Forum Replies Created
27th June 2015, 9:47 at 9:47 am #301040
It did come off – very disturbing.
Although it has to be said the hoop actually got three impacts in this crash, one light and two heavy. First sideways with the right rail towards Les Combes, then on the two occasions it hit the ground. So I’m not that surprised that it failed – the crash test probably measures a single impact and teams will always want to juust slip past the test; they won’t want any more rigidity there than what is necessary (it would add weight, all this provided they have some liberties in modifying the chassis – if they don’t… well, then it’s a worrying thing altogether).
I guess the most positive thing about this is that the helmet was that strong – that it was able to keep Menezes healthy while it skidded along the tarmac for about 10-20 meters.
On a final note, Les Combes and its entry is quickly becoming a controversial place following this accident and the Hamilton-Rosberg run-in last season…22nd June 2015, 9:48 at 9:48 am #300602
My thought is that it was rather Rosberg’s poor quali performance rather than Hamilton’s genius that decided the pole.
I mean Hamilton usually gets the most out of what he has, that’s his main strength, always on the limit (his weakness is not always nailing the setup on what he has), but Rosberg must have simply done an awful first run, because even Hamilton’s first effort seemed a rather good banker lap rather than an on-the-edge pole lap (e. g. he missed half of his apexes).
But I do agree that that this circuit brought out driver ability more. For example, the last turn, Turn 9, had this little dip in the road right before its apex and it was great to see a driver (incidentally, Hamilton again) going through the process of understanding how to tackle it (i. e. backing down a touch just before it, else the car would get loose as it enters the dip and nears the centre of the cornering phase when it transitions from deceleration to acceleration and hence is the most vulnerable to balance issues).22nd June 2015, 9:38 at 9:38 am #300601
Bottas on Hulkenberg for the first time.
Albeit a DRS-assisted move, Bottas set it up on the preceding straight and I couldn’t help but feel he went extremely close to the limits of his car’s grip and brakes as he turned in to Turn 3 as he wasn’t that far ahead when they began braking. He pulled it off, but I felt he risked a spin there.
EDIT: Also, this was the move in which tyre life difference made the least impact. Maldonado on Verstappen was good, Grosjean on Nasr was great, Ricciardo on Nasr was good, but all of them had the following car on much fresher tyres, hence a lot more grip.17th June 2015, 11:25 at 11:25 am #300172
It is extremely good. Veery impressive, very well adjusted to the music, especially at the stops (both in the music and at the crashes). My personal taste would’ve required a touch more of those epic wheel-to-wheel battles between the GTE Pro leaders (Corvette vs. Ferrari?) near the evening at around Mulsanne at the expense of crashes, but otherwise excellent.
Just change the title of the topic, haha. :)17th June 2015, 9:49 at 9:49 am #300144
Sorry guys for my kind of misplaced, and essentially double, posts here lately – I’m often have problems with the forums, my posts just don’t get online instantly; I’m just redirected to another topic when I click on Send. To make matters worse, these posts do seem to appear later on and then they kind of seem like they are out of context.
Sorry again, F1 Fanatic allegedly tried very very hard to resolve these kind of long-time issues, but they still linger and probably will for some time.
Getting back to the topic, @hohum again has a valid point for me regarding the effects of the Paul Ricard-style run-offs on motorcyclists – and those effects are quite devastating for my idea. So scrap it for now, at least the version I drafted above.
I’m happy to see a lot of you seem to agree with my proposition to decrease downforce and increase mechanical grip which kind of underlines the importance of that rule-change from the fan standpoint.
However, some mentioned increasing ground effect – the thing is, teams are already making more and more underbody downforce step-by-step, because, of course that’s ‘free’ downforce (next to no drag) so it’s always the aim. I’m sure the classic 30-40-30 downforce generation ratio between front wing, floor-diffuser, rear wing is already moving slowly, but steadily towards a higher middle value. I won’t necessarily support decidedly pushing for ground effect in the rules, e. g. with skirts as we all know how dangerous they were when they were allowed. ‘Sealing’ the floor via clever little aerofoils on the edge of it seems enough for me.
Interestingly, so far (till I wrote this post, might be not till you see it…) there’s only one of you who’s for some rule change regarding tyres – and I very much agree. I think the great racing of the past few years, since 2011 (most often behind the runaway best guy that is) was down to the tyres and the performance difference it may create. The only thing I’d change is Pirelli’s overly conservative approach lately – I don’t see early 2013 deg levels, but a more healthy balance. I think the current system is great (we don’t need that complicated nonsense Pirelli announced yesterday), the tyres just have to be less durable.
Some notes on engine formula – I’m supportive of an LMP1-style freed-up engine development, but only on the longer run. It isn’t cheap either, that’s the reason. Don’t forget, LMP1’s varied PUs are developed by huge factory teams whose manufacturers pour quite some money into them as well – no wonder smaller LMP1 teams are not using them, they can’t afford it. So not now. No substantial fuel flow increase either – the green aspirations of F1 fends off attacks from the environmentalist sides and at least that part is OK now. Maybe a minor increase for louder engines, if other options won’t prove to be successful in that regard.
Finally, free-to-air coverage – and yes that’s a big thing which should be a priority. Most of the very successful series worldwide stayed free to watch (NASCAR, BTCC, V8, WEC on some major markets), so it seems to be an essential part of the recipe of success. It’s down to two parties basically – Bernie to ask less money and the networks to have the most professional, robust and solid finances to afford the high prices. I don’t see how regulatory bodies may have an effect on this, however, and then we’re back to the ‘checks & balances’ between the FIA (regulatory side) and the FOM (commercial side).16th June 2015, 17:03 at 5:03 pm #300153
I never really bursted out in tears but more like all of a sudden there’s a few tears rolling down your cheek.
@xtwl I meant it more as a synonym for crying, I just tried to find the words really. (English is not my native so I may have made a mistake here as the expression clearly means more than just a few tears.)
@dragoll Yes, indeed the Senna movie caused me to have a lot of tears in my eyes, it was as if it was the first time I was presented with his whole personality and then the abrupt loss of it. Intensifying the feeling was that my father was an absolute Senna devotee and he must have felt hundreds of times more sad than I was – but he never showed it since two years later I got interested in F1 and asked him a lot of questions. So that was moving for me as well.16th June 2015, 10:17 at 10:17 am #300094
Yes, I think we can add doing something with the endless, unpunishing tarmac run-offs as well.
5) Install Paul Ricard-style coloured, progressively rougher strips in the tarmac run-off areas.
These would enable drivers making mistakes to continue their race still (to not get stuck in the gravel trap and pay the ultimate price in racing for a single error), but should be made so that going through the ‘blue Ricard’ stripes cause excessive tyre wear, while the ‘reds’ causes a puncture.
How does that sound? A kind of ‘deliberate’ puncture doesn’t sound good, it’s probably its weakest point safety-wise, but it was approved for the Ricard so I see no reason not to be approved for other tracks as well (we are constantly taking about realistic proposals here hence the absence of points like ‘bring back the old, bumpy, no run-off, insanely fast and narrow tracks’ and the like).
We do have to admit tarmac run-offs have one immensely positive aspect and that is the encouragement of overtaking. Biggest negative? No punishment for errors – getting the balance right for making a mistake or braking too late would be the best of both worlds. Good point, @hohum.15th June 2015, 22:14 at 10:14 pm #300118
Wow, very good thread (if there are many like me then it just goes to show how big an impact emotions have in sports).
It’s also a very hard question because I can’t remember bursting out in tears for a motorsport event, but I’m sure as heck I did it sometimes – I’m one of those men who actually shed tears quite easily.
One thing I do recall is just how much, and in a completely unaware way, I became emotionally involved with NASCAR. I started out watching the season-ending 2012 races (the thrilling Watkins Glen final laps were my prologue) and at first I approached it as just another series with its own, albeit very unique, ways and rules. Of course, I quickly became a fan of one particular driver but still, I held so many more in very high regard for this and that that I simply wasn’t aware of my emotional investment in my favourite guy.
It all came to the surface only more than one year later when my driver – Brad Keselowski by the way – began winning once again after a less than lucky and a bit conservative 2013 season.
When he came close to victory lane again in Daytona, I was – like you – on my feet, cheering him on, something I don’t normally do even for my favourite F1 drivers. When he scored a clutch win during the fall race at Talladega, I couldn’t remain sit either, my heart was pounding at a double-than-usual rate, abrupt yelling all around, etc.
I was so surprised about my reactions and even up to this day, I still don’t know why NASCAR affects me this way when none of the other sports – be it motorsport or anything else – do.15th June 2015, 11:07 at 11:07 am #300092
Yes, I think we can add doing something with the endless, unpunishing tarmac run-offs as well.
5) Install Paul Ricard-style blue and red, progressively rougher strips in the tarmac run-off areas.
These would enable drivers making mistakes to continue their race still (to not get stuck in the gravel trap and pay the ultimate price in racing for a single error), but should be made so that going through the blue stripes cause excessive tyre wear, while the red causes a puncture.
How does that sound? A kind of ‘deliberate’ puncture doesn’t sound good, it’s probably it’s weakest point safety-wise, but it was approved for the Ricard so I see no reason not to be approved for other tracks as well (we are constantly taking about realistic proposals here hence the absence of points like ‘bring back the old, bumpy, no run-off, insanely fast and narrow tracks’ and the like).
We do have to admit tarmac run-offs have one immensely positive aspect and that is the encouragement of overtaking. Biggest negative? No punishment for errors – getting the balance right for making a mistake or braking too late would be the best of both worlds. Good point, @hohum.14th June 2015, 16:02 at 4:02 pm #300022
That’s one more reason for everybody to make up his or her own mind. Believe me, it was not that easy to write the original post either. For once, all that were there for me were my own thoughts and not somebody else’s suggestions; I had to filter everything through on what I thought to be important.13th June 2015, 0:42 at 12:42 am #299992
And suddenly, everybody went quiet…12th June 2015, 15:19 at 3:19 pm #299984
Still, come to think of it, it will be very very hard to choose ‘that’ next driver after Schumacher. The Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, etc. one.
As much as I hate to admit, I feel like Alonso will drop out due to his constant bad team choices – and not even his two early titles will help him out in that regard. His unforgiving drivings might.
I think it’ll boil down to Vettel and Hamilton, but even one of those two will have to go; they share the exact same era. Alonso may fit in with one of them, just like Prost did with Senna despite having a largely overlapping career, because he started out earlier.
Only time will tell this one though.12th June 2015, 14:05 at 2:05 pm #299980
Canada is actually THE toughtest on both fuel and brakes, I believe.12th June 2015, 11:49 at 11:49 am #299976
I kind of agree with you – but it would have taken another driver with Hamilton’s personality in the #6 car for this to happen.
Because I can’t disagree with the team using the data they have available to keep a 1-2 finish as safe as possible (the underlying problem is the massive data stream F1 telemetry technologies provide; that would be among the first things I would clamp down on), and Rosberg is a driver who always respects what the team asks from him – unlike Hamilton. Hamilton is a bit more focused on (obsessed with?) victory and so already repeatedly violated team orders in the past, when instructed not to attack. He just goes for it when he senses an opportunity arises and plans to deal with whatever tyre, fuel, etc. issues are there later.
Such an opportunity was there for Rosberg, when on new tyres, medium fuel load, just after their pit stops, he (finally and for once) had a better pace than Hamilton. He should have pounced – but, again, he’ll never do, if the team asks him not to do so. And the team asks so rightfully – in the current rules framework. If they hadn’t had the data available, they would have no tangible reason to hold Rosberg back and the German would’ve been free to go. That’s how I see it.10th June 2015, 19:04 at 7:04 pm #299817
I just finished watching race 2. Tordoff absolutely nailed his moves; he was the only one who had the balls to make them.
Also, I’m quite unimpressed with Áron Smith’s defensive moves – that guy just weaves all over the track, he really isn’t seem to be a clean driver. Showed it off against Cook in Donington for good measure as well.
What I was most taken aback with though was Andy Priaulx taking full responsibility for his last-lap crash with team-mate Rob Collard. I mean there’s always two sides to a story – yes, he was behind, had no real chance of getting ahead there, but Collard did squeeze him onto the grass as well, leaving him no room. It’s like the Raikkonen v. Ricciardo incident in Monaco – yes, Ricciardo was behind, had no real chance of getting ahead there without contact, but Raikkonen did squeeze him towards the barrier as well, leaving him no room. It’s two racing school philosophy completely at odds with each other with one stating that the driver in front always has the right to go wherever he wants to and with the other stating had the driver in front always has to leave enough space for the other car, if the other car manages to get some part alongside with him.
I wonder what’s your take on the matter, @bradley13.