FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prixhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamiltonBreak out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prixhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prixhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last season and it bit them in the backside
They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
they have the faster car on paper.
On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
Prix controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Max won on track.
rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
Prix controversy
but, but, but...Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
Explain your thought process?
I guess that was predictable.
On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
wrote:
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
Grand Prix controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
Explain your thought process?
You really can't understand?
I guess that was predictable.
It's simple:
If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in response
to pressure from below,
there would be no reason at all for the FIA
to conceal its findings.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
disclose.
Does that explain it for you?
On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
Prix controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want made
public?
Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
Prix controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want made
public?
Yup, like their conclusions. They cannot unfuck this so they prefer to
keep their conclusions private.
Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?
There is no evidence of any other instigation nor any reason to think
there are.
We've been through this and you had NOTHING.
On 2022-02-16 2:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
Grand Prix controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want
made public?
Yup, like their conclusions. They cannot unfuck this so they prefer
to keep their conclusions private.
If there conclusions were only that Masi acted alone, why would they
want to do that?
Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?
There is no evidence of any other instigation nor any reason to
think there are.
We've been through this and you had NOTHING.
Now we have the fact that they're not going to disclose their
findings.
What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
him)?
rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
controversy
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
[snip irrelevant asides]
On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand PrixThis is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last
season and it bit them in the backside
A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
rules by Massi.
They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
they have the faster car on paper.
Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
geoff
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:
On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand PrixThis is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last >>> season and it bit them in the backside
A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
rules by Massi.
They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
they have the faster car on paper.
Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
geoff
Not really. The track was already clear by lap 56. It would have been a highly questionable decision to end the race under the safety car and I
think Masi knew that.
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
"Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:
rtr wrote:
Prix >> > controversyNews <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
[snip irrelevant asides]
At this point we're splitting hairs. As some have already pointed out
even Hamilton won a championship in "questionable" circumstances.
Sorry, but I can comment on anything I damn please.
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:
On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:Prix >>> controversy
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
and >> Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with theirThis is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes
strategies last >> season and it bit them in the backside
A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
rules by Massi.
but >> they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position.They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres
Even if >> they have the faster car on paper.
Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
geoff
Not really. The track was already clear by lap 56. It would have been
a highly questionable decision to end the race under the safety car
and I think Masi knew that.
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
you was it.
rtr wrote:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
Yet he didn't.
You should know this. There was a thread at the time you could read to
catch up. :-)
There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:
1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
clear
On 2/17/2022 8:33 AM, Mark wrote:
There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and
regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:
1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
clear
3. Bring in the Safety Car without any unlapping at all, permitting one
or two laps of racing at the end.
Having lapped cars overtake is optional. From section 48.12 of the
Sporting Regs:
'If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable
for overtaking the message "OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED" will be
sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.'
What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
him)?
rtr wrote:
"Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
rtr wrote:Prix >> > controversy
News <News@Group.Name> writes:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
[snip tiresome bullshit]
This is getting tiring at this point.
Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
Max won on track.
...and that is all there was to it?
If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
[snip irrelevant asides]
At this point we're splitting hairs. As some have already pointed out
even Hamilton won a championship in "questionable" circumstances.
Sorry, but I can comment on anything I damn please.
Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
you was it.
:-)
Alan wrote:
What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
him)?
You have your answer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10523523/F1-Michael-Masi-SACKED-race-director-Abu-Dhabi-Grand-Prix-controversy.html
The FIA SACKS race director Michael Masi after his controversial
handling of the Abu Dhabi GP...
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
wrote:
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
Grand Prix controversy
but, but, but...Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
Explain your thought process?
You really can't understand?
I guess that was predictable.
It's simple:
If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in response
to pressure from below,
"below"?
there would be no reason at all for the FIA
to conceal its findings.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
disclose.
Does that explain it for you?
It explains your flawed thinking.
Did you consider what their actions should be if they were to admit
that the FIA double fucked themselves? If they admit the championship
was handed to Max and that the stewards backed those incorrectly made decisions?
How would that look for the FIA and the sport? Anything there they may
wish to keep as quiet as possible about?
That you cannot think of any other "reasonable conclusion" speaks to
your conceit.
I am tired.
Nope.
And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?
On 2022-02-16 2:53 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
wrote:
News wrote:
FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
Grand Prix controversy
but, but, but...
An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be
'thorough, objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
Dan
But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
...why would they need to do that?
Explain your thought process?
You really can't understand?
I guess that was predictable.
It's simple:
If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in
response to pressure from below,
"below"?
there would be no reason at all for the FIA
to conceal its findings.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
disclose.
Does that explain it for you?
It explains your flawed thinking.
Did you consider what their actions should be if they were to admit
that the FIA double fucked themselves? If they admit the
championship was handed to Max and that the stewards backed those incorrectly made decisions?
And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?
How would that look for the FIA and the sport? Anything there they
may wish to keep as quiet as possible about?
That you cannot think of any other "reasonable conclusion" speaks to
your conceit.
