Read this somewhere in a forum.
Think it's accurate? Or just a nonsense rant?
Think it's accurate? Or just a nonsense rant?
#1
- lizardfolk
"F1 humiliated by singapore gp street"
hes right... the race was a proper spectacle but that was not at all thaks to the track being full of good overtaking opportunities
the track manages to get some of the best out of a car lapping on its own (sparks for one) but as a racetrack almost any street circuit is pointless including this one
the track manages to get some of the best out of a car lapping on its own (sparks for one) but as a racetrack almost any street circuit is pointless including this one
IMHO, the track is not a problem here, but the safety car regulations which can make race results almost random. There are much cheaper ways to organize lotteries.
would he had been so scornful of the track if the red cars had come in 1-2?
Of course not, but everyone knows he is biased, so at least there is no conspiracy there. I personally think Singapore was a step in the right direction, it brought the race to the fans rather than having a big car park in the middle of nowhere.
I agree. Which GP will get more people: Lost in the Bahrain deserts or in the city like Singapore (and Monaco, Melbourne and Montreal). These races are by far more entertaining, more fun to watch, and get more unplanned results. I just finished watching the entire race coverage for the Singapore GP and it was pretty good. The penalty-close-pit-lane thing is still shady, but Rosberg got himself out of it.
Ferrari has no one else to blame but themselves for the incident that happened in the pits. Without the error, they'd never would have talked about the race this way (maybe).
#7
- Becky Rose
Singapore was lucky, it has all the ingredients of Valencia with a little more atmosphere and ambience.
The jewel in the crown of Grand Prix is supposed to be Monaco, it's the most famous and by far the wealthiest anyway, and Monaco frequently delivers absolutely diabolically boring races - or on the toss of a coin really exciting ones. Singapore had all the ingredients for the same - especially the single file chicane/bridge complex that absolutely HAS to go for next year and is the worst monstrosity for race fans that Tilke could have implemented. Just widen the damn bridge, or go somewhere else.
What saved Singapore was the safety car, but we only have to look as far as Valencia to see how a track that is "bound to get a few" might not, especially with the track lending itself to a big field spread.
So in that sense Luca is right, although he's missing the point. Singapore does have some charm of it's own, in the same way Monaco will always be Monaco, Singapore will always be Singapore. There's not many tracks that can achieve that after having held only 1 grand prix.
Personally, it feels like Singapore has had a race for decades.
But please widen the bridge and ditch the single file non-sense...
The jewel in the crown of Grand Prix is supposed to be Monaco, it's the most famous and by far the wealthiest anyway, and Monaco frequently delivers absolutely diabolically boring races - or on the toss of a coin really exciting ones. Singapore had all the ingredients for the same - especially the single file chicane/bridge complex that absolutely HAS to go for next year and is the worst monstrosity for race fans that Tilke could have implemented. Just widen the damn bridge, or go somewhere else.
What saved Singapore was the safety car, but we only have to look as far as Valencia to see how a track that is "bound to get a few" might not, especially with the track lending itself to a big field spread.
So in that sense Luca is right, although he's missing the point. Singapore does have some charm of it's own, in the same way Monaco will always be Monaco, Singapore will always be Singapore. There's not many tracks that can achieve that after having held only 1 grand prix.
Personally, it feels like Singapore has had a race for decades.
But please widen the bridge and ditch the single file non-sense...
He probably would have. He's been critical about "modern" F1 tracks for a while now (he, like most of us fans, is not a fan of Tilke).
Singapore would be absoblutely boring if not for the safety car alongside the stuff up rule on pit closure, and Rosberg got himself out of it because of the inability of the FIA to punish something so obviously "against" the rules quickly...
but I shouldn't complaint cos it worked out very nicely for Rosberg~
Luca di Montezemolo (however that is spelt) does have a point with the stuff he said, cos as usual, there are always two side to the coin~
but yes, he wouldn't be wanting to "talk about with the other teams in the next few weeks" if he's the boss of Renault...
These safety car rules are robbing the people who actually deserve to win the races.
But Singapore was still better then valencia, becuase whilst being tighter and much slower, overtaking was still possible.
But Singapore was still better then valencia, becuase whilst being tighter and much slower, overtaking was still possible.
How do you all propose to 'fix' the SC rules? The reason they close the pitlane when it comes out is to prevent the field racing past the accident to get the pits as quickly as possible, which is extremely dangerous and can't be allowed.
Very very simply.
