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
Mike wrote:
> 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.
I don't know. At a circuit like Barcelona, with the long run down to
the first corner, cars on differing fuel loads, and the cars on the
first 4 rows obviously on quite different strategies I would have
thought there was a fair chance that there would have been one or more
incidents during the first few laps.
--
Paul-B
Mike wrote:
> 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.
I don't know. At a circuit like Barcelona, with the long run down to
the first corner, cars on differing fuel loads, and the cars on the
first 4 rows obviously on quite different strategies I would have
thought there was a fair chance that there would have been one or more
incidents during the first few laps.
--
Paul-B
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2 May, 13:38, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1 . net > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > 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, wha=
t
> > > > > 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.
>
> I don't know. At a circuit like Barcelona, with the long run down to
> the first corner, cars on differing fuel loads, and the cars on the
> first 4 rows obviously on quite different strategies I would have
> thought there was a fair chance that there would have been one or more
> incidents during the first few laps.
I take your point but I can also see that they would want to take a
gamble on the fact that there might /not/ be a SC deployed.
Call it 80/20 Bad luck/tactical error. IMO.
On 2 May, 13:38, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1 . net > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > 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, wha=
t
> > > > > 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.
>
> I don't know. At a circuit like Barcelona, with the long run down to
> the first corner, cars on differing fuel loads, and the cars on the
> first 4 rows obviously on quite different strategies I would have
> thought there was a fair chance that there would have been one or more
> incidents during the first few laps.
I take your point but I can also see that they would want to take a
gamble on the fact that there might /not/ be a SC deployed.
Call it 80/20 Bad luck/tactical error. IMO.
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2 May 2008 11:57:09 GMT, "Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote:
>> > > 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.
>
Whatever Kimi's hard earned lead was at the time, was wiped away when
the SC came out. Is driving faster than the rest, a "choice" or a
"particular strategy" ? ;-p
--
Regards, Frank
On 2 May 2008 11:57:09 GMT, "Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote:
>> > > 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.
>
Whatever Kimi's hard earned lead was at the time, was wiped away when
the SC came out. Is driving faster than the rest, a "choice" or a
"particular strategy" ? ;-p
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Mike <mikerew66@googlemail . com > writes
>On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
>> have been a problem.
>
>Tactics peter, tactics.
>
Indeed...BMW took a calculated tactical risk which 19/20 times would
have worked for them, this time it didn't.
The safety car always messes up the race especially for the leading
drivers but if you want to stop drivers racing round to pit and racing
round to catch back up with the pack then you need to have a system in
place to take care of that.
Is there a better way of doing it than the current system?
There probably is but I haven't seen one put forward yet.
Until that time the teams have to pit with fuel in reserve or risk
getting caught out if the safety car is deployed.
Its the same for everyone.
--
Peter
Mike <mikerew66@googlemail . com > writes
>On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
>> have been a problem.
>
>Tactics peter, tactics.
>
Indeed...BMW took a calculated tactical risk which 19/20 times would
have worked for them, this time it didn't.
The safety car always messes up the race especially for the leading
drivers but if you want to stop drivers racing round to pit and racing
round to catch back up with the pack then you need to have a system in
place to take care of that.
Is there a better way of doing it than the current system?
There probably is but I haven't seen one put forward yet.
Until that time the teams have to pit with fuel in reserve or risk
getting caught out if the safety car is deployed.
Its the same for everyone.
--
Peter
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2 May, 13:58, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike <mikere...@googlemail . com > writes>On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@bla=
ckhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> >> have been a problem.
>
> >Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> Indeed...BMW took a calculated tactical risk which 19/20 times would
> have worked for them, this time it didn't.
> The safety car always messes up the race especially for the leading
> drivers but if you want to stop drivers racing round to pit and racing
> round to catch back up with the pack then you need to have a system in
> place to take care of that.
> Is there a better way of doing it than the current system?
> There probably is but I haven't seen one put forward yet.
> Until that time the teams have to pit with fuel in reserve or risk
> getting caught out if the safety car is deployed.
> Its the same for everyone.
Nothings perfect I guess and your argument of pitting and catching up
is why the regs were changed.
Bad luck for BMW, good luck for everyone with more fuel.......
I bet the team sat in the garage just waiting for it to happen once
the SC was deployed :/
On 2 May, 13:58, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike <mikere...@googlemail . com > writes>On 2 May, 08:51, peter <scou...@bla=
ckhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >> If BMW had pitted when NH had 3 laps of fuel left then there wouldn't
> >> have been a problem.
>
> >Tactics peter, tactics.
>
> Indeed...BMW took a calculated tactical risk which 19/20 times would
> have worked for them, this time it didn't.
> The safety car always messes up the race especially for the leading
> drivers but if you want to stop drivers racing round to pit and racing
> round to catch back up with the pack then you need to have a system in
> place to take care of that.
> Is there a better way of doing it than the current system?
> There probably is but I haven't seen one put forward yet.
> Until that time the teams have to pit with fuel in reserve or risk
> getting caught out if the safety car is deployed.
> Its the same for everyone.
Nothings perfect I guess and your argument of pitting and catching up
is why the regs were changed.
Bad luck for BMW, good luck for everyone with more fuel.......
I bet the team sat in the garage just waiting for it to happen once
the SC was deployed :/
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On 2008-05-02 03:51:54 -0400, peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said:
> OK so Kimi is no Hamilton
Your'e correct. He doesn't CHOKE.
--
?Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.?
-Mark Twain
On 2008-05-02 03:51:54 -0400, peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said:
> OK so Kimi is no Hamilton
Your'e correct. He doesn't CHOKE.
--
?Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.?
-Mark Twain
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Frank Adam wrote...
> 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.
>
>
We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
wants accidents to occur.
Frank Adam wrote...
> 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.
>
>
We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
wants accidents to occur.
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>Frank Adam wrote...
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
>wants accidents to occur.
>
Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
after their fuel window has past.
Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
--
Regards, Frank
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>Frank Adam wrote...
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
>wants accidents to occur.
>
Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
after their fuel window has past.
Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Frank Adam wrote...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
> >Frank Adam wrote...
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
> >wants accidents to occur.
> >
> Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
>
> With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
> their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
> opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
> after their fuel window has past.
> Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
>
>
You're new to F1?
I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital parts of
a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and parcel of F1 race
strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some gambling - and more
rule changes.
Frank Adam wrote...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
> >Frank Adam wrote...
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
> >wants accidents to occur.
> >
> Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
>
> With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
> their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
> opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
> after their fuel window has past.
> Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
>
>
You're new to F1?
I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital parts of
a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and parcel of F1 race
strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some gambling - and more
rule changes.
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Jon wrote:
> Frank Adam wrote...
>
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Adam wrote...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
>>> wants accidents to occur.
>>>
>> Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
>>
>> With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
>> their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
>> opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
>> after their fuel window has past.
>> Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
>>
>>
>
> You're new to F1?
* i8.photobucket . com /albums/a37/dedalusdaemon/funnies/roflcopter.gif
--
"We always have hope of winning, because the others might lose..."
Monsieur Orgini - The Grand Prix of Gibraltar
Jon wrote:
> Frank Adam wrote...
>
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:51:30 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Adam wrote...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are discussing Racing, not Gambling. No one, except you perhaps,
>>> wants accidents to occur.
>>>
>> Oh i'm sorry, i didn't ralise that you are an imbecile.
>>
>> With a required 3 lap fuel minimum the only gambling is from teams and
>> their drivers. If they run out fuel under an SC before the pit is
>> opened, it is the same as if they took an extra two laps at race pace
>> after their fuel window has past.
>> Can you comprehend that, or is it a bit too high level logic for you ?
>>
>>
>
> You're new to F1?
* i8.photobucket . com /albums/a37/dedalusdaemon/funnies/roflcopter.gif
--
"We always have hope of winning, because the others might lose..."
Monsieur Orgini - The Grand Prix of Gibraltar
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:07:50 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>You're new to F1?
>
Absolutely.
>I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital parts of
>a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and parcel of F1 race
>strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some gambling - and more
>rule changes.
>
Say you have 2 laps of fuel and i have 4 laps of fuel. Given that our
cars and abilities are equal, you make up .4 seconds on me per lap,
due to the difference in fuel loads.
Now.. If you have 5 laps worth and i have 7 laps worth, how will that
result change ?
--
Regards, Frank
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:07:50 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>You're new to F1?
>
Absolutely.
>I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital parts of
>a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and parcel of F1 race
>strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some gambling - and more
>rule changes.
>
Say you have 2 laps of fuel and i have 4 laps of fuel. Given that our
cars and abilities are equal, you make up .4 seconds on me per lap,
due to the difference in fuel loads.
Now.. If you have 5 laps worth and i have 7 laps worth, how will that
result change ?
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Frank Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:07:50 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
> > You're new to F1?
> >
> Absolutely.
>
> > I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital
> > parts of a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and
> > parcel of F1 race strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some
> > gambling - and more rule changes.
> >
> Say you have 2 laps of fuel and i have 4 laps of fuel. Given that our
> cars and abilities are equal, you make up .4 seconds on me per lap,
> due to the difference in fuel loads.
> Now.. If you have 5 laps worth and i have 7 laps worth, how will that
> result change ?
>
Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course it
is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
--
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 Fri, 2 May 2008 15:07:50 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
> > You're new to F1?
> >
> Absolutely.
>
> > I've lost count of the times I've seen someone gain a few vital
> > parts of a second on an almost empty tank. That is part and
> > parcel of F1 race strategy, now you're gonna replace that with some
> > gambling - and more rule changes.
> >
> Say you have 2 laps of fuel and i have 4 laps of fuel. Given that our
> cars and abilities are equal, you make up .4 seconds on me per lap,
> due to the difference in fuel loads.
> Now.. If you have 5 laps worth and i have 7 laps worth, how will that
> result change ?
>
Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course it
is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
--
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...
>
> Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course it
> is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
>
> I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
>
>
How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
once.
Bigbird wrote...
>
> Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course it
> is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
>
> I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
>
>
How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
once.
Re: Safety Car nonsense will continue
Jon wrote:
> Bigbird wrote...
>
>
> >
> > Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> > requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> > seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> > terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course
> > it is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
> >
> > I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> > solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
> >
> >
>
>
> How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
> once.
Well, seems I was right about you're modesty.
A reserve tank is filled when the main tank is filled.
--
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
Jon wrote:
> Bigbird wrote...
>
>
> >
> > Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> > requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> > seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> > terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course
> > it is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
> >
> > I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> > solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
> >
> >
>
>
> How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
> once.
Well, seems I was right about you're modesty.
A reserve tank is filled when the main tank is filled.
--
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...
> Jon wrote:
>
> > Bigbird wrote...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> > > requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> > > seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> > > terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course
> > > it is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
> > >
> > > I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> > > solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
> > once.
>
> Well, seems I was right about you're modesty.
>
> A reserve tank is filled when the main tank is filled.
>
>
Creating another potential fuckup. Separate filler, exra vents, more
electronics, change in weight rulz.
Bigbird wrote...
> Jon wrote:
>
> > Bigbird wrote...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Having a reserve tank that cannot be touched except under the SC and
> > > requires that the car comes into the pit as soon as it is open does
> > > seem the basis for a significant improvement. It is worse in racing
> > > terms than the old rule but far better than the current. Of course
> > > it is not someting that can be easily implemented in a hurry.
> > >
> > > I expect those in the know should be able to come up with a better
> > > solution making use of the common ECU and other systems.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > How do they refill the reserve tank? SC's often come out more than
> > once.
>
> Well, seems I was right about you're modesty.
>
> A reserve tank is filled when the main tank is filled.
>
>
Creating another potential fuckup. Separate filler, exra vents, more
electronics, change in weight rulz.
