts. > > That wet tyre rule was abysmal. Luckily it was shown up early on and there > weren't any serious casualties. I couldn't believe it at the time it was > announced. Fortunately it has been rescinded. Agreed, thank the heavens for this.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The new points system rewards consistency rather than winning. Do we want a > situation where a 17 race season is won by a driver with just one win (as > happened with Richard Burns in the WRC)? That's much more unlikely with > 10-6-4-3-2-1 (although it did happen in the WRC), than with > 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. I'm all for extending points to 8th place, but the gaps > have to be kept the same, something like 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1?. What's the point > in challenging for the lead when it's gambling 8 points for an extra 2? > Might as well follow him home, play for the championship, be boring...

Race drivers want to WIN, not finish 2nd. I have never agreed with the notion that drivers would SETTLE for a particular finish if a better one was possible. > > If they want to see some better racing, then get rid of the blue flags > (maybe not at a place like Monaco)! The leaders would bunch up, and the > midfielders could carry on fighting each other. Also, the cameras which are > incessantly pointed at the leader will catch some of the midfield scuffles > too. Interesting idea. Might be good. > > I don't have a problem with Ferrari winning all the time, but I do have a > problem with the cameras being on them all the time. Last year I was able to > see some fantastic racing in the midfield, using the Digital F1 coverage. > It's all happening, they just aren't looking. Must be nice. I am stuck with the Speed Channel coverage which is average. Top teams/drivers always get the tv time, though. Didn't mean to crap all over your post, so please don't take it that way. Just expressing a different opinion on some good points. Lawman

The thing I don't like about the one lap qualifying is that it seems to punish the person that actually pays the big bucks to attend a race. Although I haven't attended a Grand Prix under the new rules, one of the best parts to watch was qualifying because that was the only time you really saw anyone driving at their limits and the intensity built as the session progressed. Now there must be a lot of dead time between cars (when viewing from a fixed point on the circuit) and you never know who has how much fuel, who's saving the tires etc. I would think they would want to give paying spectators as much great action as possible instead of spending much time viewing the big screen. Spark

Formula One, as we knew it, contracted cancer in 1968 with the introduction of commercial advertising. It dropped into a coma in the 1990's when what started out in the 1900's as a sport became nothing more than pap TV entertainment for the masses and finally died, coincidentally, with the passing of Ken Tyrrell. However, F1's ghost can be seen in the form of "retro" events such as - but certainly NOT limited to - the Goodwood Revival and its ilk. Bruce (85 years old....according to legend! :) )

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Formula One, as we knew it, contracted cancer in 1968 with the introduction > of commercial advertising. > It dropped into a coma in the 1990's when what started out in the 1900's as > a sport became nothing more than pap TV entertainment for the masses and > finally died, coincidentally, with the passing of Ken Tyrrell. > > However, F1's ghost can be seen in the form of "retro" events such as - but > certainly NOT limited to - the Goodwood Revival and its ilk. > > Bruce > (85 years old....according to legend! :) )

"The Bruce" is most def back...:-)..anyone seen Bart around lately ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

> Having someone besides Ferrari up front at the start has certainly > made the races more interesting so far. First time I've actually felt > obliged to tune in to a live racecast. >But that hasn't happened! Ferrari has won pole at Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain and Austria. They only missed out in Malaysia, and are likely to win pole today! Also, the Minardis have invariably been at the back. Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

> What chance? The low fuel chance? The fuel load aspect of the new qualifying is over-rated. In practice it has made little difference as no team has gone for a wacky pit-stop strategy to gain a massive hike up the grid. In most races the teams have gone for their usual 2 or 3 stop strategy and the performance differences between the cars still takes the best to the front. > Race drivers want to WIN, not finish 2nd. I have never agreed with the > notion that drivers would SETTLE for a particular finish if a better > one was possible. Happens all the time. Why risk going off (and losing everything) trying for a win when you have the championship in the bag in 2nd or 3rd place. Drivers of course do want to win, but they most want to win the championship rather than individual racces. Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Iain Mackenzie wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Having someone besides Ferrari up front at the start has certainly > > made the races more interesting so far. First time I've actually felt > > obliged to tune in to a live racecast. > > > But that hasn't happened! > Ferrari has won pole at Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain and Austria. > They only missed out in Malaysia, and are likely to win pole today! > Also, the Minardis have invariably been at the back.

While the latter is certainly true today, bar Jenson Button who had to sit out the qual, the former isn't and had it been any other track it might have made for an interesting race, now it will be a parade with car in front with another color besides red For the life of me I can't understand the reasoning for keeping Monaco in there when there are much better tracks who would rightly be much more deserving of an F1 race, other than the monetary issue I mean, all the rich poseurs gather at Monaco this time of the year and we don't dare upset the money people now do we.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

> For the life of me I can't understand the reasoning for keeping Monaco > in there when there are much better tracks who would rightly be much > more deserving of an F1 race, other than the monetary issue I mean, all > the rich poseurs gather at Monaco this time of the year and we don't > dare upset the money people now do we.... >You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor > cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of > the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when > you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. "Formula One, as we knew it, contracted cancer in 1968 with the introduction of commercial advertising." --Bruce Kennewell-- :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> writes: >You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor >cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of >the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when >you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Not really, Ian. In amongst the dross of the made-for-TV Mickey Mouse circuits, Monaco remains one of the few which have seen little change down through the years. The challenge from the driver's viewpoint is essentially twofold and has >>never<< deviated throughout its history; (1) practise and qualify well,which will place one in a commanding position from the word "GO!" and (2) maintain full concentration for the course of the race. Mastering >>both<< of these disciplines is the Monaco challenge. When coupled with mechanical reliability, the combination is hard to beat; witness the performances of Messrs. G. Hill and A. Senna. It >>is<< a driver's circuit - no doubt about it. Bruce. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > For me it's the most boring race of the year - strange that the driversseem to like it a lot.

I know what you mean Bruce, but ultimately it should be frustrating for a driver due to the processional nature of the race itself. You CANNOT pass at Monaco. Look at Coulthard a couple of years ago when he was stuck behind a much slower car (Bernoldi was it?) for about 30 laps. That is why I find it surprising that drivers like it. Iain "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ed95c1a$[email hidden]... > Not really, Ian. > In amongst the dross of the made-for-TV Mickey Mouse circuits, Monaco > remains one of the few which have seen little change down through theyears.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> The challenge from the driver's viewpoint is essentially twofold and has > >>never<< deviated throughout its history; (1) practise and qualify well, > which will place one in a commanding position from the word "GO!" and (2) > maintain full concentration for the course of the race. > > Mastering >>both<< of these disciplines is the Monaco challenge. > When coupled with mechanical reliability, the combination is hard to beat; > witness the performances of Messrs. G. Hill and A. Senna. > > It >>is<< a driver's circuit - no doubt about it. > > Bruce. > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > For me it's the most boring race of the year - strange that the

drivers > seem to like it a lot. > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Look at Coulthard a couple of years ago when he was stuck behind a > much slower car (Bernoldi was it?) for about 30 laps. I think that's probably more to do with him being Coulthard, rather than the state of the track <g> Nick, who still doesn't quite believe that DC has been in the best car throughout most of his career (except for Ferrari's recent dominance), yet has never even challenged for the title.

That may be so with this modern stuff, Ian, but passing at Monaco back in the era that I relate to (yes, it >was< after the car was invented!) was certainly possible and not at all uncommon. Bruce. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You CANNOT pass at Monaco.

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > For the life of me I can't understand the reasoning for keeping Monaco > in there when there are much better tracks who would rightly be much > more deserving of an F1 race, other than the monetary issue I mean, all > the rich poseurs gather at Monaco this time of the year and we don't > dare upset the money people now do we.... Kinda like saying what's the point of NASCAR running at Daytona? It's only another glorified f***ing roundabout... Monaco stands for more than just a racetrack. It's a part of the history of F1. It's a place that only the very best drivers can master. It's the one track that people who don't watch F1 remember. It's one of the big three races in the world. And however many faceless Malaysia or Indianapolis F1 tracks are built, there will still be a place for a true racetrack with some character to remind us of a time when F1 was about more than just money.

"Nick" wrote... > <snip> there will still be a place for a true racetrack > with some character to remind us of a time when F1 was > about more than just money. Ironic you should say that about Monaco. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IIoCa.31678$[email hidden]... > "Nick" wrote... > > <snip> there will still be a place for a true racetrack > > with some character to remind us of a time when F1 was > > about more than just money. > > Ironic you should say that about Monaco. Well, you confuse the actual circuit/facilities etc (the bits which matter) with all the PR bull****.

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Kinda like saying what's the point of NASCAR running at Daytona? It's only > another glorified f***ing roundabout... > > Monaco stands for more than just a racetrack. It's a part of the history of > F1. It's a place that only the very best drivers can master. It's the one > track that people who don't watch F1 remember. It's one of the big three > races in the world. And however many faceless Malaysia or Indianapolis F1 > tracks are built, there will still be a place for a true racetrack with some > character to remind us of a time when F1 was about more than just money.

Uh, not even remotely close mate Monaco may have had it's place, but it's way overdue to be repllaced by a circuit that actually allows overtaking, even a significantly faster car can't get past The fact that it's enjoyable to *drive* there doesn't mean it a good *race* track, there are several back roads around where I live where I often go for spin just for the hell of it as it's a very enjoyable piece of road in a decent handling car, doesn't mean it's suitable for an F1 race, or any kind of race Monaco is all about glitter and glamour and nothing else, has there been an enjoyable race there in 20 years ? 30 years ? F1 cars have devloped and it's no longer suitable for an F1 race Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Race drivers want to WIN, not finish 2nd. I have never agreed with the > > notion that drivers would SETTLE for a particular finish if a better > > one was possible. > > Happens all the time. Why risk going off (and losing everything) trying for > a win when you have the championship in the bag in 2nd or 3rd place. > Drivers of course do want to win, but they most want to win the championship > rather than individual racces. > > Iain

Agreed, but aside from the Ferrari debacles last year, I haven't seen an F1 driver "lay up" and take a particular position, whenever it was possible to challenge for the better spot. Perhaps they were unable to take the spot, but I certainly don't see the notion of simply playing follow the leader. Maybe I'm blind to it, but I haven't heard a driver say "well we really wanted to win, but 3rd was good and it really helped the championship run". While I truly like F1, the fundamental problem I see is the fact that the circuits they run offer few places to pass (sorry, "overtake") which leads to the appearance that they are settling for 2nd or 3rd etc. If tracks were built or run that had 3-4 legitimate passing zones, then the racing would be a lotbetter and the drivers could really "duel" for more than the infrequent 1/2 - 1 lap spectacles we get 4 times a yr. If there is a "true" problem with the series, I beleive that THIS is it. Either force the tracks to increase the passing areas or they risk losing their date. Lawman

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nick wrote: > > Kinda like saying what's the point of NASCAR running at Daytona? It'sonly > > another glorified f***ing roundabout... > > > > Monaco stands for more than just a racetrack. It's a part of the historyof > > F1. It's a place that only the very best drivers can master. It's theone > > track that people who don't watch F1 remember. It's one of the big three > > races in the world. And however many faceless Malaysia or IndianapolisF1 > > tracks are built, there will still be a place for a true racetrack withsome > > character to remind us of a time when F1 was about more than just money. > > Uh, not even remotely close mate Why not? Do you know anything about the history of F1? Which didn't happen in 1967? > Monaco may have had it's place, but it's way overdue to be repllaced by > a circuit that actually allows overtaking, even a significantly faster > car can't get past Well, in that case, lets kick all the tracks which don't allow similarly paced cars to overtake each other. Due to the aerodynamic reliance of modern F1 cars, the only possible places to overtake are long, long straights into tight corners. It's gonna be a great season racing at Malaysia (last corner) Brazil (T1) Silverstone (Stowe) Monza (various) Indianapolis (T1) > The fact that it's enjoyable to *drive* there doesn't mean it a good > *race* track I didn't say that at all. But it is the only racetrack on the F1 calendar which rewards mechanical grip, which is an oddity in itself, and very interesting (or it was, until this new qualifying crap was brought in). > Monaco is all about glitter and glamour and nothing else, has there been > an enjoyable race there in 20 years ? 30 years ? Well, I personally have found every single Monaco GP that I have seen to be amazingly enjoyable, but then I am a petrolhead. If your idea of enjoyment is driving heavy, ugly cars with outdated technology around in a circle 250 times, then NASCAR is all you need. By the way, have you ever been to a Monaco GP? If you haven't, then I suggest you go. It will change your idea of F1 and motorsport in general completely. > F1 cars have devloped and it's no longer suitable for an F1 race Go there, and you'll see how wrong you are.