On 2022-02-17 8:31 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
him)?
You have your answer.
The FIA SACKS race director Michael Masi after his controversial
handling of the Abu Dhabi GP...
Nope.
'While Masi will no longer be race director, he will be offered a new
role within the FIA.'
If I say, "The Vancouver Canucks have sacked general manager, Jim
Benning", would you expect that that meant that would still have a
job with the Canucks if he chose to accept it?
Yes or no.
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
rtr wrote:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
rtr - there is no way you can let the lapped cars through straightaway.
The whole point of bunching the cars up as quickly as possible is so
that the track is as safe as possible for the marshalls working to clear
the accident. You want them in as tight a queue as is possible leaving
long periods of "clear track" where they don't have to watch their backs
the whole time.
This is why the regulations say what they say, and only release cars to
unlap themselves once it's safe to do so.
There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and >regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:
1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
clear
Neither was a simple call, but either would have been easier to explain
and to weather the criticism for than what was actually decided.
Bear in mind, we have the benefit of hindsight...
With (1), by the time it became a big issue (after more laps under the
safety car than might be expected), it would guarantee that the race
ended under the safety car. That is never good, but it's "just one of
those things". Some you win, some you lose. Clearly, this is the
situation that Red Bull wanted to avoid at all costs as it neutralised
the tyre advantage they had.
With (2), hindsight tells us that would have been a better call. Of
course, by the time this looked like ending on a safety car, there were
few laps left. It would still be better than ending on a safety car -
and much less controversial than taking a positive decision to ignore a >number of established rules/precedents as happened - but 2/3 laps of
racing with no DRS where everyone had a chance of fresh rubber would
have been unlikely to change positions, and unless there was a mistake, >Hamilton would also have won. Red Bull wouldn't be happy with this
either. Also unhappy would be the rights holders who want to see more
racing and fewer red flags. This would start to set a precedent for more
red flags automatically when there are accidents close to the end, and
that wouldn't be popular. See "Option 4".
Option 3: Masi's call wouldn't have been so controversial if there was a
good precedent for it. Bear in mind that the key reason Hamilton wasn't
on fresh rubber was because he couldn't cede track position. As the one
in front, he couldn't respond to Verstappen's moves but the opposite was >possible. There was no way he could come in without Verstappen deciding
to stay out which, based on precedent, would have been the strategic
thing to do. Once that die was rolled, Mercedes would have believed they >would be protected by the calculation of time left...which was
completely turned on its head by Masi. That's the controversy. And why
I'm 100% certain that had the tables been turned, it would be Red Bull >shouting just as loudly about Masi, possibly more.
There could (if there was agreement to change the rules) be an option 4.--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
If people want a less controversial way to deal with this situation,
they could look at opportunities for the Race Director to extend the
race based on number of laps under SC when called close to the end of
the race. The trigger for that and the calculation of how many would
have to be carefully considered to make it transparent, ensure it
doesn't conflict with other rules, and also allow drivers and teams to
be aware of and plan for additional fuel burning.
Of course, those more knowledgeable about the fuel calcuations may well
say that this final option is impractical, but we have to get away from
the situation we saw. And I say that for the Race Director as much as
anyone else. They have to have options that satisfy everyone fairly. As
it stands, he is open to much criticism and with no defense other than
saying "it was at my discretion". That's unfair on Masi.
Yet he didn't.
You should know this. There was a thread at the time you could read to
catch up. :-)
Bigbird - it's like people want to let time obscure the complex debate
and turn it into a simple thing that people are making an unnecessary
fuss over. ;-)
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
Phil
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
Phil
I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it can't
be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall information that race control receives.
I assume they are also tracking a lot of stuff during the race that we
don't know which necessitates that kind of solution rather than just
letting the cars drop back position.
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the back
is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the 7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the lapped
cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because 2-6 have to
catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now a whole lap
down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by a
lap.
Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped cars through at the end of the train:
1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just in front
you'd still have complaints.
I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I suspect
4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches out to car
20 which could have been negligible before.
Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to race
once the SC goes in.
On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first
place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the
far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop
to the back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the
idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and
catching up to the back. That would have the effect of being all
the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed
the 7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is
now a whole lap down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them
by a lap.
Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the
unlapped cars through at the end of the train:
1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
in front
you'd still have complaints.
I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
race once the SC goes in.
I think you're over-complicating this.
Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
other.
The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
line.
But that's just bookkeeping.
On 3/4/2022 4:31 AM, rtr wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more >>> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
Phil
can't
be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up
something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall
information that race control receives.
I assume they are also tracking a lot of stuff during the race that
we
don't know which necessitates that kind of solution rather than just
letting the cars drop back position.
'Dropping back' affects position, but primarily, timing. There is no
other impact.
I don't know, maybe. I just said that the specific issue and solution
was already mentioned publicly by Vettel and that's the response that he
got from race control.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first
place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the
far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop
to the back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the
idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and
catching up to the back. That would have the effect of being all
the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done
preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed
the 7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is
now a whole lap down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them
by a lap.
Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the
unlapped cars through at the end of the train:
1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
in front
you'd still have complaints.
I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
race once the SC goes in.
I think you're over-complicating this.
Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
other.
The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
line.
But that's just bookkeeping.
So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
lap.
Why not?
On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far
more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the >>>>> back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic
process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up
to the back. That would have the effect of being all the blue flag
overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one
go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the
7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now
a whole lap down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by
a lap.
Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped
cars through at the end of the train:
1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
in front
you'd still have complaints.
I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
race once the SC goes in.
I think you're over-complicating this.
Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
other.
The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
line.
But that's just bookkeeping.
So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
lap.
Why not?
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place. >>>>>>It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far >>>>>> more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the >>>>>> back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic
process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up >>>>>> to the back. That would have the effect of being all the blue flag >>>>>> overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one >>>>>> go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the >>>>> 7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now >>>>> a whole lap down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by >>>>> a lap.
Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped >>>>> cars through at the end of the train:
1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
in front
you'd still have complaints.
I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
race once the SC goes in.
I think you're over-complicating this.
Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
other.
The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
line.
But that's just bookkeeping.
So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
lap.
Why not?
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are irrelevant.
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:place.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
far >>>>> more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars toIF any dicking about with track positions should be done, the
drop to the >>>>> back, which could be done very quickly, rather than
the idiotic >>>>> process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit,
and catching up >>>>> to the back. That would have the effect of
being all the blue flag >>>>> overtakes for the foreseeable future
being done preemtpively in one >>>>> go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
stupidity.
the >>>> back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create asThere isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to
many >>>> issues.
the >>>> 7th placed driver:Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
because >>>> 2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behindThe gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay
6th...but is now >>>> a whole lap down.
1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
of >>>> the pack and created two wholly separate races by separatingYou have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest
them by >>>> a lap.
unlapped >>>> cars through at the end of the train:Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the
just >>>> in front1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars
you'd still have complaints.
stretches >>>> out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now
least >>>> unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in aAccept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At
position to >>>> race once the SC goes in.
I think you're over-complicating this.
drop >>> back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative toWhether you send the cars all the way around or just have them
each >>> other.
will >>> have completed one less lap by count of the times across theThe only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they
finish >>> line.
extra >> lap.But that's just bookkeeping.
So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an
Why not?
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your
class ?!!!
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace? >>>>>
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they
are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your
class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda Fit
1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace? >>>>
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are >>>> irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your class ?!!!Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda Fit
1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
On 8/03/2022 10:21 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace? >>>>>>
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel >>>>>>
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they
are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your
class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda Fit
1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
Jeepers - they've all been involved in races against you in FF, and you
were 2nd fastest-a !
On 8/03/2022 10:21 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace? >>>>>
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel >>>>>
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they
are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your
class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda Fit
1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel MansellJeepers - they've all been involved in races against you in FF, and you
were 2nd fastest !
On 2022-03-07 1:34 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 8/03/2022 10:21 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace? >>>>>>
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel >>>>>>
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they >>>>>> are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in your >>> class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda Fit
1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
Jeepers - they've all been involved in races against you in FF, and you were 2nd fastest !You're good at missing the point.
The SCCA Runoffs is a collection of the very best amateur road racers in North America. In 2015, a member from our club won the Formula F class.
And I'm faster at our track than him.
You're good at missing the point.
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:12:30 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
You're good at missing the point.
you're good at being a piece of shit
On 8/03/2022 10:21 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth
of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than
race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race,
they are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with
....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in
your class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda
Fit 1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
Jeepers - they've all been involved in races against you in FF, and
you were 2nd fastest !
geoff
geoff wrote:
On 8/03/2022 10:21 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-07 12:52 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 3:12 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth
of fuel
And the usage of running around the track at far less than
race pace?
These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race,
they are irrelevant.
A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with
....
Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...
...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.
So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...
...but it was actually pretty lame.
You mean that there is actually more than just the one racers in
your class ?!!!
Amazing that someone who claims to be a racing fan (implicitly)...
...doesn't know the importance of the Formula Ford (now actually
"Formula F" in North America due to the homologation of the Honda
Fit 1.5 litre engine) in racing is.
Emerson Fittipaldi
Ayrton Senna
Michael Andretti
Michael Schumacher
Gilles Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve
Heard of them?
Also:
Tim Schenken
Jody Scheckter
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Allan McNish
And:
Kimi Raikkonen
Mika Hakkinen
Damon Hill
Nigel Mansell
Jeepers - they've all been involved in races against you in FF, and
you were 2nd fastest !
geoff
It's called deflection. There was something about your comment that hit
too close to home.
LOL!
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
LOL!
moron
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
Phil
I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it can't
be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall information that race control receives.
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the back
is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many issues.
Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the 7th placed driver:
4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the lapped
cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because 2-6 have to
catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now a whole lap
down.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 219:13:52 |
| Calls: | 139 |
| Files: | 752 |
| Messages: | 87,396 |