Forum Replies Created
3rd April 2015, 8:46 at 8:46 am #295718
because otherwise I wonder why the theory is being talked by not only by Fernley, like here and here
Force India a) want to distract how shit their car is and b) remove potential threats for WCC money. This is F1 politics doing their usual thing. Manor doubters are best off ignored.12th March 2015, 17:45 at 5:45 pm #294132
The rules have to be enforced as they are written otherwise there’s no point having them. However the 107% rule is completely unnecessary and they should get rid of it.
You said it yourself. There is no point in having the 107% rule, so why not just keep it on the plate so Ferrari keep quiet and never actually enforce it?11th December 2014, 10:26 at 10:26 am #288612
He was brought in to be the marketing star, he was most likely therefore expected to be the number one. So much is obvious to anyone who’s done a semester of marketing. However, Mercedes GP probably wanted this to happen “naturally”, sort of like Alonso basically made himself number one at Ferrari, so they didn’t do anything about Rosberg because, hey, a champion is a champion, until Spa where public opinion basically made them back Hamilton’s championship challenge from that point on. So yeah, Mercedes favoured Hamilton, but Hamilton made them do it by playing the PR game after a racing accident masterfully, so, as much as I dislike Hamilton, I will say that indeed “it was fair”.24th November 2014, 17:00 at 5:00 pm #287130
What kind of argument is that? It’s his choice, yes, and he is allowed to make it. It would also be my choice to jump off a bridge, because I’d rather be a bird than a human being, and I’d also be allowed to do so. That wouldn’t make “my choice” any less stupid and worth being called such. I do not see why I should approve of someone doing something I consider disrespectful and inappropriate, just because that person is allowed to and chooses to do so.24th November 2014, 16:34 at 4:34 pm #287125
The problem is by not using it, he is in fact using it wrongly. To fix my World Cup trophy simile, it is not like abusing the world cup trophy – it is like not taking it at all.
Yeah, the team would still have won it and would still be world champions, however, what would you imagine would be the worldwide reaction if the coach of the winning team said: “The trophy? Screw the trophy, everyone takes the trophy, that’s way too mainstream, we are the cool kids who don’t need no education nor trophies.”
As I said, it’s special snowflake syndrome to the extreme and both childish and disrespectful. Call me overly idealistic, but I refuse to respect and like someone who is childish and disrespectful … unless they are House, but that’s a different story.24th November 2014, 15:27 at 3:27 pm #287096
Two different things, @davidnotcoulthard2. One thing is procedure, the other is a representation of achievement. The number one represents the champion in Formula One. The man (or woman) who has climbed the very top of the mountain, the (at least in theory) best open-wheel racing driver in the world. If the number wouldn’t mean anything, then why not let Vettel keep number one and save us the trouble of having to associate him with a new number? Good luck finding people who are in favour of that. Not taking the number one in Formula 1 is to motorsport what using the world cup thropy to beat moles to death is to soccer, a blantant disregard for all that have come before you.24th November 2014, 14:04 at 2:04 pm #287091
If this actually goes ahead, it is a bloody disgrace. Lewis Hamilton is shaming the very sport if he does that. You don’t want to carry #1? Then don’t become world champion, for crying out loud. He would wash away years of tradition to be a special snowflake. You’d think becoming immortal in the eyes of the world would be worth having a number you don’t quite as much like as your current one, but noooo. Gotta have his cake and eat it.
Lord, if I wouldn’t dislike Hamilton already, this would seal the deal.19th November 2014, 4:00 at 4:00 am #286077
Due to the reasons @pezlo2013 mentioned, a direct system in a cash4points.com manner wouldn’t work. However, I like your general idea: offer price money per race based on position. That way, the smaller teams would have a relevant battle each time, which ideally would result in slightly more air time and therefore also more sponsorship. Not to mention, we’d be having more action. It would also be more fair for lower teams, since right now one race (read: Monaco) can basically decide that lower tier battle, no matter if the other team(s) fared better or worse the rest of the season.10th November 2014, 22:24 at 10:24 pm #285328
I would donate if I had assurance they would have Rubens Barrichello as driver. What? I never claimed I am not selfish.