Nick wrote: > > Why not? Do you know anything about the history of F1? Which didn't happen > in 1967? Yes Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nick wrote: > > Why not? Do you know anything about the history of F1? Which didn'thappen > > in 1967? > Yes Hehe, that's okay then ;-)

Goy, "Developed" only in respect of technological upkeep, yes. In all other respects, F1 has regressed to a point where watching paint dry, or a chess game, is about as absorbing. This is a generation thing, I know, and I accept that. Each generation has its favourite era, be it for movies, radio, music or motor racing. But there was a time when even different generations could delight in F1 and understand each other's likes and dislikes because there was one thing in common - it was a >SPORT<, run by the sportsmen for the sportsmen. Spectators had to be trackside. The problem (maybe the wrong word but you'll know what I'm getting at) is that there is now a generation which has been brought up on only watching sport on television - the vast majority have >NEVER< been to the venue itself. This is why modern motor racing, from F1 to rallying to tin-tops, is tailored for television. Therefore a constant difference of opinion will exist between those of us who have seen F1 when it was run for the racers and on-site spectators and those who have only ever seen the modern, made-for-television, abortion. Not that I classify you in either camp, Goy. I know nothing about your background as a motor racing fan so would not be so presumptive in that regard. Regards, Bruce. "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > F1 cars have devloped and it's no longer suitable for an F1 race

> If there is a "true" problem with the series, I beleive that THIS is > it. Either force the tracks to increase the passing areas or they risk > losing their date. >Agreed, but drivers will still play the pecentage game. Do you honestly think that a driver is going to risk losing the championship when he's in a 'winning' 3rd place in the race? Especially with the pathetic new points rules that reward 'consistency' not winning. Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 30 May 2003 15:44:33 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote: ... >Single-lap qualifying, and especially that single-lap 'qualifying >qualifying' is absurd. There was no problem with the old qualifying setup Qualifying was indeed mostly more exciting than the race. Although a good director will switch to fights, and not stick to the (more boring) front as much. Perhaps just qualifying could be done, and deal out the points there. ;-) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Goy, > "Developed" only in respect of technological upkeep, yes. > In all other respects, F1 has regressed to a point where watching paint dry, > or a chess game, is about as absorbing. I did use the word devlop Bruce, and not progress :-)

Quoted text (22 lines)

> This is a generation thing, I know, and I accept that. > Each generation has its favourite era, be it for movies, radio, music or > motor racing. > But there was a time when even different generations could delight in F1 and > understand each other's likes and dislikes because there was one thing in > common - it was a >SPORT<, run by the sportsmen for the sportsmen. > Spectators had to be trackside. > > The problem (maybe the wrong word but you'll know what I'm getting at) is > that there is now a generation which has been brought up on only watching > sport on television - the vast majority have >NEVER< been to the venue > itself. > This is why modern motor racing, from F1 to rallying to tin-tops, is > tailored for television. > > Therefore a constant difference of opinion will exist between those of us > who have seen F1 when it was run for the racers and on-site spectators and > those who have only ever seen the modern, made-for-television, abortion. > > Not that I classify you in either camp, Goy. > I know nothing about your background as a motor racing fan so would not be > so presumptive in that regard.

Well, I'm not *nearly* as old as you are Bruce :-), so I'm afraid my experience with F1 is of the latter as I only started to watch during the mid 80's some time, we didn't get the races on TV here before that, other than that I've only read about it, and I have actually read about the earlier era as I enjoy reading about history, and motorsport history more than most other forms of history Although I have attended a couple of historic race meeting as Nurburgring, so I'm not totally oblivious to what racing cars used to be like before TV :-) I'm not arguing that Monaco doesn't have it's place in F1 history, I'm just arguing that under the current technichal regulations, it's a waste of 2 hours on a Sunday where one could do something better but still sits there and watches with a faint hope that it might actually turn into a half decent race, like it did when the rain started to fall back in 97 (?) when Olivier Panis drove a storming race and finished at the pointy end of the filed in a Ligier, which sort of disproves my comment about there not havong been a decent race there for 20-30 years, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every now and then......:-) What I'm trying to get at, if they're not going to do something about the cars, and clearly they are not since turning the clock back on regulations and tech development is all but impossible, then they need to do something about the tracks, and as far as I'm conscerned, they should start with Monaco, I only followed the top 8 as TV as usual don't grasp that there may be some racing going on further back in the field, but they could be right this time of course, and between those in the top 8 there wasn't a single pass made, nor was there a serious attempt at a pass, at least they attempt at most of the other tracks There doesn't have to be a ton of passes to make a good race, CART introduced the Hansford device a couple yyears back and I remember watching the 500 at Michigan (?), they did like 4 passes for the lead every lap, that's not no fun to watch, an attempt at a pass can be just as much fun to watch as a completed pass, although the kind of passes that Hakkinen did on Schumi at Spa a couple of years ago is better than ateempted pass :-), but there needs to be some on the track racing going on, because quite frankly watching these aerodynamic wonders going through a corner isn't much fun Jim Clarck going through a corner in a Lotus Cortina (I've seen footage of that) is fun to watch and I could probabky spend a whole day watching cars going through corners like that even if there wasn't a single pass attempted or made and still feel I'd gotten my money's worth, but with modern F1 cars.....I need some racing, and tracks like Moncao does not provide that Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On 31 May 2003 20:40:01 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" ><[email hidden]> writes: > >>You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor >>cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of >>the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when >>you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. > >The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g>

