LUFC
Ashley Tait
Game On!
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by LUFC on Mar 18, 2009 7:54:08 GMT
It's majority of the team from ITV....
As for the pit changes, i feel they should have a aprt in the overall race, but not nessesarily influence the final outcome, the odd overtaking in the pit was fun to watch to a degree.
As for the cost cutting, the only way to have F1 around with enough teams that can cpmpete is through this cost cutting, i know it's stripping back alot of the technology, but at the same time i'de rather see a driver related F1 than a machine they guide around like it's on rails.
Looking forward to seeing hamilton strugle with a car thats not up to pace, see if he bottles it. Like the current lineup of drivers, you really dont know where the winning forumula is this year relating to driver and team. Cant wait. Not long now till Austrailian GP.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 18, 2009 8:36:42 GMT
They were changed to the system used last year to stop Ferrari from winning so easily. To win in F1 needs speed and reliability, the points system they've been using lately puts too much emphasis on the reliability and not enough on the speed IMO. It makes a driver more likely to settle for second than to push for first, which is one of the main reasons a lot of people say things like "I used to love F1 but my interest has all but drained away these days." I'm just an old cynic who's not fond of Ferrari! ;D I can get paranoid when the likes of Max Mosely are interviewed on TV, with a large model of a Ferrari racing car alongside him... As for the latest rule change - I can see that in theory it could lead to better racing - time will tell I guess. Presumably the manufacturers' championship will still be decided by points rather than wins? Consistent performance would be a better criteria for them surely. F1 seems to have got itself into a strange hole. I first took an interest in it largely because of the technical developments (ground effect era) and yet you could argue it's the widespread use of technology that's degraded F1 as a racing spectacle over the years.
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Mar 18, 2009 8:41:53 GMT
I understand the need for cost cutting, I just don't like the way they've done it. (not that I'm claiming to have all the answers)
I think Luca di Montezemelo (call me a biased Ferrari fan if you wish but I think you'd be wrong in this case) sums it up best with this comment made whilst speaking as the chairman of the F1 Teams Association:
"The framework of the regulations as defined by the FIA, to be applicable from 2010, runs the risk of turning on its head the very essence of Formula 1 and the principles that make it one of the most popular and appealing sports."
It seems to me that they're moving more and more towards having a grid full of identical cars, and to me that's not what F1 is about. There are plenty other motor racing leagues/championships where the cars are all the same, most of which under the remit of the FIA.
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 18, 2009 10:19:27 GMT
It's majority of the team from ITV.... As for the pit changes, i feel they should have a aprt in the overall race, but not nessesarily influence the final outcome, the odd overtaking in the pit was fun to watch to a degree. As for the cost cutting, the only way to have F1 around with enough teams that can cpmpete is through this cost cutting, i know it's stripping back alot of the technology, but at the same time i'de rather see a driver related F1 than a machine they guide around like it's on rails. Looking forward to seeing hamilton strugle with a car thats not up to pace, see if he bottles it. Like the current lineup of drivers, you really dont know where the winning forumula is this year relating to driver and team. Cant wait. Not long now till Austrailian GP. The points thing will make very little difference, to be honest. When re-fueling was bought back in 94, teams varied strategies, did things a bit different. Doesnt happen as much anymore, so a change is needed. Mclaren have screwed up the back end of the car. They won't be near the front end next week. I think the three drivers to watch this year will be Massa, Alonso and Rubens. Hopefully one of the Brazilians can do it!
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Mar 18, 2009 10:51:18 GMT
As for the cost cutting, the only way to have F1 around with enough teams that can cpmpete is through this cost cutting The only way? The proposal is to introduce a spending cap of £30m for any teams that wish to opt in to a whole host of items that give a car a big performance advantage. That may sound like a big budget but when you consider what that needs to pay for and that this is meant to be one of the biggest sports in the World it's a pitiful budget. Most NHL teams easily blow that budget in player wages alone. F1 generates plenty of revenue. The money coming in across the whole sport is much more than the money going out. I don't think team budget cuts is the only way to ensure there are enough back markers. A bit of an adjustment in the revenue sharing formulae would make a bigger difference without having anywhere near as much of a negative impact on what we customers see. Edit: £30m (~$42m) not $30m ... that's still not much in the context. For what it's worth, the NHL wage cap is currently $56.7m and that's just for players' wages. The NFL has a cap of $116m and a minimum wage bill of $98.8m!
