Autumnpuma 0 Report post Posted September 20, 2011 It fascinates me that we disagree on this one. You are a traditional fan in every sense; not so concerned with safety and a lover of balls out racing. I'm a big softy and not so keen on the sight of blood. But I think slippy boundaries are essential for keeping them honest and reminding them of the consequences. This is an interesting point. I don't mind having the drivers drive the car in any way they see fit. I *do* mind when the track is unnecessarily dangerous. I'm *always* against altering a track's layout for 'safety' reasons, unless you can show me that the old layout is truly dangerous and not just hard for mediocre driver to navigate. But altering a track layout is different from moving an armco or barrier or grass. I don't think the grass is any deterrent at all, and if it is, it's a deterrent of danger not of rules. It's like putting spikes on the armcos as a deterrent. Sure, it works, but it's perhaps not a good idea. One of the few rules I see as necessary is the one about keeping two wheels on the track. A penalty for going off track works just as well as spinning out of control on slick grass. Better, in fact, because drivers *will* go off-track...do we really want to kill them for it? All of this brings up an interesting thought (at least to me). Would Mikey have driven the way he did in 1966? 1974? I think not. Ironically, it's our obsession with safety that has produced unsafe driving. Drivers feel more comfortable taking risks that earlier generations would not take. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted September 20, 2011 This is an interesting point. I don't mind having the drivers drive the car in any way they see fit. I *do* mind when the track is unnecessarily dangerous. I'm *always* against altering a track's layout for 'safety' reasons, unless you can show me that the old layout is truly dangerous and not just hard for mediocre driver to navigate. But altering a track layout is different from moving an armco or barrier or grass. I don't think the grass is any deterrent at all, and if it is, it's a deterrent of danger not of rules. It's like putting spikes on the armcos as a deterrent. Sure, it works, but it's perhaps not a good idea. One of the few rules I see as necessary is the one about keeping two wheels on the track. A penalty for going off track works just as well as spinning out of control on slick grass. Better, in fact, because drivers *will* go off-track...do we really want to kill them for it? I was about to disagree strongly with you, but then I found I agreed with you on this. I never understood what was the idea behind grass at all. If it's about safety, nothing like the old gravel traps. If it's about letting cars race, you use tarmac escape zones. Grass does not help in any way. It does look pretty, though. As for Michael, I agree with DC. The old b#####d was pushing it to the limit, but let it go before tilting the pinball. It didn't make for pretty racing per se, but because of the drivers involved and the amount of skil they were displaying, knowing the resouces the other guy had. Actually, I've seen similar antics as those of Arnoux&Villeneuve between Heidfeld and HHF at Sauber. They didn't look pretty, either. Imola 2005 & 2006 would be an eyesore today, if you didn't know that the guys were Nando and Schumi. I recall the commentator yelling excitedly "And Schumi just locked his wheels under braking!!!!" Can you imagine locking wheels as an exciting sight today? Oh, I don't know. I found the Schumi vs Lewis battle exciting, albeit frustrating because I wanted a Nando vs Lewis battle. In retrospective, thout woyld have been a probably much shorter fight and Alonso would have gotten the worst. But still... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites