Will Buxton is an assinine gossipmonger, and the worst thing to happen to SPEED's F1 coverage since Derek Daley! I felt the need to fast-wind through most of the pre-show for this race due to his inanities. Couldn't help but hear him spouting rancid garbage during the actual race though! What a tool. I miss the Brit they started the season with. Never caught his name, but he was at least inoffensive.... _Dave_
Yep, Buxton is also very opinionated and, though he obviously thinks he reports in a neutral way, his biases show very clearly in his comments. I've been wishing we could have Peter Windsor back but of course after his failed F1 team fiasco I don't imagine we'll see him near the paddock again.
I'd rather hear about wings that flex than wings on other things...things that absorb... I've been trying to figure out what this is all about. If it passes the tests then it's ok, right? In case some haven't already heard/read this... If the wing deflects less than the max allowable based on the particular test weight used by the FIA, it passes the test and is assumed to conform to the rule. However, the representative weight used is less than expected from max downforce because the testers assume deflection vs weight will be linear beyond the test weight. In other words (making up some numbers here) the FIA testers figure that if the first 100 kg causes a 1 mm flex then the next 100 kg will also cause a 1 mm flex. Those waving the flags say the Red Bull and Ferrari wings flex at a greater rate as downforce increases. E.g., though the first 100 kg causes a 1 mm flex the next 100 kg causes a 1.5 mm flex...or more. They say Red Bull and Ferrari have built their wings to pass the test rather than to comply with the rule the test represents. One article I read said it's pretty easy to make this happen by just changing the weave of the carbon fiber, though figuring out exactly how to alter the weave to get exactly the right effect doesn't sound so easy to me. I think the test weight is being upped for the next race.
Here is the question I have: I repeatedly hear "spirit of the rule" complaints once someone has figured out a clever way to get around the rule. The flexible wings this year. The double defuser from Brawn last year, etc. Has anyone ever been punished for getting around the "spirit" if they managed to stay withing the rule?
Guess its one of those space, time things Einstein wrote so much about...Lol. Fact is its just not cheating if you find a way around a rule and there is no actual written rule against what you have done, its called "clever". Mark Donahue referred to it as the "unfair advantage". Race teams have been doing it from the beginning, Waltrip used to get more laps from a tank of fuel than anyone else, there was a rule saying exactly how much a fuel cell could hold but there was no rule against having four miles of fuel line running back and forth under the car. As long as there are rules teams will find ways around them and rightly so, unless you'd prefer IROC.
Agreed! However, this time what the other teams are saying is Red Bull (and maybe Ferrari) have actually broken a written rule and it's just that the static test method doesn't adequately test compliance with the rule. Apparently the rule in question says "the front wing has to stay 85mm above the lowest part of the body of the car, the underbody 'plank'."
Exactly....they are not complying with the written rule because the test is lacking. Think of the wings as a progressive spring in reverse. Very little deflection at low speeds (load), but lots of deflection at higher speeds (load). If a way is found to get around a particular rule w/o actually violating it, historically the offending team/s have been told that the current part is banned or allowed. But no fines or other punishments.
I have an idea: Let's get rid of ANY opportunity for innovation and competitive edge. That way everyone will be on a level playing field and the "sport" will prevail... Oh wait, that was Champ cars, and still is GP2... And the Skip Barber series... Frustrated more and more by the wrong turns F1 seems to keep on making recently. And on another F1 topic, I would gladly give up the spectacle of having 6 or 8 backmarkers acting as rolling chicanes in exchange for seeing the serious teams get to do some practice, research, development, and testing on days other than Race Weekend Fridays... I'm sure it will all get sorted out when Pirelli switches to the 18' rims in a couple of years... Bark Bark! Woo woo woof woof! I feel like Brian on the Family Guy... _Dave_
Innovation is the Hallmark of competitive motorsports, to stifle it completely would be folly. That said sometimes I do wonder if the racing would be better if they removed all the fancy transmissions and made the drivers shift and clutch based on their own skills. Douche launch controls and any computer assisted traction and braking too. Then let the engineers have at it from there and leave it to the driver to get around the track....
In F1, when there's nothing else to report on Bernie's babbling gets more attention. Here are snips from two current examples (from crash.net). Ecclestone keen to see 'perfect advert' Danica in F1 Bernie: 'Worst circuit' in F1 must make 'significant improvements'
Bernie's banter never ceases to amaze..... Let's get rid of a track where many great races have taken place and replace it with another Bore.....Bahrain and recruit a driver with lot's of sex appeal but little success in any top flight racing series to compete against the best F1 has to offer.... Either his opinion of the present crop of drivers competing in his sport is very low or he's been watching to many Go Daddy commercials while enjoying his cannabis.....
Don't forget, Bernie doesn't care about the racing itself other than as it might attract attention and therefore allow him to raise his prices for event hosting (and any other revenue sources he can milk). Thus all the goofy suggestions like adding circuit shortcuts to mix things up, bringing in an oval specialist like Danika Patrick to attract media.....
Danica will do that and I wish her nothing but success. That said when one considers the years she has spent in IRL with some solid teams and considerable backing that she has achieved exactly one win and she backed into that one on fuel mileage, to use the term "oval specialist " to describe her is generous indeed.... Bernie should focus his energies in making the racing more competitive and stop with the stunt ideas.... Great drivers in great cars racing hard to win attracts the crowds, which attracts the sponsors.
That's very true. I meant that she seems to have less talent for road courses than she does for ovals. Skills rather focused on driving ovals, that sort of thing. Sarcasm intended...poorly worded.
Best to keep some opinions to yourself.....at least when there are members of the press around. At least Liuzzi didn't go as far as Button did. F1 'would be tough for girls', argues Liuzzi (crash.net)
Never has a driver with so few victories received so much press and sponsorship....perhaps any up an coming young driver should consider the merits of breast augmentation.......