Is F1 really as dull as I believe that it is....

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

d TdF though only highlights for most parts since I like the shots of the hills.

45mins vs several hours, most of which is deafly dull.

the highlights tend to have the hills more than the dull flat bits, clearly not always but well i can always catch up footage if I really wanted to, can't remember doing so though.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

d TdF though only highlights for most parts since I like the shots of the hills.

45mins vs several hours, most of which is deafly dull.

the highlights tend to have the hills more than the dull flat bits, clearly not always but well i can always catch up footage if I really wanted to, can't remember doing so though.

Ah it's true.

If you want exciting cycling - the Tour's probably not the best place to go.

cje

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

i didnt mean he could see into the future, just that in his mindset he didnt seem right

His friend Prof. Sid Watkins (F1 medical chief) felt the same way, and advised Senna on Saturday not to race.

cje

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

the biggest problem with F1 now is that they use the latest technology/driving aids, so its not about the drivers abilities anymore, its about that processor in the engine, i used to love watching f1 in the old days senna, prost and mansell have great battles, but now days its a bit like some speedway races you get to the corner first and that's it you've won.

That's always been the case though. There has never been a golden age of constant wheel-to-wheel action. For every thrilling Grand Prix from the past there'll have been four or five (possibly more) races where the guy in the best car started on pole and buggered off.

It's a myth that it used to be all about driving ability. It's always been a combination of car & driver. Fangio always made sure he had the best kit. Senna went to Williams because they had the best car...etc

rick_chasey

cje wrote:

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

i didnt mean he could see into the future, just that in his mindset he didnt seem right

His friend Prof. Sid Watkins (F1 medical chief) felt the same way, and advised Senna on Saturday not to race.

I know I'm going off thread and it's not the most tasteful of arguments - but neither of them knew the car would break.

I'm pretty sure (though you may correct me) that the accident was caused by a failure in the car, rather than driver error. In which case, Senna's mindset wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

cje

Rick Chasey wrote:

cje wrote:

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

i didnt mean he could see into the future, just that in his mindset he didnt seem right

His friend Prof. Sid Watkins (F1 medical chief) felt the same way, and advised Senna on Saturday not to race.

I know I'm going off thread and it's not the most tasteful of arguments - but neither of them knew the car would break.

I'm pretty sure (though you may correct me) that the accident was caused by a failure in the car, rather than driver error. In which case, Senna's mindset wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

The cause of the accident has never been proved. It could've been a failure on the car. Another theory is that his tyres had gone cold behind the (only recently introduced) safety car, causing the Williams to 'bottom out' on the approach to Tamburello.

Either way, I take your point. Proft Watkins and Senna both admitted to an impending sense of doom, but what happened was surely a coincidence. Unless one believes in premonition and such things.

meanredspider

F1 is fantastic - the drivers are incredible (I don't think you'll find that Lewis Hamilton was a "rich kid" - IIRC his dad was doing two jobs to afford the kit when he was a kid) and the technology trickles down to other sports (I'm sure a significant number of cycling innovations link back to F1 in some way or another). The attention to detail is utterly mindblowing - I was lucky enough to visit the Renault team garage at Valencia when Alonso was racing for them - as an engineer, I was salivating and awestruck.

It's not a particularly accessible sport - there are layer-upon-layer of subtleties - and, if you've never raced a car, appreciating the skills, challenges and compromises is hard but it is rarely boring. And, with 6 world champions on the grid this year, you can't say there's a lack of talent.

Finally, building racing cars is something us Brits are incredibly good at - let's give ourselves a bit of credit for that at least.

asquithea

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

the biggest problem with F1 now is that they use the latest technology/driving aids, so its not about the drivers abilities anymore, its about that processor in the engine

That's not really true, though. The manufacturers do what they can within fairly tight rules, but those rules are pretty restrictive. In particular, drivers don't benefit from many of the sorts of driving aids you would find on a mid-range saloon, including traction control, ABS, brake assist, etc.