In the end, I agree with you. I like their passion and the prominent (i.e. relevant) people who have complained about this thing are the ones who made it necessary to begin with. I hope they can do it or at least get close enough to make a rudimentary appearance to grab some extra dollars for a possible entry in 2015.16th October 2014, 16:50 at 4:50 pm #279340
Do the same what Bernie does, only with more sustainability and more new media.
Oh, one more thing: I’d issue a ban for Silverstone hosting F1 events for now until the end of days.30th September 2014, 1:49 at 1:49 am #276322
@davidnotcoulthard “Ring” is basically the German word for “circuit”. It’s not like the Nürburg<i>ring</i> or the Hockeheim<i>ring</i> are any more ring-shaped.
Well, on this video … bloody disgraceful, really. Revenge is never an acceptable motive, and especially not in fast and heavy machinery. I can only shake my head in disgust.29th July 2014, 19:09 at 7:09 pm #268718
He also said medals were coming in 2009. Bernie’s statement on rule changes are worthless, wake me up when the FIA says so.11th July 2014, 21:13 at 9:13 pm #266395
Can they ever be positive or are they always negative?
Oh boy, just what I like. An opportunity to risk death at the hands of an angry mob. :D
I personally do not mind gimmicks in motorsport, mostly because they are needed. Just in case you forgot, no major motorsport series on this planet has budgets that have less than seven digits. Once that is the case, you cannot afford to ignore the casual viewers and their interest (or lack thereof) in motorsport anymore.
All major sports on this planet (and beyond, not like swoop racing is somehow legit) have gimmicks: basketball (three-point shots, thousands of time limits), soccer (three points for a win, the back-pass rule, penalty shootouts) etc. etc. It’s the reality of life that if you sign huge TV deals, you have to provide an entertaining product.
Motorsport just happens to require more of these gimmicks, since motorsport is by itself a rather sophisticated endeavour and is not easily accessable. This is bad for business, because with the internet and the likes, you need to hook people and you need to do it fast. The time for slowly building passion is unfortunately gone, replaced by a need for a quick rush.
Now, with that said, I do agree with the opinion, that some gimmicks are not very good. Rules that make the competition unfair are unfortunate: DRS (until they change the rule to make it like Push-To-Pass, which has the same effect but is fair in that everyone has equal opportunity in using it) or success ballast are the obvious examples for that. As long as a gimmick gives everyone the same opportunity (or the same disadvantage), I really do not mind them at all and just accept that they are inevitable in modern ages unless we accept a major overhaul in racing world wide (because something tells me F1 as we know it is more likely to die than shrink to a size where we could reject gimmicks).
Come to think of it, this paragraph is kind of missing the point of this thread. Alas…19th May 2014, 21:14 at 9:14 pm #260725
@Garns – well, I probably would not. :D
My point is mainly that there will always be a certain amount of the population that will be excluded from motorsport and many other things in life because inherent factors preventing it. I mean, a 5’7” guy will be extremely unlikely to ever play as a professional basketball center.
Even though I don’t really buy into the story of Hülkenberg merely not having a top drive because of his size (me being a cynic that notices team’s focus on positive PR and Hülkenberg’s popularity with F1 fandom and drawing conclusions), I see where you are coming from.
In the end, there indeed needs to be a solution that helps the drivers staying healthy whilst not giving teams screwing up a bailout or merely providing a superficial solution – since there is no reason to assume the drivers won’t be told to still lose weight even with the higher minimum weight to allow more flexible ballast placement. unfortunately I cannot think of anything good.15th May 2014, 19:08 at 7:08 pm #260503
Because that means that tall drivers are for some reason discriminated against in F1 more than any other racing series, whereas being short for some reason is rewarded.
As someone who will literally never have a shot at F1 because I am 6’7” I have little sympathy for the Sutils of this world. The only thing I would agree on as far as this issue is concerned is that they can’t have stuff like drivers being dehydrated during the race, that’s something that should be changed. That, however, doesn’t need something like the minimum weight being raised (and not that that would do something, since the bigger guys still would need to be extremely thin in order to be competitive) which would give Sauber and other teams with overweight cars a bail-out but merely a rule saying something like each car must carry, I dunno, 3 or 4 litres of liquid for the driver.