Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Spacegoat, Dec 5, 2018.
Less aero and more mechanical grip would be great.
After what has happened this year with the constant changes after Supercars telling us they had it closer than ever, "Actually fixed it this time." "No, we're sure this time." "Wait, now we've got it right." I don't trust them to organise a pissup in a brewery.
Unless they put each car in a wind tunnel and get scientific results, it'll all be guesswork & we face another year of 'adjustments in the name of parity'.
Let's remember the Supercars mantra that a new car is supposed to be no faster than the others & is benchmarked against those. If anyone tries to tell me the Mustang is no faster than the Falcon it replaced, you better have someone examine your head.
Ultimately, I want to see minimal aero like the Group A days & when you could really see a driver work for their lap time. Back then, a top driver could drag an average car towards the front much like we see the pack shuffled when it's wet.
These days if a team misses their setup by two or three tenths, the car is buried in the teens or twenties & it's not because the driver is having an off day or forgotten how to drive.
Wishful thinking, huh
I think it's when everyone ditched the pedestal wing for these moulded to the body versions, things really changed. NZ V8s seem to keep the pedestal wings in every car. Wonder how VASC would do with such wings.
Not as good as the last one of these but still okay.
Edit: @Pete05 I agree with everything you say in your previous post, but it's worth mentioning that it was the ZB that kicked off this parity war by being so vastly superior to the incumbent FGX, Nissan and VFII. Ford had to follow suit (plus interest ).
Plus interest indeed. Ford is showing Triple 8, how it should have been done.
Exactly where I said he was.
As for the rest, I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't want your veins popping out of your forehead... so let's just agree to disagree.
I can see that you value safety over everything else (and that is good) and also that if it is in the rule book than it's ok (even if better options are also in the rule book and they just ruined the race for half of the field by choosing the worst one or by executing it wrong).
In my opinion:
Race control was the only responsible for changing the outcome of the race.
Jamie was responsible for a race infringement and was properly punished for that.
The safety car should have had the green light on and should have waved by all cars immediatly until the the leader was picked up. I would consider this to be the natural impact of the safety car (adressing your point of winners and loosers...)
After this, they could have attended to Reynolds... wait... he was not there anymore, right?
Jamie's post-race frustration is understandable but probably too blunt for TV and for wine drinkers all around (I think he is right about the teams operating at a higher level than the stewards... this is a common issue in professional sports).
Holdsworth reacted much better than Jamie (on track and on tv).
And for the last time, I'm not a Whincup fan (also not a fan of Holden or T8). Actually, I don't like him that much. I do however respect him as a driver and what he has achieved in the sport.
What I don't agree with is changing the outcome of a race and then justifying it with the rule book... that's why I don't watch Nascar.
So yes, I still feel the same if it was another driver or brand.
Please carry on with your Holden/T8 bashing.
P.S. I'm just a Supercars fan! My favorite driver is SVG (since the SBR days)... Judas if you are a Ford fan.
So a driver with the experience of Montoya should be able to not hit a track drying vehicle that's in plain sight, on a straight.... oh wait
And how far off the track was the vehicle recovery tractor that Jules Bianchi hit at Suzuka. ( I can't show this clip as it breaks the AUP)
Just two examples of the top of my head as to why I think this way. Do you still think DR's car was in a safe place?
Veins popping out of my forehead.... over what? And yes let's agree to disagree.
But just as an FYI, I thought Roland Dane handled the situation on Sunday exceptionally well, and I've agreed with his statements many, many times in the past, but he (and T8) deserve everything thing they get for this Mustang debacle. After all, they started it .
Sunday at Pukekohe was a race to forget for everyone involved. It wasn't the officals fault, it wasn't Reynolds fault, it was just bad timing. As you can see this play-by-play article by Speedcafe.
What do you guys think am i right or am i wrong?
Seems like CAMS and co are going on the offensive now.
So glad TCR/S5000 are on this weekend.
Fines for both would be about right, race suspension is far too harsh imo.
I'm for the race suspension for next round. Doubt it'll happen, but take team and driver's points away form Sunday's race for Whincup and fine Waters.
Wow!!! I mean, throwing the book at JW is fair enough (public apology and large fine, a case of red for RC maybe), don't shoot it out of a cannon at him .... unless he refuses to apologise. What he said the other day was a long shot off of an apology.
I look at it along the lines of a red card, yellow flag(grid iron) or technical foul, could even add an illegal tackle in NRL and potential to be thrown out a game. In the race, Whincup got a technical or a minute in the penalty box. The comment post race, on live tv, and admitting with kids watching, his own conduct, etc, that could lead to game suspension in other sports. This is a team sport and I couldn't believe he was saying that live. Behind closed doors, no doubt, other drivers were heated. Also, really, the actual fact, saying why he did it, was crazy to give the reason why out loud. So, with that thinking of carelessness from the 7 time champ, even with cooling off for a month until the next event, I feel he should watch from pit lane.
Again, probably ain't going to happen, but that's my reasoning in sport, as a whole.
Fair enough, but this is only about what he said, not what happened on the track (that's RD's headache to deal with now).
I was also very surprised with what he said. He's normally very reserved, but I think the lack of results, and with a win in sight, it tipped him over the edge. If he was like this all the time then he should definitely receive some time in the sin bin to think about his actions... but he isn't.
