planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:59 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Rows of three cars on the starting grid - good or bad?
Good 19%  19%  [ 10 ]
Could be good 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
It's dangerous but good 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
Doubtful that it is good 17%  17%  [ 9 ]
Not looking good 6%  6%  [ 3 ]
Bad 28%  28%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 53
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6648
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6422
Location: Nebraska, USA
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


They are still on the pole, Siao. They would still have the advantageous line. Personally, I have never understood why F1 has used a staggered start anyway. I thought two cars side-by-side would have made better sense.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6648
Blake wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


They are still on the pole, Siao. They would still have the advantageous line. Personally, I have never understood why F1 has used a staggered start anyway. I thought two cars side-by-side would have made better sense.


Sorry Blake, I'm not following. They have the advantageous line (most times), yes. So, what?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6422
Location: Nebraska, USA
Saio, I guess what I am saying is how much more advantage does the fastest car on the grid need than to be on the front row with what would be the best line into the first turn? With the current staggered starts, the pole winner not only gets the most advantageous line, but also a significant "head start" by virtue of being further up the track.

Personally, I am not convinced that a three car front row on most F1 tracks is ideal, but firmly believe that side by side rows of two would be good for the sport and more fair.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6648
Blake wrote:
Saio, I guess what I am saying is how much more advantage does the fastest car on the grid need than to be on the front row with what would be the best line into the first turn? With the current staggered starts, the pole winner not only gets the most advantageous line, but also a significant "head start" by virtue of being further up the track.

Personally, I am not convinced that a three car front row on most F1 tracks is ideal, but firmly believe that side by side rows of two would be good for the sport and more fair.

Ok, I understand. Well the pole was not always the preferred line, sometimes it is on the dirty side and sometimes it is on the outside of a braking corner. Senna may have made a point about that in 1990!

I also like the side by side idea, it would make it more interesting, a dead heat to the first corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
MB-BOB wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.


This is true, but I doubt there is a driver that would want to risk ending his race or get a penalty because he played bumper cars. The danger of getting hurt is lower than ever before, but they are there to finish the race, not to play demolition derby.


Two words... Singapore, 2017

Think about Monaco... too many examples to cite.
I'm a bit surprised by the references to Singapore. Those cars were stacked at the start.

And part of the reason why Verstappen kept his foot in, was that he had said before the start that Vettel had everything to lose, so would have to be more careful than he. Which simply meant Verstappen himself forgot that Vettel had to win, and blocking him off was simply something Vettel "had" to do.

Simply pointing to Singapore doesn't make a good case for stacking the cars in the first place, and it doesn't make a good one for drivers playing the long game either.

It would be interesting to know the reasons why F1 went to stacked grids with massive distances between the cars all those years ago. But as things stand, and provided race control and the stewards are prepared to throw the book at drivers who seem to have reading difficulties, I think reverting to line abreast grids might well solve the problem of races being over past turn 1 on lap 1.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1049
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 12:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14270
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.


Drivers pass each other all the time?

I'd be up for a reverse grid but perhaps as a qualifying race rather than as the main event.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.


Drivers pass each other all the time?

I'd be up for a reverse grid but perhaps as a qualifying race rather than as the main event.

What races do you watch or are we allowing for SC's and drivers being on different tyres?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 1:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14270
pokerman wrote:
What races do you watch or are we allowing for SC's and drivers being on different tyres?


Well there would still be safety cars and drivers on different tyres so of course I am.

Saying that if you lined cars up in reverse speed you wouldn't need the safety car to make things tighter. They'd be running close anyway. We've seen quite a lot of overtaking in the midfield.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1049
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.


Yes that work well at Monaco or not?



OK so presumably you're implying it's virtually impossible to pass at Monaco?

And you're against reversed grids?

So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
DOLOMITE wrote:
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....


Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.


Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.


Yes that work well at Monaco or not?



OK so presumably you're implying it's virtually impossible to pass at Monaco?

And you're against reversed grids?

So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....

So you stick someone like Lance Stroll on pole and he wins the race and that represents the finest quality of what F1 represents and that's the driver making the difference?

All those millions spent on the cars so we can have lottery winners, like I said before if you want the drivers to make the difference then have spec cars, it's a lot cheaper and it doesn't rely on gimmicks.

Another thing qualifying is traditionally a very important part of F1, it has it's own records and it's a very important part of the F1 weekend, any one wanting rid of qualifying is in my opinion not a true fan, true fans from what I see do not want reverse grids.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 425
Why not 20 wide motocross style starts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHCVv1NTV4w

Would require some adjustment of the circuits but what the hell!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1049
DOLOMITE wrote:
So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....


Well I think we've answered that one....

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
DOLOMITE wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....


Well I think we've answered that one....

I think you're forgetting the bit about a track you can't pass on so like I said before we celebrate the likes of Stroll winning Monaco, it devalues the sport.

Excellence should be rewarded not mediocrity.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1049
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....


Well I think we've answered that one....

I think you're forgetting the bit about a track you can't pass on so like I said before we celebrate the likes of Stroll winning Monaco, it devalues the sport.

Excellence should be rewarded not mediocrity.


Not forgetting anything - it's right there in bold.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 12:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
DOLOMITE wrote:
pokerman wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....


Well I think we've answered that one....

I think you're forgetting the bit about a track you can't pass on so like I said before we celebrate the likes of Stroll winning Monaco, it devalues the sport.

Excellence should be rewarded not mediocrity.


Not forgetting anything - it's right there in bold.

Forgetting that even if you are the quickest you can't pass.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1049
A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp more than the car in front still can't pass...

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Last edited by DOLOMITE on Tue May 29, 2018 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9392
DOLOMITE wrote:
A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23917
The race wasn’t great. But he driver’s eye view of the car speeding through the twisty streets was awe inspiring. Worth the Sunday afternoon for that alone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Covalent wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Fiki wrote:
Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

The tyres are used because of countless fans saying they want tyres that don't last so we have multiple pit stops, anyway having more durable tyres would make little difference because you still can't pass.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9392
pokerman wrote:
Covalent wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

The tyres are used because of countless fans saying they want tyres that don't last so we have multiple pit stops, anyway having more durable tyres would make little difference because you still can't pass.
In view of the fan surveys, they should have a fairly good idea of how many fans want circus tyres, but yes, there are far too many fans who believe in pitstops unfortunately.
In the present circumstances I would say you are right, but my post outlined two factors that weren't needed. Nor, as far as I'm aware, were requested by the fans.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Covalent wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?

I would have thought so or maybe they could build an oval? :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6211
Location: Michigan, USA
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?

Judging by the ads you see for it here, yes.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9392
Exediron wrote:
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?

Judging by the ads you see for it here, yes.

Ok that's good then.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], j man, mikeyg123 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group