Is the safety car start, the beginning of the end?
Discussion
No it's not. It's that different forms of motor sport have different aspects to them. American racing, for instance traditionally has had rolling starts - perfectly suited to their historic link to oval tracks. GP racing traditionally never did.
Vive les differences I say.
If I want rolling starts, I watch Indycar.
Vive les differences I say.
If I want rolling starts, I watch Indycar.
Vaud said:
Eric Mc said:
Formula 1 has never been noted for being a collection of "saints" and "exemplars" of best behaviour. I doubt if that is going to change much anytime soon. Indeed, I would prefer to have "characters" in the sport rather than a bunch of boring corporate clones.
There is a balance between "characters" and outright cheats though.You mentioned Balestre in a previous post. Would you put him above his replacement or below him?
Derek Smith said:
Where would you put Ken Tyrell?
You mentioned Balestre in a previous post. Would you put him above his replacement or below him?
To be honest most of my perception is second hand or retrospectives for Ken, though I remember Balestre in his later years as its when I started to get properly into F1... So I can't offer a really rounded answer, other than:You mentioned Balestre in a previous post. Would you put him above his replacement or below him?
Balestre went too far towards the end of his career, though I rate early Max above late Balestre. Max drove some great reforms in 1994.
Adrian W said:
SKY+ and the FF button
I don't think you can fully appreciate a race without taking the time to fully appreciate it. Even channel 4's extended highlights cut out too much and I lose the story of the race. I loved every single lap of that Monaco race. I loved the two hours of listening to DC and Brundle talking about red shouldered black birds in Canada 2011 and it is because I made it through that two hour famine and those laps behind the safety car at the weekend that I felt totally nourished when Button won or when Hulkenburg passed Rosberg. It may also be why I don't have a girl friend.Mr_Thyroid said:
I don't think you can fully appreciate a race without taking the time to fully appreciate it. Even channel 4's extended highlights cut out too much and I lose the story of the race. I loved every single lap of that Monaco race. I loved the two hours of listening to DC and Brundle talking about red shouldered black birds in Canada 2011 and it is because I made it through that two hour famine and those laps behind the safety car at the weekend that I felt totally nourished when Button won or when Hulkenburg passed Rosberg. It may also be why I don't have a girl friend.
I enjoyed Canada 2011, etc and watched it in full, and am happily married to a petrol head - there is hope of you yet!Vaud said:
Derek Smith said:
Where would you put Ken Tyrell?
You mentioned Balestre in a previous post. Would you put him above his replacement or below him?
To be honest most of my perception is second hand or retrospectives for Ken, though I remember Balestre in his later years as its when I started to get properly into F1... So I can't offer a really rounded answer, other than:You mentioned Balestre in a previous post. Would you put him above his replacement or below him?
Balestre went too far towards the end of his career, though I rate early Max above late Balestre. Max drove some great reforms in 1994.
I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember the 3-litre formula from its inception.
Mosley was forced into reforms after the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna. I think shutting stable doors is not much of a CV.
Both men seemed to fall apart towards the end of their stay in the FIA. The major differences were more to do with style rather than substance. Balestre favoured the French bloke but at least he wasn't interviewed in an office supplied by Prost, nor with a model of him just over his shoulder.
I'm not sure Balestre would have dealt with those whose rule-breaking behaviour caused a fire directly below the stands for the posh people in precisely the same way as Mosley did.
We moan about Todt, but at the very least, he's an improvement and, like Balestre was, is an enthusiast for motor sport.
Tyrrell's response to political rule making was, many felt, quite reasonable and not anywhere near was extreme as other teams'. The suggestion is that Ken was picked as the easy target, this despite what he did for the sport. They were all at it, but Ken was targeted. Yes he was a cheat in a sport where everyone was at it, including currying favours from those at the top. Does that excuse him?
My point was that there is nothing pure and simple in our sport.
HustleRussell said:
Is the implication then that great racing can only begin with a standing start? Christ, we'd better tell all the other forms of motorsport that they're doing it wrong...
Indeed. I refuse to watch Le Mans since the drivers stopped running across the track to their cars at the start. It's rubbish these days and has been for the last 45 years. Those first two corners are the only reason to watch motor racing.And don't get me started on MotoGP, which has been utterly rubbish in every way since the riders stopped pushing and bump starting their bikes at the start. Isle of Man TT? Those fairies don't even do a mass start and for that reason alone I refuse to watch!
It's the thin end of the wedge, etc. Ad nauseam.
Ahonen said:
HustleRussell said:
Is the implication then that great racing can only begin with a standing start? Christ, we'd better tell all the other forms of motorsport that they're doing it wrong...
Indeed. I refuse to watch Le Mans since the drivers stopped running across the track to their cars at the start. It's rubbish these days and has been for the last 45 years. Those first two corners are the only reason to watch motor racing.And don't get me started on MotoGP, which has been utterly rubbish in every way since the riders stopped pushing and bump starting their bikes at the start. Isle of Man TT? Those fairies don't even do a mass start and for that reason alone I refuse to watch!
It's the thin end of the wedge, etc. Ad nauseam.
We aren't saying anything of the sort - but there are aspects that could be better. I think driving around for six laps behind a saloon car just because it's wet is pathetic and did spoil the start of the race. Once the race got going i.e. the "safety car" (I use that term with reservation for the reasons explained previously) buggered off, it turned into an intriguing race.
Or are you saying that we have reached a peak of perfection in F1 and that no more changes are ever needed?
Or are you saying that we have reached a peak of perfection in F1 and that no more changes are ever needed?
I don't think a standing start would've enhanced the race. It would probably have caused more incidents / retirements (maybe that's what they want 
)
Whether it could've started sooner after fewer laps behind the safety car- I don't know, I wasn't at every corner. I wasn't even in Monte Carlo.
) Whether it could've started sooner after fewer laps behind the safety car- I don't know, I wasn't at every corner. I wasn't even in Monte Carlo.
Once upon a time, in the dim and distant past BB (i.e. Before Bernie), the Monaco GP was one of the few GPs actually shown live every year. I remember watching lots of Monaco GPs from the early 1970s. From what I can recall, NONE of these races ever were delayed starting because of rain - even in the two notoriously wet years of 1972 and 1984.
The only delayed Monaco GP I can recall was 1981 when, ironically, it was bone dry on the circuit EXCEPT inside the tunnel because of a massive water leak dripping through from Lowes Hotel above.
The only delayed Monaco GP I can recall was 1981 when, ironically, it was bone dry on the circuit EXCEPT inside the tunnel because of a massive water leak dripping through from Lowes Hotel above.
Isn't the problem that the wet tyres are just too good?
They make lots of statements about how much water they can clear per second etc etc, but where does that water go? Yes exactly, straight into the plume of spray blocking the view of drivers behind.
What they need is less efficient wet/inters so that visibility is better and the track doesn't dry so easily. And if the water is too deep and risk of aquaplaning too high then the race start is postponed.
It's 2016, surely on-time starts are less important nowadays as many viewers are watching on catch-up TV?
They make lots of statements about how much water they can clear per second etc etc, but where does that water go? Yes exactly, straight into the plume of spray blocking the view of drivers behind.
What they need is less efficient wet/inters so that visibility is better and the track doesn't dry so easily. And if the water is too deep and risk of aquaplaning too high then the race start is postponed.
It's 2016, surely on-time starts are less important nowadays as many viewers are watching on catch-up TV?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff