2009 BBC F1 trailer. It isn't that great... except for the last five seconds.
You're in a racing car with earplugs and a helmet on. I don't you're going to hear something as quiet as that, even with the engine off.
LFS doesn't support dynamic lights, AFAIK.
You're right, I was wrong. They aren't synonyms. But thanks for proving that "incentive" was actually the more applicable word.
I got his point just fine, it just isn't applicable to the current discussion.
I see, you make a comment before backing out of it. Very forthright of you.
Semantics... the two words are synonyms.
That's pretty much how Bernie has always operated. Who cares whether he gets some smug satisfaction from the result of this? Why is that a problem? What matters is the action on the track.
My apologies, I meant in this thread, not in motorsport in general. I've already addressed your points specifically earlier in the thread; there's no reason to repeat them.
The teams care very much about the constructor's championship, and you know it.
They care about the prestige of being #1 and carrying the momentum of being the best into the next season. Even if the WDC is decided, the mechanics and engineers (and drivers) will still try to hard to win so their team can be called the best in the world.
Mercedes cares about beating BMW. Toyota cares about beating Honda (won't happen anymore, unfortunately). The team management cares about that extra money from FOM. The team cares about the publicity and the honor of either winning the WCC or finishing very well. Are you suggesting that BMW didn't care about finishing 2nd in the WCC in 2007? That they didn't care at all about the extra money that gave them for 2008? That they didn't appreciate the press coverage and time in the spotlight for their acheivements? Surely not.
Of course he wasn't. He was driving for the win, and it was exciting to watch. This rule wouldn't have changed that. If this rule had been in place last year with those situations, he still would have driven as he did.
Pay attention; this has already been addressed. The teams will have absolutely no time for a driver who doesn't push hard to bring home a decent points finish. A 3rd place for a driver still means a higher standing for himself in the WDC at the end of the season. It still means he stands on the podium, does the post-race interview, gets the publicity. It still makes people think "wow, that was a solid drive by X". It still brings home points for the team. He still beats his teammate and ensures he gets that contract extension, or that the top team might consider him for next season.
The design of the cars prohibited overtaking, yes. And every once in a while the points system made a safe drive to 2nd or 3rd the smart option, eliminating the need to overtake at all. The rules have simply been changed to mitigate this occasional circumstance. It didn't happen often; certainly not every race, which is why in most races this rule won't change anything at all.
Again, this has already been addressed. Pay attention.
Again, bullshit. Notice how the word "pathetic" was in reference to those idiots who think this a giant conspiracy. Because they are pathetic. I never implied that anyone who happens to disagree must be a conspiracy theorist or must be stupid. In fact I specifically denied that earlier on. I didn't imply that at all, you inferred it.
I'm impressed at your ability to pick up on extreme sarcasm. Who the hell would actually think I was being serious there and actually try to argue against it? It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.
How MotoGP works doesn't mean shit. F1 is not MotoGP; they're very different and they always will be. Taking cues from another series "because they have lots of overtaking!" and applying them to F1 is not a good idea. Grand prix racing is unique in motorsport and has to be addressed and managed as such.
EDIT: Posting in all caps (and not being able to spell simple words) doesn't help your argument. In fact it makes you look stupid.
You can think it isn't a good reason if you want. I think giving drivers more incentive to win is a good trade-off. At any rate, the season will be starting soon, so we'll be able to see for ourselves fairly soon.
This is complete bullshit, for a couple reasons:
1) The odds of a driver winning the first nine races of the season are pretty much zero. Even approaching that is exceedingly unlikely. The odds of another Schumacher/Ferrari situation occuring again are also pretty much zero.
2) Even if a driver wins the title with five or six races to go, do you really think the team will keep him if he just "doesn't show up" for the last events? The team still want those constuctors' points, and a driver who essentially says that he doesn't care about the team will soon be gone. He still has incentive to drive hard. Look at Alonso in 2005 - he won the title with a few races left, yet he drove like hell in Japan and China because he wanted to win the title for his team.
