The Italian GP Thread
Discussion
festernath said:
I hope you don't mind me saying that I find the tone of some your posts somewhat dictatorial in that anyone who expresses a disagreement with your statement is portrayed in your reply to be ill informed and missing the supposed point. In fact, this approach is very similar to a certain member of the FIA, whom you seem to have very little time for. Additionally, I am unaware of what qualifies you to take this tone - if anything. As you suggest, the forums are a great place to learn both fact, and other people's viewpoints. I for one would not wish to see an end to this.
However, I do still stand by the point which I made: I do not understand why people spend so long being critical of something. Why did I make this point? Because I do not agree with your sentiments entirely, and felt the need to put something positive across, as to me F1 provides a great deal of interest to me. Maybe you should try it sometime.
festernath, However, I do still stand by the point which I made: I do not understand why people spend so long being critical of something. Why did I make this point? Because I do not agree with your sentiments entirely, and felt the need to put something positive across, as to me F1 provides a great deal of interest to me. Maybe you should try it sometime.
I think that F1 provides a great deal of interest to many of us; hence our passion for it and our perseverence in following it despite ongoing frustration with certain elements of it (something about 'the triumph of hope over experience').
Perhaps my posts often have the wrong tone or are inarticulately expressed. Apart from when acting in self-defence, I hope that my criticisms focus on certain figures that have chosen to put themselves in public - the bullies, the self-important, the pretentious, the manipulative, the superficial, the shameless big shots who cheat, lie or behave dishonourably. They might be politicians, they might be constructors and drivers of racing cars. It is true that I am totally intolerant of those sorts of people, or at least of how they behave.
I would put it to you that we - the fans of F1, in this case - have got to say so if and when we think that something untoward has happened. Ultimately it is the money of us fans that pays for it all.
Not in anyway diminishing the points that have been made previously, but isn't this the sort of controversy that sustains F1 as a form of entertainment. The sport is like many professional sports today and as much about the politics and gamesmanship as the core activity.
I don't condone it and I certainly would like more racing, however it does have an interest factor!
I don't condone it and I certainly would like more racing, however it does have an interest factor!
flemke said:
willibetz said:
Care to talk me through the events leading up to the Hungarian GP, then? The way I saw it, as an amused onlooker, Renault managed to equalise against Ferrari by having Alonso manoeuvre MSch into passing under a red flag (albeit an innocuous pass at very low speed). Hardly an offence on a par with Alonso's disgraceful prior antics, shurely?
I maintain the view that not all decisions favour Ferrari, but Ferrari (being competitive, clued up and clever) are very frequently protagonists in the decision making process.
WilliBetz
Overtaking under red is an absolute, unmistakable offence. I maintain the view that not all decisions favour Ferrari, but Ferrari (being competitive, clued up and clever) are very frequently protagonists in the decision making process.
WilliBetz
At the same event, one or possibly two offences (taking advantage of chicane against de la Rosa and Heidfeld) that fall in the grey area of requiring adjudication were decided in Ferrari's favour.
No one has ever said that, literally, every single decision favours Ferrari, but so many of them do!
Yes Ferrari are "competitive, clued up and clever", but are you saying that the folks at Renault, McLaren and Williams are not? Why should so many of the decisions go Ferrari's way and so few go to the others?
To cite but one of numerous possible examples, how can the mass damper be an moving aerodynamic device although it had already been allowed by the FIA for a year, but the rear wheel frisbees not be moving aerodynamic devices? How in hell does that make sense?
Cheers.
from what i understand a moving aerodynamic device is one that changes shape or form, either due to flexing or to mechanical input.
remember a couple of years ago they banned a (i think) ferrari front wing as it was too flexible, the faster it went it flexed and the less drag it caused.
i think its also to ban things like airbrakes (as used on mercedes cars in the 1950's) as an aid to slowing down the cars.
these are what i take to be moving aerodynamic devices, as opposed to an aerodynamic device that happens to be moving by virtue of it being strapped to a car.
djw said:
Not in anyway diminishing the points that have been made previously, but isn't this the sort of controversy that sustains F1 as a form of entertainment. The sport is like many professional sports today and as much about the politics and gamesmanship as the core activity.
I don't condone it and I certainly would like more racing, however it does have an interest factor!
Good point. I don't condone it and I certainly would like more racing, however it does have an interest factor!
As much as some of us including me have condemned the man's antics, I regret that Schumacher is retiring.*
He is great driver but, beyond that, he never fails to raise our ire.
If he had just been a cheating thug, he would have got tedious. As it was he simultaneously was the best driver and the worst sportsman - always good for a bit of debate.
Who will take over as the next F1 Bad Boy?
*Not sure that I would miss Mosley, however.
eccles said:
from what i understand a moving aerodynamic device is one that changes shape or form, either due to flexing or to mechanical input.
remember a couple of years ago they banned a (i think) ferrari front wing as it was too flexible, the faster it went it flexed and the less drag it caused.
i think its also to ban things like airbrakes (as used on mercedes cars in the 1950's) as an aid to slowing down the cars.
these are what i take to be moving aerodynamic devices, as opposed to an aerodynamic device that happens to be moving by virtue of it being strapped to a car.
That's a good distinction that you make. remember a couple of years ago they banned a (i think) ferrari front wing as it was too flexible, the faster it went it flexed and the less drag it caused.
i think its also to ban things like airbrakes (as used on mercedes cars in the 1950's) as an aid to slowing down the cars.
these are what i take to be moving aerodynamic devices, as opposed to an aerodynamic device that happens to be moving by virtue of it being strapped to a car.
In this case, the wheel discs are not only moving because they are strapped to the car, they are actually rotating, and have been designed for the purpose of sitting in the airflow.
If Ferrari could persuade a neutral jury that the discs have no aerodynamic benefits whatever, it would seem reasonable for them to be allowed. I have this funny feeling, however, that they are not intended to be aero-neutral, even though they may also assist brake cooling.
From the other side, however, how is a mass damper an "aerodynamic device"? It is entirely out of the airflow. Yes, it influences ride height, but so do the springs and dampers, and they move in response to changes in track surface, loadings, etc.
If the FIA were perfectly strict and literal in their interpretations of their own rules, that would be fair enough. One of the problems is that they give approvals and then rescind them. How do you build a race car under that kind of regime?
micky g said:
Talking about F1 / WWF comparisons....
Did anyone else chuckle at Schueys Freudian slip in the post race interview when he said that he "just had to concentrate on the next three wins..." (not races).
Perhaps it's already been decided?
Did anyone else chuckle at Schueys Freudian slip in the post race interview when he said that he "just had to concentrate on the next three wins..." (not races).
Perhaps it's already been decided?
Yes, I noticed that and came to the same conclusion.
festernath said:
................In the case of the Alonso penalty, I am 100% in agreement with what seems to be the vast majority. In fact I have yet to hear from someone on this site who can offer any reason as to why it was enforced..................
Not on this site, but I have seen it argued that this ruling is a result of the Fisi / JV ruling at (I think) Hockenheim.
Max Moselys words on the Alonso afair:
"This is a particularly hard case, and we don't particularly like it, but the worst thing you can do is to change your mind halfway through the championship, or do something that you would not have done at the first race because the championship is getting tight.
Mass Dampers anyone?
"This is a particularly hard case, and we don't particularly like it, but the worst thing you can do is to change your mind halfway through the championship, or do something that you would not have done at the first race because the championship is getting tight.
Mass Dampers anyone?
Good to see Alonso add his thoughts to this discussion...
Alonso launches scathing attack on Schumacher
MADRID, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Formula One world champion Fernando Alonso has launched a scathing attack on Michael Schumacher following the German driver's announcement that he will retire at the end of the season.
The 25-year-old Spaniard accused seven-times world champion Schumacher of being the most unsporting driver in the history of the sport.
He also compared Schumacher's departure unfavourably with that of French footballer Zinedine Zidane whose last act before retiring was to be sent off for headbutting Italian defender Marco Materazzi in the chest during the World Cup final.
"Zidane retired with more glory that Schumacher," Alonso was quoted as telling Radio Marca in Tuesday's edition of the Spanish sports daily.
"Michael is the most unsporting driver with the largest number of sanctions in the history of Formula One.
"That doesn't take away from the fact that he has been the best driver and it has been an honour and pleasure to battle against him.
"Everyone has their time and you have to respect his decision. Things will be more equal now."
Alonso also attacked what he saw as institutional bias in favour of Schumacher and his Ferrari team.
"In Formula One there are commercial and political interests," he said.
"We are talking about the most successful driver in history and a little bit of help has never gone amiss. Quite often they go over the line of what is acceptable and it is inexplicable."
NOT RACING
Alonso was demoted five places to 10th on Sunday's Italian Grand Prix starting grid after stewards ruled that the Spaniard had impeded Ferrari's Brazilian Felipe Massa.
The Renault driver, who was adamant he had not blocked Massa, failed to finish the race because of an engine failure and his championship lead over Schumacher was slashed from 12 points to two after the German won the race.
"No one is going to believe the penalty I was given for a long time to come," Alonso said.
"The excuse they gave was far from honest... It isn't good for our sport.
"Sometimes you think about not racing, but you get over that quickly enough and put on you helmet. I was 100 percent convinced that no matter where I started I could earn some points and stay ahead.
"One thing I am clear about, though, is that he who laughs last, laughs longest.
"Anyone can win the remaining races and if we get things right in two of the three races that are left the world championship will be ours."
Alonso and Schumacher will renew their rivalry on the track at the Chinese Grand Prix on Oct. 1.
Thank heavens that Alonso doesn't work for a French team, or the Zidane comment could have been a real faux pas!
WilliBetz
Alonso launches scathing attack on Schumacher
MADRID, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Formula One world champion Fernando Alonso has launched a scathing attack on Michael Schumacher following the German driver's announcement that he will retire at the end of the season.
The 25-year-old Spaniard accused seven-times world champion Schumacher of being the most unsporting driver in the history of the sport.
He also compared Schumacher's departure unfavourably with that of French footballer Zinedine Zidane whose last act before retiring was to be sent off for headbutting Italian defender Marco Materazzi in the chest during the World Cup final.
"Zidane retired with more glory that Schumacher," Alonso was quoted as telling Radio Marca in Tuesday's edition of the Spanish sports daily.
"Michael is the most unsporting driver with the largest number of sanctions in the history of Formula One.
"That doesn't take away from the fact that he has been the best driver and it has been an honour and pleasure to battle against him.
"Everyone has their time and you have to respect his decision. Things will be more equal now."
Alonso also attacked what he saw as institutional bias in favour of Schumacher and his Ferrari team.
"In Formula One there are commercial and political interests," he said.
"We are talking about the most successful driver in history and a little bit of help has never gone amiss. Quite often they go over the line of what is acceptable and it is inexplicable."
NOT RACING
Alonso was demoted five places to 10th on Sunday's Italian Grand Prix starting grid after stewards ruled that the Spaniard had impeded Ferrari's Brazilian Felipe Massa.
The Renault driver, who was adamant he had not blocked Massa, failed to finish the race because of an engine failure and his championship lead over Schumacher was slashed from 12 points to two after the German won the race.
"No one is going to believe the penalty I was given for a long time to come," Alonso said.
"The excuse they gave was far from honest... It isn't good for our sport.
"Sometimes you think about not racing, but you get over that quickly enough and put on you helmet. I was 100 percent convinced that no matter where I started I could earn some points and stay ahead.
"One thing I am clear about, though, is that he who laughs last, laughs longest.
"Anyone can win the remaining races and if we get things right in two of the three races that are left the world championship will be ours."
Alonso and Schumacher will renew their rivalry on the track at the Chinese Grand Prix on Oct. 1.
Thank heavens that Alonso doesn't work for a French team, or the Zidane comment could have been a real faux pas!
WilliBetz
flemke said:
eccles said:
from what i understand a moving aerodynamic device is one that changes shape or form, either due to flexing or to mechanical input.
remember a couple of years ago they banned a (i think) ferrari front wing as it was too flexible, the faster it went it flexed and the less drag it caused.
i think its also to ban things like airbrakes (as used on mercedes cars in the 1950's) as an aid to slowing down the cars.
these are what i take to be moving aerodynamic devices, as opposed to an aerodynamic device that happens to be moving by virtue of it being strapped to a car.
