• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Formula One on Sky

Baleforce said:
They know the time gaps between cars, no reason they can’t be maintained, rather than having them follow the safety car, get them all back on the grid and then release them with the correct time gap between each.

Much like goals in football, the organisation are obsessed with overtaking and think that’s what gets people to watch.

DRS has made it worthless.
Click to expand...
I agree. I like the sport but this safety car rule is just bizarre. At least with the virtual safety car everyone reduces their speed by 40% and some form of gap is maintained to an extent.

As you say it seems fairer to restart the race under the same conditions it was stopped i.e with the correct gaps. In UFC if the ref has to pause a fight (eg for a doctor to examine a fighter) they restart it from the position it was stopped, with the exact positioning of the bodies, arms, legs, holds etc
 
Baleforce said:
They know the time gaps between cars, no reason they can’t be maintained, rather than having them follow the safety car, get them all back on the grid and then release them with the correct time gap between each.

Much like goals in football, the organisation are obsessed with overtaking and think that’s what gets people to watch.

DRS has made it worthless.
Click to expand...
The marshals need time on the track to clear the rubble, cars and repair barriers. They can't work safely with cars whizzing by every second. They need some unobstructed time to work safely. That's why they use the safety car. If there's less of a hazard, they use the VSC. Not very difficult to understand.
 
Kandi1977 said:
The marshals need time on the track to clear the rubble, cars and repair barriers. They can't work safely with cars whizzing by every second. They need some unobstructed time to work safely. That's why they use the safety car. If there's less of a hazard, they use the VSC. Not very difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
They could easily still use the virtual safety car concept and make them go at whatever speed the normal safety car does. Job done….
 
jts1882 said:
Exactly, it would make it even more farcical. They won't change the result. Perhaps they penalize Max 5s for restart and they relook at the first lap incident and give Hamilton a 5s penalty. Then they could claim they are strictly following the rules (apart from the made up bit).

I'm trying to think of an example in other sports where the advantage built up during a game or race can be negated. It seems like you take a 3-0 lead in football and then when a player is injured and received medical attention on the pitch, you start again from 1-0, while allowing the losing team an extra player.
Click to expand...
Only sport I’ve seen it like that is horse racing
Abs that’s because animal fatigue and lack of whip use at the end
 
harr1984 said:
They could easily still use the virtual safety car concept and make them go at whatever speed the normal safety car does. Job done….
Click to expand...
It's not safe! How difficult is it to understand? In some cases the entire track might be blocked by marshals and recovery vehicles! Do I really have to post the Jules Bianchi accident to make people understand it?

Also I've never ever heard any complaints about the safety car, until today, when Hamilton for once loses because of it. I can easily find at least 10 times where Hamilton was way behind, but won because of a safety car. Didn't hear anything about it being unfair those times.
 
Kandi1977 said:
It's not safe! How difficult is it to understand? In some cases the entire track might be blocked by marshals and recovery vehicles! Do I really have to post the Jules Bianchi accident to make people understand it?

Also I've never ever heard any complaints about the safety car, until today, when Hamilton for once loses because of it. I can easily find at least 10 times where Hamilton was way behind, but won because of a safety car. Didn't hear anything about it being unfair those times.
Click to expand...

It’s not the safety car that’s the problem, my suggestion above stops all cars on the track to give the marshalls all of the time they need, the issue is the neutralisation of time gaps.
 
Baleforce said:
It’s not the safety car that’s the problem, my suggestion above stops all cars on the track to give the marshalls all of the time they need, the issue is the neutralisation of time gaps.
Click to expand...
And it would make most races totally uninteresting. There is a reason why F1 was almost dead and no one bothered to watch it, but is now more popular than ever. They stop the race if there is a serious accident, and a restart is from the starting grid. Those are the rules. If you don't like them, that's fine, you don't understand the sport.
It would be the same as suggesting to get rid of offside in football, because its sometimes unfair, and people that some don't understand the rule.
And how should the cars stop? After 100m? 50m? 200m? And how are they supposed to start again? You can't rely on radio com, and F1 cars can't stand still for long periods without overheating. If they kill the engine, they need the pit crew to start up again. It's just not possible.
 
Kandi1977 said:
And it would make most races totally uninteresting. There is a reason why F1 was almost dead and no one bothered to watch it, but is now more popular than ever. They stop the race if there is a serious accident, and a restart is from the starting grid. Those are the rules. If you don't like them, that's fine, you don't understand the sport.
It would be the same as suggesting to get rid of offside in football, because its sometimes unfair, and people that some don't understand the rule.
And how should the cars stop? After 100m? 50m? 200m? And how are they supposed to start again? You can't rely on radio com, and F1 cars can't stand still for long periods without overheating. If they kill the engine, they need the pit crew to start up again. It's just not possible.
Click to expand...

I think stuff like this (and DRS) damages the sport, I want integrity, and rules enforced religiously, Masi stepped outside the rulebook today. I feel cheated, as much as I did in 94.

Your offside analogy doesn't work, a better one would be getting rid of offside in football, some of the time, but only if it might change the result.

If such stops were in the rules, cars would be modified so they could handle stop start. Only a matter of time before they are electric anyway.
 
Baleforce said:
I think stuff like this (and DRS) damages the sport, I want integrity, and rules enforced religiously, Masi stepped outside the rulebook today. I feel cheated, as much as I did in 94.

Your offside analogy doesn't work, a better one would be getting rid of offside in football, some of the time, but only if it might change the result.

If such stops were in the rules, cars would be modified so they could handle stop start. Only a matter of time before they are electric anyway.
Click to expand...
But it isn't in the rules!! FIA and F1 have the rules they have, and everyone in the sport have accepted the rules. That you don't like them, fine. Tell FiA. Don't think they'll care much, as the interest in F1 has grown massively, despite the fact there are less accidents (people love car crashes), and the introduction to more use of the safety car.
As in any other sport, you win some, and you lose some.
 
Baleforce said:
I think stuff like this (and DRS) damages the sport, I want integrity, and rules enforced religiously, Masi stepped outside the rulebook today. I feel cheated, as much as I did in 94.

Your offside analogy doesn't work, a better one would be getting rid of offside in football, some of the time, but only if it might change the result.

If such stops were in the rules, cars would be modified so they could handle stop start. Only a matter of time before they are electric anyway.
Click to expand...
See my post above about a great analogy IMO
 
Kandi1977 said:
But it isn't in the rules!! FIA and F1 have the rules they have, and everyone in the sport have accepted the rules. That you don't like them, fine. Tell FiA. Don't think they'll care much, as the interest in F1 has grown massively, despite the fact there are less accidents (people love car crashes), and the introduction to more use of the safety car.
As in any other sport, you win some, and you lose some.
Click to expand...

It appears, those rules were not followed, and the safety car should have remained out for one more lap.
 
Kandi1977 said:
But it isn't in the rules!! FIA and F1 have the rules they have, and everyone in the sport have accepted the rules. That you don't like them, fine. Tell FiA. Don't think they'll care much, as the interest in F1 has grown massively, despite the fact there are less accidents (people love car crashes), and the introduction to more use of the safety car.
As in any other sport, you win some, and you lose some.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the interest growth data from?
I’ve read plenty that it’s losing popularity and viewing around 2 years but nothing about it increasing now
 
Baleforce said:
It appears, those rules were not followed, and the safety car should have remained out for one more lap.
Click to expand...
No, they spent over one lap driving around when it was said lapped cars would NOT be allowed to overtake. That was not following rules. Then they realised that was a massive rooster up that would have serious consequences, and changed their mind to let them past, and get on with racing.
If they had done what they should have done initially, we'd have the same result.
 
Kandi1977 said:
No, they spent over one lap driving around when it was said lapped cars would NOT be allowed to overtake. That was not following rules. Then they realised that was a massive rooster up that would have serious consequences, and changed their mind to let them past, and get on with racing.
If they had done what they should have done initially, we'd have the same result.
Click to expand...

and then they only moved the cars between Lewis and Max out of the way...
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Where are you getting the interest growth data from?
I’ve read plenty that it’s losing popularity and viewing around 2 years but nothing about it increasing now
Click to expand...
TV and digital media viewers. Also, most races sell out now. That wasn't the case 5 years ago.
 
Baleforce said:
and then they only moved the cars between Lewis and Max out of the way...
Click to expand...
Yes? That's the point of letting lapped cars pass. It's to get them out of the way of the race leaders. The other cars behind are irrelevant to the outcome of the race. That's how it has been done in 24 hour races I've taken part in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back