• Biggest surprise or disappointment of the season so far?

    From XYXPDQ@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Aug 3 10:03:35 2022
    Your thoughts on the '22 F1 season at the summer break?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark Jackson@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Aug 3 14:00:00 2022
    On 8/3/2022 1:03 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:
    Your thoughts on the '22 F1 season at the summer break?

    Fumblerrari.

    And I don't even like them.

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    There's no nondestructive test
    for indestructibility. - Randall Munroe
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Darryl Johnson@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Aug 3 14:15:18 2022
    On 2022-08-03 1:03 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:
    Your thoughts on the '22 F1 season at the summer break?

    To me, the issues with "porpoising". And how some teams had few issues
    and others had severe issues. Not only did the issue itself surprise me,
    but it has had a significant effect on the competitiveness, primarily
    with Mercedes.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From XYXPDQ@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Aug 4 11:06:32 2022
    For me the happy surprise is that the dart throwers who run F1 aero rules actually produced a package that lets cars race. Compare to the last package where staying close to a car ahead would ruin the trailing cars front tires and/or overheat the breaks.
    On the team level Mercs failure to show up with a front row car is bewildering. And not just the bouncing, this years engine seems down on power compared to Red Bull and Ferrari. Most fans were looking forward to a rematch between Lewis and Max and that's just not happening. It's a good thing Ferrari has finally recovered or the WCC and WDC would already be completely over.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Aug 5 11:56:41 2022
    On 5/08/2022 6:06 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
    For me the happy surprise is that the dart throwers who run F1 aero rules actually produced a package that lets cars race. Compare to the last package where staying close to a car ahead would ruin the trailing cars front tires and/or overheat the breaks.

    Not a complete surprise as Ross Brawn had a bit to do with that.

    On the team level Mercs failure to show up with a front row car is bewildering. And not just the bouncing, this years engine seems down on power compared to Red Bull and Ferrari.

    Not so bewildering when you consider the flexi-floor that both RBR and Ferrari have (that's
    supposed to be sorted before Spa now the 'grey area' has been defined a little more).

    Also, knowing the ICE development is frozen and modifications are only allowed for reliability
    purposes for the next few years it seems Ferrari (and to a lesser extent RBR) have deliberately
    gone with a power unit that delivers more power but has a tendency to self-destruct. That way
    they've got power to match Mercedes for now and will be allowed to continue to develop their ICE in
    the name of reliability.

    Mercedes went conservative with the PU as they were already good on power and they didn't bend the
    aero rules.

    Most fans were looking forward to a rematch between Lewis and Max and that's just not happening. It's a good thing Ferrari has finally recovered or the WCC and WDC would already be completely over.

    Ferrari recovered? Their strategy team is as incompetent as ever and they've already taken engine
    penalties - and are likely to be taking more after the summer break. Add to that the fact that they
    (along with RBR) resisted the new floor flexing rules that are coming in and maybe they're going to
    be slower too in the races that they finish.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Aug 5 09:22:45 2022
    In article <tchmbr$2uf3c$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Not a complete surprise as Ross Brawn had a bit to do with that.

    Not so bewildering when you consider the flexi-floor that both RBR
    and Ferrari have (that's supposed to be sorted before Spa now the
    'grey area' has been defined a little more).

    Also, knowing the ICE development is frozen and modifications are
    only allowed for reliability purposes for the next few years it
    seems Ferrari (and to a lesser extent RBR) have deliberately gone
    with a power unit that delivers more power but has a tendency to self-destruct. That way they've got power to match Mercedes for
    now and will be allowed to continue to develop their ICE in the
    name of reliability.

    Mercedes went conservative with the PU as they were already good on
    power and they didn't bend the aero rules.

    Ferrari recovered? Their strategy team is as incompetent as ever
    and they've already taken engine penalties - and are likely to be
    taking more after the summer break. Add to that the fact that they
    (along with RBR) resisted the new floor flexing rules that are
    coming in and maybe they're going to be slower too in the races
    that they finish.

    Excellent post Shaun. Sounds about right to me.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Aug 5 10:26:58 2022
    XYXPDQ wrote:

    Your thoughts on the '22 F1 season at the summer break?

    For both categories; Porpoising
    Also disappointing Ferrari incompetence.

    Flipside; more close racing.

    --
    Bozo Bin
    Alan Baker
    Texasgate
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From D Munz@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Aug 8 05:41:24 2022
    On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:56:46 PM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:

    <snip>
    Also, knowing the ICE development is frozen and modifications are only allowed for reliability
    purposes for the next few years it seems Ferrari (and to a lesser extent RBR) have deliberately
    gone with a power unit that delivers more power but has a tendency to self-destruct. That way
    they've got power to match Mercedes for now and will be allowed to continue to develop their ICE in
    the name of reliability.
    <snip>
    --
    Shaun.

