Ciro Pabón wrote:Thinking about it, now we know what Miguel is doing in the US: racing in the Cannonball... so, you thought we wouldn't notice, eh, Mick?
Ciro Pabón wrote:Better? The formula IS the rules. Formula means the set of rules used to know if a car can compete. Let me repeat that to see if it enters your hard heads, kids: THE FORMULA IS THE RULES (AND the regulations, for Conceptual. Splitting hairs again, mate? :)).
Trying to reinforce your position with the 10 Commandments and Moses isn't doing you any favour with Conceptual. After all, if you are a christian or believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet, then he did throw all 10 commandments out of the window and substituted them with just one: "Love each other as I have loved you", or something of the like.
Conceptual wrote:Am I REALLY asking too much here? Objective criteria determining the formulae should be a given, not a wished for...
Conceptual wrote:And Ciro, the rules and regulations are in the same body for sure, but I would like to know if the ORIGINAL rules of the formula included regulations. If they do not, then they must have been introduced afterwards.
Ciro Pabón wrote:[/i] I've lost the count of the many times that people has started threads about "Whats wrong with F1 and how it could be made better if everybody hears me"...
Ciro Pabón wrote:Well, I'm with timbo here.
Conceptual, I humbly think (my sad day is already history) that objectivity is impossible when you laid the rules of the game. We've tried to substitute them by "democracy", including some (unscientific) polls by FIA. Perhaps that's not the solution either, given the many changes in recent years, when changes in the rules have open the door to new attempts to ellude them, something that teams (by logic) try to do.
Anyway, I still disagree with the postulate that started this thread. Actually, what has attracted so much money, racers and engineers is the wisdom (not the perfection) of the regulations. The fact that they're not perfect doesn't mean they're not perfectible and that is better to elliminate them.
What we would get is the "full-american" Gumball: fun, yes, I like it in principle, yes, but that's not racing. Actually, it is the opposite of racing: :the Gumball has been suspended in 2008 after a competitor had a mortal crash with a person not competing. Many regulations are not there to complement the basic rules, but because of the love for human life that a true sportsman has.
I think is also important to recognize that the understanding of the behaviour of a sport car has advanced and the rules (or regulations, I still don't get the difference very well) have advanced too. They will continue to do so, specially this year when many "new" attempts have been made to get a better series.
I agree with Conceptual in the fact that there is no a clearly defined "staircase" of series, but that's a task that probably will never be completed as I wish during my life. Who knows, Max won't be there forever and some kind of "F1 Obama" could be the next president. Let's face it: watching races is popular but racing is not. You all know I blame this "lack of racers" in the lack of that "staircase".
Thanks, Miguel, I'll try to follow history of them, rules. I'm a hard headed atheist, I was just trying to illustrate somehow how ridicule is to make polls to change rules and how dangerous it is, because those polls can be manipulated for the benefit of people.
After all, it's impossible for humans (me included) not to be selfish. Just take a look at the new "rules" for the superlicense: what's the purpose of that change? It seems to me a clear example of what happens when the "justices" lost sight of statutory or common law: anything goes (and normally, it doesn't go in a good direction).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests