# Time for F1 2005: The Australian GP Thread!



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

SteveT said:


> Nick is young, but he's got 85 races I think. He's never been able to compete with front runners for the most part though. It was hard racing from both of them, but I think Senna would have been more decisive than Michael seems to be in these situations. As he said, he showed he was going to defend. I know what that looks like, but that doesn't mean the following car has to abide by it. If he's really faster and leaves just enough room in that corner, then we see some real racing. Not bumper cars.
> 
> .


Im not hating MS, but EVERY time someone can pass him a wreck ensues. Coincidence?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Too bad that we don't have the telemetry data, I'd really want to know how fast Nick was, just before he stepped on the brake. I don't know how far is the pit line (where they start to accelarate after leaving the pit lane) and the first corner. 

Yes, that doesn't mean that the following car has to abide by it. So, both were stubborn and it came to the crash. Race incident. 

You can tell it if one has the material to be a competitive driver by looking at his 'sh-it'. I'd think that you'd agree with me that Senna, Michael, Mansell, Prost, Montoya are (were) a different breed. 

Remember what Berger was saying in the Senna DVD ? 'When you saw the yellow helmet in your mirror, you knew that you have a problem'


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Too bad that we don't have the telemetry data, I'd really want to know how fast Nick was, just before he stepped on the brake. I don't know how far is the pit line (where they start to accelarate after leaving the pit lane) and the first corner.
> 
> Yes, that doesn't mean that the following car has to abide by it. So, both were stubborn and it came to the crash. Race incident.
> 
> ...


I agree Alex. It is all racing and really,with the dollars that are at stake I dont blame MS entirely.

One thing though, the rule changes definitly made things more interesting.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

misterlance said:


> One thing though, the rule changes definitly made things more *interesting*.


the changes made it worse. People were complaining about the lack of passing, with these rules, it became much more impossible, since everyone is babying their engines and the tires.

The F1 world must get rid of Mosley and Ecclestone.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> the changes made it worse. People were complaining about the lack of passing, with these rules, it became much more impossible, since everyone is babying their engines and the tires.
> 
> The F1 world must get rid of Mosley and Ecclestone.


For Ferrari it made things worse, but I dont think any of the other teams were complaining. I think as the season goes on and points become more valuble, youll see a lot more aggression (esp. from MS). I think most of the teams were playing conservative, just to see what would happen in real world racing. They found that they had a lot more wear left in the tires by the end of the race. And we saw at least 4 teams in striking distance.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

misterlance said:


> For Ferrari it made things worse, but I dont think any of the other teams were complaining. I think as the season goes on and points become more valuble, youll see a lot more aggression (esp. from MS). I think most of the teams were playing conservative, just to see what would happen in real world racing. They found that they had a lot more wear left in the tires by the end of the race. And we say at least 4 teams in striking distance.


Why do you think that it made it for Ferrari worse ? Barrichello finished 2nd. If Michael didn't have a crappy Qualifying, his podium chance was as much as Barrichello's.

Read my comment on the engine rule above. The changes were made to save the butts of the smaller teams.

We'll see to what Ferrari is capable of when they race with the F2005.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Why do you think that it made it for Ferrari worse ? Barrichello finished 2nd. If Michael didn't have a crappy Qualifying, his podium chance was as much as Barrichello's.
> 
> Read my comment on the engine rule above. The changes were made to save the butts of the smaller teams.
> 
> We'll see to what Ferrari is capable of when they race with the F2005.


The one set of tires definitly levels the playing field. The teams are not so dependent on tire temps for lap times.

I dont know what to think of the engine rules yet, as we have not really seen how they will play out. Teams/cars retiring when they have no chance of points doesnt bother me.

Barichello is a :bigpimp:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

> Teams/cars retiring when they have no chance of points doesnt bother me.


Umm, but that should bother us. There are 22 cars on the track and everyone have theoretically a chance to win points.

Finally the rules have been changed to 'level' the field, which I find quite amusing and silly.

Why not give all the teams the same engine, the same car and have them turn their laps around the track ? That way we could at least tell who is the better driver.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Why not give all the teams the same engine, the same car and have them turn their laps around the track ? That way we could at least tell who is the better driver.


We get enough of that. But, I get your point.

These rules IMO make the manufacturers tire/engine step up and widen their engineering goals, it doesnt really impede them. As far as teams using these type of rules for racing strategy, thats a whole other story.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

What do you guys think of BAR retiring their cars in the last lap because they weren't going to get any points and now they can change their engines? I suspect Michael could have gone further, not that he would get any points, but now he too can change the engine. I'd submit the two race engine rule is pretty stupid.


----------



## Remmizo (Aug 16, 2004)

misterlance said:


> Im not hating MS, but EVERY time someone can pass him a wreck ensues. Coincidence?


I can still remember the F1 race in Adelaide (my home town) when MS was leading but spun out on a corner and hit the wall. I can't remember the exact damage to the car but it was in "limp home" mode. He was in front in the championship with Damon Hill a close second. Basically whoever won the race won the title as in those days the Aussie GP was the last of the season. If both cars failed to finish, MS wins. So, MS has spun, no hope of completing the race, Damon is going to pass and MS drives straight into him and IMO, took him out.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

What was the M6 doing there?


----------



## dojobi (Feb 5, 2005)

Lots of laps with a siren on . It sounded really nice too. There was a celebrity race in some 1 series cars too.

I'm not sure if they showed it on TV, but another thing that was cool to watch was an F1 car vs a V8 supercar (our local racing between Holden and Ford) vs a 120i. They gave the 120i a huge lead and then the V8 supercar took off about a minute later. The F1 was still waiting on the start line around 30 seconds later and then it took off. It managed to catch the V8 supercar, but didn't quite beat the 1 series. Very close finish though 

It was the first grand prix I've been to, but I'll definitely go again. The noise is just incredible.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Sorry, too me it looking like MS just turned in, and NH was going too fast to slow down. In fact it looked like he was going too fast at that point to make the corner even if MS hadn't been there.

I think his fangs may have beena bit out, and he late braked a bit late, from a bit far back and couldn't make it. But even so, I still say it a That's Racing incident.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Remmizo said:


> I can still remember the F1 race in Adelaide (my home town) when MS was leading but spun out on a corner and hit the wall. I can't remember the exact damage to the car but it was in "limp home" mode. He was in front in the championship with Damon Hill a close second. Basically whoever won the race won the title as in those days the Aussie GP was the last of the season. If both cars failed to finish, MS wins. So, MS has spun, no hope of completing the race, Damon is going to pass and MS drives straight into him and IMO, took him out.


And that has happened before, without MS being involved, twice in Japan when it was the last race. Considering the amount of money, prestige, and MONEY that winning the championship means, I think you wuld do EXACTLY the same thing in the same situation.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

misterlance said:


> The one set of tires definitly levels the playing field. The teams are not so dependent on tire temps for lap times.
> 
> I dont know what to think of the engine rules yet, as we have not really seen how they will play out. Teams/cars retiring when they have no chance of points doesnt bother me.


I think tmeps are even more important now. TOo high of tmeps and your tires go away and you park. Too low ot temps and you end of putting it into the wall, and no chance of changing anything.

It will be interesting when we get a cool day when a warm one was expected or a warm one when a cool one was expected. I think you will find that the stretched temas will have to spend more money fixing cars than they would have had to spend on multiple sets of tires.

The engein rules are dumb. Expect 8 - 10 finishers per race as everyone who is not in contention for points parks the car. Even if to save the miles on it.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Remmizo said:


> I can still remember the F1 race in Adelaide (my home town) when MS was leading but spun out on a corner and hit the wall. I can't remember the exact damage to the car but it was in "limp home" mode. He was in front in the championship with Damon Hill a close second. Basically whoever won the race won the title as in those days the Aussie GP was the last of the season. If both cars failed to finish, MS wins. So, MS has spun, no hope of completing the race, Damon is going to pass and MS drives straight into him and IMO, took him out.


That was the race that did it for me with MS. MS already out of the race, takes Damon out to affect the points. It was one of the biggest displays of poor sportsmanship I have ever seen. And it effectively ended Damon Hill's career. 

Water under the bridge.


----------



## F1Crazy (Dec 11, 2002)

Michael is a dirty driver, we've seen it in previous decade more so than in the last few years where he didn't have to work that hard to defend his title. He didn't ruin Hill's career as other poster suggested, Damon won the title next year. Michael tried to take out Villeneuve in the same fashion in '97 but it backfired and he was stripped of the points losing 2nd place in championship. It didn't matter to him because like all the great drivers he only cares about one thing - winning. Senna, the best racing driver ever, was the same way. I bet that we'll see many great drivers in the future and they will behave exactly the same. I don't applaud it but it's the part of racing.

Incident with Heidfeld was initiated by Schumi with his indecisive blocking maneuver. He was full of fuel exiting the pits, couldn't take the ideal line through the first chicane that slowed him even more and it was obvious that he will be passed by flying Nick. You can see that he started blocking when Heidfeld was already attempting the pass, if Michael didn't push him off the track he would've made the corner. It was nothing more than a racing accident. Micheal didn't try to be dirty this time, he simply misjudged the situation.


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

F1Crazy said:


> Michael is a dirty driver, we've seen it in previous decade more so than in the last few years where he didn't have to work that hard to defend his title. He didn't ruin Hill's career as other poster suggested, Damon won the title next year. Michael tried to take out Villeneuve in the same fashion in '97 but it backfired and he was stripped of the points losing 2nd place in championship. It didn't matter to him because like all the great drivers he only cares about one thing - winning. Senna, the best racing driver ever, was the same way. I bet that we'll see many great drivers in the future and they will behave exactly the same. I don't applaud it but it's the part of racing.
> 
> Incident with Heidfeld was initiated by Schumi with his indecisive blocking maneuver. He was full of fuel exiting the pits, couldn't take the ideal line through the first chicane that slowed him even more and it was obvious that he will be passed by flying Nick. You can see that he started blocking when Heidfeld was already attempting the pass, if Michael didn't push him off the track he would've made the corner. It was nothing more than a racing accident. Micheal didn't try to be dirty this time, he simply misjudged the situation.


Completely agree - it was a poor decision on MS' part...He cut his legs off as Heidfeld had no traction left to do anything when he was pushed on the grass.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

^^^That about sums it up for me.

Overall, not a bad race, but not as exciting as I had originally thought it would be. The new tire rule isn't bad, nor are the new qual rules...but the longevity rule could be problematic. The teams that withdrew their cars when they were clearly not going to win any points made the right decision within the boundaries of the rules, and I think any sane manager would've done the same thing. That doesn't make for good competition, though, and IMHO it dilutes the overall experience.

Was also cool to see the new car designs, as I hadn't followed them very closely during the offseason. The Viking horns on the McLaren car are cute.


----------



## berford (Sep 10, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> ....The F1 world must get rid of Mosley and Ecclestone.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: And the sooner the better.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

berford said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: And the sooner the better.


I agree too. It's time they were both gone. End the Max dictatorship.


----------

