Forum Replies Created
4th August 2015, 17:25 at 5:25 pm #302874
@safeeuropeanhome and @Rodney
I think I have mentioned this before…A scenario where a driver could get more points by just overtaking rather than winning can be easily averted with a RADICAL POINTS OVERHAUL. Hope that makes it CLEAR!
Now if you want, I’ll work out a points system and hand it to you guys tomorrow. Hopefully that will stop these repetitive arguments!
Go search in the dictionary what a “gimmick” is. Seems you have no idea… Gimmick is artificially induced action. Points for overtaking is none of that. Double points certainly is, as is DRS and this stupid two compounds per race rule…4th August 2015, 16:26 at 4:26 pm #302866
People always resist change, even if it is for good. I’m glad people back in the 50s and 60s didn’t have such a mindset or F1 would still be racing those narrow tyre cigar-shaped front engine machines.4th August 2015, 16:23 at 4:23 pm #302865
The very fact that you are comparing points-for-overtaking with double points shows that you have not understood or even tried to understand what I’m lecturing about. You’re just like many of the others who see “points for overtaking” and brush it aside just because it sounds so different and radical.
As I said earlier, I may be kicked out of the minds of many here just because of the mindset people like you have but I stand by my view. And you have the right to stand by yours too…4th August 2015, 16:19 at 4:19 pm #302864
Good observation. But we are not racing to make the history books look good.
The points system needs a complete overhaul in terms of not just classification, but understanding. The way the competitors of the past scored points must be seen separately and their achievements understood in such a manner.
When change is necessary, it needs to happen. We can’t be thinking of history when we need to move forward. Sometimes, aggressive change is needed.4th August 2015, 14:51 at 2:51 pm #302860
I may be kicked out of the minds of many here, but points-for-overtaking is not a gimmick…pitstop strategies are. Take the IndyCar Mid-Ohio race of last weekend. Sage Karam’s controversial spin and the resultant caution cost Montoya’s strategy and suddenly lifted Graham Rahal into contention. I know F1 and IndyCar are a lot different but isn’t that an “outside influence”?
Take the Monaco Grand Prix – Max Verstappen smacks into the barriers and the Mercedes team erroneously calls in Hamilton and he loses the race. Isn’t that an “outside influence”? The team’s influence in a driver’s performance should be limited to the car they manufacture and the set-up. It shouldn’t be in deciding who comes in first for a tyre change. The action should be on the track and not in the minds of race engineers and team strategists. Why can’t people figure that out?
As things stand right now, pitstops are the only action-inducers, if you like (we’re not including the Hungarian race here). But that’s “outside influence” in my mind. The only other way action can be induced is through overtakes. Points for overtakes increases the motivation and incentive to do it.
Overtaking is the essence of racing. Go back to the roots of why a race is held – to know who wins. Otherwise why have a race if people will finish in the order they start. Theoretically, on paper, a Mercedes-Benz AMG and a Manor Marussia all line up on the grid to win. If Manor has an opportunity to win, it will take it whether it has the performance or not. That’s why it lines up on the same gird as the Mercedes. It has the right to win, if it can. The rules don’t say that only the superior car should win, remember? Any of the cars that line up on that grid has the right to win, if it can.
If Manor wins, it doesn’t make F1 “WWE on wheels”, if you really know what WWE is.
The problem is after years and years of watching teams and drivers dominate races, people find my idea totally preposterous when in fact it is closer to the real spirit of racing.
I just hope people figure that out sometime!4th August 2015, 9:22 at 9:22 am #302851
More rules, but for the greater good. This will help eliminate needless other rules and change the face of F1 racing totally. It may take time for people to get adjusted to, but once it works they’ll get the point. It’s a rule to eliminate other needless rules.
Grey areas are always a risk in F1, but what I’ve suggested is pretty basic, and if the idea is worked on the grey areas and loopholes can significantly be reduced.
I too love wider cars – I’ve wanted to see them for over 10 years now. The points-for-overtaking regulation could perfectly complement the new technical regs that are being conceived to aid overtaking.
More action and not a dull moment!Plus unpredictability…4th August 2015, 7:57 at 7:57 am #302850
Yeah, I think it was Keith.4th August 2015, 6:08 at 6:08 am #302848
Check this reply I gave to your comment in the earlier post on points for overtaking.
“That’s really a possibility – there probably would need to be some rule enforced which says that once a successful overtaking has been made by driver B on driver A and then driver A on driver B or vice versa, the same two cannot be eligible for points for subsequent successful overtakings on each other except at a later stage in the race, at least 10 laps later.”4th August 2015, 5:59 at 5:59 am #302847
The rule only needs to be fine tuned to prevent the same competitors from overtaking each other…remember, a successful defense also gives points, so the same driver won’t keep trying again and again to overtake and keep failing because he’d be giving the guy ahead points on a platter. And if he successfully overtakes he will do everything he can to defend too since a successful defense would give him points.
I don’t think two drivers would keep on overtaking each other time and time again.3rd August 2015, 4:46 at 4:46 am #30283231st July 2015, 4:20 at 4:20 am #302729
Unpredictability is an important element of any race. It’s what makes a race, a race – or it would just be a procession which is what we’ve been having for quite some rounds now.
If I know either Lewis Hamilton or Nico Rosberg is gonna win, and one of them do, where is the unpredictability?
When I Googled “race meaning” this is what I got:
“A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.”
This is what a race is, in its purest form. I agree that motor racing cannot be simplified to such an extent when you also have the machine element added to it, but why do we need pit strategies to determine what happens on track? It seems F1 has got so complicated that it has gone away from that original concept of a race…To tell you the truth, in spite of the reasonably long break we had before the Hungarian GP I really wasn’t missing F1, for the first time since 2000.30th July 2015, 20:05 at 8:05 pm #302722
That’s a valid point you’ve made…We just don’t have variety. Something like a Circuit de la Sarthe is needed…30th July 2015, 20:03 at 8:03 pm #302721
I certainly need a Hungarian Grand Prix every second week to keep the interest level. I may not be saying that if I have the privilege to watch the race from the grandstands at the venue, but watching on TV oceans apart from the venue with a thousand things going on in your life you need something in it to hook you. Well, I certainly need it…
But I appreciate your point.1st July 2015, 9:25 at 9:25 am #301276
Yes, strong helmet indeed. But don’t you think this gives further impetus for developing closed cockpits?29th June 2015, 14:44 at 2:44 pm #301116
And why don’t you like widening the cars?
I believe the future lies in closed cockpits. If cars must get faster then driver protection should improve – either helmets become much safer and probably heavier too, or introduce well researched closed cockpit designs. And Van Overbeeke’s designs show that they won’t necessarily resemble sports prototypes…