Interestingly, one of the main reasons that Senna's car (FW16) was so unstable was that it was the first Williams car coming immediately after a rule change where they banned electronic driver aids. The preceding FW15C had anti-lock brakes, traction control and active suspension.

cje

meanredspider wrote:

(I don't think you'll find that Lewis Hamilton was a "rich kid" - IIRC his dad was doing two jobs to afford the kit when he was a kid) .

Lewis Hamilton was from a comfortable, rather than rich, background. The 'three jobs' thing is overplayed though. People are encouraged to imagine Anthony Hamilton waking at dawn to milk cows before doing a post round and stacking shelves in the evening.

What actually happened is that he took on three contracts for his IT consultancy firm.

Plus, once he reached the age of 10 (ish) McLaren paid and ensured he had the best of everything throughout his career. He's undoubtedly bloody talented though, don't get me wrong.

vermin

Rick Chasey wrote:

edds wrote:

stuff

Why the name change?

How the name change?

MonkeyMonster

toca is quite fun for a bit of adrenaline raising. TT can be too but the isle of wight stuff is just fucking scary to watch sometimes - SO fast down some frankly scary roads. Just amazing rider control.

thiscocks

cje wrote:

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

the biggest problem with F1 now is that they use the latest technology/driving aids, so its not about the drivers abilities anymore, its about that processor in the engine, i used to love watching f1 in the old days senna, prost and mansell have great battles, but now days its a bit like some speedway races you get to the corner first and that's it you've won.

That's always been the case though. There has never been a golden age of constant wheel-to-wheel action. For every thrilling Grand Prix from the past there'll have been four or five (possibly more) races where the guy in the best car started on pole and buggered off.

It's a myth that it used to be all about driving ability. It's always been a combination of car & driver. Fangio always made sure he had the best kit. Senna went to Williams because they had the best car...etc

^ Very true. People said the same in every decade in F1 when a new bit of technology was discovered but the best drivers always rise to the top.

Regarding Sennas crash, some say he had a slow puncture from debris. Some say it was just purely from the way the car handled (quite tricky) and Senna had set it up so that it was fast but 'on the edge' around the quick corners, hence it bottoming out on the bumps at high speed. It certainly was bottoming out ALOT after the safety car came in, even down to aquaminerale. Either way it's all just speculation- no one will ever know!

TheStone

cje wrote:

What actually happened is that he took on three contracts for his IT consultancy firm.

But even the fact that his dad had to invest so much of his time/money into making it happen tells us it's not a sport for many.

attica

I watched the Grand Prix on iPlayer yesterday and took this photo mid race:-



Could be that the olden days were better or it could be that I just don't have as much invested in the racers of today

rick_chasey

Attica wrote:

I watched the Grand Prix on iPlayer yesterday and took this photo mid race:-



Could be that the olden days were better or it could be that I just don't have as much invested in the racers of today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia

veronese68

cje wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

cje wrote:

Sharkyssurfers wrote:

i didnt mean he could see into the future, just that in his mindset he didnt seem right

His friend Prof. Sid Watkins (F1 medical chief) felt the same way, and advised Senna on Saturday not to race.

I know I'm going off thread and it's not the most tasteful of arguments - but neither of them knew the car would break.

I'm pretty sure (though you may correct me) that the accident was caused by a failure in the car, rather than driver error. In which case, Senna's mindset wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

The cause of the accident has never been proved. It could've been a failure on the car. Another theory is that his tyres had gone cold behind the (only recently introduced) safety car, causing the Williams to 'bottom out' on the approach to Tamburello.

Either way, I take your point. Proft Watkins and Senna both admitted to an impending sense of doom, but what happened was surely a coincidence. Unless one believes in premonition and such things.

