• No need to know...

    From News@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Feb 14 13:57:02 2022
    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 06:53:27 2022
    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-hamilton

    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 01:25:40 2022
    On 2022-02-14 10:53 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
    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-hamilton

    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.


    Hmmmm...

    It's almost like the FIA has things they want to hide about this.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Dan the Man@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 05:10:45 2022
    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


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 15:37:19 2022
    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.

    Red Bull and Max got into their head so much that they've even brought a freaking barrister in Abu Dhabi. So much for a 'well-oiled machine'.

    Onwards to 2022 and more racing!

    --
    Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
    --
    {gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 08:53:29 2022
    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


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 09:10:02 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:53:37 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...

    ...why would they need to do that?

    So... ...that... ...you... ...can...
    ...post... ...more... ...dots.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 10:54:18 2022
    On 15/02/2022 7:53 pm, Bigbird wrote:
    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-hamilton

    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.


    Certainly a new take on the meaning of the word 'transparent' ....

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 10:57:15 2022
    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 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

    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 22:02:38 2022
    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



    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 22:08:17 2022
    rtr wrote:

    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.

    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]
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 14:43:17 2022
    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


    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.

    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?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 14:45:25 2022
    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



    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Feb 15 16:28:10 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:45:28 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I guess that was predictable.

    keep on guessing asshole
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 10:53:58 2022
    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




    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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?

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 10:58:23 2022
    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



    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.

    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 03:35:15 2022
    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



    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.

    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)?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 11:43:21 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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




    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.

    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?


    Asked and answered.

    Please read and comprehend before responding.



    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)?

    "Promote" him to a different role?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 18:52:22 2022
    "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

    rtr wrote:

    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.

    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.

    The one who came across the chequered flag first is the one who won. I'm
    sure people who are in Hamilton's side of the argument would say the
    same if we finished the race under the safety car.

    Before you go: "but this is an issue with race direction! Masi bent over
    and took RB in the backside!"

    No. Masi can't win. Letting the race end in a safety car would have been
    a more controversial result given that the track was already clear by
    lap 56.

    The initial blunder was to not let the lapped cars through, but that
    argument favors the Mercs more than RB so take what you will. In my
    opinion, Masi took the least worst option given the initial
    blunder.

    Besides, it's not as if he had given Verstappen the win like
    some asshats appear to be alluding at. He still had to pass Hamilton and
    he still had to defend. It was Hamilton's blunder to let Verstappen
    easily at T5 that cost Hamilton the championship.

    --
    Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
    --
    {gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 18:53:51 2022
    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 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

    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.

    --
    Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
    --
    {gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 09:05:50 2022
    On 16/02/2022 11:53 pm, rtr wrote:
    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 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

    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.

    Um no it wouldn't. That would have been in accordance with the rules.


    It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.


    Yes, all of them, at the stipulated time during the process.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 22:43:25 2022
    rtr wrote:

    "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

    rtr wrote:

    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.

    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.

    [snip tiresome bullshit]

    Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
    you was it.

    :-)

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 22:46:03 2022
    rtr wrote:

    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
    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

    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.


    No, it would have been within the regulations.

    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. :-)

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Feb 16 17:51:08 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 3:43:28 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

    Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
    you was it.

    yup. rtr is alan baker
    fuck is he dumb
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 13:33:11 2022
    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.
    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. ;-)
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark Jackson@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 09:43:14 2022
    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.'

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    An object is a monotonous process.
    - Nelson Goodman
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 15:10:43 2022
    Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
    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.'

    Apologies - yes. That's entirely with the rules and precedents.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 16:31:05 2022
    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...
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 15:40:31 2022
    "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

    rtr wrote:

    "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

    rtr wrote:

    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.

    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.

    [snip tiresome bullshit]

    Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
    you was it.

    :-)

    *sigh*

    I am tired. Can't rec.autos.sport.f1 talk something more relevant like
    the radically different approaches the teams took to car design this year.

    I'm really interested with the "double-body" design that AM and Ferrari
    seems to be trying out this year. I'm no aerodynamicist but if that
    design works those cars will be really planted to the ground.

    --
    Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
    --
    {gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 12:00:02 2022
    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.

    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...


    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 13:27:00 2022
    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




    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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.

    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 14:29:48 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:00:08 PM UTC-7, rtr wrote:

    I am tired.

    and you are alan baker
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 14:30:36 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 1:00:05 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Nope.

    where is rtr?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Feb 17 14:31:43 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:27:02 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?

    fuck off rtr
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Feb 18 10:01:44 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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





    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
    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?

    Not overtly. They easily made a fool of you, for instance.



    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.




    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Feb 18 10:07:53 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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.


    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...


    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.

    Stupid question.

    No-one is claiming that being sacked doesn't usually mean leaving the organisation... but not all rectangles are squares.

    When a politician is sacked from their role in government does that
    mean they will never be offered another role in that same organisation?

    Yes or no.

    Reply:
    Yes for stupid,
    No, if you understand.

    If you are still claiming stupidity as a mitigating factor then check
    the newspapers

    https://www.google.com/search?q=masi+sacked
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Martin Harran@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Feb 21 10:10:17 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:33:11 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    In that case, however, the winner of the race would have been the
    driver who was clearly set to win before the SC was brought into play
    so Red Bull's complainys wouldn't really have carried much weight.


    There could (if there was agreement to change the rules) be an option 4.
    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. ;-)
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Phil Carmody@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 09:45:17 2022
    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
    --
    We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
    -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 17:31:37 2022
    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.

    --
    |----Give them an inch and they will take a mile.----| |----------------------------------------------------| |---------{gopher,gemini}://kalayaan.xyz-------------|
    |-C4AE 5D53 46A0 01DF 6E92 CB46 92D7 9FBB AB9F 3E37-|
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From News@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 11:40:44 2022
    On 3/4/2022 4:31 AM, rtr wrote:
    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.


    'Dropping back' affects position, but primarily, timing. There is no
    other impact.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 17:11:14 2022
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 12:34:52 2022
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 21:31:24 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From rtr@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Mar 5 06:19:49 2022
    News <News@Group.Name> writes:

    On 3/4/2022 4:31 AM, rtr wrote:
    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.


    '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.

    --
    |----Give them an inch and they will take a mile.----| |----------------------------------------------------| |---------{gopher,gemini}://kalayaan.xyz-------------|
    |-C4AE 5D53 46A0 01DF 6E92 CB46 92D7 9FBB AB9F 3E37-|
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 15:07:00 2022
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:00:06 PM UTC-7, rtr wrote:

    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.

    thanks alan
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 17:39:22 2022
    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?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Mar 4 17:55:56 2022
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Why not?

    thanks rtr
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From alister@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Mar 6 14:20:01 2022
    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



    --
    Your reasoning powers are good, and you are a fairly good planner.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Mar 6 08:53:26 2022
    On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
    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

    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 09:39:41 2022
    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 ....

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Mar 6 18:12:17 2022
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 12:31:44 2022
    alister wrote:

    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

    That doesn't have to be a problem... I think they will struggle with
    crediting the lap from a sporting perspective but then they do seem
    more ready to accept or even suggest an number of non-sport like
    solutions nowadays. It could save a couple of laps behind the SC (they
    would not have to wait for a clear track to re-order the cars and that
    is attractive).

    I think what they need to do is run a few thousand computer simulations
    and see how the race, race result are affected by the various
    solutions. There are always winners and losers from SC. Might this be
    better or worse?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 07:15:24 2022
    On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:12:21 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...

    ...and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.

    yawn
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 07:17:58 2022
    On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:12:21 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...

    and the biggest cunt in the paddock
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 09:52:04 2022
    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 ?!!!

    geoff

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 13:21:13 2022
    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 10:34:12 2022
    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:11:08 2022
    On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:21:15 PM UTC-7, 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

    lol
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:12:28 2022
    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:



    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-a !

    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:15:05 2022
    On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, 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 !

    alan is very old now
    dementia is obviously setting in
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:16:21 2022
    On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:12:30 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
    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:



    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 !
    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.

    thanks grandpa
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:32:29 2022
    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
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Mar 7 14:46:55 2022
    On 2022-03-07 2:32 p.m., texas gate wrote:
    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

    You're so bad at being at all interesting.

    You'd think from shear repetition you'd occasionally say something that
    wasn't earth-shatteringly dull...

    ...just like infinite monkeys.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 11:04:28 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 08:29:30 2022
    On 2022-03-08 3:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
    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!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 10:12:22 2022
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    LOL!

    moron
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Mar 8 10:17:44 2022
    On 2022-03-08 10:12 a.m., texas gate wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    LOL!

    moron

    Boron.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Phil Carmody@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Mar 10 13:57:45 2022
    rtr <rtr@balaraw.invalid> writes:
    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.

    If that's true, then they are twice as stupid, as they're doing a stupid
    thing for a stupid reason, and not addressing the stupid reason that
    would permit them to not do the stupid thing if they destupidified it.

    My bank just refused to let me buy some penny stock with a listed share
    price of $0.035 with a limit bid of 0.035 because "'0.035' is not the
    right format for a limit bid". I could have put the bid in at 0.04, but
    then I might have to pay 14% more then I'm willing.

    Stupid is everywhere. And the stupid don't seem to realise that. Worse,
    after they've had it brought to their attention, they do nothing to fix
    it.

    Eventually, people will simply expect stupid, and they won't be
    disappointed.

    Phil
    --
    We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
    -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Phil Carmody@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Mar 13 20:35:05 2022
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> writes:
    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.

    Nope, you've misunderstood - there's no "catch up" in what I specified.
    Just think in terms of blue flags, that might simplify it.

    Phil
    --
    We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
    -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)