posted Dec 15, 2008

I believe (uncontrolled vomiting) this is the best news thang thing I've heard also?

...Now instead of a 48 years lifelong fanscination and fan energy & time focused on the premier race series e Formula One (thank you, Rob Walker)I can now spend some quality time & find out what my grandchildren's names are, heck, find out their parents names too, for that matter. I can begin to broaden my horizions beyond der braking zone, straights, reverse cambers and pit lane at the likes o'sPa??

Really no fuel stops, generic engines, why not go to drive by same CPU module in each car and eliminate the driver cost...or pay them erractic drivers the same wage in a suck-the-life-out-of-everything, bland socilalist way? That will save money -sure it will take away motivation to excell, ja, like taking out pit stops reduces the intrigue and smarts applied as team strategy to out manouever other teams und win a race, but again, SVAE OPERATING COSTS money it will.

And totally dumb down the level to fans who like the idea.

But honestly, a generic engine in a Scuderia Ferrari? Holy hell man, no good can come from that, end or no end of F1. ..not good.

Good job Bernie Billions, thou may have finally strangled it under control ,if not killed the Golden Goose once and for all.

Hey now a wholly owned e directed manufacturers Formula series makes more sense than ever! That would be a great thing.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 15, 2008

Baseler, not all motorcycle racing formulas have two races a day. That's particular to Superbikes (both world and national). While there are three races on a MotoGP race day there are one apiece for 125GP, 250GP and MotoGP (formerly the 500cc class) classes.

I've been proclaiming that refueling should be banned for years. The only reason pit-stops came in in the first place was because one team (can't remember who now) realised that they could get a real advantage out of running with a much smaller fuel load and pitting to refuel halfway through the race.

Then everyone started doing it and there was no advantage to be had. So why bother? Why not have a race decided out on the track? Quite frankly that's where a race SHOULD be decided. Pit-stop strategy has added another facet to F1 but it's become far too important and it's time it went.

For now anyway...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

If a car can't drive 200 miles without at least 2 pitstops then this makes a mockery of motorsport - try drag racing instead!

Why oh why are there so many mechanics? Why can't there be a maximum of 2 per car? All I can see is 2 per wheel.

Formula 1 used to be the greatest motorsport, now is boring boring boring. I watch 5 minutes and then switch off.

I want ferrari to build it's own car, I don't want standard engines. I want to see drivers race and overtake. RACE and OVERTAKE.

LET'S BE HONEST!

If jenson Button (and most other F1 drivers) was a "true" racing driver, he would never drive a F1 car that had no chance winning, nevermind getting into the top 10. A racer has a competitive spirit, even if his wages were much much lower, he'd drive a competitive car. 90% or more F1 car's will never win or reach the top 3.

Boring boring boring.

Obvious solution - Have a maximum number of staff at each GP. 2 mechanics per car. 1 computer Tech. 1 manager. 1 floozy per driver.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

Guys, my understanding of the rule about "pit Stops" is that, RE-FUELLING will not be allowed. There will be pit stops for new tyres. So there is still plenty of potential for cockups..hehehehe.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

Certainly a step in the right direction and a greater test for the driver in how they will balance their overtaking while preserving their fuel.
Naturally they will probably have tanks big enough to go the whole race distance and the question will be - how much fuel will they add in order to not handicap the driver but also to allow them to fight for position.
It is going to be a steep learning curve for all!

p.s i'm assuming that the new aero regs will allow for more overtaking!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

I vehemently disagree with the "1 floozy per driver" rule. The more floozies the better, I say.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 19, 2008

Ellipsis Man, I bet you can guess which team voted with the FIA on fuel stops?

At the time, Ferrari had the most powerful engine in F1 in a car that was rubbish in most other respects. Giving that big thirsty engine more fuel gave them an advantage, so they benefitted themselves and gained brownie points with Max Mosley at the same time.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 19, 2008

I have always maintained that it looked idiotic to see a football crowd changing four tyres and re-fuelling an F1 car when CART/IRL teams can do it almost as quickly with 6 guys. F1 can save so much money if it wanted but there was no incentive to with big manufacturers involved - that is the single worst thing to have happened to F1 in recent times - and it was the FIA who wanted them in ! It is a bit rich of Max to complain about the vast budgets in modern F1 when he is largely responsible for the problem ! Still, Max is never wrong, is he ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Why not limit the total amount of fuel to be used. More efficient engines mean carrying less fuel. Teams can fuel stop if they want, with fill speed limited, that would bring out strategy options.
Also ban carbon brakes so that the drivers have a much bigger braking zone and we may see more overtaking. As they are having to brake earlier they would also use less fuel.
Standard engines and chassis parts? are they re inventing A1 racing cars? What a success that was.
Give the manufacturers back the scope to let their imagination win races. A small budget never stopped Chapman mixing it with Ferrari. He used his brains and ingenuity.
Limiting aero to simple plank wings of specified area front and back and banning all the other adornments would negate the advantages of large wind tunnels.
There are many simple ways to limit costs without taking away the designers ability to gat an advantage.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

Pity refuelling is banned for 2010, Limiting the amount of fuel used in a race is the best way of having fuel efficient engines, the cap on engine revs really does not provide any spectacle because all cars are now within 2 seconds of each other, they should insist on engines lasting four races, uncapped, if your engine blows up because its over revved, then a five minute penalty is applied for the next race, that penalty applies until a full race is completed or its carried over to the following race. F1 is supposed to be the pinacle of motor sport, it should not be based on making everything the same, TRY IRL or Champ cars instead as a formula to view.

add comment | complain about this comment