MS apologises for squeezing RB

Discussion in 'Motorsports' started by V8stangman, Aug 2, 2010.

  1. It's a relative term. F1 is hugely exciting, but quite boring compared to what it was when I first started watching it.
  2. #27 DrifterB2W, Aug 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

    not as dramatic, but it made that event ironic, some would say justified.
  3. Lol no he didn't. Look up what happened at Suzuka in 1989, when Prost and Senna were TEAM MATES.
  4. It's racing. Shit happens. Thats the problem with society today, there a bunch of pussies.
  5. Rose tinted glasses.
    You don't remember the boring parts of all the races you've seen. I'm watching Spa 1999 now. Coulthard was 10 seconds up the road from Hakkinen who was miles ahead of everyone else. Absolutely nothing happens in the middle stint.

    People look back on the era of their youth and remember all the spectacular things that occurred. If you pick a season of F1 to watch, and watch every minute of qualifying and races, you'll become bored once the nostalgia wears off and you realise that it's just as processional as before.
  6. Ahhhhhhh fine, granted. But at least the cars were cooler.
  7. Nailed it. The cars back then were way cooler. Plus, as a driver you had to have balls the size of watermelons to drive them.
  8. And drivers don't have balls today?
    Just remember that drivers today brake much later, pull more Gs through corners, and stay on the throttle much more than their predecessors.

    Ss for the "coolness" of the cars, again its nostalgia. Back then they were nerdy pieces of state of the art engineering. The reason why they were cool then is the same as it is now - because it's the fastest way of getting around a circuit. You can't honestly say that when you were watching F1 back in the day that you were thinking "gee, those cars are so brutal and primitive...drivers would have to be insane to drive them (because they are so unsafe)." No, they were special because of how fast they were going. Today's are much faster than those of previous years. Senna could get a 1:20 at Monaco, Webber got a 1:13 this year.

    It's that nostalgia thing again, you're looking at the past through rose tinted glasses. In a purely objective test, lets use someone who has not been exposed to F1 before. If you took a 2010 car with its tremendous downforce, and pitted it against even the greatest car of a season during the 80s and 90s. They would probably favour the 2010 car, because while the modern car carries high speed through corners, the older car is having to feather the throttle (which always looks clumsy).

    F1 has not gone backwards at all, it's just idiots like you who lack critical thought who say stupid things like "this decade of F1 was more exciting than this 3/4 of a season."
  9. I wouldnt say the drivers lack balls at all, but the cars are definitely much more driver friendly. the cars today are much less interesting, simply because theyre all more or less carbon copies of eachother.
  10. So just because they brake much latter and pull more Gs in corners mean they have more balls? How many deaths have there been since 1994? 0. F1 ha gone 16 years without a driver fatality, and this is unprecedented. I started watching F1 in 64, 16 years later there were 18 dead pilots. The sport was WAY more dangerous than today, so the pilots back then had more balls.
  11. The number of fatalities determine whether a sport has balls
    Yeah ok
  12. I dont think you would fit in them if your balls were the size of watermelons. Also if your balls were the size of watermelons, i think you would need to see the doctor.
  13. +1 Bugatti4evr
  14. Well saftey has improve tramendously since 1994 which is a huge reason F1 has had 0 deaths since 1994 when Senna died.

    But the point I was trying to make is that F1 cars in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, were more dangerous and bat shit crazier to drive than todays F1 cars. Cars back then were heavier, didn't have all the electronic aids like F1 cars today, had more powerful engines, manual gearboxes, didn't feature the saftey equipment like F1 cars today, and were a lot harder to drive. Don't get me wrong, F1 cars today are very difficult to drive and are a lot faster around a track due to the better understanding of aerodynamics, suspension, and all around racing technology which have greatly improve the cornering speeds of F1 cars toady than in the past. Yes, IF there were less regulations for F1 cars today, then engineers would be creating some really cool shit and F1 cars would be so fast that drivers would require g suits and medical staff watch over them during a grand prix weekend. I just have more respect for the drivers who raced in the 60's, 70's, and 80's than the ones today.
  15. He didn't even say they had more BALLS. They don't. They probably have the same amount of BALLS. How can you judge BALLS anyway? BALLS of a different era to this one?

    What your saying is dumb. Every thing was more dangerous then. It is called progression. Most production cars didn't even have seat-belts. Crumplezone? What the #$%# is that? All motorsports were more dangerous. Health/medicine was less evolved too.
    They raced with what they had, in the circuits they were told to, just like today. And it was such deaths and crashes that led to further safety equipment in the cars and on the tracks, as well as a progression in technology for energy absorbing barriers and designs. F1 drivers still crash, they just have a better chance to survive now, which does not detract from their abilities. F1 drivers didn't go out on the track then thinking they were going to die, just like i bet they don't today. And when a driver was about to crash then, i bet his asshole puckered up just like a driver's today. I suppose you want to argue about ASSHOLE PUCKERING and BALLS too?

    When Nikki Lauda crashed and almost burned to death at Nurburgring, they removed that circuit from F1 racing. (Lauda himself tried to boycott despite being the fastest qualifying)..
    When Senna was killed, the last to die in fact, they added a chicane to the track, and added strict standards, improved barriers and so on. I guess everyone after him is a pussy?
    There are hundreds of other incidents that led to changes.. When there is no one dieing it is a BETTER sport, regardless of how you try and measure the drivers' mettle, im sorry, BALLS.
  16. lol
  17. they are all pussies nowadays, if you aint die'n, you aint tryin.
  18. this.
  19. I'm not saying they dont require balls to race these cars, because they do like whoa. But its not quite the same as when drivers had to race at places like the Ring or the old Spa circuit or the old Hockenheim in deathtraps with minimal safety precautions and you knew there was a reasonable chance you could die that day. Its just not the same when 60% of the circuits they race on at the moment are Tilkedromes.

    And in terms of which cars were cooler. Someone send the link of Ayrton Senna at Spa in '91 and listen to that engine. Enough said.
  20. the point is that the drivers dont have the chance to race there, or drive dangerous cars. How can you say they wouldnt?

    they may not HAVE to do as dangerous of stuff, but saying they wouldnt is probably wrong. Pro racecar drivers are a unique breed. theyre just as ballsy/crazy as ever.
  21. F1 cars today may be blazingly fast compared to the cars of the 1980s, but they're quite tame compared to the cars of the V10 era. The proportions are all wrong as well, making the cars look ungainly and awkward. The sound is not on par with the V10s, let alone the old V12s. This is why I think the cars of today aren't as "cool" as olders cars.

    It has nothing to do with how safe or how dangerous they are. No rose tinted glasses here.
  22. I like how all the people who said "F1 is boring" have now changed their tune to "F1 cars are boring."
  23. a way, the cars are the sport.
  24. #49 webber f1 racer, Aug 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  25. Cars in the early 90s were tame by comparison to turbo era cars. If we were discussing the state of F1 in 1991, people like you would be bemoaning the loss of turbocharging and complaining about how the cars aren't nearly as powerful as they once were.

    But because we are in 2010 and there's been several rule changes regarding engines that has reduced output, the early 90s cars are now "cool."

    Sounds like rose-tinted glasses to me.

    PS. Webber, i seem to recall McLaren not liking the V12 because it was heavy and underpowered. In fact, the V12s fell out of favour in F1 because they weren't good enough. It's that rose-tinted glasses thing again, where people only remember the good bits (the sound) and forget that everything else about it was dreadful.

Share This Page