It is currently 20 Aug 2017, 22:50

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1655 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 111  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 18:15  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
How come, Indycar do 101 lap races yet F1 don't?
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 18:19  
F1 Driver
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2009, 18:39
Posts: 1479
Country: France (fr)
mikhailv wrote:
How come, Indycar do 101 lap races yet F1 don't?

1/ the track is shorter than anything in F1.
and 2/ it's BORING AS HELL. F1 has found the right balance between sprint and endurance, nothing to change there.

_________________
Image
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 19:50  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
François wrote:
mikhailv wrote:
How come, Indycar do 101 lap races yet F1 don't?

1/ the track is shorter than anything in F1.
and 2/ it's BORING AS HELL. F1 has found the right balance between sprint and endurance, nothing to change there.


Well you say that, but St Petersberg was more entertaining than Malaysia. Tracks aren't that much shorter, St petersberg is 198 mile, 110 laps so that's 1.8mile per lap. Monaco is only 2 mile per lap and they do 78. Most are street tracks though. I mean, St petersberg is actually longer than Singapore, Monaco, Singapore off the top of my head.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 19:54  
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 17:32
Posts: 25503
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
St. Pete isn't longer than Singapore. It's slightly shorter than Monaco.

Also, Hinchtown! Flag:##

_________________
F1Zone.net News
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 20:23  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
phil1993 wrote:
St. Pete isn't longer than Singapore. It's slightly shorter than Monaco.

Also, Hinchtown! Flag:##


Longer in distance over the race.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2013, 02:09  
F1 Driver
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 05:19
Posts: 1279
Location: Oregon
Country: United States (us)
François wrote:
mikhailv wrote:
How come, Indycar do 101 lap races yet F1 don't?

1/ the track is shorter than anything in F1.
and 2/ it's BORING AS HELL. F1 has found the right balance between sprint and endurance, nothing to change there.

Considering that Hell is probably not boring, that's a very accurate description of IndyCar racing.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2013, 07:59  
F1 Driver
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2009, 18:39
Posts: 1479
Country: France (fr)
Let's be fair, the final stint was breathtaking. I had nearly fallen asleep at that point, though.

I guess they have to make the races long enough to accomodate some actual green flag racing between the very silly amount of caution periods - speaking of which, it seems to me that the driving standards there are slightly lower than in F1. But more laps mean more commercial breaks, right?

mikhailv, I don't think Monaco or Singapore ought to be longer. Monaco used to be 100 laps and was shortened after Lorenzo Bandini's fatal accident. Singapore is a relatively short track but a very long lap time, around 1:50 when St Pete is about 1:00. Those street circuit F1 races (especially Singapore) put a huge strain on the drivers' stamina and needn't be longer - Singapore is already marginal with the two-hour limit as it is.

To each their own, I guess. Nice one by Hinchcliffe, though. :thumbsup:

_________________
Image
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2013, 09:22  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
I think races could be better longer or in the GP2 format. Have two races, one with pit stops and one without. 12 points for the win 10 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd 7/6/5/4/3/2/1 are the points for each race. The top 11 are then reversed so the winner starts last and you could have Caterham/Marussia on pole.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2013, 10:36  
F1 Driver
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 05:19
Posts: 1279
Location: Oregon
Country: United States (us)
mikhailv wrote:
I think races could be better longer or in the GP2 format. Have two races, one with pit stops and one without. 12 points for the win 10 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd 7/6/5/4/3/2/1 are the points for each race. The top 11 are then reversed so the winner starts last and you could have Caterham/Marussia on pole.

I hope that you are joking.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 10:02  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
Joey Zyla wrote:
mikhailv wrote:
I think races could be better longer or in the GP2 format. Have two races, one with pit stops and one without. 12 points for the win 10 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd 7/6/5/4/3/2/1 are the points for each race. The top 11 are then reversed so the winner starts last and you could have Caterham/Marussia on pole.

I hope that you are joking.


Nope. Why would I be joking? They'd never win the race but it would be fun seeing it. Give more television coverage to them and It would be good seeing the pack racing each other. Faster cars at the back carving through? Better than seeing the processions we have already.

on a side note. I think me and phil were talking about STR/RBR and how they don't share parts no more? The article posted regarding the Renault turbos and STR for 2014;

Quote:
But it has been rumoured that, in order for the Faenza based squad and ‘big brother’ team Red Bull to more closely collaborate in the new V6 era, Toro Rosso could switch to Renault turbos from next year.


This is why STR shouldn't be on the grid at all.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 14:40  
F1 Rookie
User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2013, 14:41
Posts: 533
Country: United States (us)
Why shouldn't they be on the grid?
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 15:31  
PL Manager
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:59
Posts: 1696
Country: Egypt (eg)
They used to share Ferrari's engine, just like Sauber. So why complain now?

What makes me want to puke is the way they scamper off-track everytime they see a RB

Edit: And they also lack character and personality, even when compared to the newer teams like Marussia and Caterham.

_________________
My blog: http://f1andthat.wordpress.com/


Last edited by tderias on 26 Mar 2013, 15:37, edited 2 times in total.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 15:34  
F1 Routinier
User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 15:27
Posts: 4110
Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
kals wrote:
Why shouldn't they be on the grid?


Been discussed at length before, but I'll sum it up;

1) They are used to assist RBR and mostly Vettel. They also fall off track for him but Hinder other rivals.
2) They aren't in Formula 1 to progress forward. They have no intention of winning. They have no intention of trying to beat RBR or the top teams.
3) They are merely there to get RBR academy drivers onto the grid and then toss all but Buemi and Vettel out of the academy. They are not there to compete
4) The B team was used for developing concepts and testing parts for RBR itself, as the quote above shows, they will be again used as a tool by RBR to develop and assist them

They shouldn't be on the grid. They have zero intention of competing or trying to become a front runner. They aren't like Williams. Force India, Marussia, Caterham. They have a desire to progress forward. To be competative, to race, for glory. STR dont have that. They are there for Redbull to experiment with drivers and toss them aside when they no longer want them.

This is a prime example of why STR shouldnt be on the grid;



On a QUALIFYING LAP, Alguesari was expected to completely move over for Vettel. Ludicrous.

@Tderias. Sauber have nothing to do with anything. I dont recall Perez jumping out the way or refusing to overtake Alonso in Monza or Canada. Nor do I remember Kobayashi refusing to overtake and leaping out the way of Massa. Sauber have raced for themself, customer or not. RBR are FUNDING STR, which is the key difference. They own STR and control what they do.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 15:46  
F1 Rookie
User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2013, 14:41
Posts: 533
Country: United States (us)
STR are RBR's "JUNIOR" team. Always have been, always will be. What you're listing above is actually everything that STR is supposed to be.

And in fact, the RBR / STR relationship is what Bernie wants to create with all team across F1.
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2013 Formula One Discussion
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 16:03  
F1 Rookie
User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012, 18:39
Posts: 572
Country: Canada (ca)
mikhailv wrote:
kals wrote:
Why shouldn't they be on the grid?


Been discussed at length before, but I'll sum it up;

1) They are used to assist RBR and mostly Vettel. They also fall off track for him but Hinder other rivals.
2) They aren't in Formula 1 to progress forward. They have no intention of winning. They have no intention of trying to beat RBR or the top teams.
3) They are merely there to get RBR academy drivers onto the grid and then toss all but Buemi and Vettel out of the academy. They are not there to compete
4) The B team was used for developing concepts and testing parts for RBR itself, as the quote above shows, they will be again used as a tool by RBR to develop and assist them

They shouldn't be on the grid. They have zero intention of competing or trying to become a front runner. They aren't like Williams. Force India, Marussia, Caterham. They have a desire to progress forward. To be competative, to race, for glory. STR dont have that. They are there for Redbull to experiment with drivers and toss them aside when they no longer want them.

This is a prime example of why STR shouldnt be on the grid;



On a QUALIFYING LAP, Alguesari was expected to completely move over for Vettel. Ludicrous.

@Tderias. Sauber have nothing to do with anything. I dont recall Perez jumping out the way or refusing to overtake Alonso in Monza or Canada. Nor do I remember Kobayashi refusing to overtake and leaping out the way of Massa. Sauber have raced for themself, customer or not. RBR are FUNDING STR, which is the key difference. They own STR and control what they do.


And that's why ^^
Saved me a lotta typing...
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1655 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 111  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:  
cron

F1Zone.net is proudly powered by phpBB