active 10 hours, 38 minutes ago
@bjust Yes DAMS is the only team. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/110215 View
Forum Replies Created
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
25th June 2017, 16:52 at 4:52 pm
That’s an ambulance, it’s red cause it’s fire-fighter’s, possibly volunteers as well. Unbelievable.
4th June 2017, 5:30 at 5:30 am
So Farina won the f1 world championship, Sam Hanks won the Indy 500, Piero Taruffi won the mille miglia, so only the winner 24 hours of LeMans left, is it Mike Hawthorne?
20th April 2017, 2:23 at 2:23 am
I rather have a commentator that’s watching the same race as I am. In my view the role of the commentator is to fills the gaps in my knowledge as a viewer and also provides information that I’m not willing to take my eyes of the screen for, such as timings, gaps, strategies, etc.
On the 2nd part, I have felt a commentator was pretending the race is more spectacular or competitive than it really was, which is why I felt Crofty was hyping up, he pretty much said it himself, live, Crofty said he knew it was a long shot but he had to be excited with the prospect of Hamilton coming back, in the end I think he was not wrong to do so but I still think commentators shouldn’t hype up. I feel Crofty is pressured to deliver that excitement, that’s what I meant with the “it’s Crofty’s job to hype up” comment. Definitely not the excitement Murray Walker had for F1. Crofty, he’s always trying to be entertaining trying to push sky, he’s bias because he’s on sky’s side.
Edwards excitement I feel is more genuine, it’s not that Edwards hypes up when there’s nothing to be excited about but rather Edwards truly believing on a different outcome. Edwards gets excited about Lewis and the Brits which is only natural, sometimes though I feel like Edwards is a bit distracted, he makes more mistakes and old fashioned assumptions, for instances he picks up on anything to say that Max might be a bit immature.
I’d rather have the Brundle and Coulthard of old, they were together for just a season but they had the perfect stance.
10th February 2017, 2:50 at 2:50 am
The disconcerting truth is that there are many respected news outlets that do fabricated, fickle articles and click bait articles that exercise their opinion above factual information, often focusing in opinion rather than actual verified trusted content. F1 is so secretive that sensational stories and rumours are hard to tell apart, it’s entertaining nonetheless. Journalists do like to play hero, superstar or genius, although I think often these fake or copy paste news are the result of media companies relying on computer generated articles rather than actual living journalists. They’ve got the voice and so influence the world with it. I wouldn’t censor daily mail I just suggest not following the media unthinkingly.
1st December 2015, 17:25 at 5:25 pm
Verstappen on Ericsson. Not the cleanest move but it was all on the brakes, as the STR couldn’t even follow the Sauber on the long straight.
30th October 2015, 17:41 at 5:41 pm
Nonquestion, In my view you are comparing F1 today with it’s worse decade, especially the latter half. I understand that we are comparing Turbo with Turbo but we’re also comparing monopoly with monopoly.
1st October 2015, 4:02 at 4:02 am
Massa is the key to Brazilian viewership. In other words the Hulk reversal can’t be applied. To his defence, the stewards are known to have a more lenient stance regarding starts.
1st April 2015, 13:36 at 1:36 pm
I agree with PorscheF1, although I should highlight that all of your hypothesis live under the same roof, even Porsche. Iestyn Red Bull has a long term sponsorship of the audi DTM of some drivers but the same happened last year with one BMW, Da Costa’s, RBR have ruled out making their own engines, anything can change though, Ilmor is tagging along with Renault so who knows what twists lay ahead, I wouldn’t bet on KTM, there a tech chasm ahead them.
31st March 2015, 17:01 at 5:01 pm
@craig-o As far as I know Honda are allowed to supply other teams in 2016.
31st March 2015, 16:59 at 4:59 pm
Renault has implied a possible drop out but they’ve also been eyeing either STR or SFI. Honda may not be in tip top shape right now but they’ve set themselves for the long haul besides there’s history backing up my thesis. Honda re-entered F1 in the 80’s with Spirit, proving their worth and moving up the grid to Williams to whom they were loyal, this is until Dennis poached Honda to McLaren.
I’m sure that if Honda is not satisfied with McLaren they’ll join RBR, in the end the exclusivity clause is not indefinite @davids Honda pointed out in late 2014 and has since never mentioned this further. It’s not even like Honda’s base is in Milton Keynes, if anything Honda used McLaren to re-enter F1 with the long term interest of joining RBR, thankfully everything is falling apart with Renault but maybe the McLaren is not half bad and maybe the RBR is not what it was in the past, anyhow plenty of options open at the moment for Honda.
31st March 2015, 14:18 at 2:18 pm
Inconspicuous or a blatant move? Or nothing at all.
6th November 2014, 2:25 at 2:25 am
@fer-no65 Regarding the length I have no problem or whatsoever. If you look closely or if you just wait till tomorrow perhaps you’ll understand what I mean with this solution being far more dangerous than the previous.
5th November 2014, 18:21 at 6:21 pm
@fastiesty The length of the pitlane isn’t a problem in my opinion. My problem is not the placement itself, it’s the fact that F1 cars need space to decelerate from 200kph at that stage and to swerve to the left, but that will happen on the racing line at the first kink of the straight rather than just past that where the entry is located. That section is the toughest part of that straight where famously Webber and Alonso crashed in damp conditions back in 2003. They’ve created a similar problem to Korea’s original pitlane entry.
Also adding a bollard a kerb or anything like that is useless and would make that section very dangerous at 200 MPH.
In my view what they should had done is to have pushed the entry to the left of the exit of the last corner and make a parallel section of the track alongside the actual straight. As you can see in some pictures they have a real estate problem, they have had to build a suspended area of track already to accomodate the new changes that said, to definitely save the track they should have invested and explored that option further and as I said above make the entry of the pit lane from the outside of the last corner running parallel to the actual straight with armco or concrete as in SPA’s pitlane entry. It would provide safety and a shorter pitlane time as despite having a longer entry the drivers won’t need to slowdown just before the pitlane limiter.
3rd November 2014, 23:07 at 11:07 pm
Much more dangerous! I think Bernie will have to stomp his foot again. The cars used to pan to the left and cut the line but at least the cars were under little steering lock and far from the racing line as this cross section of the racing line with the straight was effectively the 2nd apex. What could make the old entry dangerous was the possibility of someone passing from the inside blocking the pits or if someone went too fast into the pits. Now it’s much more dangerous because now drivers pitting will have to slow down at the 1st apex of the “straight” at the top of the climb a part usually run at full acceleration and the some lock, tricky in dry conditions deadly in the damp or wet.
16th August 2014, 9:54 at 9:54 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)