|
Bold 2017 Prediction: Massa scores more points than Bottas.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Bold 2017 Prediction: Nando atop the podium at at least one GP
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Just listening to Radio 5 live season preview and they had Toto and Claire Williams on at the same time for an interview. Claire apparently made Toto beg for Bottas haha!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
A mystery solved Ladies and Gentlemen, not only the exact reason why F1 isn't at Watkins Glen, but also the first recorded instance of Bernie bankrupting a track owner. 1978 champion Mario Andretti scored his only point of the 1980 season at Watkins Glen, close to his hometown in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, this was to be the last championship Formula One race at the rather isolated Watkins Glen circuit. The corporation running the circuit was heavily in debt and went bankrupt after it could not meet Bernie Ecclestone and FOCA's increased demands, and the circuit was struck from the 1981 season calendar in May of that year and although there were other Grand Prixs that would be run in the United States during the 1980s aside from Long Beach, the United States Grand Prix would not be run again until 1989 on a street circuit in Phoenix, Arizona- and not one of those venues saw the success and longevity that this event had at Watkins Glen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
There is some wrong information in that blurb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
I definitely would not call Nazareth close to Watkins Glen. It's atleast 3 hours away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
It's written by a European most likely, where America consists of New York, Florida, California and Las Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Indy Cars belting round Watkins flashed up on my twatter feed today. I'm doubling down on my desire for F1 to return under Liberty and if you disagree I give you the same earth-shattering 'gently caress you' I reserve for those who don't think Rouen shouldn't be rebuilt and reinstated. 
Theophany fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
I like the Glen a lot so naturally I don't want the FIA going near it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Why? Threat of Tilke?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Theophany posted:Why? Threat of Tilke? Bingo
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
GramCracker posted:Bold 2017 Prediction: Nando atop the podium at at least one GP I'd put him down for a couple. It really is starting to sound like Ferrari have completely poo poo the bed and Bottas is going to be garbage so there's some room for him to get up there on occasion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I'd put him down for a couple. It really is starting to sound like Ferrari have completely poo poo the bed and Bottas is going to be garbage so there's some room for him to get up there on occasion. "atop"...? That's a very bold prediction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
NASCAR at the Glen is usually entertaining
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Missed that part, thought he just meant on the podium. I would put him down for a possible to win. I don't think it's completely out of the question but yeah him absolutely winning is up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Bingo I'm not convinced. KMag could easily have binned himself at Spa last year, as could Nando at Melbourne. I remain amazed nobody has tuned a carbon fibre monocoque into a casket given the loving lunatic kids in the junior series. I'd like to think the FIA wouldn't take a poo poo on Watkins to get F1 back there. Then again, I think opening the goddamn rules up is a good idea. Colin Chapman. BRM. Brabham. Williams. Jordan. Brawn. Apparently all of that is silly and unworthy of debate but a loving orange shitbox finishing 6th in the WCC is worthy of losing our minds over. Yeah, yeah, nice meltdown etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Maybe it'll change but it was pretty clear in the past that you needed to pay a poo poo load of money to get your race on the calendar, whether that was directly (Baku and Russia) or indirectly through needing to consult with Tilke and mandatory facility upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah... the common theme seems to be that Bernard's involvement caused chequebooks to be the primary concern, not the FIA's involvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Also on opening the rules. I do think Formula E missed a major opportunity by not just cleaning sheeting the rule books and saying do whatever you want. They probably would be more popular than F1 within a year or two had they done that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:They probably would be more popular than F1 within a year or two had they done that. They'd also need to stop giving off a general air of "this entire thing is a big joke."