We also probably see it a bit differently because I'm from a different (AFL) background, where we don't have yellow/red cards or send off rules and abuse towards umpires is the norm and will only cost your team a 50 metre penalty (two 50 metre penalties if you didn't learn from the first and keep mouthing off), and you have to physically make contact with an umpire to miss a game.
The examples you just gave are not comparable because of the weather conditions, the speed, the visibility, the type of cars and ... Juan Pablo!
I get your argument about considering the worst case scenario but that's completely exaggerated in this situation.
With the current safety car and pit lane procedures they should have let the drivers go by the safety car until they picked up the leader (as per standard procedure). Didn’t they do this on Saturday’s race? What stopped them from doing the same on Sunday? I guess a simple mistake by assuming Jamie was the leader… but now that they messed the race results they have to stick to their lame story.
If safety is the major concern then they need to do something about the pit lane. That’s the most dangerous place at the moment with the refueling and the double stacking.
As for RD/ Frankenstang discussion, I don't really follow what happens outside the track.
I guess parity / BOP is essential when you want to have close racing. This year, for the first time, I’ve been fast forwarding some races because of the lack of close racing. I think the series is getting a little bit more predictable and duller.
The BTCC has some rules that are currently contributing for some great racing: success ballast and reverse grid race. They also have mandatory use of different tyre compounds but I don't think that is a positive one as drivers using the harder compound are just moving chicanes and normally end up getting punted out of the track.
Damn! Ryan Storey is so white. I'm almost wondering if he sees his own reflection in a mirror
The man really needs to get outdoors more & work on his tan.
Of course they are, they both happened under caution. What's irrelevant is ''weather conditions, the speed, the visibility, the type of cars'' because the track was under caution. Caution means exactly what it says, and both drivers didn't adhere to this.
That's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight (I've shown you two very valid examples of how things can escalate)... and you can bet you're bottom dollar that with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight RC wouldn't have called for the safety car in the first place. Damn shame they don't have a time machine.
And I thought we agreed to disagree.
Supercars race control makes some inexcusably amateur mistakes too often.
NO fine or suspension for Whincup & Waters.
I think he'd rather pay a fine than sit on the naughty chair at race control.
Erebus will be really rocking a Kiss livery at Gold Coast and Newcastle.
It kinda suits them.
Does anyone think they had trouble convincing DR to take part?
No, me either.
The livery looks miles better than I imagined it would. The Penrite logo in that font looks great.
Also, Reynolds and ADP in full KISS makeup.
If you want to go full safety mode than Supercars need to close the pits under caution. With the current rules they are racing to the safety car and should not be in a situation like the one that happened last weekend.
If the safety car intervention was caused by an accident I would agree with you. This was not an emergency.
Why would they want to replace the Mustang safety car by a Delorean??? They still haven’t learned where the green light button is and you want them to learn how to use the time flux capacitor???
We did. Why are you still trying?
They've already tried shutting the pits under caution... it was terrible. It almost completely removes differing race strategies.
I mentioned using the drive-by-wire system to slow all cars to safety car pace earlier in this thread. I still think it's the way to go moving forward, just like F1's virtual safety car.
Imagine having penalty zones in a race.
I don’t like the virtual safety car caution. I always feel that some drivers take advantage of this situation by not slowing down as fast as they should (Blancpain GT series as an example).
In a series that is (sometimes) decided by tenths of seconds this could also be a controversial decision.
But, if implemented, pits need to be closed during VSC. Drivers should only be allowed to pit under green.
From a racing perspective I still think it’s better the way it is now but from a safety perspective, when the full field comes into pitlane under yellow it’s chaos in there. It’s just a question of time until a serious accident occurs.
I don't watch the Blancpain GT series so I can't comment on that but drivers can take the piss for nearly a full lap as it stands now, but with a combination of strict micro section management (like F1) and controlled use by Race Control of the drive-by-wire throttle system there will be little to no time to be gained by anyone. I don't think you understood my meaning of using the DBW. It makes it very easy to slow the whole field at exactly the same time (by RC).
Now this part astounds me . In one sentence you're concerned with tenths of seconds but in the next you're advocating for a chook lotto scenario.
You obviously never watched Supercars back when they trialled closed pit lanes under green, because it essentially turned some races into luck of the draw on where cars crashed in relation to your position on the track. It mostly favoured back markers getting a free kick and diving into the pits just before pit lane was closed for SC... sometimes it was a couple of cars, sometimes it was all but the front running pack. The front runners were then stuck behind the SC being the only ones that hadn't pitted and having to wait to stop under green... yeah well, you can imagine how well that went down with all the top drivers effectively shafted (in some cases by nearly a full lap)!!
I don't hate it how it is now, the drivers just need to show some caution under caution. If they could be trusted to run at less than the couple of tenths under race pace that they do now it would be fine... but they can't... and this is why race series have had to introduce Virtual Safety Cars in the first place.
Pit lane is a whole different kettle of fish, at least the cars are speed limited. You still got the whole field diving into the pits with a closed under caution pit lane. No one could risk the other scenario that happened (as mentioned above), so if at all possible, everyone who could pit did at the slightest sniff of trouble.
Edit: Here you go, in case I haven't explained properly (which can happen), a detailed explanation of F1's Virtual Safety Car: https://jalopnik.com/heres-how-virtual-safety-cars-work-1826237975
And as you can see by this explanation there's absolutely no need to close the pits because the cars don't bunch up. I think this might be something you didn't realise.
From the article: