|
So you're saying Horner is feeling the Bern?
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:So you're saying Horner is feeling the Bern? That's just from sleeping with Geri.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:So you're saying Horner is feeling the Bern? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Don't worry we still get blown defusers back and they are still making them louder and pretty with swept back front wings and whatnot. bernie is the greatest and best man in the world
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Bring back engine regs that allowed for different cylinder numbers, fatten the tires, roll back the availability of aero grip. I wanna see v12 Ferrari screamers again. Let chaos reign. Hail Satan/Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
i hope before bernie leaves he listens to the fans and makes the changes they want just so he can spitefully watch it all fall apart were there people in the early days of motor racing clamoring for a return to horses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
GramCracker posted:This. NBC Execs, because I know you peruse this thread on the reg, PLEASE let this happen. I'll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
According to ~sources~ K-Mag could replace Pastor at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mo...ext-season.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
that's ok Pastor has a Ferrari seat all lined up for next year
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
If pastor leaves it won't be k-mag and the telegraph are cruel to get his hopes up like that. wild theory: someone who does not know much about formula 1 recognized someone as a McLaren driver and the torygraph just assumed they meant Kevin. That or Flavio is using Kevin as cover to get in the building for his second entirely different set of negotiations. Nando is still MIA and this all fits the time frame for him to make an announcement on feb 1st.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
BBC also reporting the Pastor story, but with the information that Renault haven't received payment from PDVSA, which gives them a great get out clause and can get rid of the driver they don't want. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35299887 quote:A Renault spokesman said: "It's speculation at the moment. We have a contract with Pastor. That is the current situation. That is about as close as you will ever find a spokesman saying someone is poo poo canned before its official, so its not looking good for Pastor. F1 will be a lot more boring next year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
ukle posted:...so its not looking good for Pastor Shame. So, is it March yet? I've only just bothered to look at the calendar, didn't realise Malaysia had been moved to the latter half of the season. Makes sense given how much poo poo they get every year for moving the race into the rainy period of the day. During monsoon season. Looks to be a healthy spread with 4 races within 5 weeks over July and October (Austria / Britain / Hungary / Germany and Malaysia / Japan / USA / Mexico respectively) Biggest gap between races, barring the summer break (at 4 weeks) is 2 weeks. So barring no races get dropped, there'll never be more than 2 weeks between one race and the next. Again, barring the usual summer break.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
I'm doing my part, I just filled up my gas tank and told the cashier that venezuelan oil is so much better and he should totally switch
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
No you see there can't be refuelling we're running out of oil and it's getting really expensive!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Also refueling was really poo poo, only reason people liked it was that there was a slight chance of fire or someone driving off with the hose still attached. The reality was that it was talked about just as much as tire management, alongside tire management.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I like 3 second or less pitstops. gently caress refueling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Norns posted:I like 3 second or less pitstops. gently caress refueling. I see you hate fast cars and fun as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
R.I.P. Pastor. A Good Lad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Xenoid posted:I see you hate fast cars and fun as well. To be fair refueling generally made the racing worse, barring certain exceptions (uh, 1982 and 1983 I guess)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Xenoid posted:I see you hate fast cars and fun as well. Please tell me how refueling in the current formula would speed anything up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:To be fair refueling generally made the racing worse, barring certain exceptions (uh, 1982 and 1983 I guess) Xenoid posted:I see you hate fast cars and fun as well. learnincurve posted:there was a slight chance of fire or someone driving off with the hose still attached. Go watch Formula E if you hate refuelling so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Refuelling was utter poo poo. Basically why try to even overtake, you can just pit earlier/later. At least tire wear is less predictable than that, so they can't rely on such a strategy and instead may even try to overtake. The number of overtakes already rose when they banned refuelling in 2010, and that was before Pirelli/DRS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