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Almost all of the traveling carnival feel to it is down to the stupid rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Almost all of the traveling carnival feel to it is down to the stupid rules. None of the rules forced them to make a car that looks like a focus group's idea of the future (with a god drat underscore in the name, no less). "ePrix?" Come on, man, the whole thing reeks of "HOW EDGY CAN WE BE? BTW COMPUTERS ARE ELECTRONIC JUST LIKE OUR CARS!" It's produced some fun races but let's call it what it is: a glorified tech demo that will stop existing literally the instant that technology is mature enough for F1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:"atop"...? That's a very bold prediction. This is The Worst Thread; I'm going big or I'm going home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Also on opening the rules. I do think Formula E missed a major opportunity by not just cleaning sheeting the rule books and saying do whatever you want. They probably would be more popular than F1 within a year or two had they done that. I agree. I was really excited for Formula E when they first outlined it. Then... Fanboost. What the hell is that? Why? Oh Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Legit season predictions: Kimi beats Vettel Verstappen beats Bottas either with a more competitive car, or simple consistency. Verstappen gets a new rule named after him Vettel DNFs 1/4 of the races Nando fined $100,000 and loses all 10 points he has for finishing a race with a blood alcohol content over 0.08 Hamilton so far ahead in every race and overall points that everybody forgets he exists and enjoys mid-field battles and drama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Legit season predictions: Verstappen is Vettel Mk II. Red Bull don't invest in shitwads. Even Kyvat ended up loving Kelly Piquet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Watching the 1970s reviews has made me wonder why the gently caress everything is so regulated now. Ok the having the cockpit basically being a survival cell is cool and good, having wings that don't make the cars fly if they break is good, as are wheel tethers and fuel tank protection. Having a maximum width makes sense because you just know some dickhead would design a car around qualifying and make it too wide for the track to pass, but if today's rules had been around in the past then Lotus would not have been able to develop the double airbox and aerodynamics would never have become a thing, and so on and so forth. Every single cost saving measure which has been introduced in the last 20 years has ended up costing the smaller teams money, so just rip the rule book up and if a crazy new design won't effect safety then let them run wild with it again. It wasn't the cars that killed people so much as the sheer lunacy of track safety which caused those crashes and deaths in the first place, once they figured out how to make the fuel tanks not explode it was poo poo like drivers being decapitated by badly installed barriers which killed them. Why can't teams make a car and sell it to other teams anymore? Why can't they have a spare car and sell it to a third pay driver? It's development which costs the money, being able to sell cars again would help the poors cover those costs. I hope Liberty lets them do this again and kills any bitching by saying that they are reinstating the traditions of the past that an evil troll stole from the sport. Then maybe we will see a 32 car grid again. Also the qualifying format they had in the 1970s was awesome, fastest time in practice gets you on pole, therefore people have a reason to go to the Friday session and if you get a wet session then some backmarker can sneak in and steal it. James Hunt did that once on lovely old tyres and a McLaren which was driving like dogshit that weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Watching the 1970s reviews has made me wonder why the gently caress everything is so regulated now. Ok the having the cockpit basically being a survival cell is cool and good, having wings that don't make the cars fly if they break is good, as are wheel tethers and fuel tank protection. Having a maximum width makes sense because you just know some dickhead would design a car around qualifying and make it too wide for the track to pass, but if today's rules had been around in the past then Lotus would not have been able to develop the double airbox and aerodynamics would never have become a thing, and so on and so forth. Every single cost saving measure which has been introduced in the last 20 years has ended up costing the smaller teams money, so just rip the rule book up and if a crazy new design won't effect safety then let them run wild with it again. It wasn't the cars that killed people so much as the sheer lunacy of track safety which caused those crashes and deaths in the first place, once they figured out how to make the fuel tanks not explode it was poo poo like drivers being decapitated by badly installed barriers which killed them. Yeah, the world is different, the simple stuff can be easily and cheaply simulated and designed with cad. The small teams wouldn't have to spent gojirrions of dollars trying to mimmic red bull's fluid logic suspension stuff if they could just have the cheap, simple, electric stuff that was banned. They banned cheap solutions, and encouraged spending millions to exploit every rule right down to the definition of each word
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
The good/bad old days of open rulebooks and endless innovation was all funded by a bottomless pit of cigarette sponsorship money and a massive audience which didn't have a zillion alternative tv channels and internet streams and whatever the gently caress else competing for their eyeball time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Andretti was from Nazareth? Learn something new
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Watching the 1970s reviews has made me wonder why the gently caress everything is so regulated now. Ok the having the cockpit basically being a survival cell is cool and good, having wings that don't make the cars fly if they break is good, as are wheel tethers and fuel tank protection. Having a maximum width makes sense because you just know some dickhead would design a car around qualifying and make it too wide for the track to pass, but if today's rules had been around in the past then Lotus would not have been able to develop the double airbox and aerodynamics would never have become a thing, and so on and so forth. Every single cost saving measure which has been introduced in the last 20 years has ended up costing the smaller teams money, so just rip the rule book up and if a crazy new design won't effect safety then let them run wild with it again. It wasn't the cars that killed people so much as the sheer lunacy of track safety which caused those crashes and deaths in the first place, once they figured out how to make the fuel tanks not explode it was poo poo like drivers being decapitated by badly installed barriers which killed them. Did you miss the financial meltdown of the world or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
How does everyone miss the fact that Can-Am is exactly the series you're proposing? It lasted like ten years under its original guise before they had to implement stricter rules due to spiraling costs. Just one time I'd like to hear a mythical solution to all of Formula One's problems that hasn't already been tried and resulted in abject failure.Roller Coast Guard posted:The good/bad old days of open rulebooks and endless innovation was all funded by a bottomless pit of cigarette sponsorship money and a massive audience which didn't have a zillion alternative tv channels and internet streams and whatever the gently caress else competing for their eyeball time. There's also this. Companies simply aren't willing to hand over megabucks anymore solely to have their logo slapped on the side of a car or shown on TV, and that's not unique to motor racing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:The good/bad old days of open rulebooks and endless innovation was all funded by a bottomless pit of cigarette sponsorship money and a massive audience which didn't have a zillion alternative tv channels and internet streams and whatever the gently caress else competing for their eyeball time. But back then, if you wanted to know if something worked, you had to design it on paper with a pen and slide rule and spend a week building it out and testing it. Nowadays with CAD you can create the scenario involving the problem you want to fix, design and test 100 solutions in software, find what works, 3D print it over lunch and have it on the car on track in the afternoon. Give the designer 2 season exclusivity on it before the technical documents become available to the whole field. For the first few years the gap might grow but the diminishing returns of Mercedes throwing hundreds of millions at everything will eventually shrink the gap while making everybody faster/more competitive even without their own expensive development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Nowadays with CAD you can create the scenario involving the problem you want to fix, design and test 100 solutions in software, find what works, 3D print it over lunch and have it on the car on track in the afternoon. I'm not convinced this is actually cheaper, given the massive costs of enterprise computing and the fact that big teams are going to upgrade all of it constantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
wicka posted:I'm not convinced this is actually cheaper, given the massive costs of enterprise computing and the fact that big teams are going to upgrade all of it constantly. Look at the wings on even the lovely cars. they're all already using this stuff for aero..providing a greater avenue to use it for other aspects of the car seems like it would benefit everybody. and if you can't figure it out, you get access to the winning parts in 2 years anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
djssniper posted:Did you miss the financial meltdown of the world or something? I was rather surprised to learn that all this development (big leap forward from 1971-77) was happening while the meltdown was taking place. In the early 70s there was no big tobacco, JPS and Marlboro joined a healthy sport with huge track attendance and no Bernie dividing up the money, which was able to field 32 cars, (although usually they whittled it down in quali). A huge number of those cars were bought from bigger teams. Ferrari didn't even have sponsors on the side of the cars for most of the 1970s. You either designed a chassis around an engine you were selling to 8 other teams or you bought your engine, you bought your chassis, and you went out and raced, and if you had a clever enough designer who could make the chassis better you could make it into the prize money. I strongly suspect I have been fed a whole load of bullshit about how Bernie saved the sport for my entire life and am only now are realising that he killed the bloody sport in the first place. As someone said, F1 is a success in spite of Bernie not because of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I strongly suspect I have been fed a whole load of bullshit about how Bernie saved the sport for my entire life and am only now are realising that he killed the bloody sport in the first place. As someone said, F1 is a success in spite of Bernie not because of him. It's both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Theophany posted:Red Bull don't invest in shitwads. Even Kyvat ended up loving Kelly Piquet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
I don't think TV money was really a thing in F1 until Bernie/FOCA. I could be wrong but I suspect it was all a loving mess divided between the race circuits selling local TV rights. Bernie was really when you got uniformity into the sport, back in the day you still had different GPs having different qualifying procedures and entry counts, as late as the early 70s, I think. He took the promotion of the sport out of the hands of a shitload of different race organizers and into a single body. Feels Villeneuve fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Hans Heyer starting the 1977 German GP despite not qualifying because the officials liked him ftw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 02:26
|
|