That's a good distinction that you make. remember a couple of years ago they banned a (i think) ferrari front wing as it was too flexible, the faster it went it flexed and the less drag it caused.
i think its also to ban things like airbrakes (as used on mercedes cars in the 1950's) as an aid to slowing down the cars.
these are what i take to be moving aerodynamic devices, as opposed to an aerodynamic device that happens to be moving by virtue of it being strapped to a car.
In this case, the wheel discs are not only moving because they are strapped to the car, they are actually rotating, and have been designed for the purpose of sitting in the airflow.
If Ferrari could persuade a neutral jury that the discs have no aerodynamic benefits whatever, it would seem reasonable for them to be allowed. I have this funny feeling, however, that they are not intended to be aero-neutral, even though they may also assist brake cooling.
From the other side, however, how is a mass damper an "aerodynamic device"? It is entirely out of the airflow. Yes, it influences ride height, but so do the springs and dampers, and they move in response to changes in track surface, loadings, etc.
If the FIA were perfectly strict and literal in their interpretations of their own rules, that would be fair enough. One of the problems is that they give approvals and then rescind them. How do you build a race car under that kind of regime?
yes they are probably aerodynamic devices, but they are not moving aerodynamic devices in that their form doesn't change as the speed increases.
and another thing.......
When does a "hot lap" start. Surely not when you cross the line.
At Monza to get max. speed on the pit straight you have got to go into Para as fast as you can.
If the monkey claims he was impeded in Para. they were both on a hot lap.
Sorry put it on the Flav. thread by mistake.......red mist!
When does a "hot lap" start. Surely not when you cross the line.
At Monza to get max. speed on the pit straight you have got to go into Para as fast as you can.
If the monkey claims he was impeded in Para. they were both on a hot lap.
Sorry put it on the Flav. thread by mistake.......red mist!
eccles said:
yes they are probably aerodynamic devices, but they are not moving aerodynamic devices in that their form doesn't change as the speed increases.
As I recall the bar on moving aero devices only applies to the sprung part of the car anyhow. I think that the issue with the wheel discs is that the rules state that the wheels must be made from metal (for safety reasons, to preclude carbon rims), and whether the discs are not part of the wheel (insofar as they're not part of anything else).
The mass damper ruling is actually the one that is harder to reconcile, what with its already having been approved a year or so earlier; how is it an aero device, anyhow?
The purpose of the MD seems to be to keep the car more controlled and stable when it goes across heavy kerbs - as conventional dampers will help to do. Yes, when a car happens to be less elevated above the ground its aero package will work better, but the purpose of the MD is apparently not to improve aero.
So I've been following all this for some time and it seemed to me there was no solution - particularly if you enjoy F1.
However, isn't it the medias job now to point this hacking of the system out? Or even begin to investigate it? Alonso has called MS unsportsmen like so it's time he gets supported before all he points get thrown out (which did happen to MS once).
I hear so much about what is wrong and each fresh new trick pointed out to the apologists repeatedly no matter how clearly displayed the favoritism is. So what's the solution in your mind besides turning off the races (Oh I do love the cars, technology and arrogant Hollywood atmosphere) ? !
However, isn't it the medias job now to point this hacking of the system out? Or even begin to investigate it? Alonso has called MS unsportsmen like so it's time he gets supported before all he points get thrown out (which did happen to MS once).
I hear so much about what is wrong and each fresh new trick pointed out to the apologists repeatedly no matter how clearly displayed the favoritism is. So what's the solution in your mind besides turning off the races (Oh I do love the cars, technology and arrogant Hollywood atmosphere) ? !
pib said:
I hear so much about what is wrong and each fresh new trick pointed out to the apologists repeatedly no matter how clearly displayed the favoritism is. So what's the solution in your mind besides turning off the races (Oh I do love the cars, technology and arrogant Hollywood atmosphere) ? !