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 18, 2009 13:00:08 GMT
It seems to me that they're moving more and more towards having a grid full of identical cars, and to me that's not what F1 is about. There are plenty other motor racing leagues/championships where the cars are all the same, most of which under the remit of the FIA. I can understand them moving in that direction to some degree. I've friends who've long prefered the likes of Touring Cars to F1 and I can see their point these days. As you say though the best of F1 is very different - a race at Spa was a whole diferent kettle of fish! It seems F1 needs a shakeup but finding a balance between technology, finance and exciting racing looks to be a difficult task. Perhaps technology has taken the driver too far out of the equation both in terms of competition and for the spectator? Back in the days of the Auto Unions and the like, the watching public could clearly see the driver's fighting with their enormous steering wheels - no question about the effort and commitment involved.
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 18, 2009 23:30:47 GMT
so what hapens if one driver wins the first 8 races and then doesnt bother turning up for the rest of the year because the tittle already in the bag
probably quite likely to happen as you will get one team that will be extremly quick from the start of the season with the new rules and it will take time for other teams to catch up.
and even then you could win the championship with 5 or 6 wins and go spinning off on the first corner the rest of the time, while a better driver with a slight slower car finish in the top 2 all year and gets nothing for his effort
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Mar 19, 2009 10:04:34 GMT
so what hapens if one driver wins the first 8 races and then doesnt bother turning up for the rest of the year because the tittle already in the bag probably quite likely to happen as you will get one team that will be extremly quick from the start of the season with the new rules and it will take time for other teams to catch up. Agreed. The only thing standing in the way of that happening is the team championship, which will be decided using the same points system as last year. If Massa, Kimi or Alonso tie up the title early on I can see them using the remaining races as testing time for next year's car. Especially with the new anti-testing rules (ridiculous - imagine a pro hockey league that restricts training!)
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 19, 2009 12:34:10 GMT
OK, playing devils advocate...
There is the same chance of the title going down to the wire as in a 'points' championship. Looking at the last couple of seasons, the sport has been closer than ever, (7 different winners last year) so the odds of one man winning the first 8 races are minimal at best (Until Schumachers dominance, the record was 5 on the trot.) Even if he did under a 'points system,' there is a fair chance he would be all but mathematically champion anyway, so that argument is franlky naive and short sighted.
In 1988 Ayrton Senna won the world title despite the fact Prost had more points over the 16 races. 11 more points, in fact. I have heard no-one ever moan about that result. There is history of this sort of thing happening.
Most teams think the constructors championship is more important than the drivers title anyway.
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 19, 2009 12:42:05 GMT
OK, playing devils advocate... There is the same chance of the title going down to the wire as in a 'points' championship. Looking at the last couple of seasons, the sport has been closer than ever, (7 different winners last year) so the odds of one man winning the first 8 races are minimal at best (Until Schumachers dominance, the record was 5 on the trot.) Even if he did under a 'points system,' there is a fair chance he would be all but mathematically champion anyway, so that argument is franlky naive and short sighted. In 1988 Ayrton Senna won the world title despite the fact Prost had more points over the 16 races. 11 more points, in fact. I have heard no-one ever moan about that result. There is history of this sort of thing happening. Most teams think the constructors championship is more important than the drivers title anyway. BUT, if you have 7 different winners over the year it just means you need even less wins to win the championship. i dont think it will create any more over taking for the majority of the race as the driver will be scared about falling off the track or damaging the huge wings on the front it will only be going into the final few laps where you might see more overtaking but by that point in F1 the guy who usually wins is a good few seconds ahead at least and uncatchable
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 19, 2009 12:44:53 GMT
maybe if you want to see more overtaking, the race distance should be reduced say to half or maybe slightly less and then maybe they run two races each weekend instead of one?
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Mar 19, 2009 17:00:57 GMT
maybe if you want to see more overtaking, the race distance should be reduced say to half or maybe slightly less and then maybe they run two races each weekend instead of one? Low budget single seaters with more teams, less technology and less difference between cars. Short races, two at each race meeting. Sounds like a plan to me. Someone should create a race series like this. They could give it a name like GP2 ... oh wait.
|
|
oldman
Simon Hunt
The World is full of experts
Posts: 1,111
|
Post by oldman on Mar 19, 2009 17:09:11 GMT
maybe if you want to see more overtaking, the race distance should be reduced say to half or maybe slightly less and then maybe they run two races each weekend instead of one? Low budget single seaters with more teams, less technology and less difference between cars. Short races, two at each race meeting. Sounds like a plan to me. Someone should create a race series like this. They could give it a name like GP2 ... oh wait. Or even A1 and link it too countries or even better prem racing and have them in football kit as well! The little twitch at the moment was a good move but not much else needs fixing IMHO
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Mar 19, 2009 17:17:32 GMT
There is the same chance of the title going down to the wire as in a 'points' championship. Looking at the last couple of seasons, the sport has been closer than ever, (7 different winners last year) so the odds of one man winning the first 8 races are minimal at best (Until Schumachers dominance, the record was 5 on the trot.) Even if he did under a 'points system,' there is a fair chance he would be all but mathematically champion anyway, so that argument is franlky naive and short sighted. The points system that's just been dropped for this new race wins system was adopted because the rewards for a race win were too high. Now it's been decided that the rewards for a race win aren't high enough and instead of compromising between the two systems (as the teams suggested) they've swung the balance back much further in favour of race wins than it was before. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In 1988 Ayrton Senna won the world title despite the fact Prost had more points over the 16 races. 11 more points, in fact. I have heard no-one ever moan about that result. There is history of this sort of thing happening. That's because only the top 11 race results counted. They were the rules. A silly system that is no longer used. How is that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 19, 2009 19:24:36 GMT
There is the same chance of the title going down to the wire as in a 'points' championship. Looking at the last couple of seasons, the sport has been closer than ever, (7 different winners last year) so the odds of one man winning the first 8 races are minimal at best (Until Schumachers dominance, the record was 5 on the trot.) Even if he did under a 'points system,' there is a fair chance he would be all but mathematically champion anyway, so that argument is franlky naive and short sighted. The points system that's just been dropped for this new race wins system was adopted because the rewards for a race win were too high. Now it's been decided that the rewards for a race win aren't high enough and instead of compromising between the two systems (as the teams suggested) they've swung the balance back much further in favour of race wins than it was before. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In 1988 Ayrton Senna won the world title despite the fact Prost had more points over the 16 races. 11 more points, in fact. I have heard no-one ever moan about that result. There is history of this sort of thing happening. That's because only the top 11 race results counted. They were the rules. A silly system that is no longer used. How is that relevant? Hey, I agree the new system is rubbish. as i said, just playing devils advocate. And all I was doing was pointing out that stupid points systems had been used in the past - and no-one has ever moaned about that result. I think that this season is going to better than the last, and all this talk of rule changes - most of which are for the better - is nonsense. The Kimi v Massa battle should be amazing, how quickly will McLaren get back on the pace, what will Red Bull and Sauber do, Where is Alonso in the mix, and then the amazing pace of Brawn GP. There is more to F1 (and all sports) than who wins the bloody thing. When stupid people realise that then the sport can move forward again.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 20, 2009 0:13:24 GMT
BUT, if you have 7 different winners over the year it just means you need even less wins to win the championship. So we could end up with the title being won by someone who won say four races but failed to finish in the rest, ahead of someone with three wins and a fist full of podiums...... Yep, sounds like F1! ;D Just to play Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by Carnell on Mar 20, 2009 17:58:24 GMT
New Rule change has now been put on hold, might be back next year though
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 21, 2009 0:00:47 GMT
New Rule change has now been put on hold, might be back next year though ;D Now that sounds like F1.... Apparently "the amendment was invalid because the proper protocol had not been observed" ( BBC Report)That sounds very much like F1! ;D If only the racing was exciting as the backroom shenanigins... Ah well, this gives common sense a chance to reassert itself.
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 22, 2009 15:55:11 GMT
Apparently the legality of the Brawn, Wiliams and Toyota (difusers) can't be checked till the teams get to Oz. Why they cant do it now, before equipment is shipped to the other side of the world is by far a bigger disgrace than the points thing.
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 26, 2009 9:16:32 GMT
Well the season starts tomorrow - who do people think for the title.
If the Brawn is legal, I'm going for Rubens for the title. If not, Massa.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 26, 2009 10:18:32 GMT
It's looking like the arguments over the diffusers won't be resolved before the race - whatever the ruling there will be an appeal. So it looks like the race will have to be run with the result subject to the outcome of any appeal..... Farcical is one word that springs to mind
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Mar 26, 2009 13:05:11 GMT
protests thrown out - stewards say brawn, williams and toyota are legal.
Awaiting appeal to be lodged
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Mar 26, 2009 13:36:31 GMT
From what I've seen and read, Brawn look to have the strongest 'legal diffuser' argument.
Toyota and Williams look to be on thinner ice IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Carnell on Mar 26, 2009 13:58:29 GMT
The board have looked at the situation and have said that the teams are breaking no rules and are ok
|
|
|
Post by Block 10 on Mar 28, 2009 11:26:28 GMT
Hamilton 15th! Still nice to have a new Brit on pole
|
|