|
Wirth1000 posted:Doping gently caress Turn your monitor
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
DoctorGonzo posted:Turn your monitor this just makes the website look sideways - am i doing it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
I didn’t even know there was Euro NASCAR but apparently there is, they run six races a year, five on road courses and one on a half-mile oval in the Netherlands
Pirate Radar fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:I didn’t even know there was Euro NASCAR but apparently there is, they run six races a year, five on road courses and one on a half-mile oval in the Netherlands There's also Canadian NASCAR
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Dude, you don't get it. LOL. I actually don't care. Not any more. I don't care if someone rates Hulk 6th or 12th - or if I rated him 8th or 9th or whatever after 16 meetings a couple of months ago.. These F1 driver ratings are now irrelevant to my life. I'm not their friend or family member or business associate - so I couldn't care less! If you *must* have an opinion from yours truly, here it is: Rating driver performance across cars is totally subjective. I - when I actually remotely cared - felt there was a tight group of 5 Aces in 2017...then a gap to the next tier of 7 or 8 or 9 drivers, any one of whom could beat the others (if they were in a rich vein of form with a package to their liking) or beat the Aces on their days (like BOT out-qualifying HAM 7 times out of 20 legitimately - or Kimi taking pole at Monaco - or Stoff beating Fernando here and there after a rough start as a rookie). This isn't rocket science! [Although there actually are computer models out there rating VET slightly ahead of HAM and RIC slightly ahead of VER with ALO in the mix and BOT in 12th, etcetera, etcetrea.] Also, having some arbitrary cut off at 10 - as in "Top 10" - is plain silly. It's a conceit and an artifice which would pervertedly imply that someone rated 11th or 12th or 13th or 14th couldn't possibly beat the guy in 10th or 7th on any number of occasions. And all this petty niggling and snivelling about who is 7th or 9th - or who isn't in the 'top 10' - is pathetically childish, as far as I'm concerned and from where I now stand. Since I'm already here... : The FIA rules and regs are dog aweful leading to most 'races' being over after the first corner. The cars, from a visceral point of view, lack/will lack noise and beauty. Most circuits are crap. Todt is a piglet who needs roasting and his Stewards suck. The element of danger/jeopardy is nonexistent. The drivers are cry babies. The dominance of the Hybrid Turbo error/era by Merc has been a disaster and the pro-Hamilton bias on SKY and on here over the last four years has been, for me, too much. F1 is a disaster with declining audiences and it's going to get worse as demographics keep shifting and vehicle technology evolves to becoming fully autonomous in our time. I want to enjoy life and edit out negativity. F1 is no longer a positive in my life. Other than family, work and going to the gym, I love cars and driving them. I want to get back into horse racing (which I loved first as a kid before Gilles attracted me to Grand Prix racing), possibly buy into a horse racing stable (if I think there's money in it) and get into sim racing. Also, I feel bad for suggesting Hughes' narratives had a pro-Hamilton bias this season. I actually like Hughes as a person. He's fantastic company, a decent human being and a real gentleman. Truly. So, upon reflection, I *genuinely* feel bad for my negative posts in that regard. I don't know what came over me. But I felt what I felt and it, obviously, wasn't a good feeling. Not good. I need to stay away from posting here for my own good and the good of these F1 forums. It wasn't great taking a hatchet to Chandhok in the other thread. If I'm going to be like that, then that's not good. Having said that, I wouldn't change the crux of what I said to Chandhok in the post that was moderated out. It was the first of his pieces I had ever posted under, incidentally. I also wanted to make a jokey comment in the Frankel piece on the UrrAnus SUV and the line about "Let's take the Lambo out" - but I stopped myself. I need a big, long break from MS Online and F1. Bill, I'm not posting as someone else. I told you, I DON'T want to post anymore. It's just going to end up being a pile of negativity. So, please, I'd rather you not assume X, Y or Z is me. I am the only me. If they ban the Halo (on safety grounds) and change the aero regs, I *might* come back. And if I come back, I hope I come back 'improved' as a member of the forums (instead of being hateful of Todt, the regs, Merc, F1, etc.) Enjoy your life, Bill. There's more to it than Formula One. Best wishes to you going forward. PS I intend to delete this post within 24 hours - so, once you acknowledge it, it's gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Sir, the question was, is this your handwriting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
WITNESS ME
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
F1 should give everyone exactly the same car and ban pitstops and different tires, so that only the raw talent makes a difference. That would be awesome and has never been done before, especially not in supporting series where everyone drives exactly the same car on the same tire and no pitstops are happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
And races actually happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
tuo posted:F1 should give everyone exactly the same car and ban pitstops and different tires, so that only the raw talent makes a difference. That would be awesome and has never been done before, especially not in supporting series where everyone drives exactly the same car on the same tire and no pitstops are happening. 2005.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
No refueling and rock-hard tires would be pretty rad imo as long as engines grenade. Bring back attrition racing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:No refueling and rock-hard tires would be pretty rad imo as long as engines grenade. Don’t
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:No refueling and rock-hard tires would be pretty rad imo as long as engines grenade. Barf
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:No refueling and rock-hard tires would be pretty rad imo as long as engines grenade. We do have Le Mans every year for your attrition boner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Bring back qualifying engines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Attrition is good. I would like teams to have the option to have insanely fast cars that blow up every other race if they wanted to. It makes things more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Bring back qualifying engines. We had it this season and Ferrari bitched enough that we don't anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