    Interesting take. Do you really think the wonks said "let's push the envelope on the engine and we can take advantage of a few "kablamohs" to keep developing the engine for the future..."?

    I can almost see that level of Machiavellian intrigue at RBR but I'm not sure Ferrari is, I'll say, that good at forward thinking these days.

    FWIW
    DLM
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Aug 8 12:00:44 2022
    On 2022-08-04 16:56, ~misfit~ wrote:
    On 5/08/2022 6:06 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
    For me the happy surprise is that the dart throwers who run F1 aero
    rules actually produced a package that lets cars race.-a-a Compare to
    the last package where staying close to a car ahead would ruin the
    trailing cars front tires and/or overheat the breaks.

    Not a complete surprise as Ross Brawn had a bit to do with that.

    On the team level Mercs failure to show up with a front row car is
    bewildering.-a And not just the bouncing, this years engine seems down
    on power compared to Red Bull and Ferrari.

    Not so bewildering when you consider the flexi-floor that both RBR and Ferrari have (that's supposed to be sorted before Spa now the 'grey
    area' has been defined a little more).

    Also, knowing the ICE development is frozen and modifications are only allowed for reliability purposes for the next few years it seems Ferrari (and to a lesser extent RBR) have deliberately gone with a power unit
    that delivers more power but has a tendency to self-destruct. That way they've got power to match Mercedes for now and will be allowed to
    continue to develop their ICE in the name of reliability.

    Mercedes went conservative with the PU as they were already good on
    power and they didn't bend the aero rules.

    Neither Ferrari nor Red Bull "bent" the rules.

    They built a car that passed the test the rules mandated.

    Period.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Aug 8 21:12:01 2022
    In article <tcrmgt$10luo$3@dont-email.me>,

    Neither Ferrari nor Red Bull "bent" the rules.

    They built a car that passed the test the rules mandated.

    So why didn't mercedes do the same? They didn't because they
    understood and respected the intention of the rules whereas ....

    If merc had been the only team to do this, it would have been stopped
    months ago. Remind me again how many mm lewis's rear wing was over by?

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Aug 8 14:43:46 2022
    On 2022-08-08 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <tcrmgt$10luo$3@dont-email.me>,

    Neither Ferrari nor Red Bull "bent" the rules.

    They built a car that passed the test the rules mandated.

    So why didn't mercedes do the same? They didn't because they
    understood and respected the intention of the rules whereas ....

    "respect the intention of the rules"?

    What nonsense.

    EVERY team tries to build a car that utilizes every loophole it can
    think of. Period.


    If merc had been the only team to do this, it would have been stopped
    months ago. Remind me again how many mm lewis's rear wing was over by?

    It was over by enough that it failed the test.

    THAT is failing to obey the rules.

    If it had passed the test by a micrometer, would you argue that it was
    against the "intention of the rules"?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 11:40:27 2022
    On 9/08/2022 12:41 am, D Munz wrote:
    On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:56:46 PM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:

    <snip>
    Also, knowing the ICE development is frozen and modifications are only allowed for reliability
    purposes for the next few years it seems Ferrari (and to a lesser extent RBR) have deliberately
    gone with a power unit that delivers more power but has a tendency to self-destruct. That way
    they've got power to match Mercedes for now and will be allowed to continue to develop their ICE in
    the name of reliability.
    <snip>
    --
    Shaun.

    Interesting take. Do you really think the wonks said "let's push the envelope on the engine and we can take advantage of a few "kablamohs" to keep developing the engine for the future..."?

    I can almost see that level of Machiavellian intrigue at RBR but I'm not sure Ferrari is, I'll say, that good at forward thinking these days.

    I think it's likely. Coming into this engine freeze Ferrari had the least power of the three and I
    doubt they wanted to stay that way for three more years.

    It just makes sense to work on power output while you can and then work on reliability later (when
    you still can).

    When was the last time you saw an ICE self-destruct in F1 like Sainz' did at Austria? It was a true
    old-school 'wet bits flying around' engine blow up. <https://youtu.be/XO3qiLxuFJg> (The in-race
    replay Sky did of it showed it better than this video does.)
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 09:11:16 2022
    In article <tcs02i$11kh5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2022-08-08 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <tcrmgt$10luo$3@dont-email.me>,

    Neither Ferrari nor Red Bull "bent" the rules.

    They built a car that passed the test the rules mandated.