1. Safety car deployed, and pitlane is closed. A note is made of the positions in the race at the exact moment the safety car leaves the pitlane.
2. Pitlane opens. People pit. Cars that NEED to pit before the pitlane opens can do, but they won't be racing there.
3. Before the safety car is called in the cars are arranged (via radio and/or pit signals) into the positions they were before the safety car was called out, unless a car is out of position due to a non-routine pitstop* or reliability issues.
4. Racing resumes as though the safety car had never been out.
*standard pitstops are for fuel and tyres, where the total stationary time was less than 15 seconds. Longer pitstops, either for lots of fuel, or a problem with a wheelgun, or to replace a front wing etc are penalised 5 positions. Therefore the leader would remain the leader unless there was a problem at the pitstop, in which case he would be 6th (assuming that the other cars in 2nd-6th place didn't have a problem).
The safety car conditions are NOT racing conditions, and therefore the race should resume as if it had never happened, but avoiding people from taking excessive advantage of it.
1. Safety car deployed, and pitlane is closed. A note is made of the positions in the race at the exact moment the safety car leaves the pitlane.
2. Pitlane opens. People pit. Cars that NEED to pit before the pitlane opens can do, but they won't be racing there.
3. Before the safety car is called in the cars are arranged (via radio and/or pit signals) into the positions they were before the safety car was called out, unless a car is out of position due to a non-routine pitstop* or reliability issues.
4. Racing resumes as though the safety car had never been out.
*standard pitstops are for fuel and tyres, where the total stationary time was less than 15 seconds. Longer pitstops, either for lots of fuel, or a problem with a wheelgun, or to replace a front wing etc are penalised 5 positions. Therefore the leader would remain the leader unless there was a problem at the pitstop, in which case he would be 6th (assuming that the other cars in 2nd-6th place didn't have a problem).
The safety car conditions are NOT racing conditions, and therefore the race should resume as if it had never happened, but avoiding people from taking excessive advantage of it.
Er, OK. This system is technically possible on paper, but frankly I doubt it would work that seamlessly in real life. And calling it 'very very simple' is just plain disingenuous.
Having cars moving up and down through the field to get to their positions while the rest of the field is weaving, braking and accelerating in an erratic manner in order to maintain brake and tire temperature will result in collisions. Who is at fault in these cases? The current situation of lapped cars moving through the field to unlap themselves is already risky and poorly managed. Imagine that multiplied by five or even ten cars.
What happens if the in-car radio fails? The only communication method is the pitboard, which of course the driver can see but once per lap. The SC would potentially have to be out an extra lap or two (or three or more) while everyone recieves their instructions.
Do you really think the race controllers will be able to give accurate and consistent instructions to every single car, in every single SC situation, at every single race, year after year? With potential World Championships resting upon everything working out perfectly? They already have trouble making consistent judgements with the current rules. Adding another layer of complexity doesn't seem like a wise move.
Basically, I think your suggestion is quite ingenious but hopelessly impractical for modern F1.
He's an idiot, a poor critic, a bad loser and a bad boss. Someone had to say it really.
When the SC comes out, enforce a speed limit. Leave the pits open for anyone who needs service but force them to pootle around as slow as all piss to get there.
There's nothing wrong with pitting under SC. The pitlane closer rules are not stopping cars rushing into the pits, they're just making the rush more intense, and I dont see the problem anyway.
The SC is there because there's 1 or more parts of the circuit, denoted by furious yellow flag waving, where there's a 'bit of a biggy'. F1's have been passing such incidents for years under yellow flags and rarely is there any issue.
The purpose of the SC is twofold. Firstly, to make it so drivers dont floor it past yellow flags as there is no gain, they're going to end up in queue anyway, and to mix up the race a bit for the spectators.
It is not about being fair. If they wanted fair then there would just be a speed limit, possibly even operated by race control pressing a button and cutting power on the cars when over a certain speed, possibly even braking.
SC's aren't about fair, they're about mixing the race up abit and bringing life back into a dead race. That is their purpose, the fact that there is a small safety reason for their deployment is just a bonus.
The no pit rule just creates a situation where you can dart into the pits if you are lucky and your team is fast enough to make the call. Although if the crash is at the end of the lap that will be dangerous.
The only problem with the SC phase is the no pit rule. I dont think Rosberg pitting unecessarily hindered my enjoyment of the race, and I dont think he gained an unfair advantage by pitting in the SC phase - if I had my way, all teams would be allowed to do that so where is the 'advantage'.
The SC is there because there's 1 or more parts of the circuit, denoted by furious yellow flag waving, where there's a 'bit of a biggy'. F1's have been passing such incidents for years under yellow flags and rarely is there any issue.
The purpose of the SC is twofold. Firstly, to make it so drivers dont floor it past yellow flags as there is no gain, they're going to end up in queue anyway, and to mix up the race a bit for the spectators.
It is not about being fair. If they wanted fair then there would just be a speed limit, possibly even operated by race control pressing a button and cutting power on the cars when over a certain speed, possibly even braking.
SC's aren't about fair, they're about mixing the race up abit and bringing life back into a dead race. That is their purpose, the fact that there is a small safety reason for their deployment is just a bonus.
The no pit rule just creates a situation where you can dart into the pits if you are lucky and your team is fast enough to make the call. Although if the crash is at the end of the lap that will be dangerous.
The only problem with the SC phase is the no pit rule. I dont think Rosberg pitting unecessarily hindered my enjoyment of the race, and I dont think he gained an unfair advantage by pitting in the SC phase - if I had my way, all teams would be allowed to do that so where is the 'advantage'.
How about when the SC comes out, if a driver needs to pit they have to show proof to the stewards that they need fuel. Anyone who doesn't gets the penalty. Simple.
It prevents what they are trying to prevent. And doesn't unfairly give those who need fuel, a penalty.
Sure it may give them an advantage instead, but you can't please everyone.
It prevents what they are trying to prevent. And doesn't unfairly give those who need fuel, a penalty.
Sure it may give them an advantage instead, but you can't please everyone.
I think the rules should be changed as follows.
Either before the race (for first pitstops) and within thirty seconds of their car leaving garage, the team should provide the race director with what lap the car will pit on in an envelope.
The SC will work how it does now, except for one thing. If a car pits before "pit lane is open" is on the timing monitors, their envelope will be opened. If they pitted on that lap they would not be stopgo'd.
Either before the race (for first pitstops) and within thirty seconds of their car leaving garage, the team should provide the race director with what lap the car will pit on in an envelope.
The SC will work how it does now, except for one thing. If a car pits before "pit lane is open" is on the timing monitors, their envelope will be opened. If they pitted on that lap they would not be stopgo'd.
Er, yeah sorry but you're completely wrong. The Safety Car exists for... wait for it... safety! They don't put it out to 'mix up the race'. Period. If that were the case, they'd put out the safety car for no reason at all. I'm sure you're aware, however, that they only do so when there's a hazard on the track.
"Mixing up the race", or "enliven" the show is not the purpose of race control. It exists to ensure the safety of the participants and the spectators. Reducing gaps or shuffling the order is nothing more than a symptom of temporarily controlling the pace.
Just do away with pitstops all together (unless a car has a puncture or mechanical problems).
Fit the cars with big enough fuel tanks to last the whole race and bolt on a set of tyres that'll last the race. It'll bring race craft back into the equation and the incentive to actually overtake on the track will be increased.
Fit the cars with big enough fuel tanks to last the whole race and bolt on a set of tyres that'll last the race. It'll bring race craft back into the equation and the incentive to actually overtake on the track will be increased.
I thought I was the only one in the world that had this kind of sentiment. But Singapore was worse than Monaco as I never seen cars single file with almost no passing for the longest time. It blew my mind.
Obviously I dont watch F1 to much so I dont know if this is standard or not (and I assume not considering that I've seen some great action in other ventures), so I searched the web to see if I can find more people to my sentiments.
But as Scott Sharp from Indy once said: "Driving on the streets is somewhat similar to racing on the streets" LOL
I really cant help but feel that most street courses are there just for the sake of the novelty of having a street course.
hahahaha
Good zinger I admit, but the guy's still a giant douche. He doesn't give a shit how good the racing is, in his mind Singapore will always be fantastic because of how much bigger his bank balance is as a result. If anyone dares to say anything critical of it, even if it's legitimate (and diMontezemolo's complaint isn't), he attacks them.
Sniveling, money-grubbing, Harry Potter-looking mother@%&#er.
I know that's what you used one for in your STCC videos (every single race, wasn't it?
), but that's LFS where there's no reason at all for a safety car. In F1 I think the "safety" aspect is a bit more important.which it wont under your proposal and people will get an excessive advantage from it
with your idea anyone who pitted before the sc came out will get a huge disadvantage
1
2
"F1 humiliated by singapore gp street"
(45 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG