Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to bounce this seems to me the rule changes, principally no refuelling, have removed the main variable from things. In theory now if I qualify a second quicker than you on a 40 lap race and out pit crews are on a par I will finish 40 seconds ahead of you, so the race is stretching the differences.


Apparently Bernie is trying to get 2 compulsory pit stop so they can take a bit more risk with their tyres and, even better, short cuts to overtake.

Still waiting for mushrooms or blue shells.


(By the way I love F1 and watch all of every race, but this season threatens to be a massive disappointment imho)

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------



> Apparently Bernie is trying to get 2 compulsory

> pit stop so they can take a bit more risk with

> their tyres and, even better, short cuts to

> overtake.

> Still waiting for mushrooms or blue shells.

>

> (By the way I love F1 and watch all of every race,

> but this season threatens to be a massive

> disappointment imho)

_____________________________________________________


Ruffers...



In less than say 75 words ( so no one falls asleep ) can you expand on the above a little


So we can be F1 "crazeeee..." too



Please ( see my new "nice guy" logo below )



W:):)F

big dissapointment was the opening race.


They need to sort out the aero\dirty air issues - which they've all been aware of for years - and enable overtaking.


bring in some form of nitros turbo boost system (limited number of boosts per race - say 10) - Kers was pants.


Schumacher looks solid though considering he's been away for 3 years...lets give him a couple more races.


However, i fear ferrari will run away this season...unless Alonso and Massa start tripping each other up.

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ruffers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

>

> > Apparently Bernie is trying to get 2 compulsory

> > pit stop so they can take a bit more risk with

> > their tyres and, even better, short cuts to

> > overtake.

> > Still waiting for mushrooms or blue shells.

> >

> > (By the way I love F1 and watch all of every

> race,

> > but this season threatens to be a massive

> > disappointment imho)

> __________________________________________________

> ___

>

> Ruffers...

>

>

> In less than say 75 words ( so no one falls asleep

> ) can you expand on the above a little

>

> So we can be F1 "crazeeee..." too

>

>

> Please ( see my new "nice guy" logo below )

>

>

> W:):)F


The "short cuts" are just that. Bernie Ecclestone (who owns/runs F1) has mooted the idea of short cuts on the track that drivers would be allowed to use a maximum number of times per race (3 for example) to enable them to overtake a slower car in front that had been holding them up.


The "mushrooms and blue shells" idea, whilst funny, is a parody of mario kart that enable racers to either go very quickly for a short period or fire a projectile from their car to knock an opponent off the track.


A sidewinder missile might be more appropriate for F1.


*yawn*

Thanks for that David.


I read one suggestion re dirty air was to get rid of diffusers and have a flat bottomed car rule, job done (possibly).


I know it's easy in retrospect but you'd have though someone would have realised that the no refuelling would lead to drivers needing to preserve tyres, meaning they won't follow close and have a real go at an overtake, combined with the key weight/fuel variable being removed as said above = even less overtaking.


What was the reason for refuelling being banned anyway? I can't see it as a cost saving measure like some of the other changes as can't see how it would save money.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...