    So why didn't mercedes do the same? They didn't because they
    understood and respected the intention of the rules whereas ....

    "respect the intention of the rules"?

    What nonsense.

    EVERY team tries to build a car that utilizes every loophole it can
    think of. Period.

    Oh I see and merc were to stupid to spot that "loophole" I suppose?

    If merc had been the only team to do this, it would have been
    stopped months ago. Remind me again how many mm lewis's rear wing
    was over by?

    It was over by enough that it failed the test.

    Yes, by a tiny amount which clearly had no real effect and was
    obviously a mistake.

    THAT is failing to obey the rules.

    Had it been Ferrari or red bull they would have been told to get it
    fixed by the summer break or in a few races time. As we've seen.

    If it had passed the test by a micrometer, would you argue that it
    was against the "intention of the rules"?

    Now who's talking nonsense.

    It became obvious to me in Spa 2008 that officials had every
    intention of stopping Hamilton if they could trump up charges to
    justify it. The only time I've ever seen rules made on the fly to
    cheat someone of their points. He did give back the place and drop
    back so must have been slower at that time. No advantage.

    Then the extremely harsh wing judgement and again I can't think of
    anything equivalent for any other driver.

    Then the end of last year which for me brought F1 into disgrace and
    TV commentators shown to be "on side". Rules ignored to get Hamilton,
    who is the current world champion.

    I'm sure there were many more petty, vindictive things done against
    Hamilton we don't even know about - yet.

    To deny that hamilton is not being treated differently is
    disingenuous at best.

    This from a guy that isn't a Hamilton fan, I'd prefer George or Lando
    myself as they don't wear clown clothes or support nasty communist,
    corrupt organisations.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 07:50:57 2022
    On 2022-08-09 01:11, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <tcs02i$11kh5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2022-08-08 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <tcrmgt$10luo$3@dont-email.me>,

    Neither Ferrari nor Red Bull "bent" the rules.

    They built a car that passed the test the rules mandated.

    So why didn't mercedes do the same? They didn't because they
    understood and respected the intention of the rules whereas ....

    "respect the intention of the rules"?

    What nonsense.

    EVERY team tries to build a car that utilizes every loophole it can
    think of. Period.

    Oh I see and merc were to stupid to spot that "loophole" I suppose?

    Probably.

    If teams didn't miss things that others teams did not, all 10 designs
    would look identical.


    If merc had been the only team to do this, it would have been
    stopped months ago. Remind me again how many mm lewis's rear wing
    was over by?

    It was over by enough that it failed the test.

    Yes, by a tiny amount which clearly had no real effect and was
    obviously a mistake.

    It's failing to follow the rules.


    THAT is failing to obey the rules.

    Had it been Ferrari or red bull they would have been told to get it
    fixed by the summer break or in a few races time. As we've seen.

    Example please.


    If it had passed the test by a micrometer, would you argue that it
    was against the "intention of the rules"?

    Now who's talking nonsense.

    It became obvious to me in Spa 2008 that officials had every
    intention of stopping Hamilton if they could trump up charges to
    justify it. The only time I've ever seen rules made on the fly to
    cheat someone of their points. He did give back the place and drop
    back so must have been slower at that time. No advantage.

    Sorry, but a missed decision doesn't change the fact that Hamilton's car really was non-compliant in the incident we were discussing.


    Then the extremely harsh wing judgement and again I can't think of
    anything equivalent for any other driver.

    So?


    Then the end of last year which for me brought F1 into disgrace and
    TV commentators shown to be "on side". Rules ignored to get Hamilton,
    who is the current world champion.

    I'm sure there were many more petty, vindictive things done against
    Hamilton we don't even know about - yet.

    To deny that hamilton is not being treated differently is
    disingenuous at best.

    This from a guy that isn't a Hamilton fan, I'd prefer George or Lando
    myself as they don't wear clown clothes or support nasty communist,
    corrupt organisations.

    <yawn>
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 17:07:07 2022
    On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    Period.

    fuck you
    you fucking cunt
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 17:08:21 2022
    On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 3:43:48 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    If it had passed the test by a micrometer, would you argue that it was against the "intention of the rules"?

    fuck you
    you trolling
    cock sucking
    mother fucker
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 17:09:32 2022
    On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    <yawn>

    you fucking useless trolling piece of shit
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Aug 9 18:20:44 2022
    On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    <yawn>

    if you are so fucking tired
    just kill yourself
    then you wont be tired anymore
    you fucking oxygen thief
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Aug 10 18:47:26 2022
    On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    <yawn>

    if you are tired
    just kill yourself
    then you will not be tired anymore
    you fucking oxygen thief
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)