Additionally, the idea that this is some kind of massive convoluted consipiracy by Bernie to ruin F1 and support a particular driver is so incredibly naïve and ignorant that it isn't even worth addressing. It's absolutely pathetic, and I wonder why such stupid people continue to watch F1, since it's just a big engineered, manipulated charade, right? Bernie pressed a button to make Lewis' gearbox malfunction in Brazil 2007, after all. He sits in an ivory tower with a golden crown overlooking the track, and he has buttons and dials in front of him which allow him to destroy a driver's engine, or cause a fuel leak, or even cause a driver to crash! Bernie hates F1 and wants FOM to lose money and fail.
They aren't banned, they just shouldn't really have much of a chance of snatching the title from underneath the noses of the regular winners. Anyone who takes the title should have been there or thereabouts throughout the season, not just picking up 3rds and 4ths while the big boys are battling for the win. I don't really mind when that happens (i.e. Frentzen in 1999) because it adds a little spice to the action, but I also don't mind if the rules make it very difficult for them to do. Again, the focus should be on the winners.
They should be shut out.
No, it's an example of the flaws of a point system. Racing for 5th shouldn't have been an option for Lewis, but as an unfortunate consequence of the rules, he didn't approach the whole Interlagos weekend as he normally would. He wasn't trying to get pole and win the race. He drove conservatively and cautiously. That is smart driving. Sensible. The thing to do if wants to take the title.
But wouldn't it have been more exciting to watch if Lewis had to win? The rules shouldn't prevent a Gilles Villeneuve-style, balls-out approach to winning grands prix. The winning is what matters; that's what's interesting. The man who finished in 6th place at the 1991 Hungarian Grand Prix is not interesting, but the man who won it (Senna) is. Winning should be the focus. F1 is cutthroat - why should a driver who hasn't won a single race in seven seasons still be there? Win or go home.
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of any of those games to say, although I have doubts that any of them is similar enough to grand prix racing to make useful comparisons anyway.
We'll see. I think this year's championship will be close and exciting, and this new rule won't have much effect on the outcomes of the championships or the racing for any of the drivers.
Last edited by Lateralus, .
I don't understand this distinction at all.
I don't have time for knee-jerk reactionaries who scream "FIX!!!" and "OMG BERNIE IS SO STUPID" anytime anyone changes anything related to F1 rules. I've only used two words which could be considered ad hominem, but neither was directed toward anyone specific. Crybabies? Yes, people who complain and threaten to not watch F1 anymore whenever something changes are a bunch of whiners. Whether or not they watch F1 doesn't matter. And I mentioned the word moron, referring to those people who retain the bizarre notion that the points aren't going to matter at all anymore. It's a completely silly idea, which would be very obvious if people actually used their brains before reaching a conclusion. It's perfectly reasonble to disagree after reaching a logical conclusion - I was referring to the people who spout off without thinking. They deserve to be ridiculed.
How close does 1st and 2nd have to be for it to be considered a battle?
Somtimes true, but they're eliminating in-race refueling after this season.
That depends. In a mid-season race, for a driver with only the 3rd or 4th best car, no. For a driver with the 1st or 2nd best car on the grid who needs to win to take the title, it sure as hell will make him try harder.
Naturally, and he should win it.
That's exactly what Lewis thought in Brazil last year. He didn't need to fight hard, he just wanted to putz around in 5th for the whole race. That's lame. If he had needed to win, he would have driven out of his skin to do so, even if he didn't have the car underneath him to do it.
This rule, as well as I can understand, takes away the incentive for the guy in a close 2nd to not even try to overtake. The rules should never inhibit a racing driver from being a racing driver. If the 2nd placed driver is seven seconds behind the leader with 20 laps to go, the rules should be structured so that he has a huge incentive to push hard and reduce that gap to try to overtake. Currently, the rules do the opposite - they tell him to back off, save the car, bring it home for the eight points, don't go for the win because it's too risky. This rule makes that risk more viable, and risky moves are exciting to watch.
I don't care about the driver that regularly starts 5th and drives a quiet race to 4th, with an occasional podium. He shouldn't be a title contender, even if he finishes a few more races than most. The focus of the championship should be the guys fighting for the victory each week. In essence, this rule change puts the focus on Fernando, Lewis, Kimi, Robert at the expense of the Trullis and Fisichellas of the world. I'm fine with that.
OK, we clearly disagree. From my perspective, points finishes for all runners are still going to matter a lot. I think I'll be vindicated come the start of the season. You have your opinion, and that's fine. I appreciate that you obviously put some thought into your opinion.