Although it had its flaws and vulnerabilities, the GPMA alternative seemed to be the closest we might get to a "solution". Then Ferrari sold out to Bernie and Max, Mateschitz bought a second team which gave him two votes (which after he got Ferrari engines looked to be a powerful signal, and it was - witness Red Bull otherwise insane deciding vote against Michelin/one-tyre rule), Schnaider saw what side his bread was buttered on, and Toyota needed a favour in the form of getting Fuji on the calendar.
Combine that potentiality with Bernie's 100-year exclusive contract and the FIA's control of the network effect and copyright of key terms such as "Formula One", and inevitably the rest of the teams had to concede.
I fear that that was the best chance that we'll have for the foreseeable future.
flemke said:
pib said:
I hear so much about what is wrong and each fresh new trick pointed out to the apologists repeatedly no matter how clearly displayed the favoritism is. So what's the solution in your mind besides turning off the races (Oh I do love the cars, technology and arrogant Hollywood atmosphere) ? !
Although it had its flaws and vulnerabilities, the GPMA alternative seemed to be the closest we might get to a "solution". Then Ferrari sold out to Bernie and Max, Mateschitz bought a second team which gave him two votes (which after he got Ferrari engines looked to be a powerful signal, and it was - witness Red Bull otherwise insane deciding vote against Michelin/one-tyre rule), Schnaider saw what side his bread was buttered on, and Toyota needed a favour in the form of getting Fuji on the calendar.
Combine that potentiality with Bernie's 100-year exclusive contract and the FIA's control of the network effect and copyright of key terms such as "Formula One", and inevitably the rest of the teams had to concede.
I fear that that was the best chance that we'll have for the foreseeable future.
Great synopsis of the interplay between power, influence and the priorities of various parties. But would a championship run by committee be more entertaining than that run by the current management? I have my doubts...
Cheers
willibetz said:
Great synopsis of the interplay between power, influence and the priorities of various parties. But would a championship run by committee be more entertaining than that run by the current management? I have my doubts...
One would prefer the entertainment exclusively to be on the circuit, rather than in the media or emanating from Max's Monaco liability-haven or Bernie's mansion. Interesting question, whether F1 would be any better if run by a committee.
I'll grant you that things are vastly more efficient and therefore - potentially - improved with the unilateral leadership of a benevolent despot.
It's a bit like giving the Mayor of London more power, however - it makes sense in theory, but the prospect of enabling a lying scumbag such as Livingstone to do even more damage is sobering indeed.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/54506
...
The FIA have now reacted to what happened at Monza and will now change the way that incidents are dealt with.
FIA race director Charlie Whiting has written to the teams and told them that the stewards will no longer investigate all complaints of blocking from teams. Instead they will only look at those that he feels shows deliberate intent to impede a rival.
In Whiting's fax, he wrote: "Complaints that a driver has been impeded during qualifying will no longer be referred to the stewards of the meeting. Only in cases where it appears to race control that there has been a clear and deliberate attempt to impede another driver will the stewards be asked to intervene."
And in a sentence aimed clearly at Renault's reaction to what happened at Monza, he added: "We now feel it is pointless for the stewards to engage in long and painstaking enquiries if competitors ignore clear scientific evidence and instead abuse the regulator."
Autosport.com revealed on Sunday that FIA president Max Mosley was pushing for a change in the rules so that penalties were only handed out for deliberate blocking.
AutoSport said:
...
The FIA have now reacted to what happened at Monza and will now change the way that incidents are dealt with.
FIA race director Charlie Whiting has written to the teams and told them that the stewards will no longer investigate all complaints of blocking from teams. Instead they will only look at those that he feels shows deliberate intent to impede a rival.
In Whiting's fax, he wrote: "Complaints that a driver has been impeded during qualifying will no longer be referred to the stewards of the meeting. Only in cases where it appears to race control that there has been a clear and deliberate attempt to impede another driver will the stewards be asked to intervene."
And in a sentence aimed clearly at Renault's reaction to what happened at Monza, he added: "We now feel it is pointless for the stewards to engage in long and painstaking enquiries if competitors ignore clear scientific evidence and instead abuse the regulator."
Autosport.com revealed on Sunday that FIA president Max Mosley was pushing for a change in the rules so that penalties were only handed out for deliberate blocking.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff