Spoiler - Spanish GP

Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid should have been enough to stop the race... They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( 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.

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid shouldhave > been enough to stop the race... > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I don't see a big problem there. Nice new Ferrari. I think we'll see lots more improvement over the next weeks, unfortunately for the other teams. FIA will need to implement some more crazy rules if they want to stop Schumacher now.

"EldredP" wrote... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on > the grid should have been enough to stop the race... > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( Television slot, probably. More to the point: what the hell was Ralf thinking battling Alonzo eventhough they were on different strategies? -He lost so much time in that one he had to beat off Da Matta in the final laps. Jan. =---

Because Schumacher wasnt involved. -- Steve "I believe in equality, that's why I let my female staff work longer hours,so they can make as much as the men" The Pub Landlord. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid should have > been enough to stop the race... > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( > > 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.

"Edgecrusher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b93dp5$f3o81$[email hidden]... > Because Schumacher wasnt involved. >That's rich, as everyone is going out of their way to make sure Schumacher doesn't win the Championship this year.

It is a very nice car, no doubt. I can't wait for the "no new cars (for Ferrari)" rule. :) Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b938qk$ep327$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid should > have > > been enough to stop the race... > > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( > > A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything > except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I

don't

Quoted text (7 lines)

> see a big problem there. > Nice new Ferrari. I think we'll see lots more improvement over the next > weeks, unfortunately for the other teams. > FIA will need to implement some more crazy rules if they want to stop > Schumacher now. > >

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid shouldhave > been enough to stop the race... A red flag is so hard on the cars (heat soak and a 2nd restart procedure) that I imagine if the outer line was relatively clean then the Safety Car is a good choice. In the end it didn't matter, did it? I didn't see any punctures.

> Nice new Ferrari. I think we'll see lots more improvement over the next > weeks, unfortunately for the other teams. > FIA will need to implement some more crazy rules if they want to stop > Schumacher now. >It does look good, but they didn't even need the new car IMHO. The Ferraris were still superior in the old car hence the win at the first PROPER race of the year at Imola. The first 3 were a lottery with the weather (Melborne, Interlagos) and a stupid first corner incident (Sepang). 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! =-----

It was explained that unless there was someone with injuries or the track was completely blocked, then the rule is the safety car is sent out. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid shouldhave

Quoted text (11 lines)

> been enough to stop the race... > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( > > 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.

Jan Verschueren wrote: >...he had to beat off Da Matta in the final laps. I'm glad I didn't see that footage... ;) -jde

"J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3eb68c39$0$73614$[email hidden]... > Jan Verschueren wrote: > >...he had to beat off Da Matta in the final laps. > > I'm glad I didn't see that footage... > > ;) LOL It's no wonder these guy's rarely get on the podium.

Hmm, not sure you can call it a proper race when the points leader gets taken out on the starting line. If that was a proper race then so were the others. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > It does look good, but they didn't even need the new car IMHO. TheFerraris > were still superior in the old car hence the win at the first PROPER raceof

Quoted text (10 lines)

> the year at Imola. The first 3 were a lottery with the weather (Melborne, > Interlagos) and a stupid first corner incident (Sepang). > 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! =-----

Whoops, open mouth, insert foot. I see you were talking about Imola, not Catalunya. My bad. Also I just watched the start of the Spanish GP on tape and I see that the points leader didn't get taken out, he actually took himself out. Nevertheless, my point remains the same, if the other races were not proper races due to incidents or weather then this one isn't either. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b96l64$focd3$[email hidden]... > Hmm, not sure you can call it a proper race when the points leader gets > taken out on the starting line. If that was a proper race then so werethe > others. >

On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:00:58 -0400 Haqsau wrote: > ...I just watched the start of the Spanish GP on tape > and I see that the points leader didn't get taken out, > he actually took himself out. He took himself out twice, to be precise, once in Q, and then at the start of the race. He then in an interview during the race seemed to say something to the effect that Wilson didn't give him room on the left hand side of the track, which caused Raikonnen to crash into Pizzonia. Since this is not at all what it looked like to me in the replay, has anyone else seen this interview, and can confirm or correct my impression? I'm not sure whether I misunderstood what Raikonnen said there. -- Achim ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

> I'm not sure whether I misunderstood what Raikonnen said there. >Easily done as it's almost impossible to make out what he says at the best of times! and I thought Hakkinen was 'Mr Personality'! 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! =-----

>He then in an interview during the race seemed to say something to the >effect that Wilson didn't give him room on the left hand side of the >track, which caused Raikonnen to crash into Pizzonia. I like, Raikonnen, but who says anyone HAS to give him room? It's not like Wilson ran him into the wall, or off the track... 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.

Hehe, I didn't say Raikonnen was right. I think if he really said what I understood, it doesn't make him look too good, especially since it doesn't coincide with the replay as I saw it. Achim "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >He then in an interview during the race seemed to say something to the > >effect that Wilson didn't give him room on the left hand side of the > >track, which caused Raikonnen to crash into Pizzonia. > > I like, Raikonnen, but who says anyone HAS to give him room? It's notlike > Wilson ran him into the wall, or off the track... > > Eldred

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? Simple. A Ferrari was leading.. MS

"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b938qk$ep327$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? A crash on the grid should > have > > been enough to stop the race... > > They must be taking tips from NASCAR's managament... :-( > > A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything > except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I

don't > see a big problem there. They never saw a problem at Imola either in '94 when Lehto had his startline accident. They ran the pace car there and Senna was dead on the first hotlap afterwards as a result of lower tyre pressures and grounding out. MS

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything > > except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I > don't > > see a big problem there. > > They never saw a problem at Imola either in '94 when Lehto had his

startline > accident. They ran the pace car there and Senna was dead on the first > hotlap afterwards as a result of lower tyre pressures and grounding out. >Perhaps if we all had this fantastic ability to foresee every eventuality the world would be a better place, eh ? Where motor racing could involve no actual risks to anybody and we could all go through out entire lives secure in the knowledge that we are being cared for at every step of the way. No thanks. Senna knew the risks. Senna was the best. He lived life as it should be lived. Your version sucks.

"mark.seery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b995ph$6to$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? > > Simple. A Ferrari was leading.. >

Your the one who's simple. Ferrari's are out of favour. Haven't you been following proceedings in F1 lately ?

He f*cked up. However I would like to point out that if they had started him from the pits this wouldn't have happened. Why was he allowed to start from the back when, in previous races this year, people who did not qualify had to start from the pits? This may sound like 20/20 hindsight but there is more to it than that. To me the purpose of the new qualifying rules is to make sure that the order people start in is related to the order in which their race pace will fall, so that there is more likely to be a clean start and clean first few laps. If that's true, anyone who doesn't qualify should start from the pits to make sure they aren't a factor in the race start. Kimi could have just as easily rammed Wilson even if Wilson hadn't stopped, having a fast car start at the back of the field is a bad idea, IMO. Again, Kimi was at fault, but the incident points to a potential weakness in the current rules. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b98lhd$gik3k$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hehe, I didn't say Raikonnen was right. I think if he really said what I > understood, it doesn't make him look too good, especially since it doesn't > coincide with the replay as I saw it. > > Achim > >

In article <b995ph$6to$[email hidden]>, "mark.seery" <[email hidden]> writes: >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? > >Simple. A Ferrari was leading.. > Nah, I'd hate to think that. It just seems inconsistent, though. Starting grid crash, car dead in the middle of the fastest straight, pieces of carbon-fiber everywhere, and no flag. In some cases, cars crash and slide WAY off the track, and they throw the red. WTF is the rule again? I'm just glad Kimi's crash wasn't any worse - remember Riccardo Paletti? 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.

In article <b995tl$75q$[email hidden]>, "mark.seery" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything >> except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I >don't >> see a big problem there. > >They never saw a problem at Imola either in '94 when Lehto had his startline >accident. They ran the pace car there and Senna was dead on the first >hotlap afterwards as a result of lower tyre pressures and grounding out. >

I'm guessing that the tires would be colder on the original standing start. Even at pace speed, I'm sure the drivers can build a bit of heat in the tires. 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.

On 07 May 2003 02:37:18 GMT, EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>In article <b995tl$75q$[email hidden]>, "mark.seery" ><[email hidden]> writes: > >>> A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact on anything >>> except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I >>don't >>> see a big problem there. >> >>They never saw a problem at Imola either in '94 when Lehto had his startline >>accident. They ran the pace car there and Senna was dead on the first >>hotlap afterwards as a result of lower tyre pressures and grounding out. >> > >I'm guessing that the tires would be colder on the original standing start. >Even at pace speed, I'm sure the drivers can build a bit of heat in the tires. > >Eldred >

Mark has obviously seen the 60 seconds documentary about the reason for Senna's accident. That documentary speculated that the accident was caused because of driving behind pace-car for so many laps that tires cooled down and as a result Senna's car lowered enough to make a ground contact at tamburello (sparks can been seen just before the accident), air couldn't flow below car and all ground effect was lost which made the car uncontrollable.

"Pasi Rahikainen" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding > Mark has obviously seen the 60 seconds documentary about the reason for > Senna's accident. That documentary speculated that the accident was caused > because of driving behind pace-car for so many laps that tires cooled downand > as a result Senna's car lowered enough to make a ground contact attamburello > (sparks can been seen just before the accident), air couldn't flow belowcar and > all ground effect was lost which made the car uncontrollable. I think the official reason for Senna's crash was that his specially-made steering column snapped - that was the basis of the trial against P. Head and F.Williams. /Matt

On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:11:41 -0400 Haqsau wrote: > ...I would like to point out that if they had started > him from the pits this wouldn't have happened. Good point. OTOH, even in sim racing we learn that when you're behind others - and the more so when you're behind _everyone_ else - you don't go for a quick start, but only drive as fast as the visible track portion ahead of you permits, prepared to brake for anything that might happen in front of you. If you can't see what's happening ahead of you, you just can't do a flat-out start. This mistake keeps being made again and again in both real and sim racing, but it's still a very easily avoidable driver error someone in a top-notch racecar like a McLaren F1 shouldn't make. -- Achim ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

> To me the purpose of the new qualifying rules is > to make sure that the order people start in is related to the order inwhich > their race pace will fall How is that any different to the old rules? The fact is that the old rules did a better job because with the new rules freak weather or a slight mistake can turn the grid on its head! When there were 12 laps, there was plenty time for the best to naturally come to the top, and hence the grid would represent the 'pace order' better than the currnet lottery. There is of course the often-mentioned fuel aspect now, but that is over-stated as almost every team was on a 3 stop strategy anyway in Spain. 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! =-----

[email hidden]

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Mark has obviously seen the 60 seconds documentary about the reason > for Senna's accident. That documentary speculated that the accident > was caused because of driving behind pace-car for so many laps that > tires cooled down and as a result Senna's car lowered enough to make a > ground contact at tamburello (sparks can been seen just before the > accident), air couldn't flow below car and all ground effect was lost > which made the car uncontrollable. >

back then cars rountinely scrapped bottom. Although at the speed they traveled through Tamborello, a large bump could have easily thrown the car. But I do beleive the investogators focused on the steering colum modifications Senna asked the Williams Engineers to preform. dave henrie

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > To me the purpose of the new qualifying rules is > > to make sure that the order people start in is related to the order in > which > > their race pace will fall > > How is that any different to the old rules? The fact is that the oldrules > did a better job because with the new rules freak weather or a slight > mistake can turn the grid on its head! When there were 12 laps, there was > plenty time for the best to naturally come to the top, and hence the grid > would represent the 'pace order' better than the currnet lottery. Thereis > of course the often-mentioned fuel aspect now, but that is over-stated as > almost every team was on a 3 stop strategy anyway in Spain. With the old rules, the fastest cars in qualifying will be at the front of the grid. When the race started, the front row guys could have decided to do a 1 stop race strategy, whilst the 2nd row could have opted for a 3 stop strategy. This means that at the start of the race, the cars on the second row are quicker than those on the front row. With the new rules, the cars that will be quicker at the start of the race will be at the front. You _know_ it makes sense ;-) R.

Richard, did you actually read my post? My point was that spurious incidents like weather, track temperature or mistakes, etc. can spoil one (or more) of the front runners, i.e. the 'more pace' cars, position on the grid. Raikkonen being the most recent example. This can lead to topsy-turvy grids. When there were 12 laps available that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. With the old rules, the whole point was to try and make a good start if you were on a lighter fuel load to try and make your 'calculated risk' strategy work. If you didn't get in front of the guy on a 1 stopper quickly, a major rethink on strategy had to be done during the race. If all drivers were in the same car, then this aspect of the race would be more crucial. As it is, the differences between the performace of the cars is more than the differences in lap times for varying fuel loads. I also mentioned that the whole fuel strategy aspect (of the new qualifying rules) is over-rated as for example in Spain, more or less all teams were on a 3 stopper. I seem to recall that most teams were on a similar strategy at Imola too. Iain "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9b1m2$1gr$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > To me the purpose of the new qualifying rules is > > > to make sure that the order people start in is related to the order in > > which > > > their race pace will fall > > > > How is that any different to the old rules? The fact is that the old > rules > > did a better job because with the new rules freak weather or a slight > > mistake can turn the grid on its head! When there were 12 laps, there

was > > plenty time for the best to naturally come to the top, and hence thegrid > > would represent the 'pace order' better than the currnet lottery. There > is > > of course the often-mentioned fuel aspect now, but that is over-statedas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > almost every team was on a 3 stop strategy anyway in Spain. > > > With the old rules, the fastest cars in qualifying will be at the front of > the grid. > > When the race started, the front row guys could have decided to do a 1

stop

Quoted text (13 lines)

> race strategy, whilst the 2nd row could have opted for a 3 stop strategy. > > This means that at the start of the race, the cars on the second row are > quicker than those on the front row. > > With the new rules, the cars that will be quicker at the start of the race > will be at the front. > > You _know_ it makes sense ;-) > > R. > >

-----= 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:3eb91fa5$[email hidden]... > Richard, did you actually read my post? My point was that spurious > incidents like weather, track temperature or mistakes, etc. can spoil one > (or more) of > the front runners, i.e. the 'more pace' cars, position on the grid. > Raikkonen being the most recent example. This can lead to topsy-turvygrids. > When there were 12 laps available that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. > With the old rules, the whole point was to try and make a good start ifyou > were on a lighter fuel load to try and make your 'calculated risk'strategy > work. If you didn't get in front of the guy on a 1 stopper quickly, amajor > rethink on strategy had to be done during the race. > If all drivers were in the same car, then this aspect of the race would be > more crucial. As it is, the differences between the performace of the cars > is more than the differences in lap times for varying fuel loads. > I also mentioned that the whole fuel strategy aspect (of the newqualifying > rules) is over-rated as for example in Spain, more or less all teams wereon > a 3 stopper. I seem to recall that most teams were on a similar strategyat > Imola too. > Iain I maybe didn't get to see all of your post, but there's pros and cons to both methods. In the old days people used to wait until the last moment to put in their best qualifying lap. If it suddenly started to rain, then they got caught out, just like they could be caught out now. Raikkonen is a bad example to use, though, as it's the same for all drivers, and he simply made a mistake. Personally I was looking forward to watching him go through the field (I didn't expect him to take me so literally, though ;-)) I did find it somewhat annoying, and I'm sure that the drivers found it frustrating when they were being held up by people who'd qualified in front of them, but who'd opted for fewer pit stops. They should ban the pit stops altogether, give them 12 laps to qualify for a grid position, and make them start the race in the condition that they finished qualifying. That should solve all problems. R.

"Iain Mackenzie" wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > <snip> > How is that any different to the old rules? The fact is that > the old rules did a better job because with the new rules > freak weather or a slight mistake can turn the grid on its > head! When there were 12 laps, there was plenty time for the > best to naturally come to the top, and hence the grid would > represent the 'pace order' better than the currnet lottery. > There is of course the often-mentioned fuel aspect now, but > that is over-stated as almost every team was on a 3 stop > strategy anyway in Spain.

The fact is that under the old rules the public at the track and live TV audiences worldwide had to look at an empty track for twenty minutes. The fact is that lesser mortals had a chance to get warmed up to going fast and making the superiority of their car tell. The fact is I like the new format because it negates these two factors. I also think the "no-qualifying trim" aspect is a good thing for the sport in the long run. However, I do think it should be an equal contest, i.e. qualifying on a set amount of fuel. Cars could easily be fuelled to fit whatever strategy when they drive through the pits on reconnaissance laps the next day, so having them qualify on a minimum fuel load does not preclude a parc ferme after qualifying. Jan. =---

"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b996eg$godrp$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > A crash at the BACK of the grid that had very little impact onanything

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > except Pizzonia's Jag. It was cleaned up after 5 laps under yellow. I > > don't > > > see a big problem there. > > > > They never saw a problem at Imola either in '94 when Lehto had his > startline > > accident. They ran the pace car there and Senna was dead on the first > > hotlap afterwards as a result of lower tyre pressures and grounding out. > > > Perhaps if we all had this fantastic ability to foresee every eventuality > the world would be a better place, eh ?

Great reasoning. If I build one of my own design model planes, I won't know if it will crash until I fly it. If the wings fold up then I will put extra bracing into the thing when I build it's successor. This is called learning from experience and nothing to do with foresight!! >Where motor racing could involve no > actual risks to anybody and we could all go through out entire livessecure > in the knowledge that we are being cared for at every step of the way. > No thanks. Don't be ridiculous. There will always be risks and that is accepted. Personally, I think that the kneejerk reaction to Senna's death was way over the top in terms of emasculating great circuits such as Imola. Drivers take calculated risks. It doesn't follow however that they have to be subjected to avoidable extra risk when lessons have already been learned from similar previous experience. The road was littered with shards of extremely sharp carbon composite material ready to take a bite out of a tyre. Makes real sense to keep cars running on it half way down a 200mph straight into a heavy braking zone don't it. Maybe you would prefer your racing to be more gladatorial ala 1950's and 60's. Wat ya say? A death every 3 or 4 race do you? >Senna knew the risks. Senna was the best. Agreed >He lived life as it > should be lived. I've no idea how he lived his life. How in your opinion should life be lived, just as a matter of interest? Your version sucks. My version of what? MS > >

> I'm just glad Kimi's crash wasn't any worse - remember Riccardo Paletti? Bad news. Only his second race as well if I remember correctly. MS

> > > Your the one who's simple. Hehe. How to make friends and influence people eh. OK oh educated one. What's a "the one who's simple"? If your lack of apostrophe use is deliberate then you are assuming that I possess one of these "the one who's simples". I'm not so sure! <G> > Ferrari's are out of favour. Haven't you been following proceedings in F1 > lately ? Only as a casual observer these last few years. Ferrari are out of flavour are they? Out of flavour with whom, and what colour T-shirt should I buy for this season then? My passion for F1 lies in the years between 1950 to around 1995. Between these dates I have pretty comprehensive knowledge on the subject. My simple ironic humour is obviously lost on somebody as sophisticated as yourself sir! MS > >

> Great reasoning. If I build one of my own design model planes, I won'tknow > if it will crash until I fly it. If the wings fold up then I will putextra > bracing into the thing when I build it's successor. This is calledlearning

Quoted text (10 lines)

> from experience and nothing to do with foresight!! > > >Where motor racing could involve no > > actual risks to anybody and we could all go through out entire lives > secure > > in the knowledge that we are being cared for at every step of the way. > > No thanks. > > Don't be ridiculous. There will always be risks and that is accepted. > Personally, I think that the kneejerk reaction to Senna's death was way

over > the top in terms of emasculating great circuits such as Imola. Driverstake > calculated risks. It doesn't follow however that they have to be subjected > to avoidable extra risk when lessons have already been learned fromsimilar

Quoted text (16 lines)

> previous experience. The road was littered with shards of extremely sharp > carbon composite material ready to take a bite out of a tyre. Makes real > sense to keep cars running on it half way down a 200mph straight into a > heavy braking zone don't it. Maybe you would prefer your racing to be more > gladatorial ala 1950's and 60's. Wat ya say? A death every 3 or 4 race do > you? > > >Senna knew the risks. Senna was the best. > > Agreed > > >He lived life as it > > should be lived. > > I've no idea how he lived his life. How in your opinion should life be > lived, just as a matter of interest?

Completely > Your version sucks. > > My version of what? Your version of racing motor cars. All bases covered. Everyone know exactly what will happen in every single circumstance.. That's what I mean. Not gladiatorial, but not without any risk, either. You said it. Calculated risks. Your version of what happened to Senna is perhaps one of 1000 others. If, for the sake of argument, you are correct, do you think Senna would have realized his tyre pressure would be lower due to the speed the car was going ? Of course he was. He took a gamble and it tragically went wrong. He knew the risks. As for your interest in how "I" think life should be lived, I don't know why you care. I would have thought it was abundantly clear to you from my post, but I guess not. Being aware of your abilities and, also, your failings. Being COMPLETELY responsible for your own actions and accountable for them. No bullshit. No relying on others to sort out your problems. Old fashioned values, I guess they are called.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Your the one who's simple. > Hehe. > How to make friends and influence people eh. > OK oh educated one. What's a "the one who's simple"? > If your lack of apostrophe use is deliberate then you are assuming that I > possess one of these "the one who's simples". I'm not so sure! <G> > > Ferrari's are out of favour. Haven't you been following proceedings in

F1 > > lately ? > Only as a casual observer these last few years. Ferrari are out offlavour > are they? Out of flavour with whom, and what colour T-shirt should I buyfor > this season then? My passion for F1 lies in the years between 1950 toaround > 1995. Between these dates I have pretty comprehensive knowledge on the > subject. > My simple ironic humour is obviously lost on somebody as sophisticated as > yourself sir! Typo. Sorry to disappoint you. Why is your ironic humour lost on me ? Your patronising tone wasn't lost on me, either. And if you come on Internet NG's to make friends, then YOU'RE even sadder than I thought.

> > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? > > Simple. A Ferrari was leading.. >And for somebody who is SO friggin' knowledgeable on all things F1, you come across as just another anti-Schumacher/Ferrari ignoramus.

Another assumption! MS "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9bomg$hld3a$[email hidden]... > > > > Ok, so WHY didn't they throw the red flag?!? > > > > Simple. A Ferrari was leading.. > > > And for somebody who is SO friggin' knowledgeable on all things F1, youcome > across as just another anti-Schumacher/Ferrari ignoramus. > >

"mark.seery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9bqcl$n47$[email hidden]... > Another assumption! >When all you post is "Simple. A Ferrari was leading.." , it's tough to make really accurate assessments.

> > Typo. Sorry to disappoint you. > Why is your ironic humour lost on me ? Your patronising tone wasn't loston > me, either. My tone was not active but reactive to your initial hostile tones. I'm all for reasonable discussion but if you want to make personal attacks in your initial overtures you reduce yourself troll status. > And if you come on Internet NG's to make friends, then YOU'RE even sadder > than I thought. I'm sad eh. Christ you have the intellectual capacity to make character judgements, based on 3 or 4 NG posts and consisting of a few sentances each?. Bully for you mate. Go get a job with the cops as a criminal profiler. They earn mega bucks!! I have a pretty good social and family life. As far as making friends on the net goes, well, I've found a lot of long term lasting buddies across the world, many of whom have visited my home regularly over the years. Historic racing festivals and alcohol consumption of industrial proportions are usually on the agenda :-). A number of these guys frequent this NG actually. MS BTW. My wife and I are on our way over to Italy in a month or two to visit one of my sad mates and his family. It's gonna be really sad to be sitting on a veranda sampling the wares from the local vinyards.

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > The fact is that under the old rules the public at the track and live TV > audiences worldwide had to look at an empty track for twenty minutes. The > fact is that lesser mortals had a chance to get warmed up to going fast and > making the superiority of their car tell. The fact is I like the new format > because it negates these two factors. I also think the "no-qualifying trim" > aspect is a good thing for the sport in the long run. However, I do think it > should be an equal contest, i.e. qualifying on a set amount of fuel. Cars > could easily be fuelled to fit whatever strategy when they drive through the > pits on reconnaissance laps the next day, so having them qualify on a > minimum fuel load does not preclude a parc ferme after qualifying.

Easily fixed, ban refueling...... 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--

> > Your version of racing motor cars. All bases covered. Everyone knowexactly > what will happen in every single circumstance. Where did I say that? Only an idiot would ever believe that he is close to getting there. I was talking about factoring in possibilities, based on previous experience. Of course, following your logic to the ultimate, I suppose circuits should still be tree lined and spectators be protected by hay bales. > Not gladiatorial, but not without any risk, either. You said it.Calculated > risks. Your version of what happened to Senna is perhaps one of 1000others. But still a distinct possibility nonetheless. > If, for the sake of argument, you are correct, do you think Senna wouldhave > realized his tyre pressure would be lower due to the speed the car wasgoing > ? Of course he was. He took a gamble and it tragically went wrong. He knew > the risks. If for the sake of argument I am right, does a replicated instance whereby a driver is today put into a situation where they may end up the same way. We would have learned nothing. Have you considered the pressures on a driver to keep going? Sponsors, tv, pressure from teams, possibility of losing one's drive for backing out etc etc? The call should have been made by race control. > As for your interest in how "I" think life should be lived, I don't knowwhy > you care. I don't really. You raised the issue without expressing yourself very well, so I'm Just curious. > Being aware of your abilities and, also, your failings. > Being COMPLETELY responsible for your own actions and accountable forthem. > No bullshit. No relying on others to sort out your problems. > Old fashioned values, I guess they are called. As I said, Not very well expressed in your last post. Some nice selective snipping of the remainder of my last post here <G> MS > > > >

"mark.seery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9brk6$1th$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > Typo. Sorry to disappoint you. > > Why is your ironic humour lost on me ? Your patronising tone wasn't lost > on > > me, either. > > > > My tone was not active but reactive to your initial hostile tones. I'm all > for reasonable discussion but if you want to make personal attacks in your > initial overtures you reduce yourself troll status. > > > And if you come on Internet NG's to make friends, then YOU'RE even

sadder

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > than I thought. > > I'm sad eh. Christ you have the intellectual capacity to make character > judgements, based on 3 or 4 NG posts and consisting of a few sentances > each?. Bully for you mate. Go get a job with the cops as a criminal > profiler. They earn mega bucks!! > > I have a pretty good social and family life. As far as making friends on

the > net goes, well, I've found a lot of long term lasting buddies across the > world, many of whom have visited my home regularly over the years.Historic > racing festivals and alcohol consumption of industrial proportions are > usually on the agenda :-). A number of these guys frequent this NGactually. > > > BTW. My wife and I are on our way over to Italy in a month or two tovisit > one of my sad mates and his family. It's gonna be really sad to be sitting > on a veranda sampling the wares from the local vinyards. You're the one who made the glib remark concerning Ferrari. You didn't expect any comeback , hostile or otherwise ? You didn't seem adverse to joining in with the overall argumentative tone, did you ? Considering you set the tone initially. Or was that not supposed to be argumentative ? Thanks for all the best buddy/family hols info, but I really didn't ask for it. Or were you just making a very laboured point ? I suppose I should be green with envy at the magnificent lifestyle you follow, but, guess what, I don't give a toss. This isn't lifestyles of the rich and famous, but you seem to be pre-occupied with stating to everyone what a great chap you are. Is that how you make all your great pals ?

. > > You're the one who made the glib remark concerning Ferrari. You didn't > expect any comeback , hostile or otherwise ? I suppose I did. Of course, only an idiot makes unsolicited comebacks with personal attacks. > You didn't seem adverse to joining in with the overall argumentative tone, > did you ? Nope. It's called going on the defensive Considering you set the tone initially. Or was that not supposed > to be argumentative ? As stated earlier. Just ironic humour > Thanks for all the best buddy/family hols info, but I really didn't askfor > it. Or were you just making a very laboured point ? Just correcting an assumption on your part about me being a sad case. You are full of assumptions aint you? > I suppose I should be green with envy at the magnificent lifestyle you > follow, but, guess what, I don't give a toss. Magnificent lifestyle? There you go mis-quoting again >you seem to be pre-occupied with stating to everyone > what a great chap you are. I never made any such statement. >Is that how you make all your great pals ? None of your business really. MS

Well there is more than one new rule, and we are apparently not talking about the same one. :) I agree that they should be allowed more than one qualifying lap. But that's only one rule and ideally it does not affect their lap time, though obviously in some cases it does. The rules that have really changed the qualifying order are the various rules that make it impossible to run in a qualifying trim and then rebuild the car for the race. Between qualifying and the race start you can't change parts, can't change trim, can't change tires, can't even refuel. Those rules are a good thing, IMO, because taken together the intent seems to be, as I said, to make sure that the qualifying order is the same as the order of their initial race pace. Now if you can accept that those are good rules then giving the drivers 12 laps doesn't make a lot of sense, because most of them aren't going to want to risk that much tire wear just to get a good qualifying lap. Unless they are at Monaco. :) So I think maybe 2 qualifying laps makes sense, or use the provisional lap times as well as the final, but that should be enough. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > How is that any different to the old rules? The fact is that the oldrules > did a better job because with the new rules freak weather or a slight > mistake can turn the grid on its head! When there were 12 laps, there was > plenty time for the best to naturally come to the top, and hence the grid > would represent the 'pace order' better than the currnet lottery. Thereis

Quoted text (11 lines)

> of course the often-mentioned fuel aspect now, but that is over-stated as > almost every team was on a 3 stop strategy anyway in Spain. > > 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! =-----

>snipped all the ironic humour< ? > > I suppose I should be green with envy at the magnificent lifestyle you > > follow, but, guess what, I don't give a toss. > > Magnificent lifestyle? There you go mis-quoting again No, as someone so preoccupied with correct grammar, quotes are usually wrapped in the " " tag. > >Is that how you make all your great pals ? > > None of your business really. >Well don't hand me the ammunition then complain about getting hit in the crossfire.

"Matt Knutsen" <matt|||SPAMGUARD||@knutspeed.com> wrote in news:b9aeff$92a$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Pasi Rahikainen" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding >> Mark has obviously seen the 60 seconds documentary about the reason >> for Senna's accident. That documentary speculated that the accident >> was caused because of driving behind pace-car for so many laps that >> tires cooled down and as a result Senna's car lowered enough to make a >> ground contact at tamburello (sparks can been seen just before the >> accident), air couldn't flow below car and all ground effect was lost >> which made the car uncontrollable. > > I think the official reason for Senna's crash was that his > specially-made steering column snapped - that was the basis of the > trial against P. Head and F.Williams.

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as "official reason" for crash, but broken steering column is apparently italian officials' theory. There was some kind of documentary (more like 60 minutes) that analyzed telemetry, TV footage from outside and from the Schumy's car who was right behind. Everything seems to agree that Senna's car bottomed out. At the same time telemetry showed steering input when Senna was trying to catch the car which according to their explanation would be impossible with broken steering column. Another point is that engineers apparently had a good idea about what happened. Wooden plank rule was quickly implemented. Tamburello was also a place where several other very similar crashes happened (including Piquet and Berger in late eighties AFAIR) Alex.

> > Magnificent lifestyle? There you go mis-quoting again > > No, as someone so preoccupied with correct grammar, quotes are usually > wrapped in the " " tag. Only when quoting directly, which I wasn't doing. I just happened to use the same words in the form of a question. Subtle difference sucker. Anyway, this is getting pretty boring. If you want to keep pissing into the wind, it's up to you. I'm not taking this any further. MS

> > > > No, as someone so preoccupied with correct grammar, quotes are usually > > wrapped in the " " tag. > > Only when quoting directly, which I wasn't doing. I just happened to usethe > same words in the form of a question. Subtle difference sucker. > > Anyway, this is getting pretty boring. If you want to keep pissing intothe > wind, it's up to you. I'm not taking this any further. > And as I never quoted you directly or indirectly I can't even see your point. Pissing in the wind is a specialty of mine, so I'll just chalk you up as another J.Simmons.. Full of shit.