Official 2019 Spanish Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
rdjohn said:
An interesting piece from Brundle. I don’t disagree with a word of it.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
Hmmmm, Martin seems to have a selective memory about grumpiness of the drivers though. I can remember him being less than amused in interviews on many occasions when he was competing.https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
I agree with some of it, but F1 needs to be about a blend of engineering and driving talent. It always has been and it's the better for it. It's defining the balance and parameters of that blend that is giving the sport problems.
rdjohn said:
An interesting piece from Brundle. I don’t disagree with a word of it.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
I don't want to put the boot into him as he seems to be taking a bit of abuse lately, but Vettel lost 3rd, and possibly 4th, for Ferrari in yet another error. His first corner lock-up was critical. Had he been a bit more sensible and concentrated on getting in front of MV, he'd have been fairly safe. I can see why, with there top speed comfortably higher than that of the Mercs, he might have thought that second was on, but three into the first would not go. Once LH had a good start, the race for the first two places was virtually over. https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
Ferrari are not a totally spent force, as the article seems to suggest. The locked out the front of the grid a couple of races previously. An error by Vettel put him out of range to challenge. Had it not been for a power failure, ClC would have won the race, and quite comfortably it seemed.
Derek Smith said:
Ferrari are not a totally spent force, as the article seems to suggest. The locked out the front of the grid a couple of races previously. An error by Vettel put him out of range to challenge. Had it not been for a power failure, ClC would have won the race, and quite comfortably it seemed.
Monaco won't work for them, I hope they put the old engine back in for that and bring it out again for Canada; where they should be in with a much better shout. Of course Mercedes will probably have a new power unit there as well. rdjohn said:
An interesting piece from Brundle. I don’t disagree with a word of it.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
Martin - I love you.https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/11719448/m...
Everything I think that is wrong with current F1 summed up perfectly. But, maybe he's talking b
ks too. What would he know?There's no right or wrong to these things. Personally I disagree with almost everything he said. For me F1 always has been and always will be 90% about engineering and 10% about racing. I love watching close racing but there's hundreds of other series which give that; there is no other series which gives the incredible detail of engineering that F1 does.
Obviously it'd be great if they could have both in one sport, but if they improve the racing at the expense of the engineering, I personally will stop watching.
Obviously it'd be great if they could have both in one sport, but if they improve the racing at the expense of the engineering, I personally will stop watching.
Martin says:
“...firstly, let's not pretend it was way better years or decades ago, a quick check of most results sheets underlines that.“
So yes, I agree with that. I disagree that it should only be about the drivers. There are other series to watch if one wants that. F1 should be the technical pinnacle of motorsport otherwise, it loses one of the main things that sets it apart: the fastest cars with the best drivers. Simple as that.
“...firstly, let's not pretend it was way better years or decades ago, a quick check of most results sheets underlines that.“
So yes, I agree with that. I disagree that it should only be about the drivers. There are other series to watch if one wants that. F1 should be the technical pinnacle of motorsport otherwise, it loses one of the main things that sets it apart: the fastest cars with the best drivers. Simple as that.
100% on your side in that you have a different opinion to me and Martin Brundle but you are perfectly entitled to that different view.
Just a few posts ago I was accused of talking bks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude.
On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking bks.
Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
Just a few posts ago I was accused of talking b
ks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude. On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking b
ks.Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
Eric Mc said:
100% on your side in that you have a different opinion to me and Martin Brundle but you are perfectly entitled to that different view.
Just a few posts ago I was accused of talking bks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude.
On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking bks.
Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
Hang on. You were accused of taking bJust a few posts ago I was accused of talking b
ks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude. On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking b
ks.Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
ks when you said “they aren’t allowed to race in the rain”. Let’s not get things twisted.Martin also says in the article to not pretend things were much different at any other time, or era. But I guess you disagree with Brundle on that point? Seems we all agree with / or disagree with Brundle on certain points. His view is that whilst there are astonishing feats of engineering and driving; they are often masked which is a fair point.
Eric Mc said:
100% on your side in that you have a different opinion to me and Martin Brundle but you are perfectly entitled to that different view.
Just a few posts ago I was accused of talking bks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude.
On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking bks.
Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
You weren't accused of talking bJust a few posts ago I was accused of talking b
ks by a number of posters on here on the basis that my views did not coincide with theirs. I really hate that type of attitude. On this occasion I find that Brundle has summarised my views precisely but I don't see people rushing to accuse him of talking b
ks.Brundle is only a few months younger than me so I can see that the things that excite me about motorsport are the same things that excite him - and he is obviously very worried about the current state of F1.
ks, it was pointed out that you were actually talking bks regarding not being allowed to race in the rain.That's not a difference in opinions, that's a fact, they are allowed to race in the rain and therefore what you said was b
ks.PHuzzy said:
You weren't accused of talking bks, it was pointed out that you were actually talking bks regarding not being allowed to race in the rain.
