German architects to prepare masterplan for India's F1 track

[Bull]

I didn't say i wanted more of the crashes as part of F1. I said it's a fact the drivers of the 50s were a lot more braver, had more crashes and were paid less in F1 then.

Tech has made cars better, it can handle better, it can go much faster, aero dynamics have improved, safety has improved.

And for all those above reasons you wont see drivers spilling blood on the tracks.

 

[Flintlock]

I didn't say i wanted more of the crashes as part of F1. I said it's a fact the drivers of the 50s were a lot more braver, had more crashes and were paid less in F1 then.

OH so its the idealism....to compete for the sake of glory and pride, but not money....

Well....its still for glory and pride buddy....don't you worry....just the added advantages of million dollar bank accounts

 

[roadrunner]

Why do you say that?

One example you could use as Damon Hill. He went straight into the best car..Deserving world champ, hardly. Lewis Hamilton (though he is good), went straight into the best car (commerce rules). Of the others, it's difficult to say. Raikonnen didnt do much before F1, but he's done well in F1, and probably deserves his Ferrari seat. Going through the F1 champions since Prost and Senna, it's been all Schumacher. One driver beating the rest of the grid for a full decade! That must mean the rest of the grid are either bad drivers, or Schumacher is best driver in history, which I dont buy. He was obviously a great driver, but one that was not head over tails above Senna, Prost, or Fangio or the others.

The safety aspect is good, but some drivers just run off nowadays and rejoin the track. That's probably why the championship is so close. You have them all running off and not getting any car damage, just rejoining the race. Even a poor driver would end up competing for the world championship like this.

 

[Bull]

One example you could use as Damon Hill. He went straight into the best car..Deserving world champ, hardly. Lewis Hamilton (though he is good), went straight into the best car (commerce rules).

Commerce rules? I didnt understand.

One driver beating the rest of the grid for a full decade!

Mika Hakinnen beat him in 1998, 1999
Alonso beat him in 2005, 2006
Damon hill beat him in 1996
Jac Villenueve in 1997

In the last 11 years he was beaten in 6 years. His victories mainly came when Mclaren had embarassing amount of reliabilty problems. Its not as you see one driver more capable than another. he could have lost in 2004 too hadnt Kimi had reliabilty problems.

 

[roadrunner]

Commerce rules? I didnt understand.

I meant he's a good selling point.

Mika Hakinnen beat him in 1998, 1999
Alonso beat him in 2005, 2006
Damon hill beat him in 1996
Jac Villenueve in 1997

In the last 11 years he was beaten in 6 years. His victories mainly came when Mclaren had embarassing reliabilty problems. Its not as you see one driver more capable than another. he could have lost in 2004 too hadnt Kimi had reliabilty problems.

He (Schumacher) won 7 of the 13 WDC since 1994. The highest scoring other drivers only won 2 out of 13 WDC in the same period. That's a huge difference. The Prost-Senna times, you had Senna winning 3 times, Prost winning 4 times, and even Mansell (who I would rate with the likes of the best of today) could not win a single WDC until those two had bad cars. There was also Piquet and Alboretto competing against each other.

Even a name sells today. Bruno Senna isn't very good, but he'll be in F1 pretty soon..

 

[Bull]

One driver beating the rest of the grid for a full decade! That must mean the rest of the grid are either bad drivers, or Schumacher is best driver in history, which I dont buy..

Juan Manuel Fangio, Champion in 1951,1954,1955,1956,1957) in 4 different cars (Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Maserati).

So as per your theory even then F1 would have been boring and drivers not daring as somebody managed to win 4 titles in 6 active years in 4 different cars.

 

[roadrunner]

Juan Manuel Fangio, Champion in 1951,1954,1955,1956,1957) in 4 different cars (Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Maserati).

So as per your theory even then F1 would have been boring and drivers not daring as somebody managed to win 4 titles in 6 active years in 4 different cars.

The 4 different cars is what made Fangio pretty special. It just shows that all the teams were quite close, and Fangio was the best of all the drivers. But it's difficult to compare between different times. That era would have been exciting because you had one driver who was competing in the same machinery as all the other 30 drivers and beating them. That's a remarkable talent considering how dangerous it was too. Schumacher didn't really have to beat anyone except his teammate and his teammate was under orders always to lose to him. Such sportsmanship!

 

[Bull]

The 4 different cars is what made Fangio pretty special. It just shows that all the teams were quite close, and Fangio was the best of all the drivers. But it's difficult to compare between different times. That era would have been exciting because you had one driver who was competing in the same machinery as all the other 30 drivers and beating them. That's a remarkable talent considering how dangerous it was too. Schumacher didn't really have to beat anyone except his teammate and his teammate was under orders always to lose to him. Such sportsmanship!

So what are you saying now?

 

[roadrunner]

Same as before..brb

 

[Bull]

Same as before..brb

I did said why the race was boring for 3 years. But all other years esp in 2004,2005,2006 and this season races were quite good.