- What news, spouting pureness gimmick for uninformed? Ross Brawn of all the people is a pure sportsman now. Can't argue with that though: nothing beats a 'proper' F1 overtake, like Alonso on Petrov '10. Didn't bother with the full picture?ChrisDanger wrote:Good news for those troubled by DRS...
https://twitter.com/Motorsport/status/8 ... 2866450432
. 
I think in an oval the cars would average above 300km/h. That means they could do the race in less than an hour, which means they could run the whole race with max fuel flow of 100kg/h. So the 100kg of fuel would not even be the limiting factor there.Andres125sx wrote:Ok now you scared me!toraabe wrote:If F1 is going to be successful in USA you need an oval race . Michigan or Texas would have been nice venues
Anycase I don´t think that will ever happen in F1, as GPs must be around 300km long, and that on an oval would not be possible as throttle percentage is dramatically higher than on any normal twisty track. They´d need an extra fuel tank, refuelling, or an embarrasingly low race pace to make the race with 105kg of fuel
Brawn is talking about getting rid of gimmicks and you want to have the most gimmick thing possible: F1 on an oval.toraabe wrote:At Michigan the throttle is 90 % flat out. They just have to lengthen the race to 600 km. No fuel limit
Force India already in talksFrukostScones wrote:Bernie and Briatore to start GP1. as he is pushed out by new owners.
Not sure what the point of your post was. Each one of your bullet points was riddled with #alternativefacts and pretty much aimed at taking a shot at Brawn, clearly one of the most respected technical leaders of the sport and universially hailed as one of the few who could save F1 from itself.iotar__ wrote:- What news, spouting pureness gimmick for uninformed? Ross Brawn of all the people is a pure sportsman now. Can't argue with that though: nothing beats a 'proper' F1 overtake, like Alonso on Petrov '10. Didn't bother with the full picture?ChrisDanger wrote:Good news for those troubled by DRS...
https://twitter.com/Motorsport/status/8 ... 2866450432
- To be fair to him apart from not liking it he admits he doesn't have any alternative solution (http://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/18552190). He wants to work on it though by creating a small group. I think it used to be called overtaking working group which came up with DRS
- Talking about it now and not DRS itself is the real gimmick. Meanwhile it's very telling that he's not dissecting the real gimmicks of F1: new wings/downforce levels + wider tyres
- Again to be fair he addresses it that rather vaguely (ESPN) by talking about aero/mechanical balance and saying 'we'll see' while knowing perfectly well what the consequences will be. It would be awkward to tell the truth about huge marketing visual changes. Pureness on the other hand...
However, what really is quite telling about your disdain for Brawn and rationalism in general would be the comment above in ITALIC.However, as Symonds explained, much of its work was negated by the decision of F1 to introduce DRS in 2011, which has made overtaking artificially much easier.
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/stat ... 7675431936FrukostScones wrote:Bernie and Briatore to start GP1. as he is pushed out by new owners.
It was a huge mistake for Liberty to push Ecclestone completely out of the picture. We're talking about a man who's worth $3 billion--over 6x more than Liberty's operating income in 2015, 12x more than the company's net income--and who's old enough to piss away every penny with no lasting consequences should he so choose.grandprix.com, Jan 25, 2017 wrote:[Chase] Carey said: "It will be up to us where and when [Ecclestone's] advice is of help and appropriate."
And he told the Sun newspaper: "Bernie is a one-man team -- it was not right in today's world."
Say what you will about his outdated methodology, his devotion is unimpeachable, and he always delivers.Forbes, Feb 25, 2015 wrote:“I’ve done so many deals on a handshake,” [Ecclestone] told GQ magazine in 2013 adding that “the biggest thing for me is people trust me so people rely on me.” It has been lost on no one.
“At the end of the day, Formula One is a closet of hundreds of contracts and Bernie knows them all. He has done them all. The teams trust him and it is difficult to get trust with teams,” says [Alejandro Agag, head of Formula E].
Echoing this, Mr Ecclestone told the Independent in 2012 that “one day, I’m not going to be there and one of the biggest problems is I’ve got really, really good relationships with the race promoters. A few of them said to me, ‘if you’re not there, we’re not there’. That’s what the danger is. They feel that they trust me and wouldn’t want to let me down. That’s probably a very important issue.”
Ron Walker, chairman of the Australian Grand Prix, concurs and revealed to motoring magazine Autoweek that “there will be a number of promoters who will retire when Bernie retires.” Mr Walker explained that “promoters have a very special relationship with Bernie. He is more of a friend than a business colleague, and they are reaching the same age group.”
Nope - if F1 is going to be successful in the USA there's only one single action that needs to be made. Don't put the races on at 5am (or 8am depending on the coast you're on).toraabe wrote:If F1 is going to be successful in USA you need an oval race . Michigan or Texas would have been nice venues
(note, yes, I'm aware that different races start at different times, but the vast majority start at the same time, due to it being a good time for western Europe to watch them)Moose wrote:Nope - if F1 is going to be successful in the USA there's only one single action that needs to be made. Don't put the races on at 5am (or 8am depending on the coast you're on).toraabe wrote:If F1 is going to be successful in USA you need an oval race . Michigan or Texas would have been nice venues
If the races started 4 hours later, F1 would instantly be more popular in the USA.
Most folk would have a DVR (eg TiVo), this makes the broadcast time less of an issue imo.Moose wrote:Nope - if F1 is going to be successful in the USA there's only one single action that needs to be made. Don't put the races on at 5am (or 8am depending on the coast you're on).toraabe wrote:If F1 is going to be successful in USA you need an oval race . Michigan or Texas would have been nice venues
If the races started 4 hours later, F1 would instantly be more popular in the USA.
He's 86, he could literally drop dead at any time - no-one in their right mind would hitch their wagon up to him now when chances are he'll be gone in 5 years!bhall II wrote: (To anyone who thinks this can't happen, I urge you to read about "The Split.")