That's not a difference in opinions, that's a fact, they are allowed to race in the rain and therefore what you said was bks.
Last time it rained at Monaco they spent forever cruising behind the safety car. Indeed, the race started as a procession behind the safety car. That does not count as racing to me.ks, it was pointed out that you were actually talking bks regarding not being allowed to race in the rain.That's not a difference in opinions, that's a fact, they are allowed to race in the rain and therefore what you said was b
ks.vdn said:
Hang on. You were accused of taking bks when you said “they aren’t allowed to race in the rain”. Let’s not get things twisted.
Martin also says in the article to not pretend things were much different at any other time, or era. But I guess you disagree with Brundle on that point? Seems we all agree with / or disagree with Brundle on certain points. His view is that whilst there are astonishing feats of engineering and driving; they are often masked which is a fair point.
Certain aspects of motor racing never change. Brundle is totally correct on that. However, there are some key elements of F1 (in particular) that have changed utterly and they are clearly stated by Martin in the article - and I am totally in agreement with him on those specific points.ks when you said “they aren’t allowed to race in the rain”. Let’s not get things twisted.Martin also says in the article to not pretend things were much different at any other time, or era. But I guess you disagree with Brundle on that point? Seems we all agree with / or disagree with Brundle on certain points. His view is that whilst there are astonishing feats of engineering and driving; they are often masked which is a fair point.
Brundle makes many valid points for me. Will 2021 be the year F1 changes considerably (one would hope for the better)? I am not so sure.
That said, Ross Brawn has said he would like to see pole and last separated by 1.5 seconds (or thereabouts) and no DRS with cars better able to follow each other. HAM has said the cars are too heavy now.
Will Liberty fudge it due to the teams' power?
That said, Ross Brawn has said he would like to see pole and last separated by 1.5 seconds (or thereabouts) and no DRS with cars better able to follow each other. HAM has said the cars are too heavy now.
Will Liberty fudge it due to the teams' power?
We can all agree; a big shake up wouldn’t hurt. Lighter cars; less aero; personally, I’d like to see more tech; the marriage of man and machine is all the more impressive when the two opposites come together in unison.
What Brundle doesn’t touch on - but has in the past is, at least in the era of Mercedes dominance; their drivers have been allowed to race... VS other eras where it was one team and one driver dominance. As well, I think we can all agree that Mercedes dominance has been through nothing other than ingenious design and perfect strategies; no clever tricks or underhand tactics. Another reason why this era of dominance is a little unique.
Of course, the end result is the same, as it happens and the average punter doesn’t care much; and just wants close racing.
The point still stands though; if I didn’t enjoy watching a sport... I’d not watch it. Clever stuff I know!
What Brundle doesn’t touch on - but has in the past is, at least in the era of Mercedes dominance; their drivers have been allowed to race... VS other eras where it was one team and one driver dominance. As well, I think we can all agree that Mercedes dominance has been through nothing other than ingenious design and perfect strategies; no clever tricks or underhand tactics. Another reason why this era of dominance is a little unique.
Of course, the end result is the same, as it happens and the average punter doesn’t care much; and just wants close racing.
The point still stands though; if I didn’t enjoy watching a sport... I’d not watch it. Clever stuff I know!
That has always been the dilemma for F1 - dating right back to the early/mid 1960s. F1 got concerned back then when top flight sportscars started matching the 1.5 litre F1 cars in top speeds and lap times. It was one of the reasons why they doubled the engine capacity to 3 litres in 1966.
I'd love to see wingless F1 cars but do understand that they could never do this unless all lower grade formulae became wingless too - which is pretty unlikely to happen.
But the current monsters could be tidied up a lot without falling too far back into the clutches of lower formula speeds.
I'd love to see wingless F1 cars but do understand that they could never do this unless all lower grade formulae became wingless too - which is pretty unlikely to happen.
But the current monsters could be tidied up a lot without falling too far back into the clutches of lower formula speeds.
tobinen said:
Will Liberty fudge it due to the teams' power?
It's not about fudging it. As it stands, F1 is too much of a democracy and an unbalanced one at that. The teams at the back would happily vote for anything that would make life more competitive and cheaper. The guys at the front would not and they hold the balance of power.F1 needs a benevolent dictator.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff