Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Safety Car nonsense will continue
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Frank Adam wrote:
> On 1 May 2008 13:41:02 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com >
> wrote:
>
> >Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote in
> > news:kubi14pse5esv0f90fapc0i15iq0719c6p@4ax . com :
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB"
> <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com > >> wrote:
> >>
> > > >
> >>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
> > > > news:1b1h145oqrvqss8jisu67n211khrudndhk@4ax . com ...
> >>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3
> laps of >>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want
> the safety car >>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet
> and Tuesday and if it's >>>> Tuesday... :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > why not just keep the pits open?
> > > >
> >> What Brendan said.
> >> However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
> >> remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain
> their >> fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
> >> In addition could be found in breach of the rules to enforce the
> rule >> to them and others who might want to go lower than 3 laps of
> fuel. >> It is so simple it will never happen.
> >
> > Does the FIA know how much fuel they have now or do they merely
> > prevent the first 10 cars from changing their fuel load? I think
> > the latter. So I suppose you'd have to have a means of policing it,
> > and then the loopholes come in.
> >
> Oh look, i don't think of it as a rule having to be enforced at all
> times. Perhaps, it could be defined as a safety recommendation, but
> when situations like this occur, the teams could not blame the SC or
> the procedure.
> IOW, if i tell you to not jump in front of a moving truck... don't
> blame me if it hits you, when you do. :)
>
> > I'd suggest allowing refuelling but not tyre changes.
> >
> But that requires the pit to be opened, which goes dead against the
> safety aspects you mentioned earlier..
>
> What i say is that they keep the current procedures and once the cars
> are all under the SC's control, then open up the pits and let them do
> what they want. If they have 3 laps worth of fuel, this should not be
> a problem.
> Of course this would create Nascar like pit rushes, but i actually
> like watching that.. :)
I believe Honda may already have some reserve tank plans in the archive
somewhere.;)
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Frank Adam wrote:
> On 1 May 2008 13:41:02 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com >
> wrote:
>
> >Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote in
> > news:kubi14pse5esv0f90fapc0i15iq0719c6p@4ax . com :
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB"
> <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com > >> wrote:
> >>
> > > >
> >>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
> > > > news:1b1h145oqrvqss8jisu67n211khrudndhk@4ax . com ...
> >>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3
> laps of >>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want
> the safety car >>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet
> and Tuesday and if it's >>>> Tuesday... :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > why not just keep the pits open?
> > > >
> >> What Brendan said.
> >> However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
> >> remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain
> their >> fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
> >> In addition could be found in breach of the rules to enforce the
> rule >> to them and others who might want to go lower than 3 laps of
> fuel. >> It is so simple it will never happen.
> >
> > Does the FIA know how much fuel they have now or do they merely
> > prevent the first 10 cars from changing their fuel load? I think
> > the latter. So I suppose you'd have to have a means of policing it,
> > and then the loopholes come in.
> >
> Oh look, i don't think of it as a rule having to be enforced at all
> times. Perhaps, it could be defined as a safety recommendation, but
> when situations like this occur, the teams could not blame the SC or
> the procedure.
> IOW, if i tell you to not jump in front of a moving truck... don't
> blame me if it hits you, when you do. :)
>
> > I'd suggest allowing refuelling but not tyre changes.
> >
> But that requires the pit to be opened, which goes dead against the
> safety aspects you mentioned earlier..
>
> What i say is that they keep the current procedures and once the cars
> are all under the SC's control, then open up the pits and let them do
> what they want. If they have 3 laps worth of fuel, this should not be
> a problem.
> Of course this would create Nascar like pit rushes, but i actually
> like watching that.. :)
I believe Honda may already have some reserve tank plans in the archive
somewhere.;)
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> writes
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB" <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com >
>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3 laps of
>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want the safety car
>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet and Tuesday and if it's
>>> Tuesday... :-)
>>>
>What Brendan said.
>However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
>remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain their
>fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
--
Peter
Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> writes
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB" <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com >
>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3 laps of
>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want the safety car
>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet and Tuesday and if it's
>>> Tuesday... :-)
>>>
>What Brendan said.
>However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
>remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain their
>fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
--
Peter
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
news:o8mzRbAgtYGIFwNk@ntlworld . com :
> Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> writes
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB" <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com >
>>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
>>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3 laps of
>>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want the safety car
>>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet and Tuesday and if it's
>>>> Tuesday... :-)
>>>>
>>What Brendan said.
