Forum Replies Created
15th March 2015, 20:53 at 8:53 pm #294517
I’d take headphones and a 1-2 pairs of light earphones and experiment at the start of my time at the circuit. You can always forego them if you decide that works better – but keep at least one set of noise cancellers anyway, for the air displays.15th March 2015, 20:51 at 8:51 pm #294515
I hate the change as it means I now have to squint to see the timing and scoring information. Given that I watch with people who have even more trouble reading the screens than I do, it makes it difficult to follow the races (my family has long since given up on the commentators keeping up with what’s going on). If it’s a ploy to get me to pay for the app, it’s a rubbish one because the same unreadable-to-me font is used for the data there too.
Did anyone else notice the total absence of the “fuel used” metric – something that was rather important to understanding pacing?12th May 2012, 0:14 at 12:14 am #201438
Paulgilb, in 1976 the best 7 results from each half of the season were counted (each half having 8 races).
Lauda 9+9+6+6+9+9+4 = 52
Hunt 6+9+2+9 = 26
(both dropped a DNF)
2nd half, excluding Japan:
(again, both would drop a DNF)
Total points to Japan:
Lauda: 52 + 16 = 68
Hunt: 26 + 39 = 65
If it came to a tie, Lauda had 5 wins to Hunt’s 6 at this point. So Hunt should have won a tie (if, for example, Lauda retired and Hunt came 4th). You are correct. It may be a misprint in the thing you were reading because Grandprix.com correctly states that Hunt was aiming for 4th but thought he’d lost due to dropping to 5th for a time (he didn’t realise he’d passed two people on the last lap).11th May 2012, 23:56 at 11:56 pm #201437
To answer the title question more directly, ties are very much possible at the end of a season, though rare in the case of title deciders. This year, if the 4 winners we’ve had so far proceed to win 5 races each, come second 5 times, 3rd five times and DNF the other 5, the FIA would have to break the tie however they saw fit because the standard tie-break rules do not apply. However there is only one Champion in each category, so there will never be two F1 World Driver’s Champions of 2012 – someone has to lose out, even if it is done on an arbitary basis such as what they ate for dinner after the final race (provided that the FIA takes the decision).
Tie-breaks happen nearly every year at the back of the grid and, in theory, can be left in such a way as to show 2 drivers tying for a non-title-winning position.11th May 2012, 23:45 at 11:45 pm #201436
Joey-Poey, crazy as it may sound, it is theoretically possible for 2 drivers to both get 2nd in the same race. It would be possible if they crossed the line at the exact same moment and the FIA could not separate them by photographic or computerised timing means (and if exactly one driver finished ahead of them). In that situation both would get the higher position and would share the points for 2nd and 3rd places equally (i.e. each would get (18+15)/2=16.5 points).28th April 2012, 12:13 at 12:13 pm #200492
I’m not sure how to rate Nico’s speed at this point. He’s spent so much of the season so far dogged with bad luck that I’m not sure I’ve seen a representative race from him yet. While drivers getting entire seasons of bad luck sometimes get dropped in favour of “luckier” drivers, that is unlikely to help us understand why Nico is getting all the mechanical failures and other-parties-responsible collisions in the Force India camp.22nd April 2012, 23:39 at 11:39 pm #199874
I have very mixed feelings about 2012 (one good race, one average race, one dull race and one that shouldn’t have happened). So far, it feels worse than 2011, which didn’t particularly grab me with excitement either.
So it’s the best season since 2011, to answer the title question.
Currently, I’d rank the seasons I’ve seen as: 2009, 1999, 1998, 2003, 1996, 2008, 2010, 2006, 2001, 2005, 2000, 2007, 2011, 1997, 2002, 1995, 2004, 1994, 2012 (so far). I haven’t put 1993 on there because judging a season on a third of one race is difficult.21st April 2012, 15:48 at 3:48 pm #169035
There’s a section on podium procedure in the Sporting Regulations (Appendix 3), but not all the requirements appear to be in there – I think some of them are verbally briefed before each podium, according to circumstances.
As I understand it, the drivers are required to accept the trophy, stand respectfully on their assigned podium step for the anthems and then take their trophies and champagne (while meeting other regulations applying to them for the entire event, such as not mixing F1 with politics). The one thing definitely in the regulations is that they can’t be delayed on their route to the podium. The other regulations concern the behaviour of other people involved.
I have no idea who’s handing out trophies, and the winner is likely to have theirs given out by a politician. The president of the ASN will probably hand out 2nd or 3rd place’s trophy, which in my view is not an improvement. The constructor will get theirs from a sponsor’s representative (i.e. Gulf Air), which is somewhat less controversial.
The big thing they can do that is different to normal is they could decline to spray the champagne, since this isn’t a regulatory requirement. A simple “It didn’t feel right” would work as a defence, but attributing it to the protesters wouldn’t. Willingness to do so may depend on what happens between now and then – if there’s some major disaster (connected to the ongoing politics or not), then there would almost certainly be no champagne. Otherwise, it’s more difficult to tell. I could see Webber and the Force India drivers not spraying champagne if they took the podium. Not so sure on the others.18th April 2012, 12:54 at 12:54 pm #199781
Congratulations, @damonsmedley, on being the one to write F1 Fanatic’s 400,000th comment (and a fine one it is too :) )
Thank you very much, Keith, for making F1 Fanatic such a great place to discuss F1 and for making us think. Also, thanks to all my fellow commentors for the debates, the ideas and the enthusiasm that turns a great blog into a great community :)11th April 2012, 16:27 at 4:27 pm #199263
That was very illuminating from Lotus. It is good that it’s standing up for itself, though I dare say some of those targeted may be feeling a bit upset…10th April 2012, 11:09 at 11:09 am #180784
bradley13, the teams are allowed under Concorde (the bit Bernie’s bothered about) to skip 3 races per year.
However, the FIA can penalise a team however it chooses, so anything other than force majuere would net a penalty – up to and including exclusion for missing a single race.
The drivers are contractually obliged to race for their teams as per the contracts they have. If they don’t, in theory they could lose their Superlicences, though teams would probably sack them first if force majuere didn’t apply (the team can’t get out of its obligations so they’re hardly going to be lenient on a driver if they can help it).10th April 2012, 1:47 at 1:47 am #180782
Lak, the London riots started precisely because the police shot and killed a suspect they were attempting to apprehend. One suspect, originally claimed to be armed but subsequently believed not to be. The suspect’s friends held a small demonstration the next day to demand answers (note that this was before the story got changed – shooting a suspect in Britain is that controversial). Some of their friends mistook this as an invitation to violence (that wasn’t the intention of the people organising the demonstration) and they attacked the police. These people had friends across London who then started attacking property in their own mirror protests. These were hijacked by random troublemakers, leading to the protests eventually seen worldwide. Most of the 3000+ arrested didn’t even remember what started the whole thing, but that doesn’t mean that one isolated incident didn’t incapacitate a large city’s nocturnal trade functioning for the best part of a week (as well as impair several other cities’ trade for some time).
There was meant to be an inquest but evidence was lost and as a result the inquest may never happen. This is extremely controversial. The police are only meant to use tear gas and water cannon (a less dangerous alternative that might not be practical in sandy Bahrain) in certain specified circumstances, and live ammunition not only requires specialist training but can only be used in extreme situations, generally involving criminals likewise armed with guns, or mobs outnumbering the police by dozens-to-one. The police are trained in a large array of techniques that are designed to de-escalate situations without recourse to violence. (Kettling, a technique which I’ve read the Bahrain police use in these village attacks, is restricted in use in Britain due to its tendencies to aggravate those “kettled”). Police on horses and dogs, lightly-armoured vans (used as fast yet protected minibuses full of police) and foot patrols with shields, are common. Tasers (electrical stunning devices) are somewhat controversial because they can kill if badly used or if the target has certain medical predispositions, but they are nonetheless quite frequently used against violent criminals where other methods aren’t viable.