The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

>>The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> > > The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) > > > Ruud van Gaal I loved the look on Wirdheim's face on the podium as he looked up at Kiesa's trophy. :) dave henrie

Monoco was one BORING-ASS race! You can't pass. You can't race with each other. It's like having all your ducks in a row, too literally. -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > > Having someone besides Ferrari up front at the start has certainly > > > made the races more interesting so far. First time I've actually felt > > > obliged to tune in to a live racecast. > > > > > But that hasn't happened! > > Ferrari has won pole at Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain and

Austria.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > They only missed out in Malaysia, and are likely to win pole today! > > Also, the Minardis have invariably been at the back. > > While the latter is certainly true today, bar Jenson Button who had to > sit out the qual, the former isn't and had it been any other track it > might have made for an interesting race, now it will be a parade with > car in front with another color besides red > > For the life of me I can't understand the reasoning for keeping Monaco > in there when there are much better tracks who would rightly be much > more deserving of an F1 race, other than the monetary issue I mean, all > the rich poseurs gather at Monaco this time of the year and we don't > dare upset the money people now do we.... > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

The finish was certainly amusing :) I guess he studied the Mark Martin Method of Winning (Not). -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the bigsponsor > >cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring raceof > >the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalouswhen

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. > > The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:-1.950 > MonsterRank: +305.145 > N2002 Rank:+17.59 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>>The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> > >The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) Hehe...how (not)to impress future employers...<g> Ouch. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Ruud van Gaal wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > On 31 May 2003 20:40:01 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >In article <[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" > ><[email hidden]> writes: > > > >>You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor > >>cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of > >>the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when > >>you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. > > > >The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> > > The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-)

He's Swedish....... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:23:28 +0200, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > >Ruud van Gaal wrote: >> >> On 31 May 2003 20:40:01 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >> >> >In article <[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" >> ><[email hidden]> writes: >> > >> >>You hit it on the head - it's the money. Monaco is where all the big sponsor >> >>cheeses go to ponce around each year. For me it's the most boring race of >> >>the year - strange that the drivers seem to like it a lot. Scandalous when >> >>you think that Spa has gone and A1 will next year. >> > >> >The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> >> >> The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) > >He's Swedish.......

In my experience, Swedish people are very friendly. Very social, a bit TOO social it seems at times when you'd think intelligence should prevail. ;-) Once I thought only an *intelligent* and talented driver could win a championship (because of strategies etc), but now I'm not so sure. :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Ruud van Gaal wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > In my experience, Swedish people are very friendly. Very social, a bit > TOO social it seems at times when you'd think intelligence should > prevail. ;-) > > Once I thought only an *intelligent* and talented driver could win a > championship (because of strategies etc), but now I'm not so sure. :)

Actually, it was a neighborly jab at the Swedes in here, loooong tradition Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:23:28 +0200, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> >> >> The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) > >He's Swedish....... Hey, Heyyy!... Just because you norrbaggar have a hot rally ace right now, it doesn't mean you can take the piss out of our racing guys! ;-) With all that practice you should get out of all that oil you've got there you'd think you could muster up someone a little bit better than Tommy Rustad, heh... :-) P.S. Please everyone call Mr. Larsen and his compatriots by their real names from now on: not norwegians, but _norrbagge_, in plural: _norrbaggar_. D.S. :o)

On 03 Jun 2003 16:41:07 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >>>The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> >> >>The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) > >Hehe...how (not)to impress future employers...<g> Ouch. > Heh, all publicity is good publicity. And that's a lot of publicity he got!

Magnus Svensson wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:23:28 +0200, Goy Larsen > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> >The F3000 race at Monaco was pretty good...<g> > >> > >> The ending was mindbogglingly stupid though. ;-) > > > >He's Swedish....... > > Hey, Heyyy!... Just because you norrbaggar have a hot rally ace right > now, it doesn't mean you can take the piss out of our racing guys! ;-) > > With all that practice you should get out of all that oil you've got > there you'd think you could muster up someone a little bit better than > Tommy Rustad, heh... :-) > > P.S. Please everyone call Mr. Larsen and his compatriots by their real > names from now on: not norwegians, but _norrbagge_, in plural: > _norrbaggar_. D.S. :o)

Finally some reaction......:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--