- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Lotus F1 Team driver Romain Grosjean has been handed a one-race ban following his severe collision at the start of the Belgian GP. The driver has been involved in seven first-lap crashes already this season, surely a metric to have been influential in the decision making of the stewards.
The Walonish government jumped in a bit.n smikle wrote:They got some money I see. I wonder from where.
care to tell me why they are factually incorrect?beelsebob wrote:Mostly because the troll did it twice. We've been down this road, we know very well that the statements are factually incorrect, and lead to a giant cluster --- of argument. Maybe the better approach would have simply been to press the yellow "alert an op" button, but I felt it was appropriate to simply highlight what was happening.wesley123 wrote:I sure am missing something, but why is it needed to do this twice?beelsebob wrote:Score -1: Troll.
Your assertion did not involve arguments about the days of refuelling, instead, the assertion was a simple "the driver has no part to play". A simple observation that worse drivers (cough karthikayen cough), do indeed perform worse than their team mates consistently shows this to be simply factually incorrect. Secondly, the fact that drivers are conserving tyres, not driving super hot laps all the time neither makes them less skilled, nor the race less interesting. Instead, drivers require an incredible amount of skill to manage to drive fast laps without destroying these tyres, and the race becomes more tactical as a result of the number of tyre strategies now available. Your earlier assertions about drivers never making mistakes any more were also shown to be pure bullshit, and yet you continue to try to perpetuate the myth that the 80s and 90s are magically better periods for F1 than what we have now. What we have now, is an incredibly closely packed grid, well matched cars, a field of some of the most talented drivers we've ever had, and incredibly tactical, strategic racing. Quite frankly, if you don't think what we have now is great stuff, go find a different sport to watch!fiohaa wrote:care to tell me why they are factually incorrect?beelsebob wrote:Mostly because the troll did it twice. We've been down this road, we know very well that the statements are factually incorrect, and lead to a giant cluster --- of argument. Maybe the better approach would have simply been to press the yellow "alert an op" button, but I felt it was appropriate to simply highlight what was happening.
it is a fact that pre pirelli and in refuelling days they were essentially hotlapping the entire race distance. as opposed to now where they ARe conserving tyres and driving well below the optimum laptime.
if you disagree, its more useful/productive to explain why you disagree, rather than blurting 'troll' and 'statements are factually incorrect'.
my thoughts about it are summed up by what Webber said in a press conference a few races back.beelsebob wrote:Your assertion did not involve arguments about the days of refuelling, instead, the assertion was a simple "the driver has no part to play". A simple observation that worse drivers (cough karthikayen cough), do indeed perform worse than their team mates consistently shows this to be simply factually incorrect. Secondly, the fact that drivers are conserving tyres, not driving super hot laps all the time neither makes them less skilled, nor the race less interesting. Instead, drivers require an incredible amount of skill to manage to drive fast laps without destroying these tyres, and the race becomes more tactical as a result of the number of tyre strategies now available. Your earlier assertions about drivers never making mistakes any more were also shown to be pure bullshit, and yet you continue to try to perpetuate the myth that the 80s and 90s are magically better periods for F1 than what we have now. What we have now, is an incredibly closely packed grid, well matched cars, a field of some of the most talented drivers we've ever had, and incredibly tactical, strategic racing. Quite frankly, if you don't think what we have now is great stuff, go find a different sport to watch!fiohaa wrote:care to tell me why they are factually incorrect?beelsebob wrote:Mostly because the troll did it twice. We've been down this road, we know very well that the statements are factually incorrect, and lead to a giant cluster --- of argument. Maybe the better approach would have simply been to press the yellow "alert an op" button, but I felt it was appropriate to simply highlight what was happening.
it is a fact that pre pirelli and in refuelling days they were essentially hotlapping the entire race distance. as opposed to now where they ARe conserving tyres and driving well below the optimum laptime.
if you disagree, its more useful/productive to explain why you disagree, rather than blurting 'troll' and 'statements are factually incorrect'.
I mostly agree with you, but I have some mixed feelings about the pirelli's. It's a good thing that you add in tyre deg as an extra factor for the drivers to worry about, but I find it one step too far when drivers are not able to get them into the operational interval. We've seen Button, ussually a master at conserving tyres, really struggling on the tyres. The tyres do need a wider sweet spot to work in.beelsebob wrote:Your assertion did not involve arguments about the days of refuelling, instead, the assertion was a simple "the driver has no part to play". A simple observation that worse drivers (cough karthikayen cough), do indeed perform worse than their team mates consistently shows this to be simply factually incorrect. Secondly, the fact that drivers are conserving tyres, not driving super hot laps all the time neither makes them less skilled, nor the race less interesting. Instead, drivers require an incredible amount of skill to manage to drive fast laps without destroying these tyres, and the race becomes more tactical as a result of the number of tyre strategies now available. Your earlier assertions about drivers never making mistakes any more were also shown to be pure bullshit, and yet you continue to try to perpetuate the myth that the 80s and 90s are magically better periods for F1 than what we have now. What we have now, is an incredibly closely packed grid, well matched cars, a field of some of the most talented drivers we've ever had, and incredibly tactical, strategic racing. Quite frankly, if you don't think what we have now is great stuff, go find a different sport to watch!fiohaa wrote:care to tell me why they are factually incorrect?beelsebob wrote:Mostly because the troll did it twice. We've been down this road, we know very well that the statements are factually incorrect, and lead to a giant cluster --- of argument. Maybe the better approach would have simply been to press the yellow "alert an op" button, but I felt it was appropriate to simply highlight what was happening.
it is a fact that pre pirelli and in refuelling days they were essentially hotlapping the entire race distance. as opposed to now where they ARe conserving tyres and driving well below the optimum laptime.
if you disagree, its more useful/productive to explain why you disagree, rather than blurting 'troll' and 'statements are factually incorrect'.
It's been my observation that the tires get destroyed not primarily from energy of lateral loading, but rather the slip angles of the tires at speed. One of the biggest setup challenges lies in making sure the tires degrade in such a way as to preserve the balance of the car. If the car becomes unbalanced due to tire wear it makes the drivers work harder to make the car do the same things as when they have fresh rubber with the same wear across the board. Which means the tires wear even faster. Perhaps one of the advantages of the Lotus is that it remains balanced despite the level of fuel and degradation.raymondu999 wrote:Spa is low wear because of the few traction zones, but high deg, because of the energy in the corners of S2 (and Blanchimont, naturally)
will the deg be that high? won't the tyres have plenty of time to cool down on the long straights in S1 and S3?raymondu999 wrote:Spa is low wear because of the few traction zones, but high deg, because of the energy in the corners of S2 (and Blanchimont, naturally)