The other key thing is respect. If people can’t respect their leaders, they won’t see any point in keeping to the laws. If they can’t respect the people who enforce the laws, they might follow the laws to a point but they’ll see no reason to take responsibility for their actions if and when they feel the line is crossed. Even if they can’t remember or can’t articulate why they felt the line was crossed in the first place. If someone in the F1 community gets hit by a Molotov cocktail from a protestor or tear gas from the government forces, it won’t matter if either side can understand the other or not. It’ll be just as injurious – and it’ll have just as powerful a negative effect upon Bahrain’s prospects of ever getting another F1 race (or any other FIA event; there’s a WEC race due to happen in Bahrain in October, lest we forget…)2nd April 2012, 0:06 at 12:06 am #194832
f1vick, I put some camping advice in my reply on page 1. Other tips are below:
– Some campsites give Sunday night camping for no extra cost, or a reduced fee. Take advantage if possible, for this will help you avoid the mother of all traffic jams and make going home much more relaxed.
– Take a tent you can put up yourself or with the help of people in your group (if any). Yes, people are friendly at races and willing to help, but handling a tent that’s over-complicated in high wind and/or rain is no fun.
– Practise putting up the tent and taking it down again.
– It is difficult to take too many supplies when camping. It is much easier to forget something. Make a list of things you want to take and triple-check it before going.
– Most of the things you will need for a camping trip to Silverstone are the same as you would need for a camping weekend anywhere else in Britain. A list you might find useful is here if you’ve not camped before. The racing-specific things you need, you’ll already know about given you’re a seasoned attendee.
– Check the rules of your chosen campsite before packing a given item. For example, if the campsite rules ban open fires, don’t bother taking the equipment to make one.
– Don’t take anything too valuable, unless you can keep it securely on your person at all times. Opportunistic thefts sometimes happen and a bout of wet weather can ruin sensitive items if put in the wrong place at the wrong time.
– Bring earplugs (specifically a type appropriate for sleeping in). Some campsites are noisier than others, but at some point you will want to sleep. If you’re taking a car with you, the back seat has better sound insulation that a typical tent, albeit at the cost of reduced comfort.
– Bring a reasonable amount of food and drink from home. Campsite food is expensive. If you get a campsite far enough from the track, you may be able to nip into Towcester or Bicester for top-ups at the local supermarkets, but that obviously isn’t the case if you’re camping near the circuit.
– If the campsite says to show up at a given time, do so. Ensure you have the payment close to hand, if you haven’t already paid.
– Don’t do anything anti-social. Tents tend to be very close together, so that music you think you are playing quietly through your speakers may be annoying people 2-3 tents across, depending on wind direction.
– While on “anti-social”, it’s advisable to ensure you use the shower at least once every other day (once per day if you’ve had to do a lot of walking during the day). People are a bit more tolerant of smells than in normal life, but you don’t want to feel dirty either, if you can help it.
– Campsite services (toilets, showers, snack places…) have peak times for 1-2 hours before the time one needs to leave to get to the first session of each day, and 1-2 hours after the time one would arrive at the site if setting out immediately after the last session of the day. Plan your access to campsite services to avoid such times.
– Despite the above item, you will get queues. Even if you’re after the shower block in the middle of the night. Take reading material and be prepared to chatter with the fans around you.
– Try not to spend too long in the shower – there’s never enough of them to go round.
– If you like group entertainment of an evening, most campsites will oblige. Otherwise, listen for the source of mass drunken-sounding renditions of pop songs – it’s an unwritten rule that in the absence of other entertainment, people of an evening will gather together to sing second-rate kareoke…
– Having said that, if you’re staying in a “quiet” campsite, don’t initiate any kareoke (drunken or otherwise). Simply because the organisers know where to put noisy people to avoid bothering those who want to sleep doesn’t mean any of the visitors do.
-26th March 2012, 13:29 at 1:29 pm #198093
Paul di Resta said there were rivers on the track, which by itself would be sufficient to cause a red flag, on the same basis as Brazil 2003 was delayed.
Lakes of water are an excuse because the problem is the water clearing speed of the tyres. If the amount of water is more than the amount the tyres can clear, going at even 1mph won’t stop aquaplaning. Of course, going faster impedes water clearance, but if the cars can’t travel enough to be steered round the corners due to the quantity of water, stopping the race is the only safe recourse. Perhaps the extreme wet tyres should have a larger tread cut to enable water clearance comparable to 10-20 years ago (it got reduced during the Bridgestone-Michelin tyre wars and has not been increased since).18th March 2012, 16:55 at 4:55 pm #196265
The Forum isn’t on iPlayer, so I suspect it won’t have been on after the live race either.