@ptactive 1 week ago
Forum Replies Created
25th September 2015, 19:43 at 7:43 pm #306038
This is beside the topic, but does Alonso fit into any of this or has he already signed a deal elsewhere?3rd September 2015, 6:48 at 6:48 am #3042083rd September 2015, 6:47 at 6:47 am #30420725th August 2015, 4:03 at 4:03 am #303820
The fan car was really cool – to bad they banned it for being efficient!18th August 2015, 10:50 at 10:50 am #303312
It certainly is a looker, so wide and stout – a world apart from wing-dominated aerodynamics we’re used to seeing.16th August 2015, 18:39 at 6:39 pm #303216
My favourite F1 design innovation – 6 wheeled Tyrrell
My most hated F1 design innovation – high nose (I just wish it have never, ever happened…it took away the beauty from the cars)13th August 2015, 18:27 at 6:27 pm #303176
What is DRS? A technological add-on to make the car ahead defenceless and the one behind powerful, so that the latter just blitzes past the former as if it were standing still. Isn’t that artificial? Yes.
Why are degrading tyres advocated? So that the cars lose performance and the driver (and the engineers) is made to plan when to leave the track for a pitstop and gain or lose an advantage based on his and his team’s power of strategy. The power of strategy decides the result. If that ain’t a gimmick, I don’t know what is.
All these bring in needless external elements to make the action spicy. Am I bringing in an external element? Am I making the driver or his machine powerless? Then, how on earth, can my proposal be classified a gimmick?
Overtaking has always been done, pole positions have always been set, fastest laps have always been set – these are all hallmarks of great drivers. I’m just adding points for that. It’s fine with me if you and the other fans disagree with it, but this explanation should make it clear once and for all why DRS, degrading tyres, et al are gimmicks but my proposal isn’t…I am NOT bringing in an EXTERNAL ELEMENT to spice up the action…13th August 2015, 18:12 at 6:12 pm #303175
If the steps you have proposed lead to exciting racing, I will surely back down on my suggestion (I’d even throw it in the bin). I think we’re on the same page with respect to banning pit-stops. I am happy that someone has raised that point because pit-stops really aren’t racing. In fact, using pit-stops and team-engineered strategies (where the driver has next to no involvement sometimes) to make races exciting is the GREATEST GIMMICK of all time, and the Monaco Grand Prix was proof of that. And yet, it’s strange that the sport’s veterans including Gary Andersen (a man I have immense respect for) do not think that way…
I think it’s fairly clear that pitstops have no place in pure racing, now that in-race refueling is banned – take this degrading tyre and two tyre compound gimmicky rules out of the way and apply Robert’s suggestions. Let’s see how that works!13th August 2015, 10:03 at 10:03 am #303167
Not every driver is a Senna!
Anyway, I am now siding with @OmaRpepper’s suggestion for one point for the driver who has overtaken the most in a race.
In that respect, I’d like to reply to @pH: I do believe that pole positions, overtaking and fastest laps should also be rewarded in terms of points.
But most people object this as it would interfere with tradition. Well, to them I say we don’t live in the past but the present. And I have absolutely no qualms about fastest lap, pole position or overtaking points interfering with the final championship reckoning, because these factors are all part and parcel of racing.
It’s not like we are awarding championship points for the most PR-friendly driver, or like Formula E making fans decide who gets power boost – those are all gimmicks, and so are DRS and purposefully induced tyre degradation. Points for overtakes, fastest lap or pole positions are NOT gimmicks. By points for overtakes, I now refer to @OmarPepper’s suggestion and not to what I suggested earlier which invoked a lot opposition.12th August 2015, 18:02 at 6:02 pm #30314912th August 2015, 16:37 at 4:37 pm #303147
Then imagine how much more zest would they have if there is a point they could gather…how much difference would it make for a Manor?12th August 2015, 8:11 at 8:11 am #303119
This is a greater incentive, especially for those finishing below the points scoring positions such as the Manors…11th August 2015, 4:40 at 4:40 am #303098
@OmarR-Pepper‘s suggestion does not make it complicated in anyway. What’s complicating in that? It does not compromise qualifying in any way, because you never know whether an overtaking move would take you out of the race if it goes wrong. So no driver or team in their right mind would recommend “sacrificing qualifying on purpose” or worse, “sitting out qualifying” just for one point.
This rule will be a major boost for the lower teams and it is the spirit of racing itself.
I’m all for it!9th August 2015, 18:35 at 6:35 pm #303025
Good on you for coming up with this. Appreciate that!
I’m neither in agreement nor in disagreement with what you’ve suggested. Am somewhere in between. It’s a good compromise solution though, which can be effected without a full points overhaul. Maybe this can be introduced first and we can see how things are…Then we may not need the radical move I suggested.8th August 2015, 10:38 at 10:38 am #302997
The effects of which F1 is still reeling from, with the revenue distribution…