|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
23 Mar 2006, 04:52 (Ref:1558021) | #26 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
23 Mar 2006, 05:08 (Ref:1558026) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
I imagine the race numbers will just be what they are this year, just for the sake of cataloguing.
I am sure that, come 2008, they will just change them on the basis of the 2007 championships. |
||
|
23 Mar 2006, 05:43 (Ref:1558035) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
Seems all references to tyre warmers have been removed too. No longer allowed, or allowed under another section?
|
||
|
23 Mar 2006, 05:58 (Ref:1558039) | #29 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,480
|
I think F1 has become too over-regulated, and these 2008 regs don't help. It's supposed to be the pinnicle of the sport, but with Weight Ballast it's becoming a episode of 'The Biggest Loser'.
Sorry, been a F1 follower and fan for decades now, and it keeps moving away from some of the simple purity that captured my interest in the first place. |
|
__________________
"All this amateur analysis leads nowhere and is insignificant......So you waste hours, days, months, years of your life for what end? A bit of one-upmanship on the internet?" - Wilton969 |
23 Mar 2006, 05:58 (Ref:1558040) | #30 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
Probably scrapped, seeing as Max is against them as I recall.
|
||
|
23 Mar 2006, 15:36 (Ref:1558639) | #31 | ||
Forum Host
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,529
|
AFIAK tyre blankets have also been banned for 2008.
I hate this ballast penalty..... I mean with the grid penalty atleast you have soome chance to recover in the race, with this ballast penalty you will be at a handicap throughout the race.... it really is not going to achieve anything IMO |
||
__________________
A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. Bartender asks him "What's wrong?" Byte says "Parity error." Bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." |
23 Mar 2006, 16:12 (Ref:1558663) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 731
|
Blankets banned but nothing about that tire sauna in the back of the garage. I think the ballast penalty is better than 10 grid spots. It's still not better than no penalty. I'd like to see an actual two race monetary balance sheet comparing the costs of x-life engines to what we had in the past.
|
||
__________________
"Let's hurry up and go, so we can hurry up and come back." |
23 Mar 2006, 16:26 (Ref:1558671) | #33 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 601
|
Quote:
Nice signature btw Martyn |
|||
|
24 Mar 2006, 08:34 (Ref:1559419) | #34 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Here is a handy summary of the main changes.http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=35362
|
|
|
24 Mar 2006, 13:12 (Ref:1559549) | #35 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,753
|
Here's an off the wall idea instead of weight ballast or 10 place penalties:
multiply the current points scoring by 3 making it 30, 24, 18, 15, 12, 9, 6 and 3 If an engine or gearbox has to be changed then the driver will racing for 2/3s championship points ( ie 20, 16, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2) and if both Engine and gear box have to be done then they are racing for 1/3 points (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1). |
||
|
24 Mar 2006, 13:32 (Ref:1559556) | #36 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
|
I think a if a penalty is to be incurred it should be by the team not the driver, they are responsible for the engine/gearbox etc that failed.
Why not award constructors points all the way to last place, and if an engine change happens then that teams race finishing position is moved moved down by 10 places for constructors points, and the drivers points are left alone. I just dont agree with the idea of 10 place grid or balast ruining a drivers race (and also denting their championship). Make the teams pay for it not the drivers. (Idea above would need some tweeking sure, but I think It might even make the back of the field battles more interesting.) |
||
__________________
It has to start somewhere, It has to start some time. What better place than here, what better time than now. |
24 Mar 2006, 13:57 (Ref:1559571) | #37 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,753
|
The penalty system I mentioned could work for constructors as well.
As for penalising only the constructors, Drivers have to be aware of their cars and if a warning light comes on during practice/qualifying, it's up to the driver to ensure that the car is kept in one piece if possible. If the drivers aren't penalised then in this situation they might take the risk and try for one more lap in the knowledge that it's the team taking the hit and not his chances of driver championship points. |
||
|
24 Mar 2006, 15:14 (Ref:1559674) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
If it is just for the constructors champ, then the big teams will just go for the driver's champ and do whatever gearbox/engine changes they like.
The smaller teams might win the constructors championship if they don't do any changes, but at the end of the day your "general" fans remember Michael Schumacher winning the world champ in a Benetton in 1994, not Williams-Renault winning the constructors championship. |
||
|
24 Mar 2006, 16:16 (Ref:1559710) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,245
|
In 10 years or so, every driver will have a Hummer to compete the entire season!!!
|
||
__________________
"ignorantia legis neminem excusat" |
24 Mar 2006, 18:26 (Ref:1559801) | #40 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
25 Mar 2006, 10:24 (Ref:1560207) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
I'm looking forward to the first GPMA-season in 2008.
|
||
|
25 Mar 2006, 10:32 (Ref:1560263) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,010
|
Ha.. this is a load of rubbish!!
The real problem with F1 is that it's a place for multinational corporations to pitch their products and spending power against those of other multinational corporations. Not about racing.. It's f****d! |
||
__________________
Keep living the dream! |
25 Mar 2006, 17:07 (Ref:1560418) | #43 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 118
|
If they really want to enforce these durability rules, then enforce 'em. If an engine is supposed to last two races, then if it breaks in the first race, the driver/car doesn't race in the next race. Harsh, but it actually enforces the penalty...everything else is half-stepping and backing away.
But if we're going to half-step the penalties, I'd go with the constructors' penalty idea, but I'd say don't give 'em any points...points for driver only. If a driver keeps breaking engines/trannies, then the team will eventually deal with it, either in the contract, or by getting rid of the driver. Continued breakage by a driver would also reduce his value to a team. |
||
|
27 Mar 2006, 17:20 (Ref:1562497) | #46 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
|
Lets face it, cost saving is a noble aim, but major technology freezes like this will only disrupt the sport in the long term. I'm starting to get very angry with the way the new agreement is heading, Max of 12 teams (biggest mistake in F1 history), and now long term engine designs. Well the pre season build up is going to be nicly killed off, no new teams, and no new engines to look forward too. Lets hope liverys change regularly so that we have somthing nice and meaningless to talk about in january.
|
||
__________________
It has to start somewhere, It has to start some time. What better place than here, what better time than now. |
27 Mar 2006, 17:30 (Ref:1562503) | #47 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
The only regular topic about the new V8s over the winter,was how regularly Mclarens (Mercedes) blew up.They are certainly different from V10s but not that different from each other.
Twelve teams is pretty much limited by the number of garages at each track. |
|
|
27 Mar 2006, 17:39 (Ref:1562514) | #48 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 175
|
Taking from the ITV site:
"Several manufacturers have complained that it will diminish the sport’s high-tech appeal and freeze relative performance levels, ensuring a big inbuilt advantage for teams that are ahead at the time of the initial homologation." Am I missing the point? I assumed it would be possible to continue developing the engine within the frozen regulations, ensuring that eventually everyone would be on a virtually level playing field. Did anyone else assume this, or is the article misleading? |
||
__________________
"Success is relative. It is the best we can make of the mess we have made of things." |
27 Mar 2006, 17:42 (Ref:1562519) | #50 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 370
|
F1 is a joke. I was hoping BMW Sauber would pull out so I could stop following the sport.
|
||
__________________
So, after waiting 20 minutes for him to come out of the back of the garage, Matski asks "Are you going to get Jacques' seat then?" Robert replies "ha ha, I don't know!", signs Matksi's cap, and retreats to his motorhome. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sporting Regulations For A1 Gp | mbathshah | A1GP | 1 | 21 Sep 2005 17:41 |
the sporting news | brihev | IRL Indycar Series | 3 | 16 Jun 2005 21:10 |
Sporting art galleries | alesi95 | Motorsport Art & Photography | 1 | 3 May 2004 16:53 |
Any Sporting Questions | Craig | Touring Car Racing | 22 | 23 May 2002 16:17 |
F3 sporting rules | Vrooar! | National & International Single Seaters | 3 | 20 Jun 2001 19:02 |