Wasn't he upset because Roland Ratzenberger had died on the Saturday. I think his was the first death in F1 for 10 years. I'd have thought a large part of the paddock would have been a little off that day.

attica

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia

From that page

Wikipedia wrote:

Trained athletes or young healthy individuals may also have a slow resting heart rate (e.g. professional cyclist Miguel Indurain had a resting heart rate of 28 beats per minute).[2] Resting bradycardia is often considered normal if the individual has no other symptoms such as fatigue, weakness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fainting, chest discomfort, palpitations or shortness of breath associated with it.

Well healthy-ish at least.

attica

Can somebody help me get this hook out of the inside of my cheek please

rick_chasey

Attica wrote:

Can somebody help me get this hook out of the inside of my cheek please

thiscocks

Attica wrote:

I watched the Grand Prix on iPlayer yesterday and took this photo mid race:-



Could be that the olden days were better or it could be that I just don't have as much invested in the racers of today

Miguel?

London_Falcon

I'd put F1, Cricket, TdF and American Football all in a list of sports that are not that accessible to newbies but are endlessly fascintating once you've invested the time to get what's going on.

I tried explaining the pure joy of a well earned draw after 5 days of Test cricket to a Greek basketball fan once and they really didn't get it..... especially when he asked why they weren't actually playing at that very moment and I had to explain they had stopped for tea.

Paul E

The cars since the loss of active ride, abs, traction control etc the cars became a lot more nervous and very tricky to drive as most teams were not upto speed with the mechanical way of setting cars up vs letting the computer alter the pitch ride height etc corner by corner.

Senna was wringing the nuts out of the williams and was staying ahead of schumacher in the bennetton (which was rumoured to be running TC still and Senna even commented on it that it sounded odd coming out of slow corners), after the safety car his tyres would have dropped in temp and pressure which they think contributed to the lower ride height and caused more of the bottoming out and hence he lost steering.

He was actually in control still as they saw he had pressed the brake pedal in an attept to scrub speed of so he was still conscious until his helmet was struck by the suspension component.

meanredspider

TheStone wrote:

cje wrote:

What actually happened is that he took on three contracts for his IT consultancy firm.

But even the fact that his dad had to invest so much of his time/money into making it happen tells us it's not a sport for many.

It's true to say though that very little top-level sport is "for many". Doesn't make it any less valid. Most serious sports people need some form of sponsorship including top cyclists. Even football needs the big clubs to exist to support the youngsters into the game - entirely analogous to Lewis Hamilton at McLaren. Michael Schumacher was sponsored (pretty shrewd investment). Having money makes it easier but tell me a sport for which that isn't true?

thiscocks

Paul E wrote:

The cars since the loss of active ride, abs, traction control etc the cars became a lot more nervous and very tricky to drive as most teams were not upto speed with the mechanical way of setting cars up vs letting the computer alter the pitch ride height etc corner by corner.

Senna was wringing the nuts out of the williams and was staying ahead of schumacher in the bennetton (which was rumoured to be running TC still and Senna even commented on it that it sounded odd coming out of slow corners), after the safety car his tyres would have dropped in temp and pressure which they think contributed to the lower ride height and caused more of the bottoming out and hence he lost steering.

He was actually in control still as they saw he had pressed the brake pedal in an attept to scrub speed of so he was still conscious until his helmet was struck by the suspension component.

You can see on-board that he was conscious as he tilts his head over into the corner as the car goes straight on. Just having lower tyre temps wouldnt account to a massive 'bottom out' which Senna had in tambourello. I personally think a slow puncture combined with how the car was set up was a likely cause.

I wouldnt say teams had problems with adapting from active to passive suspension as all teams had been running without active suspension for many years before, and not all teams ran active in 1993. Williams were the only ones to have notable handling problems at the start of 1994 as they had been at the forefront of active suspension development so questionably their whole car was deigned around the system to a greater degree than any other team. This probably lead to some minor unforseen suspension issues when they switched back to passive. For sure if Senna wasn't driving for them the car wouldnt have been on pole for the first 3 races of the season!

Paul E

thiscocks wrote:

Paul E wrote:

The cars since the loss of active ride, abs, traction control etc the cars became a lot more nervous and very tricky to drive as most teams were not upto speed with the mechanical way of setting cars up vs letting the computer alter the pitch ride height etc corner by corner.

Senna was wringing the nuts out of the williams and was staying ahead of schumacher in the bennetton (which was rumoured to be running TC still and Senna even commented on it that it sounded odd coming out of slow corners), after the safety car his tyres would have dropped in temp and pressure which they think contributed to the lower ride height and caused more of the bottoming out and hence he lost steering.

He was actually in control still as they saw he had pressed the brake pedal in an attept to scrub speed of so he was still conscious until his helmet was struck by the suspension component.

You can see on-board that he was conscious as he tilts his head over into the corner as the car goes straight on. Just having lower tyre temps wouldnt account to a massive 'bottom out' which Senna had in tambourello. I personally think a slow puncture combined with how the car was set up was a likely cause.

I wouldnt say teams had problems with adapting from active to passive suspension as all teams had been running without active suspension for many years before, and not all teams ran active in 1993. Williams were the only ones to have notable handling problems at the start of 1994 as they had been at the forefront of active suspension development so questionably their whole car was deigned around the system to a greater degree than any other team. This probably lead to some minor unforseen suspension issues when they switched back to passive. For sure if Senna wasn't driving for them the car wouldnt have been on pole for the first 3 races of the season!

I said it contributed to it I didn't say it was the cause and it's well documented in books etc that Williams had got out of touch with the good old way of setting a car up mechanically, esp a car that was an evolution of an active car.

thiscocks

You said "the cars became a lot more nervous and very tricky to drive as most teams were not upto speed with the mechanical way of setting cars up" so I was just replying to that.

I agree, would be interesting to know the exact problems they had with the car.

EKE_38BPM

F1 is great once you understand all of the rules, the history of the drivers and the teams, the relative strengths of the drivers, teams, cars and a myriad of other stuff.

There is a lot of stuff to understand and if you don't, then it's just a bunch of cars going round and round a track, but if you do then there is excitement, real danger, the amazing randomness of sport, superb engineering and technology.

Even the 'boring' races have something to offer if you a fan. In Sunday's race, Alonso did better than anyone expected him to, Grosjean was badly unlucky, Di Resta showed some good spirit to get into the points, Maldanado was unlucky to crash out so close to the end, Williams is probably everyone's second favourite team so seeing them losing so many points was gutting, Mercedes' stalling the front wing using the DRS is a bit clever, McMerc making a pretty car that is also fast is a pleasant surprise, but not as much of a surprise that Massa still has a job at Ferrari, Kimi being back is great.

I love F1, so I say, no, it's not as dull as you think, you just probably don't know enough about the tactics and the other stuff I've mentioned to get into it.

Paul E

thiscocks wrote:

You said "the cars became a lot more nervous and very tricky to drive as most teams were not upto speed with the mechanical way of setting cars up" so I was just replying to that.

I agree, would be interesting to know the exact problems they had with the car.

It had major problems with the car having under steer going into corners and it then swinging wildly into oversteer and it had some problems being pitch sensitive which is why they had to set the ride harder than they would have liked, senna also set the car low to gain more downforce to try and settle it down which also contributed to his crash when he lost tyre pressure.

Paul E

Kimi rocks btw, going round the outside over taking on corners that you really shouldn't be able to, nutter

optimisticbiker

I was lucky enough to be at Albert Park on Saturday and Sunday last. Its true you get a better view on TV, but it is much more exciting to be there and see all the on- and off- track action. To see and hear the cars close up is something else, (tho the F18 flyby was both faster and noisier!). There is more closer overtaking action (and an impressive 4 car pile up) in the V8 Supercars (Touring cars by another name) but less strategy cos the races are much shorter. Even Mrs OB, a confirmed F1-o-phobe, enjoyed the day on Sunday.