>>However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
>>remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain their
>>fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
>
> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close as
possible..) and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
news:o8mzRbAgtYGIFwNk@ntlworld . com :
> Frank Adam <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> writes
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:52:44 -0300, "FB" <no.spam@will.be.allowed . com >
>>>"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote
>>>> Simplest rule addition. Each car must refuel with at least 2-3 laps of
>>>> fuel still onboard. For "safety reasons". We don't want the safety car
>>>> runing into a stalled F1 car.. It could be wet and Tuesday and if it's
>>>> Tuesday... :-)
>>>>
>>What Brendan said.
>>However, if the teams were compulsed to refuel with 3 laps of fuel
>>remaining, then ran dry during an SC period, it would be plain their
>>fault and couldn't cry except into their own hankies.
>
> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close as
possible..) and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
>> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
>> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
>Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close as
>possible..)
The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove a
decent enough race.
>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
roll of the dice?
If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
have been a problem.
--
Peter
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
>> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel.
>> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
>Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close as
>possible..)
The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove a
decent enough race.
>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
roll of the dice?
If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
have been a problem.
--
Peter
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
news:r4WzQnAjhsGIFwMU@ntlworld . com :
> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>>> chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>>> with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>>
>>Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
>>close as possible..)
>
> The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove
> a decent enough race.
Nice selective example - perhaps if you chose the BMW driver affected by it
we could talk, huh? :)
>>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>>
> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> roll of the dice?
> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> have been a problem.
So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
news:r4WzQnAjhsGIFwMU@ntlworld . com :
> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>>> chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>>> with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>>
>>Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
>>close as possible..)
>
> The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove
> a decent enough race.
Nice selective example - perhaps if you chose the BMW driver affected by it
we could talk, huh? :)
>>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>>
> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> roll of the dice?
> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> have been a problem.
So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>>>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>>>> chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>>>> with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>>>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>>>
>> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
>> roll of the dice?
>> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
>> have been a problem.
>
>So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
>
Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they need
to quit whining and get on with it.
--
Peter
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>>>> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>>>> chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>>>> with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>>>and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>>>
>> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
>> roll of the dice?
>> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
>> have been a problem.
>
>So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
>
Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they need
to quit whining and get on with it.
--
Peter
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
peter wrote:
> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always
> > > > > a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their
> > > > > cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the
> > > > > big deal.
> > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > >
> > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> >
> > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> >
> Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
> safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
> Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
> need to quit whining and get on with it.
Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is hardly
ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
inappropriate.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
peter wrote:
> CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always
> > > > > a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting their
> > > > > cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what is the
> > > > > big deal.
> > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > >
> > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> >
> > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> >
> Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
> safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
> Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
> need to quit whining and get on with it.
Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is hardly
ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
inappropriate.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Bigbird wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
> > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
> > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
> > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what
> > > > > > is the big deal.
> > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > > >
> > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> > >
> > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> > >
> > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
> > safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
> > Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
> > need to quit whining and get on with it.
>
> Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
> really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
>
> All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
> Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
> hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
> strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
>
> Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
> inappropriate.
I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
applied to them?
BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
--
Paul-B
Bigbird wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
> > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
> > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
> > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what
> > > > > > is the big deal.
> > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > > >
> > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> > >
> > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> > >
> > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
> > safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
> > Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
> > need to quit whining and get on with it.
>
> Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
> really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
>
> All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
> Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
> hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
> strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
>
> Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
> inappropriate.
I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
applied to them?
BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
--
Paul-B
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680doqF2qmg9jU1
@mid.individual . net :
> Bigbird wrote:
>
>> peter wrote:
>>
>> > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>> > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>> > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
>> > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
>> > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what
>> > > > > > is the big deal.
>> > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>> > > > >
>> > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
>> > > > already a roll of the dice?
>> > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
>> > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
>> > >
>> > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
>> > >
>> > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
>> > safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
>> > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
>> > Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
>> > need to quit whining and get on with it.
>>
>> Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
>> really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
>>
>> All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
>> Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
>> hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
>> strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
>>
>> Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
>> inappropriate.
>
> I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
> it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
> applied to them?
Should we decide the Olympic 100m by raffle?
After all - they all have the same chance.
So to be clear: randomness != fairness
And to take it further randomness tends to work against an advantage.
Which in any competition is what you want to decide the contest.
The idea of the SC is obviously primarily safety.
But the other obvious aim (to some) is to interfere in the contest as
little as possible.
> BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
> everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
> qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
> chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
> but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
>
> Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
> for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
So how stupid do you feel if Bird and I agree :)
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for
that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680doqF2qmg9jU1
@mid.individual . net :
> Bigbird wrote:
>
>> peter wrote:
>>
>> > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>> > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>> > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
>> > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
>> > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost, what
>> > > > > > is the big deal.
>> > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>> > > > >
>> > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
>> > > > already a roll of the dice?
>> > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
>> > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
>> > >
>> > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
>> > >
>> > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if a
>> > safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
>> > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for everyone.
>> > Of course its not ideal but until something better comes along they
>> > need to quit whining and get on with it.
>>
>> Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
>> really think it is the same for everyone you really don't understand.
>>
>> All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
>> Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
>> hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or race
>> strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
>>
>> Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
>> inappropriate.
>
> I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
> it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
> applied to them?
Should we decide the Olympic 100m by raffle?
After all - they all have the same chance.
So to be clear: randomness != fairness
And to take it further randomness tends to work against an advantage.
Which in any competition is what you want to decide the contest.
The idea of the SC is obviously primarily safety.
But the other obvious aim (to some) is to interfere in the contest as
little as possible.
> BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
> everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
> qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
> chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
> but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
>
> Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
> for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
So how stupid do you feel if Bird and I agree :)
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for
that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Paul-B wrote:
> Bigbird wrote:
>
> > peter wrote:
> >
> > > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
> > > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
> > > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost,
> > > > > > > what is the big deal.
> > > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> > > >
> > > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> > > >
> > > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if
> > > a safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> > > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for
> > > everyone. Of course its not ideal but until something better
> > > comes along they need to quit whining and get on with it.
> >
> > Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
> > really think it is the same for everyone you really don't
> > understand.
> >
> > All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
> > Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
> > hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or
> > race strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
> >
> > Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
> > inappropriate.
>
> I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
> it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
> applied to them?
>
> BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
> everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
> qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
> chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
> but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
>
> Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
> for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
The rules are the same, the circumstances and therefore the
choices/decisions are not.
BMW lost out purely because of bad luck. Alonso could have been in a
position to win it if the SC had been a couple of laps earlier. That is
not racing it is drawing straws.
You are advocating a system that can reverse the order of a race seeing
least deserving driver lead the field or a driver 90secs ahead put to
the back of the field. That is not racing.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Paul-B wrote:
> Bigbird wrote:
>
> > peter wrote:
> >
> > > CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > > >peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > >>CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
> > > >>>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > > I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is
> > > > > > > always a chance of a SC period but they still risk letting
> > > > > > > their cars run with low fuel. BMW gambled, they lost,
> > > > > > > what is the big deal.
> > > > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't
> > > > > already a roll of the dice?
> > > > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > > > wouldn't have been a problem.
> > > >
> > > > So let's just have them all stop every lap to be sure, mmmm, k?
> > > >
> > > Its not that difficult to understand...all the teams know that if
> > > a safety car comes out when they are low on fuel then they may get
> > > screwed. The teams either gamble or not, its the same for
> > > everyone. Of course its not ideal but until something better
> > > comes along they need to quit whining and get on with it.
> >
> > Being the same for everyone does not make it acceptable...and if you
> > really think it is the same for everyone you really don't
> > understand.
> >
> > All SC rules are an interference in the normal running of a race.
> > Basing a strategy around the possibility of such interference is
> > hardly ideal. The more the interference with the running order or
> > race strategy the further from the ideal it gets.
> >
> > Your comparison with qualifying strategy is utterly flawed and
> > inappropriate.
>
> I'd love to know why you think it's not the same for everyone. Who is
> it not the same for, then? Which drivers/teams have different rules
> applied to them?
>
> BMW had a number of choices open to them, which were the same as
> everyone else had. They could have fuelled their cars heavier in
> qualifying, they could have pulled them in earlier in the race. They
> chose the strategy, and in this case it was not the correct strategy,
> but they had exactly the same choices as every other team on the grid.
>
> Seems to me it's your assertions which are flawed. Inappropriate? Not
> for you, anyway, it's what we've come to expect.
The rules are the same, the circumstances and therefore the
choices/decisions are not.
BMW lost out purely because of bad luck. Alonso could have been in a
position to win it if the SC had been a couple of laps earlier. That is
not racing it is drawing straws.
You are advocating a system that can reverse the order of a race seeing
least deserving driver lead the field or a driver 90secs ahead put to
the back of the field. That is not racing.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>
> >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
> >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel=
.
> >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
> >Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close a=
s
> >possible..)
>
> The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove a
> decent enough race.
Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
> >and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> roll of the dice?
> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> have been a problem.
Tactics peter, tactics.
On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>
> >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a chance
> >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run with low fuel=
.
> >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
> >Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as close a=
s
> >possible..)
>
> The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he drove a
> decent enough race.
Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
> >and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
> Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> roll of the dice?
> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> have been a problem.
Tactics peter, tactics.
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Mike wrote:
> On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
> >
> > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
> > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
> > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
> >
> > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
> > > close as possible..)
> >
> > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
> > drove a decent enough race.
>
> Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
Let's hope he never is.
> > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> >
> > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> > roll of the dice?
> > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > wouldn't have been a problem.
>
> Tactics peter, tactics.
And the wrong ones, in this case.
BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
--
Paul-B
Mike wrote:
> On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
> >
> > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
> > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
> > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
> >
> > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
> > > close as possible..)
> >
> > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
> > drove a decent enough race.
>
> Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
Let's hope he never is.
> > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
> >
> > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> > roll of the dice?
> > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > wouldn't have been a problem.
>
> Tactics peter, tactics.
And the wrong ones, in this case.
BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
--
Paul-B
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680dskF2qmg9jU2@mid.individual . net :
> Mike wrote:
>
>> On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>> >
>> > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>> > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>> > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>> >
>> > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
>> > > close as possible..)
>> >
>> > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
>> > drove a decent enough race.
>>
>> Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
>
> Let's hope he never is.
>
>> > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>> >
>> > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
>> > roll of the dice?
>> > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
>> > wouldn't have been a problem.
>>
>> Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> And the wrong ones, in this case.
>
> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
So somehow McLaren and Ferrari pulled a master stroke in avoiding the SC?
When in fact it was pure chance.
You do such a fine job undermining your own credibility that I'm not sure
why we bother replying..
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680dskF2qmg9jU2@mid.individual . net :
> Mike wrote:
>
>> On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>> >
>> > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>> > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
>> > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
>> > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>> >
>> > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
>> > > close as possible..)
>> >
>> > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
>> > drove a decent enough race.
>>
>> Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
>
> Let's hope he never is.
>
>> > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>> >
>> > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
>> > roll of the dice?
>> > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
>> > wouldn't have been a problem.
>>
>> Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> And the wrong ones, in this case.
>
> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
So somehow McLaren and Ferrari pulled a master stroke in avoiding the SC?
When in fact it was pure chance.
You do such a fine job undermining your own credibility that I'm not sure
why we bother replying..
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680dskF2qmg9jU2@mid.individual . net
>> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
>
>So somehow McLaren and Ferrari pulled a master stroke in avoiding the SC?
>When in fact it was pure chance.
>
You assume of course that no one pitted with laps of fuel in reserve.
McLaren in the past have noted bringing in their drivers early to avoid
the risk of a safety car spoiling their race.
--
Peter
CatharticF1 <rasf1poster@gmail . com > writes
>"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in news:680dskF2qmg9jU2@mid.individual . net
>> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
>
>So somehow McLaren and Ferrari pulled a master stroke in avoiding the SC?
>When in fact it was pure chance.
>
You assume of course that no one pitted with laps of fuel in reserve.
McLaren in the past have noted bringing in their drivers early to avoid
the risk of a safety car spoiling their race.
--
Peter
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2 May, 12:57, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1 . net > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>
> > > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
> > > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
> > > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
> > > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
> > > > close as possible..)
>
> > > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
> > > drove a decent enough race.
>
> > Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
>
> Let's hope he never is.
>
> > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
> > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> > > roll of the dice?
> > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > wouldn't have been a problem.
>
> > Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> And the wrong ones, in this case.
Of course.
> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
True. I'd put it majorly down to bad luck rather than necessarily bad
tactics.
On 2 May, 12:57, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1 . net > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > > CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail . com > writes
>
> > > >peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> > > >> I don't see the problem... All the teams know there is always a
> > > chance >> of a SC period but they still risk letting their cars run
> > > with low fuel. >> BMW gambled, they lost, what is the big deal.
>
> > > > Well - it's because we'd prefer the race were won on merit (or as
> > > > close as possible..)
>
> > > The race wasn't won on merit? OK so Kimi is no Hamilton but he
> > > drove a decent enough race.
>
> > Kimi is no Hamilton? Shouldn't that be Hamilton is no Kimi? Yet.
>
> Let's hope he never is.
>
> > > > and not on the roll of a dice as to when the SC pops out.
>
> > > Because choosing your race fuel for final qualifying isn't already a
> > > roll of the dice?
> > > If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there
> > > wouldn't have been a problem.
>
> > Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> And the wrong ones, in this case.
Of course.
> BMW's choice, no-one forced them to adopt that particular strategy.
True. I'd put it majorly down to bad luck rather than necessarily bad
tactics.