The one time I've agreed with Horner was on refueling. It's a dumb thing, you just have to look at how long their first fuel stop is and then you know how much fuel they put in and know exactly what strategy they're on and when they're coming in again. It introduces zero strategy and just creates artificial gaps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Also refueling was really poo poo, only reason people liked it was that there was a slight chance of fire or someone driving off with the hose still attached. That is simply not true. Refueling allowed to cars to drive fast from the get go, rather than tip-toping around 10 seconds off the pace, as they're logging 100kgs worth of fuel and any attempt at going fast will destroy the tires. Refueling made the cars go faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:That is simply not true. Refueling allowed to cars to drive fast from the get go, rather than tip-toping around 10 seconds off the pace, as they're logging 100kgs worth of fuel and any attempt at going fast will destroy the tires. Refuelling also made it more dangerous and except for a fire it adds nothing to the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:That is simply not true. Refueling allowed to cars to drive fast from the get go, rather than tip-toping around 10 seconds off the pace, as they're logging 100kgs worth of fuel and any attempt at going fast will destroy the tires. In a big train. I cite monaco 2003, aero era had begun and during this period cars could not get within a second of each other without causing overheating issues with the gearbox and engine. No on track overtakes. It all happened in the pits, and it was the most boring race of all time. loving Trulli train was kind of funny towards the arse end of his career but jesus christ 2002-2005 was pure torture, with scalextric cars unable to overtake permanently stuck behind the bastard tootling around in 7th biding his time and babying his engine until faster cars in front of him went bang and he could pick up points. refueling would just make for longer pit stops and crofty endlessly talking about it. It's the aero causing heat/dirty air, coming from the car in front, to get under the wings and into your car thus causing everything to overheat, including your front tires, which prevents overtakes, not the lack of speed. Take what just happened, pirreli went "lol you fuckers forgot about physics, you increase the downforce and basic GSCE level science tells you you need to increase the tire pressure which means you have to slow the car down in the corners or they will explode, and no, no change in compound is going to fix it". less aero, more mechanical grip is the answer, not refueling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:less aero, more mechanical grip is the answer, not refueling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines So Red Bull.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines Ferrari is good and cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
When there was refueling the number of races where 'refuel a lot and run balls to the walls' was the best strat was miniscule compared to 'reduce pitstops and save fuel', and on top of that were only ever pulled off by Schumacher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ukle posted:BBC also reporting the Pastor story, but with the information that Renault haven't received payment from PDVSA, which gives them a great get out clause and can get rid of the driver they don't want. THE BUTCHER OF CARACAS MUST DRIVE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:When there was refueling the number of races where 'refuel a lot and run balls to the walls' was the best strat was miniscule compared to 'reduce pitstops and save fuel', and on top of that were only ever pulled off by Schumacher. Don't forget 2005 when they were allowed to have different sized fuel tanks in a move to make them all larger for 2006 and in theory make them race harder. This did not work. In monaco the larger tanked cars like the renaults filled to the brim and then fuel saved so they could go the whole race without stopping (maybe they stopped once when others stopped twice, I forget) and losing position, other faster races they filled to the bare minimum needed for strategy and fuel saved. It's fairly simple, the less fuel the lighter your car, you go faster and put less stress on your tires. What removing refueling did was make them concentrate on fuel economy which is what road cars had been moving towards for a while and made them more relevant to modern technology. If the bastards are going to save fuel no matter what you do engine suppliers might as well be able to make some money off of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Riso posted:Refuelling also made it more dangerous and except for a fire it adds nothing to the show. It made the cars go faster and made for less 'protecting the tires whilst cruising around at 80%'. Remember that the main reason refueling was dropped was because of cost: It cost FOM a fortune to transport the refueling rigs around the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
no in THEORY it should have made the cars go faster, they fuel saved anyway so it didn't. What made the cars fast was that back in the day they were basically metal skins with a meaty bit in the middle strapped to an A.C.M.E. rocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:no in THEORY it should have made the cars go faster, they fuel saved anyway so it didn't. What made the cars fast was that back in the day they were basically metal skins with a meaty bit in the middle strapped to an A.C.M.E. rocket. Utter nonsense. Refueling was banned in 2010, the first carbon fibre monocogue in F1 was in the McLaren MP4/1 in 1981.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
No fuel apologists conveniently leave out that the tires could last 100 laps. "But it was exciting racing!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Xenoid posted:No fuel apologists conveniently leave out that the tires could last 100 laps. Now we get a super duper softs next year that will last like 5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Norns posted:Ferrari is good and cool. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Enzo was a loving baller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 01:05
|
|