There is no worse racing than attrition racing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
wicka posted:There is no worse racing than attrition racing. The worst racing is spec racing with cars that never break, which is like 90% of racing these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Qualifying should have no engines. Teams should be required to build propulsion devices Junkyard Wars-style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
iospace posted:We had it this season and Ferrari bitched enough that we don't anymore. You can't have a hybrid formula that involves loving burning oil. Like that's just insanely bad for marketing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
*a Renault turbo engine blows up* wicka: you bitch motherfucker *a nascar race happens with 40 cars perfectly spaced 1.5 seconds apart for 4 hours, nobody breaks down or crashes* wicka: this is badass
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:You can't have a hybrid formula that involves loving burning oil. Like that's just insanely bad for marketing. Imo, you also shouldn't have a racing series that defines itself as the pinnacle of motorsport where you have a limit on how much fuel you can burn during a certain time. Give them a total amount of fuel to burn for a race or a given number of laps, but let them use it however they want. Let them rev high if they want to/think it is benefical to their strategy. Of course that's just my terrible opinion, but I think it is one of the rules that doesn't fit F1. If I can only burn 100 litres per hour (calculated down to a quarter of a second), and only have to drive three laps in quali, eight litres (or whatever it used to be last year) of oil suddenly become incredibly interesting to burn if you can burn them as you wish. Fix the cause that is creating these hacks, not only the hacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
tuo posted:Imo, you also shouldn't have a racing series that defines itself as the pinnacle of motorsport where you have a limit on how much fuel you can burn during a certain time. There's no other way you're going to have a turbo engine allowed with this amount of freedom of design. The FIA would be scared to poo poo that the power figures would skyrocket like they did in the 80s. It's the best solution to putting a power cap on a turbo engine that's available within the confines of reality that isn't some really crude blunt instrument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
tuo posted:Imo, you also shouldn't have a racing series that defines itself as the pinnacle of motorsport where you have a limit on how much fuel you can burn during a certain time. Give them a total amount of fuel to burn for a race or a given number of laps, but let them use it however they want. Let them rev high if they want to/think it is benefical to their strategy. FIA wants to be able to claim that F1 helps influence car design, somehow. Turbo hybrids are exactly where road cars are going to these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:Attrition is good. I would like teams to have the option to have insanely fast cars that blow up every other race if they wanted to. It makes things more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
If I was hypothetical team boss I'd definitely sacrifice reliability for speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:If I was hypothetical team boss I'd definitely sacrifice reliability for speed. The Honda teams for Indy this year did that. Given they won 7 races this year vs 2 last year with the same aero, it paid off. And then there's what Honda did for F1 and well we know how that ended up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Bring back qualifying engines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:There's no other way you're going to have a turbo engine allowed with this amount of freedom of design. The FIA would be scared to poo poo that the power figures would skyrocket like they did in the 80s. It's the best solution to putting a power cap on a turbo engine that's available within the confines of reality that isn't some really crude blunt instrument. Out of interest: can't you do the same by limiting the amount of air the engine can suck/turbofuck into it, similarly to how it is done with many BoP series? That's an honest question, because I'm a total idiot when it comes to turbo engines, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
wicka posted:There is no worse racing than attrition racing. I would like to change your opinion. Please watch the 1984 Dallas GP. I think it will sell you on attrition racing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I wonder what racing is on tv this we... “FIA world endurance championship Highlights of the enthralling 2017 world endurance championship a star studded grid included Sebastian Buemi, Anthony Davidson, Kamui Kobayashi and Nicolas Prost” Oh boy oh boy, sign me right up for that one Sky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Kamui Kobayashi owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
tuo posted:Out of interest: can't you do the same by limiting the amount of air the engine can suck/turbofuck into it, similarly to how it is done with many BoP series? That's an honest question, because I'm a total idiot when it comes to turbo engines, obviously. You would need a blow off valve as well. It's a fairly crude solution that limits what you can play with in terms of the turbo system though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:Kamui Kobayashi owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Attrition racing is an incredibly dumb attempt at solving bad racing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:There's no other way you're going to have a turbo engine allowed with this amount of freedom of design. The FIA would be scared to poo poo that the power figures would skyrocket like they did in the 80s. It's the best solution to putting a power cap on a turbo engine that's available within the confines of reality that isn't some really crude blunt instrument. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport!* *may include arbitrary constraints to slow down cars, randomly enforced rules, multiple tire choices which are all bad, whiny bitch drivers, cheating, distinct advantages for some teams, inflexible rules ensuring other teams can't catch up, and Poois Shamilton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:Kamui Kobayashi owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:You would need a blow off valve as well. It's a fairly crude solution that limits what you can play with in terms of the turbo system though. I would also think the very clever engineers would find a way to make big power even with those restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:*a nascar race happens with 40 cars perfectly spaced 1.5 seconds apart for 4 hours, nobody breaks down or crashes*
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:23
|
|