F1

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:23 pm

Yet only 14 car manufacurers have ever won the constructors title ? are you pissed or something ? your so far up your own arse you cant see the truth. So how do you explain the time between all the cars then ? and only thousanths of a second between them now ?

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:29 pm

Trust me, i know F1.

These days 1 second can easily seperate the top 10 in Qualifying, in the 50's and 60's it NEVER happened, So which era had closer matched cars ?

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:31 pm

Are you completely retarded? Are you aware of the technological difference between this:-

Image

and this:-

Image

I thought you were a fan?

You spout about seconds difference, without taking into account the difference that driver error made in the 60s compared to now. :numpty;

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:41 pm

yeah ? im aware that a Lotus from the 60's is dated compared the Mclaren today, but that doesnt mean cars from the 60's were closely matched ? where you going with this kido ?

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:43 pm

The argument were having is purely over cars being closely matched. And your saying they were closer in the 50's and 60's than they are now

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:43 pm

:numpty;

Talk about missing the point.

EDIT; oh and it's a Brabham. Just saying, Mr "I know formula 1".
Last edited by mrblackbat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:44 pm

No mate, your backing up and changing the view. Your wrong but you cant take it.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:52 pm

No you just don't even know what I'm talking about basically. A current formula 1 car has an immense amount of control compared to a car from the 60s. Which means that with similar driving skills, reasonably closely matched cars will be very very closely matched. In the current season, there's two teams competing. With a third that's sort of close-ish.

If you take for example the 1964 season, there were four teams in with a shout, with grand prixs won by 5 different drivers out of 10 available grand prixs counting towards the championship. Out of all the drivers who competed, only one completed all ten grand prixs, and he finished 5th overall. The guy who won the season only finished six grand prixs.

The cars were evenly matched. They were all just a complete BITCH to drive, hence why the time differences are so erratic, finishes so erratic, and that a world championship could be won by winning less grand prixs than someone else, but managing to keep your car on the track more than the other guy.

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:59 pm

The Cars werent a complete Bitch to Drive ? They were the best cars on the planet you mug. But as they dont handle as well as cars 40 years on, it meant the races were not as closely matched as they are now.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:03 pm

Most F1 drivers at the time would disagree; for example Moss described the BRM he drove as impossible.

But at least you can admit the difference in times has nothing to do with the even nature of car manufacture, just that the techonlogical level has changed to make races potentially closer. Instead we look at the points break down, see far more teams and drivers getting podiums and points in the golden era, and realise how monotomous and boring modern formula 1 really is.

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:07 pm

In 1964 you had 5 different race winners, So far this year we've had...... 5 different winners.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:10 pm

nathanolder wrote:In 1964 you had 5 different race winners, So far this year we've had...... 5 different winners.
This is true. Out of 3 more races. And including 3 teams, as opposed to 5. Over 3 more races.....

More evenly matched cars, now, though isn't it?

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:11 pm

5 different winners was acheived at race 11, 1 more than the 1964 season.

So is the 1988 World championship the worse in history ? due to lack of winners

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14731
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: F1

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:13 pm

Not necessarily, I can't really remember it. All I'm doing is demonstrating your use of statistics to decide what's great and what isn't is meaningless.

User avatar
nathanolder
Regular international
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Kent

Re: F1

Post by nathanolder » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:16 pm

Your telling me that more winners means closer racing.

Closer racing IS closer times in a lap.

Obviously you have to take into account reliability and Driver Error.
So in the 60's more drivers crashed because according to you the cars drove like a bitch, meaning you get more winners, as the other retired
As the world Champion retired in 40% of his races. Handing the wins to other drivers

Post Reply