1. Forum
  2. SportNet
  3. AUTO RACING

  • Missing Charlie

    From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Oct 11 21:27:42 2020
    IrCOm rapidly losing confidence in Michael Masi. It seems to me that he is
    far too eager to use the full safety car (or what, after Mugello, should perhaps be called the rCLdanger carrCY). Why, for example, having cleared RussellrCOs car perfectly safely under a VSC did he then feel the need to deploy the full SC to clear NorrisrCOs McLaren when the use of a VSC would
    have prevented tyres from getting dangerously cold and the field from
    bunching up (or, wicked thought, was perhaps the *intention* to bunch up
    the field).

    Similarly at Monza, MagnussenrCOs car seemed to me to have been abandoned in
    a spot where it was perfectly safe and yet, again, a full SC was deployed
    in order to remove it.

    The safety car can dramatically affect the course of a race and often
    negates an advantage that has been patiently built up therefore it should
    only be used when absolutely necessary.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Jimbo@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Oct 11 15:56:10 2020
    On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 5:27:44 PM UTC-4, Sir Tim wrote:
    IrCOm rapidly losing confidence in Michael Masi. It seems to me that he is far too eager to use the full safety car (or what, after Mugello, should perhaps be called the rCLdanger carrCY). Why, for example, having cleared RussellrCOs car perfectly safely under a VSC did he then feel the need to deploy the full SC to clear NorrisrCOs McLaren when the use of a VSC would have prevented tyres from getting dangerously cold and the field from bunching up (or, wicked thought, was perhaps the *intention* to bunch up
    the field).

    Similarly at Monza, MagnussenrCOs car seemed to me to have been abandoned in a spot where it was perfectly safe and yet, again, a full SC was deployed
    in order to remove it.

    The safety car can dramatically affect the course of a race and often negates an advantage that has been patiently built up therefore it should only be used when absolutely necessary.

    --
    Sir Tim
    Agreed.
    It certainly does appear to be called out on a more frequent and even casual basis such as you've outlined.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Oct 12 14:56:17 2020
    On 12/10/2020 11:56 am, Jimbo wrote:
    On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 5:27:44 PM UTC-4, Sir Tim wrote:
    IrCOm rapidly losing confidence in Michael Masi. It seems to me that he is >> far too eager to use the full safety car (or what, after Mugello, should
    perhaps be called the rCLdanger carrCY). Why, for example, having cleared
    RussellrCOs car perfectly safely under a VSC did he then feel the need to
    deploy the full SC to clear NorrisrCOs McLaren when the use of a VSC would >> have prevented tyres from getting dangerously cold and the field from
    bunching up (or, wicked thought, was perhaps the *intention* to bunch up
    the field).

    Similarly at Monza, MagnussenrCOs car seemed to me to have been abandoned in >> a spot where it was perfectly safe and yet, again, a full SC was deployed
    in order to remove it.

    The safety car can dramatically affect the course of a race and often
    negates an advantage that has been patiently built up therefore it should
    only be used when absolutely necessary.

    --
    Sir Tim

    Agreed.
    It certainly does appear to be called out on a more frequent and even casual basis such as you've outlined.


    And then stay out for unnecessary extra laps before the lapped cars even
    go their unlap chance.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From nospam@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Oct 12 08:05:13 2020
    On 11 Oct 2020 21:27:42 GMT, Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    IrCOm rapidly losing confidence in Michael Masi. It seems to me that he is >far too eager to use the full safety car (or what, after Mugello, should >perhaps be called the rCLdanger carrCY). Why, for example, having cleared >RussellrCOs car perfectly safely under a VSC did he then feel the need to >deploy the full SC to clear NorrisrCOs McLaren when the use of a VSC would >have prevented tyres from getting dangerously cold and the field from >bunching up (or, wicked thought, was perhaps the *intention* to bunch up
    the field).

    Similarly at Monza, MagnussenrCOs car seemed to me to have been abandoned in >a spot where it was perfectly safe and yet, again, a full SC was deployed
    in order to remove it.

    The safety car can dramatically affect the course of a race and often
    negates an advantage that has been patiently built up therefore it should >only be used when absolutely necessary.


    The only justification yesterday was to make the race more
    interesting. (Didn't one of the drivers make that comment post
    race?). The stewards were getting bored and Russell should be
    applauded for making the effort to get to a safe spot where at most a
    virtual would have been more than sufficient.

    --
    AnthonyL

    Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From crms...@gmail.com@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Oct 12 02:43:55 2020
    And his belief that nothing needed amending the LH practice start penalty. And at Eifel the notes were changed. U turns. He comes over as full of hubris. He is there to serve the drivers, not the other way round.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)