Then watch the racing.
The "politics" will be an article on an F1 website on a Friday or Saturday at some grand prix this year. It will be resolved and they'll go racing on Sunday. It won't interfere with the actual racing.
I'd hesitate to call it politics though. I think the intra-team rivalry between Kimi and Felipe since Michael left has been really interesting, in a sporting sense. It reveals a lot about their characters and competitive spirit, how their act towards one another on and off the track.
There probably will be.
Then it's decided on points, as it always has been - further proving my point that good consistent points finishes are still important, and drivers won't go around thinking "oh hell I can't win so I may as well crash off, no incentive to finish well!" as some of you morons are implying.
The point systems are still in place. Midfield and podium finishers still have the incentive to drive hard and get a good result. Points are still important.
Terrible idea.
This is not MotoGP. This is not NASCAR. Grand prix racing has always limited points to the higher finishers, and it should continue to. A driver should have to finish well to get points, not just piddle around to 8th place, two laps down. The top 15 out of a 20-car field? Daft.
Points should be kept as they are, or maybe even reduce it to the top seven or six.
Deciding the title on wins is a good idea. The races will be pretty much the same, except the top few drivers (who are the best and the most fun to watch) will have more incentive to drive hard for the win. The battle at the front will be more exciting.
Yeah I'm looking forward to this. In some teams the decision is very obvious (Renault); at others it will be quite dramatic (Ferrari). Both drivers on the red team think they have the right to the smaller number on their cars next year. One of them had it at one test this winter, at another test the other driver did! It will be great to see how this resolves. I put my money on Kimi.
It won't change much. The fast drivers will still be at the front. The fast cars will still be at the front.
He has a point when he said that it's incredibly lame for a title contender to mince around trying to finish in 5th place. It's a much better show if he were to drive for the win.
To all you crybabies who will probably threaten to quit watching F1 because of this - good. Go. F1 will survive without you.
He has a point when he said that it's incredibly lame for a title contender to mince around trying to finish in 5th place. It's a much better show if he were to drive for the win.
To all you crybabies who will probably threaten to quit watching F1 because of this - good. Go. F1 will survive without you.
No, I mean in terms of driving, not in the options. Turning the wheel causes the car to become unbalanced, and scrubs off speed. The less you turn the wheel in the corners, the faster you can go.
Opposite lock means to counter a slide by steering in the other direction. Watch me take T1 in that replay. On the corner exit as I apply the throttle, the back of the car starts to slide. I counter this slide by steering left, even though the corner is a right-hander. Driving fast is about anticipation - predicting events before they happen. With practice you'll be able to feel a slide happening very early, so you'll be able to countersteer for it more quickly.
It just takes practice. Practice on a single track with a single car and do many laps in it. Learn the braking points so that you just do it without thinking.
Yeah it's happened a couple times. 1985 was just the most recent.
Villeneuve, 1997.
What is the highest number of F1 world champions (past or current champions, not future ones) to take to the grid for a grand prix?
At which race and in which year did it take place?
Who were the drivers?
Last edited by Lateralus, .
Your driving was fairly good, you just need to smooth it out a little.
Turn in earlier and more gently. Try to use less steering lock. Be prepared to use opposite lock on corner exit at T1. If you smoothly turn the wheel to straight and stay on the gas to keep it slightly sideways, the FBM will turn well there and not spin.
Try to keep the wheel as straight as possible on straights. You're losing time by moving back and forth.
Here's a quick lap I just did. I ruined the last corner, but watch T1 - a bit of oversteer is easy to counter for on the exit. From there it's about straightening out the chicane as much as possible for good speed onto the backstraight.
Turn in earlier and more gently. Try to use less steering lock. Be prepared to use opposite lock on corner exit at T1. If you smoothly turn the wheel to straight and stay on the gas to keep it slightly sideways, the FBM will turn well there and not spin.
Try to keep the wheel as straight as possible on straights. You're losing time by moving back and forth.
Here's a quick lap I just did. I ruined the last corner, but watch T1 - a bit of oversteer is easy to counter for on the exit. From there it's about straightening out the chicane as much as possible for good speed onto the backstraight.
Last edited by Lateralus, .
Verdana is the normal font. For some reason yours changed to Arial. I don't know how to fix that.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG