Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I have two points to make.
1. I think that drivers already do have a rather big incentive to pass. Those at the front pass for points, those at the back pass for getting a better drive with higher pay due to being noticed. I’d definitely pass a few more cars on highway if I could be getting, say, Massa’s paycheck next year as a result :-).2. Even if we accept that passing should be encouraged, the proposed system is not an answer for the simple reason of not being workable in the real world. There are many gray areas and saying “the system can be finetuned” is not really an answer, as there seems to be no way to actually do this.
This is in particular true of the “successful” defence part, as (as far as I know) there is no visible demarcation between a “serious attack” and “experimental nose poke”, and also between “attack failed by defending driver skilfully positioning his car” and “attack failing due to the attacker not being good enough”.
I believe that just looking back at how reliably was guilt assigned after various crashes should make it painfully clear that awarding points (and therefore deciding championships and team payoffs) for what happens between drivers is one huge invitation to controversy.Artificial overtaking is another crucial flaw. Saying “artificial overtaking will be punished” is an empty statement as there is no way to actually determine _skillfully_ orchestrated scenario from real overtaking (e.g. like when Bottas was faster in the first few laps and then slower).
To sum it up, the system as proposed does not seem workable and when practical problems were pointed out, the “solutions” that were proposed did actually open more problems than they solved as far as I can see.
Considering the other proposal (point for the best climber), here the criterion seems quite clear and it does not lend itself to obvious misuse, so as a proposal it is reasonable. However, there are also some good arguments against it (I would feel uneasy about something like this interfering with the championship battle). Still, I imagine I might get used to it, I am not actually opposed. Perhaps I would prefer it as a parallel prize, like the “king of the quali” we have now, with some nice reward for both the driver (a bag of tax-free cash) and his team (a tasteful diploma suitable for framing, I have a few hanging in my toilet and it does enliven the place).
I have long wished for a web database of all drivers’ helmets (for all years) where one could view them by drivers to see changes or by seasons. Since no-one seems to find the time (including me), I did the second best and made a simple list of “notable” helmets. You can find it here:
http://math.feld.cvut.cz/habala/misc/F1helmets.htm
You are welcome to download it to your computer, who knows how long I will be able to keep it on the machine.If you feel that some helmet should really be there, just send me a jpeg with height 100 and white background :-).
I think some people here got it backwards. The _Manor’s bid_ for “return” was a business proposal. Marussia sold much of its assets last year. According to media, the proposal did not include any suggestion how this was to be remedied, nor did it feature any information on financial side of the deal.
If somebody really were serious about resurrecting the team, they could have done it in December, when the infrastructure was still there. So to me it looks like somebody figures that for a few million’s investment they can run an old car in 2015 (perhaps one race would be enough?) to be eligible for Marussia’s prize money of 30M. A nice rate of return. So far I have not seen any indication that anything more substantial is in the works.
As a sporting fan I see no reason to support this and therefore I cannot really blame FI for not going along with it. Force India did not kill Marussia, because one cannot kill a corpse.
Funny, the link disappeared. Here it is:
http://math.feld.cvut.cz/habala/misc.htmI agree that prominent numbers should be required.
I looked at my seasons overview and see that large, very prominent numbers visible from the side (on sidepods, rear wings, or sometimes on engine cover) were the norm until the early 1980’s, when some backmarkers would run some races (like ATS in 1982) without side numbers, but still with very prominent numbers on noses. These were rare exceptions.
Things started to go wrong in the early 1990’s, when the numbers moved (with few exceptions) from sidepods to rear wing sides, where their visibility depended heavily on the viewing angle. In 2000, Prost discarded with numbers entirely (the wily Prost again! :-) ), in 2002 more teams joined and things went quickly bad.
Since this was the time when I stopped following F1, I have no idea why this happened. Perhaps teams felt that everybody can recognize Schumacher and the others do not matter anyway :-).
Side-step: rather than a single season, I think following a single driver might have its appeal. There’s some high drama just waiting for a Hollywood-style tear squeezer (like Stewart grooming Cevert to be his heir, only to lose him just when the time was right).
My earliest definite F1 memory: A ball of fire after the start at Monza in ’78. I remember that those beautiful black-and-gold coffins on wheels were my favourites then and I had been rooting for Peterson, so I had to follow F1 before that already, but I have no particular memory I could point to.
Actually, this is my only memory pertaining to a particular race (with few exceptions much more recently). After Peterson’s death I was interested more in cars and seasons then drivers or races, I remember rooting in vain for Ligier JS 11 and I was really happy when Williams FW07B won in 1980, that car had a low-key elegance that sticks with you.
My Top 5 F1 cars:
Lotus 79 (1978)
Williams FW07B (1980)
McLaren M23 (the verson of 1974)
Ligier JS11 (1979)
Ferrari 156 Sharknose (1961)Obviously, I have a weakness for the late 1970’s – early 1980’s, in fact more than half of the cars from 1979-1982 would be strong contenders for my Top 5. There were also many awesome liveries to be seen in those days.
I actually do appreciate smoother lines of later seasons, but the raised noses (and snowploughs) ruin the cars for me. Still, a honorable mention is due, the balanced lines of McLaren MP4/13 (1998) almost made me overlook the nose and put it into the list.
I am not sure social media is crucial (though it would help). I can see a much bigger impact if they ease up on copyright restrictions, like if they stop hunting videos on YouTube, make more footage available etc. But even that is, IMHO, just secondary. I think the main problem is elsewhere.
When I was growing up in the 1980’s, we were technology minded. Many of us made flying models, many of us made our own weapons for play (crossbows, swords and such), quite a few boys also enjoyed putting together various electric contraptions. And of course, most classmates were heavily into cars. They knew what kind of engine one would find in this or that car, they were interested in new models of various makers, they wanted to drive them not to get somewhere, but to interact with this technology. Races were thus a natural interest and Formula 1 was the top. Our generation could relate to F1 in many ways, it wasn’t just the glamour and thrilling races (thrill being supplied most often by acccidents).
Today’s generation is into technology as well, but of different kind: They are putting together web pages, programming games for mobiles, or just spending their time in front of the screen playing games. For many of them, car is just a tool to get from point A to point B. Formula 1 has pretty much no connection to this world. While it is true that for this new generation, social media are the preferred channel of communication, first you actually have to somehow make them interested in F1 so that they have reason to join the F1 social media (if there were any). I think this is the core problem and I offer no advice how to face it.
I see it just like @roald. Brown’s advantage was mainly in its double diffuser which hid its shortcomings, but once the other teams caught up, Brown faded away. This strongly suggests that Brown missed their train in the nose area.
If I were a dictator (of F1), every car with a raised nose would get 3 seconds added to its qualifying times and during each race its driver would have to stop every 20 laps and apologize to viewers for insulting their eyes with such an ugly car.Max Chilton – 0 WDC’s 0 Wins 0 Poles, retires mid-season in 2018 after starting in and finishing his 100th consecutive GP.
Some details on the Czech Republic.
I have no idea what the original contributor meant by “not free to air”, so I’ll leave explanation to him/her.
TV Nova is a private channel that broadcasts on our default public terrestrial DTV multiplex, therefore it is free. It broadcasts all races that are not at night (I assume the list given above is correct, never cared to compile one).
The broadcast is interrupted three times for commercials, and given that most races have boring periods that can be reasonably well predicted, they usually manage to fit them in reasonably well.
The commentator is so-so. It is a guy who has been doing it for years, so he does know about the sport, but sometimes he misses interesting developments in a race and is not as funny as he thinks he is. I guess he’s reasonably OK. He has usually another guy on the line who actually worked in McLaren for some years and still has his contacts in the paddock, so he does have interesting things to say. I gather it’s this other guy who gets interesting stuff (caps, used gloves etc.) and pretty much every race there is some sort of a quizz for these prices running on their dedicated F1 web site, so I guess the Czech F1 fan does not have it really bad.For qualifying one has to go to Nova Sport, which is a pay channel. I prefer to watch it streamed online.
Just a little historical perspective:
The 10-8-…system mentioned above was the least rewarding ever for the winner, no surprise as it came at the height of Schumacher dominance, the #1 to #2 ratio was 1.25. The current system’s 1.38 ratio is comparable to the 8-6-… system from 1950-1960 with its 1.33.
The most used system 9-6-… had ratio 1.5 (1960-1990), in the next decade the 10-6-… system rewarded the most, the ratio was 1.67.I am partial to the 9-6-.. system, but I do not mind the current ratio either.
Speaking about a dominant team, another number of interest is what share the 1-2 finish yields of the total available:
8-6-… gives 58%
9-6-… gives 60%
10-6-… gives almost 62%
10-8-… gives 46%
25-18-… gives 39%So the current system makes a “one dominant team season” last longest before the WCC is mathematically over.
