|
Human Grand Prix posted:How can you not like the Professor? You monster. He was French and had a big nose, and not Senna who was dreamy.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:I love 80s F1 but I agree about the domination part. Honda won the CC 6 times in a row. '88-'92 did at least see Ferrari, and then Williams gradually overhaul the massive dominance that McLaren had in 1988. Development restrictions mean we aren't going to see it these days, we're just going to stay at Mercedes dominance until the next sea change in the rules potentially scrambles the front-runners again, just like how Red Bull's dominant run ended. In fairness this isn't new, since the end of Ferrari's run coincided with the 2005 regs changes (though they survived an earlier rules shakeup in 2003), but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Just watched Silverstone 03 and Barri cried on the podium, Alonso retired on the straight and they didnt even bring a yellow while they were removing his car, Trulli train was on, V10s blasting, ahhh the feels. We really need another season like 2003.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
The telegraph had it all figured out back in '07
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:'88-'92 did at least see Ferrari, and then Williams gradually overhaul the massive dominance that McLaren had in 1988. Development restrictions mean we aren't going to see it these days, we're just going to stay at Mercedes dominance until the next sea change in the rules potentially scrambles the front-runners again, just like how Red Bull's dominant run ended. like, this is the big problem I have with the Merc dominance, it's not like I watch them win all the races and go "god drat they're better at F1 than anyone else", it's more like "well I guess they won this round of the F1 regulations, when's the next rules change?" like does anyone seriously think Mercedes magically became ten times "Better At F1" than Red Bull overnight?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
There should be a mandatory change of the formula every 2 years, that's the only way to keep things interesting imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:like, this is the big problem I have with the Merc dominance, it's not like I watch them win all the races and go "god drat they're better at F1 than anyone else", it's more like "well I guess they won this round of the F1 regulations, when's the next rules change?" what does being better at f1 entail? does it include foreseeing that the next formula will be engine dominated and planning appropriately?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
how about having to defend that advantage because the formula has fewer restrictions on the chasing team's ability to develop new engines
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:how about having to defend that advantage because the formula has fewer restrictions on the chasing team's ability to develop new engines that's lovely but if renault and ferrari had interpreted the regs correctly they wouldn't be in this position
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
and that's well and fair, but watching them be punished about their failure to develop a great engine off the starting block initially for three years in a row isn't exactly compelling competition like, I shouldn't be watching this and going "Wow, Mercedes got it right three years ago and Ferrari and Renault got it wrong", I should be going "Wow, Mercedes got it right right now and Ferrari and Renault got it wrong right now".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:and that's well and fair, but watching them be punished about their failure to develop a great engine off the starting block initially for three years in a row isn't exactly compelling competition you're not wrong about any of this but it's still ultimately their own drat fault
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:'88-'92 did at least see Ferrari, and then Williams gradually overhaul the massive dominance that McLaren had in 1988. Development restrictions mean we aren't going to see it these days, we're just going to stay at Mercedes dominance until the next sea change in the rules potentially scrambles the front-runners again, just like how Red Bull's dominant run ended. I agree, but going by this Renault and Ferrari both were helped by the '89 regulations. Had the Turbos lasted until 1990 like originally planned I think McLaren-Honda would have steamrolled both of those seasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:like, I shouldn't be watching this and going "Wow, Mercedes got it right three years ago and Ferrari and Renault got it wrong", I should be going "Wow, Mercedes got it right right now and Ferrari and Renault got it wrong right now". Pretty much every instance of that in recent history was due to innovation like double diffusers, blown diffusers or f ducts which other teams failed to spot the loophole and innovate then scrambled to catch up. I thought McLaren's butterfly rear wishbones was going to be one of those, but it just ended up being a walrus nose. More poorly defined rules to encourage loopholes please. I am eagerly anticipating in depth Sky F1 discussion comparing the spirit of the rule to the letter of the rule
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:I agree, but going by this Renault and Ferrari both were helped by the '89 regulations. Had the Turbos lasted until 1990 like originally planned I think McLaren-Honda would have steamrolled both of those seasons. That's kind of true but I really think 1988 was a special case. I get the impression that a lot of the teams were focusing development on the upcoming 1989 regs instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Correct. Only Honda went into the season with a new turbo engine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
But engine dominance has always been a thing, Renault were dominant last time and red bull won everything because they threw £200 million a year at Newey for aero and "creative interpretation of the rules". There has been a Ferrari era, a McLaren era, a Williams era and the list goes on and on, the years where several teams battled it out at the front are very few and far between. It is how it is and it is how it always has been. Introducing stupid regulations to try and nerf the dominant team is the same. Some people are acting like they have only been watching the sport live since 2014-now and only have a reference point from classic races on youtube and we know most people in here have been watching longer than that. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
it's not about dominance, it's about the ability of the teams to fight back. it isn't even about if Mercedes are better than everyone- if they get rid of the token system, have open development, and Merc still kicks everyone's rear end, that's fine. i'd be happy with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:it's not about dominance, it's about the ability of the teams to fight back. it isn't even about if Mercedes are better than everyone- if they get rid of the token system, have open development, and Merc still kicks everyone's rear end, that's fine. i'd be happy with that. also, the vast majority of reactive bans end up doing nothing but set everyone back and reduce room for lateral thinking
