[Bob Tanner]

I was going over some rule changes for next F1 season and found something which I had completely overlooked. No more refueling during races.

I know they brought refueling back in the 90's to combat one team's superiority (either Ferrari or Williams?) and the fans were told it would "Improve the quality of the racing."

Now they're taking refueling away and what reason are they using? "It will improve the quality of the racing."

Insanity is defined by some as "Doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results. So... Here we go again, changing the refueling rule expecting different results. Maybe it's just me but does it seem to anyone else that someone of authority at F1 doesn't know what the Hell he's doing?

Here is one article written by someone more knowledgeable than I, who thinks no refueling will make things better [again?]. I bow to his expertise but, in his piece, he seems to make a lot of assumptions which I don't buy into completely.

Thoughts anyone?

[WestCoast]

That would be a stupid move. F1 is a team sport, with the little on-track action as there is pitting for tires and fuel gives the race added and much needed drama & strategy.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

That would be a stupid move. F1 is a team sport, with the little on-track action as there is pitting for tires and fuel gives the race added and much needed drama & strategy.

While I don't agree with your "Team Sport" definition (but I can certainly see your point and it is well made), I do agree that the full pit stops are an important part of the game and have a purpose.

If they can put in enough fuel to go the distance, why not make a tire compound hard and durable enough to do likewise? Talk about a cost-cutting measure!

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

While I don't agree with your "Team Sport" definition

Sure it is, the Driver is only as good as the car that was put together in the shop by the team mechanics, and races have been won and lost based on Pit crew's performance.

P.S. see the bottom of my signature.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Sure it is, the Driver is only as good as the car that was put together in the shop by the team mechanics, and races have been won and lost based on Pit crew's performance.

P.S. see the bottom of my signature.

Re:GoTeamsGo 2009 Formula1 & IndyCar Predictions Contest Champion

Show off! Go on. Rub it in on the rest of us.

As far as I and the rest who were challenging you for the titles, I can only refer to the final stanza of Ernest Thayer's epic poem:
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville— mighty Casey has struck out.

Once more, my sincere congratulations.

[WestCoast]

I'm hoping to use the "signature" as a response to debates that may or may not run in my favor.

Remember that commercial where Sadler wants to give J. Johnson a tip about his racing line, and Johnson has one of his mechanics show Sadler his Sprint Cup trophy....silence follows.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

That would be a stupid move. F1 is a team sport, with the little on-track action as there is pitting for tires and fuel gives the race added and much needed drama & strategy.

Motorsport cannot be compared to ball games, because it is a team sport but it's also (partially/at times) an individual effort.
M. Schumacher's career showcases that. Trains need locomotives, or in other words teams need good leaders to succeed.

[DOF_power]

I don't think the ban on refueling will make things better.

Today almost every driver-team-car knows/can worm up the tires like Senna and Mansell/Williams&McLaren, and in 2005 when tire changing was banned, almost every driver-team-car learned how to/could be smoother on the tires like A. Prost/McLaren&Williams.

Witch means boredom in the end.

In the no refueling era, the drivers that were the most exciting and most beloved by the fans were Senna and Mansell who were much more mistake prone and inconsistent then Alain Prost a.k.a. The Professor a.k.a. Mr Boring. And let's not forget to add Keke Rosberg, Gilles Villeneuve and Rene Arnoux, another exciting to watch but (less) consistent/professional bunch; or those "funny" pay drivers.


Lower series racing is fun primarily because the drivers make (a lot of) mistakes and are (very) inconsistent, ditto for the teams and the setup of their cars, witch means a lot of shuffling.
The lower and less professional the series is, the better, more exciting it is to watch, that's the general rule.

[WestCoast]

If I remember correctly, back then (no pit stops) the time disparity between positions was much greater than with the unpredictability, although rare, of a pit stop mishap that could rearrange positions.

Ya, Prost was a Robot behind the wheel. I expected big things when he started his own team, but he made a better driver than owner.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Motorsport cannot be compared to ball games, because it is a team sport but it's also (partially/at times) an individual effort.
M. Schumacher's career showcases that. Trains need locomotives, or in other words teams need good leaders to succeed.

Boy, this is the classic "No Correct Answer" debate. It's all a matter of perspective. It's kind of like the example of having three blind (sight-challenged, for the PC crowd) people describe an elephant only by feel.

My personal (FWIW, which is zero) opinion is that it is a team-assisted sport.

To me a "Team sport" is a sport where the performance related stats of the team are summed together to arrive at the final score. Tome, in racing the team just renders support to the driver and car. I feel they have the same value as a caddy does to a professional golfer. Give Tiger Woods a horrible caddy who doesn't know the course and he'll struggle. But, does that make golf a team sport? Again, it's, IMNSVHO, all in the fan's viewpoint, and there is no definitive correct answer.

So, if anyone wants it to be a team sport, that's OK. Those of us who don't, that's OK too.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Boy, this is the classic "No Correct Answer" debate. It's all a matter of perspective. It's kind of like the example of having three blind (sight-challenged, for the PC crowd) people describe an elephant only by feel.

My personal (FWIW, which is zero) opinion is that it is a team-assisted sport.

To me a "Team sport" is a sport where the performance related stats of the team are summed together to arrive at the final score. To me, in racing the team just renders support to the driver and car. I feel they have the same value as a caddy does to a professional golfer. Give Tiger Woods a horrible caddy who doesn't know the course and he'll struggle. But, does that make golf a team sport? Again, it's, IMNSVHO, all in the fan's viewpoint, and there is no definitive correct answer.

So, if anyone wants it to be a team sport, that's OK. Those of us who don't, that's OK too.

You're talking about a team as if it would be what in Europe would be called a privateer in the old days.

But GP racing begun as a sport for the car manufacturer, where only factory teams where present. And I don't mean factory supported teams, I mean car manufacturer factory teams.
Car manufacturers (like Ferrari) who didn't support support a car, but design it, build it, upgraded/developed it.
All teams except Torro Roso are constructors, and besides that they pay the salaries.

I'm sorry but caddys don't design, build, develop or pay for anything.

To quote Fred Lorenzen "you cannot do it on your own. You need a good team."
Or as Fangio use to say 75% car and mechanics (team) and 25% driver and luck.

That said a team cannot do it by itself.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

I'm sorry but caddys don't design, build, develop or pay for anything.
To quote Fred Lorenzen "you cannot do it on your own. You need a good team."
Or as Fangio use to say 75% car and mechanics (team) and 25% driver and luck.

That said a team cannot do it by itself.

Au contraire. Caddies do a lot more than carry clubs. They do a great deal toward keeping their player in a good mental state of mind. They walk the course prior to each tournament at make careful note of yardage markers, non obvious hazards and any minor information their player might need to know at any given time during play. They also carefully examine each green and are adept at reading them. Notice how many times, when a pro lines up a putt, his caddy is looking over his shoulder and there is usually some conversation between the two.

In his hey day Jack Nicholas often gave much of the credit for his winning to "Rabbit," his long-time caddy. If you ever see any old replays of Nicholas, "Rabbit" is the skinny black guy with the white blowout "Fro."

Don't underestimate the contribution of a caddy. I find it similar to the assistance that a pit crew gives, in many ways.

I still consider golfing a individual sport.

A question: IF racing is a team sport, where do you draw the line between team and support personnel? At the guys who go over the wall? In NA__AR the crew chief no longer goes over the wall. Isn't he a team member? How about the guys back at the shop who hang metal, do shocks, build engines, drive the hauler, paint and apply decals, work in the office, sweep the floor. Are they team members?

I guess I never figured out where to draw the line so I take the simple way out and think of it as an individual sport, one man and one machine, with a whole lot of helpers.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Au contraire. Caddies do a lot more than carry clubs. They do a great deal toward keeping their player in a good mental state of mind. They walk the course prior to each tournament at make careful note of yardage markers, non obvious hazards and any minor information their player might need to know at any given time during play. They also carefully examine each green and are adept at reading them. Notice how many times, when a pro lines up a putt, his caddy is looking over his shoulder and there is usually some conversation between the two.

In his hey day Jack Nicholas often gave much of the credit for his winning to "Rabbit," his long-time caddy. If you ever see any old replays of Nicholas, "Rabbit" is the skinny black guy with the white blowout "Fro."

Don't underestimate the contribution of a caddy. I find it similar to the assistance that a pit crew gives, in many ways.

I still consider golfing a individual sport.

A question: IF racing is a team sport, where do you draw the line between team and support personnel? At the guys who go over the wall? In NA__AR the crew chief no longer goes over the wall. Isn't he a team member? How about the guys back at the shop who hang metal, do shocks, build engines, drive the hauler, paint and apply decals, work in the office, sweep the floor. Are they team members?

I guess I never figured out where to draw the line so I take the simple way out and think of it as an individual sport, one man and one machine, with a whole lot of helpers.

Yes they are.

Because if they fail to do their job properly the driver will pay dearly, the same way a poor defensive will be to blame for losing a football game.

Between 50% and 67% of cars wouldn't finish a race in the old days, and if the drivers were just φφφφed off it actually a good thing because people were killed due poorly design/manufactured/screwed together parts/pieces.

The great championship duels in the old days, if cars and drivers were relatively close in performance (and even if they weren't), were always decided by the reliability of the cars. The teams that made the more reliable car would be the real winners more so then their drivers who were more the poster boys for the fans.

Some examples: Graham Hill didn't beat Jim Clark in 62 because he was a better driver or because he had a faster car, but because his car was more reliable thru the year and didn't blew its engine on the last lap of the last race. And then he won again in 68 because again in the last race the cars or rivals Stewart and Hulme had technical problems. And that's not counting the the death of Jim Clark early in the year was killed.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Yes they are.

Because if they fail to do their job properly the driver will pay dearly, the same way a poor defensive will be to blame for losing a football game.

Between 50% and 67% of cars wouldn't finish a race in the old days, and if the drivers were just φφφφed off it actually a good thing because people were killed due poorly design/manufactured/screwed together parts/pieces.

The great championship duels in the old days, if cars and drivers were relatively close in performance (and even if they weren't), were always decided by the reliability of the cars. The teams that made the more reliable car would be the real winners more so then their drivers who were more the poster boys for the fans.

Some examples: Graham Hill didn't beat Jim Clark in 62 because he was a better driver or because he had a faster car, but because his car was more reliable thru the year and didn't blew its engine on the last lap of the last race. And then he won again in 68 because again in the last race the cars or rivals Stewart and Hulme had technical problems. And that's not counting the the death of Jim Clark early in the year was killed.

All absolutely true.

I think the problem is that folks fall into the old trap of, since both S&B sports and motor sports are reported on the same page of the paper, they compare the two on more or less equal terms. I don't think two are comparable and while I'll concede that there is a good argument for motor sports to be called a team sport it just isn't, in the same sense that S&B sports are.

It's all perspective.

[DOF_power]

Now I don't see it quite as a traditional ball game sport either.
Because there are all sorts of variables and differences to consider.

If a car is fast and reliable and the team is good at strategy and pit-stops but the car is not easy/friendly to drive/suitable to their style, most drivers will not become champions.