Prisoner 6753 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
skipper_G wrote: » Robbo wrote: » There was plenty of commentary in the 1990s that overtaking was dead, races were processional and everything was better 20 years ago. I'm sure in the 1980s you could have found the same thing. F1 fans are never happy though, and more often than not they are moaning about something of little importance in the grand scheme of things all the while glossing over things like the massive inequity in revenue distribution & unsustainable business practices.
Robbo wrote: » There was plenty of commentary in the 1990s that overtaking was dead, races were processional and everything was better 20 years ago. I'm sure in the 1980s you could have found the same thing.
Mike Litoris wrote: » Does anybody really remember good racing from that period? It was horrendous. Was it the Jordan factor or maybe being a Ferrari/MS fan in the 2000's giving that perception. I remember the same argument 20 years ago about the racing being much better in the 80's with the usual Rose Tinted Glasses replies being handed out. That data wasn't handily available back then unfortunately.
H3llR4iser wrote: » The "overtaking trends" chart is the most interesting - shows how, from the mid-90s to the mid 2000s, there was hardly any racing at all with the lowest number of overtakes in recent history. It's a revealing bit of data, considering most people in here started watching around that time and remember it as "great racing". And no, the argument for "fake DRS assisted overtakes" doesn't stand
Harika wrote: » I don't think this is the main factor. If you look at motoGP or TouringCar races the gaps are really close and still lots of overtaking. The main issue is still that cars cannot follow other cars very close to overtake. Something Indycar tried to solve with a flap at the rear wing that created a big hole in the air what allowed drivers to overtake. It just had the side effect in the ovals that when someone came out of this spot he sprinted forward with a massive speed difference.
H3llR4iser wrote: » The difference used to be huge - just 30 years ago , there'd be 3-4 seconds between pole position and 3rd-4th row, today 2.5 seconds cover the entire field. The problem is that today, cars and drivers are always at the optimum, calculated performance - if you're 0.2 secs a lap slower, that's where you stay.
Harika wrote: » Someone crunched the numbers for overtaking:http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/ In the 80s cars were setup for high/low fuel or drivers were fuel saving at some point or the tyres were getting better or going away or coming back.
g1983d wrote: » That's why I would like to see refuelling brought back, I know a lot of people are against it but I thought it brought a bit of uncertainty and excitement. The only difference now is the simulator may calculate the optimal for a race and all teams would probably end up in the same fuel strategy with the same boring result. Gone are the days of teams like Jordan putting a lad on hill down the road from the track and he ringing in when he sees a bit of rain on the way
the_pen_turner wrote: » ''''''''Also, F1 (and car racing in general) is actually about the teams and cars more than the drivers; The best car will win with an average driver at the wheel, the best driver won't get anywhere in an average car. ''''''''' this is exactly whats wrong with the the sport. no ability for the better driver in ok car to win.
the_pen_turner wrote: » im not sure the diference between them was ever as lage as it is now, the ok driver is only there to make up the numbers. any influence he has is by being in the way
H3llR4iser wrote: » It's always been like this, even 'though some people want to believe it's not the case, and it will always be that the best car wins. What was different in the past was that the car that destroyed the competition in qualifying, wasn't necessary up to pace in the race (e.g. Lotus in 1986/1987); Other times, one car would prove brilliantly suited to a specific track and then under perform on the next race and so on - now we don't get this anymore because of simulations and computer models. Nothing that can be done about it - I don't see how the use of computers could be banned for teams. In the distant past, some team principals (Enzo Ferrari above all, but at some level also Frank Williams) used to make a point about hiring unknown drivers - to prove it was their car allowing them to win.
Infoanon wrote: » Its the driver associated with the number that made them famous-#5 Mansell / #27 Villenueve , Nascar use a different system then motogp and F1 where the number is associated with the team similar to the old days in F1, then Bernie messed it all up with the numbers changing every year - F1 marketing men looked at moto gp - saw the power of #46worldwide and adopted the same idea. The current F1 system I personally feel is the best for both viewers and marketing
H3llR4iser wrote: » In all fairness, moders helmet designs are so "busy" and complex that it's often difficult to distinguish them altogether, unless there are glaring colour differences; Some teams have heavy sponsorship / design cues on their driver's helmets as to make them virtually unrecognizable from most TV angles (e.g. the Red Bull drivers, the FI ones). Quickest solution would be to put markers on the wings (or even the Halo itself) on one of each team's car - Ferrari did it throughout the '80s and '90s, with the famous "yellow squares" on the wings. As for the numbers, it's a pet peeve for me - the current numbering system is just a silly copycat of Nascar/MotoGP that has nothing to do with F1's history, especially the WDC racing without the #1 on his car. Numbers should be assigned to the teams on historical basis, and cars of the same team should have consecutive numbers - 5 and 6 for Williams, 15 and 16 for Renault, 7 and 8 for McLaren, 27 and 28 for Ferrari, 22 and 23 for Alfa (or Sauber's 29 and 30) and so on. The WDC shuould ALWAYS bear #1. As far as merchandising goes, a #5 Williams Cap, or a #27 Ferrari T-shirt would most likely sell like hot cakes.
eviltimeban wrote: » ^ the glare / shine from the visor would make identifying the drivers even tougher than halo. I don't know why they can't include the driver name in big letters on the body. I know the numbers are there, but people can't be expected to know 22 random numbers!
Wanderer78 wrote: » should have taken a screenshot, a seriously outdated piece of 'journalism', very sloppy
Hamilton on top of grid Down Under Updated / Monday, 2 Apr 2018 08:29 0 Lewis Hamilton is in prime position to open his Formula One championship with a victory after storming to pole at the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. Hamilton was in a class of one as he steered his Mercedes to the front slot of the grid with an utterly emphatic display which will send out an all-to-familiar warning to his rivals. The 33-year-old British driver's best lap was more than an eye-watering six tenths of a second faster than the rest of the field with Kimi Raikkonen edging out his Ferrari team-mate Sebastian Vettel for second. Red Bull's Max Verstappen qualified fourth ahead of his team-mate Daniel Ricciardo, who is due to serve a three-place grid drop following an infringement in practice on Friday. But it was not a perfect session for Hamilton's Mercedes team after Valtteri Bottas crashed into the wall and out of qualifying at the exit of turn two. Bottas emerged unscathed from the 110mph smash, which happened on his very first lap in the battle for pole, but the same could not be said of his car. The rear of his Mercedes, which bore the brunt of the high-speed impact was destroyed with bits of his car littering the asphalt. Bottas was taken to the medical centre for a precautionary check-up before he was swiftly given the all-clear. The session was suspended to deal with the swathes of Mercedes debris on the track, but following a 10-minute delay, the top-10 shootout resumed and it was Hamilton who blitzed the pack with a lap he described as close to perfection. "You would think that with these results we have had it would start to feel like the norm, but it doesn't," said an ecstatic Hamilton after securing his seventh pole in Melbourne. "My heart is racing. I am so happy with that lap. It was such a nice lap. I am always striving for perfection and that was as close as I could get." McLaren arrived here in Melbourne on the back foot after a thoroughly underwhelming pre-season campaign which was blighted by reliability issues. They ran into further trouble here on Friday after their star driver Fernando Alonso and his team-mate Stoffel Vandoorne suffered exhaust leaks. Both men managed to get through qualifying in one piece, but they fell at the second phase with Alonso due to start 11th and Vandoorne 12th. The McLaren hierarchy had targeted a battle with Red Bull this season following their divorce from Honda engines and switch to Renault power. But Alonso was more than one second adrift of the Red Bull cars, proving there is plenty of work to be done by the Woking marque. Indeed, Alonso qualified 13th in Melbourne last year, and 12th in 2016. "That is okay," said Alonso, when informed of his grid position, but you fancy both the Spaniard and his team will have harboured greater expectations heading into the opening race. Kevin Magnussen and Romain Grosjean qualified an impressive sixth and seventh for Haas ahead of the Renault duo of Nico Hulkenberg and Carlos Sainz.
Mike Litoris wrote: » What was it? It's been taken down.
Mike Litoris wrote: » Ah jaysus, Stung! No excuses but as Prisoner said it wouldn't be surprising these days.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