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:it's not about dominance, it's about the ability of the teams to fight back. it isn't even about if Mercedes are better than everyone- if they get rid of the token system, have open development, and Merc still kicks everyone's rear end, that's fine. i'd be happy with that. My eyes just went very wide in real life. Jesus. What chance did teams have to "fight back" during the drat Ferrari era, this is what makes Todt so drat hypocritical now. Ferrari owned the sport in the era of big tobacco, do you really think it was separate tobacco companies sponsoring each team? Because it was certainly not one company sponsoring each team. The same company/group owned Marlboro, John Player special, B&H, Dunhill, Lucky strike, Rothmans.... They chose to make Ferrari the A team and Marlboro the A brand and to pour money into them, if they had randomly decided one day to make Benson and Hedges the A team we would be talking about the Jordan dominated era now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
all of those brands were owned by different parents at different points during their F1 sponsorship careers, they had different owners per region, and i don't think any of their UK/european divisions were ever owned by phillip morris
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
the fact that sponsorship money has nothing to do with the point being argued is like the fifth dumbest thing about that post
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
anyway i will be interested to see how engines develop this season (since no one has really used a ton of tokens) and, if they do end up scrapping tokens entirely for 2017, how much progress mercedes' competitors make. if they still can't close the gap then they need to do more than change aero regs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
In that era everybody had the chance to catch Ferrari, they simply did a much better job than everyone else. By 2005 this changed, although the stupid regulations that year played a part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
The Ferrari advantage in 2003 was eroded pretty significantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Early 2000s were far more of a manufacturer era anyway. past the factory teams you had the era of the "engine partners" with Williams/BMW, McLaren/Mercedes, and BAR (and Jordan)/Honda. it was not plucky Jordan getting no money from the One Tobacco Company in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:all of those brands were owned by different parents at different points during their F1 sponsorship careers, they had different owners per region, and i don't think any of their UK/european divisions were ever owned by phillip morris It's all really shifty and all to do with a company called British American Tobacco and the Gallaher Group, different names different companies, same people on boards of directors and would take a team of economists and taxmen years to sort out. Sponsorship money has everything to do with the sport, it's rather silly to suggest that Ferrari would have been just as dominant in the big tobacco days if they had been given the same money as Minardi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Teams typically require money to be competitive, yes. And while it is a sport it's also about advertising and Ferrari carries more weight than a bunch of yahoos from Ravenna.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
How quickly we forget that this is the exact reason Ferrari were loathed by everyone at the time. I didn't expect to wake up today and see people defending the bastards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
learnincurve it literally is as simple as marlboro giving a lot of money to ferrari, lucky strike giving money to BAR, etc. there is not one giant worldwide tobacco conspiracy shuffling money between F1 teams. these are separate companies (mostly), separate brands, separate marketing budgets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
i didn't remember when people hated Ferrari because Verylarge Tobacco Inc. arbitrary decided that they should get a lot of money instead of Minardi. IIRC it was because of, among other reasons, the Hun, Michael Schumacher, the perception that they got favorable officiating decisions, and most of all, because they won too much
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:learnincurve it literally is as simple as marlboro giving a lot of money to ferrari, lucky strike giving money to BAR, etc. there is not one giant worldwide tobacco conspiracy shuffling money between F1 teams. these are separate companies (mostly), separate brands, separate marketing budgets. sometimes you even had poo poo like Marlboro giving McLaren money, but Marlboro's Italian division (or whoever the gently caress owned the rights to the Marlboro brand name in Italy) using their own budget to give Alfa and Andrea de Cesaris money
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Orange-White Alfa ftw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:sometimes you even had poo poo like Marlboro giving McLaren money, but Marlboro's Italian division (or whoever the gently caress owned the rights to the Marlboro brand name in Italy) using their own budget to give Alfa and Andrea de Cesaris money Tobacco ownership is confusing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
kick that loving French pug faced idiot from the FIA presidency and put Flavio in his place and we'll start seeng some improvement in F1
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Some people think Alex Wurz will one day be FIA president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
So in f1 news. Nothing is happening. Lewis is dressed like a total cock and hanging around with a rapper in new york and posting obnoxious inspirational memes about not changing who you are and pictures of Tupac. Meanwhile Nico has been at the factory and going on country walks with his family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Flavio did his Sky interview show wearing what looked like an Armani suit and blue tinted sunglasses indoors. Bernie doesn't wear blue sunglasses. Flavio is the hero we need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:So in f1 news. Nothing is happening. SMUG LIFE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
CratSock posted:SMUG LIFE. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Lewis has actually managed to fool some people with his act, like that article someone posted a couple weeks ago that was LEWIS IS THE MOST ALPHA MALE DRIVER IN THE UNIVERSE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:44
|
|