42 replies to this topic

[HandyNZL]

I really should delete my 2nd post, but double posting is such a cool game around here, it would seem wrong to do so...

[yurp]

Craig - as moderator can you not delete your own double posts?

Or does your word count twice now?

[yurp]

Ah damn there's another page in which you beat me to the joke!

[HandyNZL]

yurp, on 16 February 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Ah damn there's another page in which you beat me to the joke!

BAZINGA

[BradSpeedMan]

HandyNZL, on 16 February 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

BAZINGA

You forgot a post for this!!!!!!





FFS!!!!!

Edited by BradSpeedMan, 16 February 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Autumnpuma]

Craig, is there a driver you can name that's on the sharp-end of the grid that had a boring, non-descript first season? I can't think of one. Sure they all improve over time but it's a question of their starting point. If you're timid in your first year, how far exactly will you go in three? Five? I say you end up like Sutil.

[HandyNZL]

Sure, all WDC's showed their mettle in their first season, but you can't have a grid of 24 champions or champions to be.  There are not that many drivers on the same talent plane.  However, that said....

Massa.  Spent as much time spinning off the track in his Sauber in 2002 as he did staying on the track.  Lost his drive to HHF, and sat out 2003.  One could say he was lucky to get back on the grid.

Webber.  Lucked into a 5th place in Aussie thanks to that massive 8-car pile up.  Plodded for the rest of it...just to plod right on into Jaguar and then Williams as they began their downhill slide.  Proved that in a competitive car he is one of the best overtakers in the business...on the outside of Eau Rouge? C'mon!!!!

Button.  Had a reasonable first season...some points at the start then kind of drifted backwards, and then had that god awful contract spat thing.  Very lucky chap to even still be in F1 thanks to that little contract kerfuffle, and proof that on-track ability can be scuppered by your off-track nous.

One might even say Alonso was lucky to make his second year, as he too sat out a year after his debut season.  His saving grace was that he was under Briatore management and F1 still did enough testing back then for him to keep his eye in.  Then when he came back to the grid, the team and car was on the up, culminating in his two championship years.  Now able to race for any of the top three teams, he will never again have a car that will disguise his talents.

Grosjean is today's equal to Alonso in terms of sitting out a season (or two) and making it back to the grid.  It's very rare today for anyone to get that chance that hasn't sat in a top tier car.  So in that sense, Rubens is dreaming if he thinks he's going to get a 20th season, and Buemi and Alguesari better find themselves something else to do.

************************

Essentially, what I am saying is, that you can't just be a ball's out driver these days, as so much more determines whether or not you stay on the grid.

[Autumnpuma]

HandyNZL, on 17 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Massa.  Spent as much time spinning off the track in his Sauber in 2002 as he did staying on the track.  Lost his drive to HHF, and sat out 2003.  One could say he was lucky to get back on the grid.

Yeah, I agree. I think Massa is the poster boy for the 'driver improving' thing. I think he's the only one, however. The exception to the rule.

HandyNZL, on 17 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Webber.  Lucked into a 5th place in Aussie thanks to that massive 8-car pile up.  Plodded for the rest of it...just to plod right on into Jaguar and then Williams as they began their downhill slide.  Proved that in a competitive car he is one of the best overtakers in the business...on the outside of Eau Rouge? C'mon!!!!

I don't see Webber as anything other than what he's always been: Good qualifier, not so good in a race. There's no improvement there and nobody is surprised that Webber races as he does today.

HandyNZL, on 17 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Button.  Had a reasonable first season...some points at the start then kind of drifted backwards, and then had that god awful contract spat thing.  Very lucky chap to even still be in F1 thanks to that little contract kerfuffle, and proof that on-track ability can be scuppered by your off-track nous.

Maybe. Button's first season for Williams was fantastic. His 3rd place qualifying for Spa was brilliant. His talent was evident but he was a victim of Frank's bad business practices. He was bumbed from the team in favor of JPM. Luckily for Frank, JPM proved to be a good choice, but Button was gone from the team just when he might have had a good car under him in the next two seasons. But his talent and stock was good enough for Benetton to snap him up (remember at that time Benetton was going for a 'revolutionary' engine and they thought they were big fish still...so did most people).

The contract thing and the hard times he had before his success at Brawn didn't affect his talent much. He's the same racer he was in his first season. Perhaps a bit calmer and longer-thinking, but he hasn't really improved. He was quick-ish and smooth back then and he still is.

HandyNZL, on 17 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

One might even say Alonso was lucky to make his second year, as he too sat out a year after his debut season.  His saving grace was that he was under Briatore management and F1 still did enough testing back then for him to keep his eye in.  Then when he came back to the grid, the team and car was on the up, culminating in his two championship years.  Now able to race for any of the top three teams, he will never again have a car that will disguise his talents.

I strongly disagree. I remember reading in F1 Racing about Alonso and his first season and they were touting this fast Spainiard. His speed and talent were evident then. His troubles were management and funding based, not talent based. He was very quick back then and he still is.

HandyNZL, on 17 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Essentially, what I am saying is, that you can't just be a ball's out driver these days, as so much more determines whether or not you stay on the grid.

I strongly disagree. All the drivers that *haven't* gone balls out are now either out or are looking for drives in lesser teams. Vettel went balls out. Hamilton went balls out. If you prove you've got that fighting spirit, and you can race (not just throw a car around) you get noticed and hired by bigger teams. There is nothing to be gained by being conservative and boring in your first year. Of course, there isn't anything to be gained from throwing your car off the track, but if given the choice, I would try my talent and see what I can do. Everyone can be conservative, but you'll never find out your true talent by being 'safe'.

[HandyNZL]

You can't discount Webber, as he fits your term of "the sharp end of the grid".  You can't just look at Alonso, Hamilton and Button.  You have to look at all six drivers in the three top teams.  And Webber has made it to the "sharp end" by being conservative when needed, attacking when needed.  And since he's made it as an established driver, his balls out driving has increased, especially last year in some of those back of the field starts to somewhere near the front drives, and that race he got the penalty and still fought his way through the field to win the race.  In actuality, he's the poster boy more so than Massa.

Our of Senna and Prost, which one would get your support, and why?

[Autumnpuma]

But Im not talking about speed and talent now or about how a driver drives the best car on the grid; I'm talking about a driver being conservative and not showing 'racyness' in their first year as opposed to one that really shows their talent. I'm saying those that show their talent make it to the sharp-end and those that 'play it safe' don't. Webber showed enough spunk and racyness in his first year to boost his career to the point that Red Bull came knocking.

Prost or Senna. Truthfully, I can't remember Prost's first season (but I'd wager he was quick and showed talent) but Senna did show speed and look where it took him. Also, I think you miss my point when you bring up a choice between Senna and Prost. This has nothing to do with a conservative or racy approach to racing: Both approaches, when used by drivers like Prost and Senna, can reap legendary races, just as both approaches in less deft hands can reap bad performances.

The issue is if the best drivers showed their worth in their first year. I say all your examples but Massa *did* show their worth. Of course all this is up to personal observation and opinion...so we may not agree. All drivers improve over their career, but the good teams identify the more dynamic, speedy drivers to hire first in the hopes of grooming some maturity into them.

So it behooves new drivers to take a chance and show some racyness in their first year.

Edited by Autumnpuma, 17 February 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[HandyNZL]

OK Mike, I'll take your point, and perhaps your slight twisting of it, and raise it by asking: "which drivers don't have the required talent, in your opinion?"  (because it's always easy to say someone is good when the results and championships can back you up, and after they have been in the sport for more than a year).

Is there any talent in Petrov? Kovalinen? di Resta? Riccardio? Kobayashi? Maldonado? Hulkenburg?  Grosjean?

[Autumnpuma]

As I said to Steve in another thread, sorry for the delayed response..I forgot I posted here :S

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

OK Mike, I'll take your point, and perhaps your slight twisting of it, and raise it by asking: "which drivers don't have the required talent, in your opinion?"  (because it's always easy to say someone is good when the results and championships can back you up, and after they have been in the sport for more than a year).

Not sure how I twisted a point I initially brought up. I was trying like hell to stay *on* point as the conversation drifted. My point is, was and always shall be: Big teams at the sharp end notice dynamic and risk-taking drivers. On the tail of that: The drivers currently at the sharp-end were noticeable talents in their rookie years (with the exception of Massa) who didn't drive conservatively just to keep from 'getting in trouble'.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Is there any talent in Petrov?

Of a middling variety. Not top team material but a good choice for a mid-team looking for a points-scorer.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Kovalinen?

No. He's only in F1 because he bested Mikey the Schu many years ago in some Champion's race or the other and because Kimi and Mika made Finnish racers a sort of fad. He's totally devoid of talent, intelligence and he has a small penis as well.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

di Resta?

No. There are better choices out there for the middle of the pack teams.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Riccardio?

I don't know. I need to see more of him to say.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Kobayashi?

Oh hells yes. This boy needs to karate-chop Webber and take his seat.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Maldonado?

I don't like this guy. I want him beaten up. I don't know why. That said, he has talent. Upper mid-field I would say.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Hulkenburg?

Like Maldonado, he's upper mid-field.

HandyNZL, on 18 February 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Grosjean?

I don't know. I need to see more of him to say.

Edited by Autumnpuma, 24 February 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[Delta]

Insider, on 05 February 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Dump KERS, DRS and the 'one move rule'. Ayrton, Nige and Alain managed to overtake people, whatever you put in their way. Modern circuits were overtaking is deemed difficult should be altered. What's the point in racing at them anyway? I want to see these guys racing each other. I suggest we let them. We all know the team with the fastest package always wins, anyway - gadgets or no gadgets.

DEIT: Typo

RE the circuits, I agree. Too many circuits like Abu Dhabi, Valencia, and Singapore are being added that look incredibly glitzy looks, but their layouts are very poorly thought out.

Senna, on 07 February 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

F1 cars have always been fast and I would argue that cars on the grid these days are closer in speed than they have ever been, even with DRS and KERS to help them.  Back in the 1980’s you could get a Williams Honda lapping over 10secs a lap faster than those at the back of the grid (Pascal Farbre in the AGS would be lapped within first 10 laps of every race). Closing speeds of 30mph would not be unusual, now if a Red Bull or McLaren has a 5-7mph advantage using all the gadgets at their disposal over an HRT or Marussia then they would be well pleased with that.

Sure, but the other point is that the cars are currently also a lot more complex to drive. At one moment a driver could be opening their DRS, turning the wheel, modulating the throttle, and pressing the KERS. Adding workload increases reaction time, and when you combine that with the difference in closing speeds it's where the real danger is. I do however accept that it was still dangerous in those days, but that's part of my point: It no longer needs to be.

Quote

We are told that these are the best racing drivers in the world.  I believe that so let them show us how good they are. What I am advocating is the driver is allowed to defend if necessary his position to the best of his ability and not have a hand tied behind his back. The rule as it is presented in the articled linked to this thread is still ambiguous and open to interpretation. It says that after the lead driver makes his 1 defensive move, presumably to the inside to defend the corner, then he must leave at least a cars width for his opponent. So that would infer that the lead driver may move back over from the inside to say the middle of the track, or as best he can judge that in the heat of battle.

It's not really meant to stop them defending. If you're driving on the road at highway speeds, having some lunatic weaving around in front of you is scary enough. Do it at 200+ MPH and it's brown trousers time, even for a seasoned professional. I'm sure the stewards won't just throw penalties around, they'll most likely only penalise drivers that do it continually. Reaction time at that kind of speed is about 0.3 seconds. No amount of talent can overcome an arbitrary limitation like that. I'm not saying that we should remove the art of defensive driving from Formula 1, I just think safety is important. I've never seen a death in F1 (I've been lucky enough to miss the races where they happened) and I don't want to.

Quote

#46 was right in saying that the drivers asked the FIA to police the movement in the braking zone and general racing standards and then penalise any transgressors.  I believethat the drivers were wrong with this. They shirked their responsibility in the matter. They’re the ones on the track they should be able to police it themselves. Maybe they should draw up anaccepted code of conduct signed by all the drivers as to their racingbehaviour. You will always have the more aggressive driver such as Schumacher and that’s not a bad thing. At least you know what you are getting when you’re racing him.

Using the drivers to police themselves isn't  really going to work. Drivers and teams will skirt the bounds of acceptability at all junctures in order to gain that little extra edge that may help them to win. It needs independent enforcement to work.

#46, on 12 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

I don't buy it either. I don't think it's true that the drivers are less talented or that they want to win less, I can't think of any reason that would be the case. The aero issue has been around for a very long time indeed and has no doubt only got worse as the cars became more aerodynamically complex.



Edit: I copied the URL time link but it doesn't work for some reason; anyway, 7 minutes in is relevant.

The problems with aero really occurred after Senna's death in 1994. In the panic the FIA mandating the placement of the plank under the car was what really initiated the teams to start working the upper bodywork surfaces of the car to create the lost downforce. The loss of the ability to generate ground effect downforce was massive, and of course when the floor of the car generates less downforce, It's a natural side effect that the upper bodywork surfaces of the car will be more susceptible to interruption of airflow which is in essence why they become so hard to drive when in another car's slipstream. Also, of course the fact that the FIA have now almost completely equalised the power of all the engines just makes it a bigger problem.

In my opinion, the cars are safe enough now. The FIA need to finally remove the plank from the regulations and start allowing the teams to create more downforce with the floor of the cars again. Then I believe they would be able to follow each other much more closely.