On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
> >>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
> >>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
> >>>>>>>>> chose to go.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Don't they all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
> >>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
> >>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
> >>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
> >>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
> >>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
> >>>
> >>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
> >>>
> >>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
> >>>
> >>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
> >>> problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
> >>
> >> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
> >
> > But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
> >
> > But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
> > of the cars.
> >
> >>
> >> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>
> >> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
> >> 'then slow down'.
> >>
> >> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
> >> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>
> >> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
> >>
> >> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
> >> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
> >>
> >> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
> >
> > And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
> >
> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>
> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>
> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>
> Then watch the whole thing.
>
> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
You're both dancing on the head of a pin.

Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.

The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
still make most of our eyes water proves that.

But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
or aquaplaning risks.

On 2021-09-03 8:39 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>
>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
>>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>
>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
>>>
>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>
>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
>>> of the cars.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>
>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>
>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>
>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>
>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>
>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
>>>
>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>
>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>
>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>
>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>
>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>
>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>
> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>
> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>
> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
> or aquaplaning risks.
>

No. Wrong.

The cars are completely raceable and safe in wet weather just as they
are. It is the DRIVERS who reached the limit of what they could do safely...

....because they could no longer see far enough ahead.

On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>
>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
>>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>
>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
>>>
>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>
>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
>>> of the cars.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>
>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>
>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>
>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>
>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>
>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
>>>
>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>
>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>
>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>
>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>
>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>
>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>
> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>
> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>
> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
> or aquaplaning risks.

I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
aquaplaning with the extreme wets.

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:23 UTC+1, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
> >>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
> >>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
> >>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
> >>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
> >>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Correct.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
> >>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
> >>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
> >>>>> problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
> >>>
> >>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
> >>>
> >>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
> >>> of the cars.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>>>
> >>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
> >>>> 'then slow down'.
> >>>>
> >>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
> >>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>>>
> >>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
> >>>>
> >>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
> >>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
> >>>>
> >>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
> >>>
> >>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
> >>>
> >> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
> >> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
> >> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
> >>
> >> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
> >>
> >> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
> >>
> >> Then watch the whole thing.
> >>
> >> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
> > You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
> >
> > Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
> > providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
> >
> > The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
> > still make most of our eyes water proves that.
> >
> > But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
> > meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
> > or aquaplaning risks.
> I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
> aquaplaning with the extreme wets.
Several of the drivers were complaining about aquaplaning in quali, no?

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:09 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-03 8:39 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
> >>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
> >>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
> >>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
> >>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
> >>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Correct.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
> >>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
> >>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
> >>>>> problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
> >>>
> >>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
> >>>
> >>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
> >>> of the cars.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
> >>>>
> >>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
> >>>> 'then slow down'.
> >>>>
> >>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
> >>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
> >>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
> >>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
> >>>>
> >>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
> >>>>
> >>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
> >>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
> >>>>
> >>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
> >>>
> >>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
> >>>
> >> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
> >> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
> >> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
> >>
> >> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
> >>
> >> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
> >>
> >> Then watch the whole thing.
> >>
> >> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
> > You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
> >
> > Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
> > providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
> >
> > The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
> > still make most of our eyes water proves that.
> >
> > But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
> > meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
> > or aquaplaning risks.
> >
> No. Wrong.
>
> The cars are completely raceable and safe in wet weather just as they
> are. It is the DRIVERS who reached the limit of what they could do safely...
>
> ...because they could no longer see far enough ahead.
I was trying to agree with you!!

On 2021-09-03 8:47 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:23 UTC+1, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
>>>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
>>>>> of the cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
>>>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>>>
>>>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>>>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>>>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>>>
>>>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>>>
>>>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
>>> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>>>
>>> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
>>> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>>>
>>> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
>>> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>>>
>>> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
>>> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
>>> or aquaplaning risks.
>> I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
>> aquaplaning with the extreme wets.
> Several of the drivers were complaining about aquaplaning in quali, no?
>

On 2021-09-03 8:51 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:09 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-09-03 8:39 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
>>>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
>>>>> of the cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
>>>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>>>
>>>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>>>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>>>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>>>
>>>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>>>
>>>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
>>> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>>>
>>> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
>>> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>>>
>>> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
>>> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>>>
>>> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
>>> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
>>> or aquaplaning risks.
>>>
>> No. Wrong.
>>
>> The cars are completely raceable and safe in wet weather just as they
>> are. It is the DRIVERS who reached the limit of what they could do safely...
>>
>> ...because they could no longer see far enough ahead.
> I was trying to agree with you!!
>
> But yes, when I say "cars" I mean cars as being driven by humans.
>
> Put an AI computer in the race cars and of course they could race.
>
> And put a grid of psychopaths in the cars with driving skill and they
> could race as they might not fear the risk associated with themselves
> and their fellow drivers.
>
> All the cars on the grid on Sunday could have done 2m10-ish laps in their
> configuration, hence were driveable. And perhaps in 1966 the drivers would
> have reluctantly accepted the challenge of racing with that level of visibility.
>
> But not today.
>

On 9/3/2021 10:47 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:23 UTC+1, Heron wrote:
>> On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't driveable!"
>>>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the entire
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive slower.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the unsuitability
>>>>> of the cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA did
>>>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any protest.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>>>
>>>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>>>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>>>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>>>
>>>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>>>
>>>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
>>> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>>>
>>> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is driveable
>>> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>>>
>>> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which would
>>> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>>>
>>> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which would
>>> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of visibility
>>> or aquaplaning risks.
>> I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
>> aquaplaning with the extreme wets.
> Several of the drivers were complaining about aquaplaning in quali, no?

On 2021-09-03 8:54 a.m., Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2021 10:47 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:23 UTC+1, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> driveable!"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>> Liberty
>>>>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the
>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive
>>>>>>> slower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the
>>>>>> unsuitability
>>>>>> of the cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA
>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any
>>>>>>> protest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>>>>
>>>>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>>>>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>>>>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>>>>
>>>>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>>>>
>>>>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
>>>> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is
>>>> driveable
>>>> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>>>>
>>>> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which
>>>> would
>>>> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>>>>
>>>> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which
>>>> would
>>>> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of
>>>> visibility
>>>> or aquaplaning risks.
>>> I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
>>> aquaplaning with the extreme wets.
>> Several of the drivers were complaining about aquaplaning in quali, no?
>
> They may have been referring to intermediates, I don't know.

On 9/3/2021 10:54 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 9/3/2021 10:47 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:43:23 UTC+1, Heron wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2021 10:39 AM, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:30:08 UTC+1, News wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 2:18 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 5:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:59 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:45 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:30 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 4:25 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 1:01 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 3:36 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 12:22 p.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 2:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-02 10:22 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News <Ne...@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't want to hear, that the current F1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'formula' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The car is undriveable in conditions of such low visibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can't see a car just 100 metres in front of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell Norris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but when you go through ANY corner on ANY track in ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions faster than the conditions allow, that is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norris had the option of going a little bit slower than he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chose to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't they all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. That's the whole point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise in qualifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are completely missing the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You point to one crash and say "See! The cars aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> driveable!"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you ignore the fact that everyone else managed to qualify.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet none of them 'raced', did they?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the problem was clearly stated:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to SEE the car ahead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Restating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>> Liberty
>>>>>>>>> don't want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>>> undriveable in the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Restating an obvious falsehood doesn't make it any truer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It wasn't an issue with the cars at all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was with the DRIVERS ABILITY TO SEE FAR ENOUGH that was the
>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Obvious falsehood"? The obvious cluelesslessness is yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't race because you can't see? Drive from the pole, or drive
>>>>>>> slower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that means a race where only one driver can actually race.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even so, it disproves your claim that it was about the
>>>>>> unsuitability
>>>>>> of the cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, what did Max Mosley famously say, about drivers and their cars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If you said a particular corner was really dangerous, they'd say
>>>>>>> 'then slow down'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But of course that was complete nonsense. Even today if you said
>>>>>>> to any Formula One driver, 'here are two cars, this one is
>>>>>>> completely safe and this one is extremely dangerous but two
>>>>>>> seconds a lap quicker', there would be no discussion."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise qualifying, and the race itself. The analogy fits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The present crop of F1 drivers could have protested, done as GPDA
>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>> in 1969, and on several subsequent occasions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The commercial implications, team and peer pressure mooted any
>>>>>>> protest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it still has nothing to do with the cars being "undriveable".
>>>>>>
>>>>> For all but the driver on pole, undriveable, as you acknowledged, and
>>>>> should have been canceled, period, with drivers taking the lead, which
>>>>> they might have, absent the leverage of commercial agreements.
>>>>>
>>>>> See from 15:00; F1 in its present format is unsuitable.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7onslp
>>>>>
>>>>> Then watch the whole thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free not to reply. In fact, don't. Though you surely will.
>>>> You're both dancing on the head of a pin.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the cars were driveable. Any car and any condition is
>>>> driveable
>>>> providing the driver drives slowly enough to navigate the route.
>>>>
>>>> The very fact that they drove behind the safety car at speeds which
>>>> would
>>>> still make most of our eyes water proves that.
>>>>
>>>> But the cohort of cars all together were not raceable in a way which
>>>> would
>>>> meet today's acceptable safety threshold, either though lack of
>>>> visibility
>>>> or aquaplaning risks.
>>> I've neither seen or heard anything concerning
>>> aquaplaning with the extreme wets.
>> Several of the drivers were complaining about aquaplaning in quali, no?
>
> They may have been referring to intermediates, I don't know.

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:53:44 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> And I would be in complete agreement with them.

kill yourself ass licker

On 2021-09-03 9:44 a.m., texas gate wrote:
> On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:53:44 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And I would be in complete agreement with them.
>
> kill yourself ass licker
>

I might die of boredom if I keep reading your posts.

:-)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:

>On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the promoters,
>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>
>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty don't
>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>
>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>> track?
>>
>
>Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.

The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
the wet.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:30:41 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-09-03 12:58 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the promoters,
>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>
>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty don't
>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>
>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>> track?
>>
>
>How many have had so much rain that the drivers didn't have adequate
>visibility?

It's the wet track that causes the lack of visibility so you are
making a difference that makes no difference..

>
>:-)

On 2021-09-04 3:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:30:41 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-03 12:58 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the promoters,
>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty don't
>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>
>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>> track?
>>>
>>
>> How many have had so much rain that the drivers didn't have adequate
>> visibility?
>
> It's the wet track that causes the lack of visibility so you are
> making a difference that makes no difference..

It makes ALL the difference when the discussion is whether or not the
cars are inherently undriveable.

On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the promoters,
>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty don't
>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>
>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>> track?

Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been red-flagged.

"Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have
been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at the 2021
Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races were
restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that resulted
in fatalities:"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>

'Nine because of rain' appears to be:

1950 Indy 500
1974 BRA
1975 GBR
1975 AUT
1984 MON
1991 AUS
2009 MAS
2014 JPN
2021 BEL

>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>
>
> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
> the wet.
>

On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>
>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>> track?
>
> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been red-flagged.
>
> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have
> been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at the 2021
> Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races were
> restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
> restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
> drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that resulted
> in fatalities:"
>
>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>
> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>
> 1950  Indy 500
> 1974  BRA
> 1975  GBR
> 1975  AUT
> 1984  MON
> 1991  AUS
> 2009  MAS
> 2014  JPN
> 2021  BEL
>
>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>> the wet.
>>
>

Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.

Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.

News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>>> track?
>>
>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been red-flagged.
>>
>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have
>> been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at the 2021
>> Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races were
>> restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
>> restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
>> drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that resulted
>> in fatalities:"
>>
>>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>
>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>
>> 1950  Indy 500
>> 1974  BRA
>> 1975  GBR
>> 1975  AUT
>> 1984  MON
>> 1991  AUS
>> 2009  MAS
>> 2014  JPN
>> 2021  BEL
>>
>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>> the wet.
>>>
>>
>
>
> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
> acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
> which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>
> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>
F1 is obviously not for you so why not just go away and leave the rest of
us to enjoy it?
--
Sir Tim

On 9/7/2021 2:53 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>>>> track?
>>>
>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been red-flagged.
>>>
>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have
>>> been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at the 2021
>>> Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races were
>>> restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
>>> restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
>>> drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that resulted
>>> in fatalities:"
>>>
>>>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>
>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>
>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>> 1974  BRA
>>> 1975  GBR
>>> 1975  AUT
>>> 1984  MON
>>> 1991  AUS
>>> 2009  MAS
>>> 2014  JPN
>>> 2021  BEL
>>>
>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>> the wet.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
>> acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
>> which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>
>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
>> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>>
> F1 is obviously not for you so why not just go away and leave the rest of
> us to enjoy it?
>

I punted the 'pool', but remain interested in fixing the 'spectacle.'

If you like F1 the way it is, play the pool and use your delete key.

Fair enough?

On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>>> track?
>>
>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been red-flagged.
>>
>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have
>> been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at the
>> 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races were
>> restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
>> restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
>> drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that
>> resulted in fatalities:"
>>
>>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>
>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>
>> 1950  Indy 500
>> 1974  BRA
>> 1975  GBR
>> 1975  AUT
>> 1984  MON
>> 1991  AUS
>> 2009  MAS
>> 2014  JPN
>> 2021  BEL
>>
>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>> the wet.
>>>
>>
>
>
> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
> acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
> which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>
> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.

If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the current
cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll get no
argument from me at all.

But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...

....you're just full of shit.

On 9/7/2021 3:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and Liberty
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>>>> track?
>>>
>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been
>>> red-flagged.
>>>
>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags
>>> have been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at
>>> the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six races
>>> were restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix were not
>>> restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes involving
>>> drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents that
>>> resulted in fatalities:"
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>
>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>
>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>> 1974  BRA
>>> 1975  GBR
>>> 1975  AUT
>>> 1984  MON
>>> 1991  AUS
>>> 2009  MAS
>>> 2014  JPN
>>> 2021  BEL
>>>
>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>> the wet.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
>> acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
>> which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>
>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
>> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>
> If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the current
> cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll get no
> argument from me at all.
>
> But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...
>
> ...you're just full of shit.

So you'd agree, 'unraceable.' OK. Whatever.

On 2021-09-07 12:16 p.m., News wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 3:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>> Liberty don't
>>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to wet
>>>>>>> track?
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been
>>>> red-flagged.
>>>>
>>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags
>>>> have been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being at
>>>> the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six
>>>> races were restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix
>>>> were not restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes
>>>> involving drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents
>>>> that resulted in fatalities:"
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>>
>>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>>
>>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>>> 1974  BRA
>>>> 1975  GBR
>>>> 1975  AUT
>>>> 1984  MON
>>>> 1991  AUS
>>>> 2009  MAS
>>>> 2014  JPN
>>>> 2021  BEL
>>>>
>>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>> the wet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given the
>>> acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid turbulence,
>>> which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>>
>>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
>>> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>>
>> If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the
>> current cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll get
>> no argument from me at all.
>>
>> But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...
>>
>> ...you're just full of shit.
>
>
> So you'd agree, 'unraceable.' OK. Whatever.

Not as raceable as I think they should be, but essentially yes.

On 9/7/2021 4:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-07 12:16 p.m., News wrote:
>> On 9/7/2021 3:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't
>>>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due to
>>>>>>>> wet
>>>>>>>> track?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been
>>>>> red-flagged.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags
>>>>> have been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being
>>>>> at the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six
>>>>> races were restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix
>>>>> were not restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes
>>>>> involving drivers. Another five races were stopped due to incidents
>>>>> that resulted in fatalities:"
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>>>> 1974  BRA
>>>>> 1975  GBR
>>>>> 1975  AUT
>>>>> 1984  MON
>>>>> 1991  AUS
>>>>> 2009  MAS
>>>>> 2014  JPN
>>>>> 2021  BEL
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but undriveable in
>>>>>> the wet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given
>>>> the acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid
>>>> turbulence, which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>>>
>>>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
>>>> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>>>
>>> If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the
>>> current cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll get
>>> no argument from me at all.
>>>
>>> But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...
>>>
>>> ...you're just full of shit.
>>
>>
>> So you'd agree, 'unraceable.' OK. Whatever.
>
> Not as raceable as I think they should be, but essentially yes.

Unsuitable for intended purpose. Degrading the spectacle.

On 2021-09-07 1:22 p.m., News wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 4:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-09-07 12:16 p.m., News wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2021 3:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't
>>>>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due
>>>>>>>>> to wet
>>>>>>>>> track?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been
>>>>>> red-flagged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags
>>>>>> have been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being
>>>>>> at the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of twenty-six
>>>>>> races were restarted on the first lap, while thirteen Grands Prix
>>>>>> were not restarted, nine because of rain and four due to crashes
>>>>>> involving drivers. Another five races were stopped due to
>>>>>> incidents that resulted in fatalities:"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>>>>> 1974  BRA
>>>>>> 1975  GBR
>>>>>> 1975  AUT
>>>>>> 1984  MON
>>>>>> 1991  AUS
>>>>>> 2009  MAS
>>>>>> 2014  JPN
>>>>>> 2021  BEL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes nonsense
>>>>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>> the wet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given
>>>>> the acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid
>>>>> turbulence, which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current F1
>>>>> vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the
>>>> current cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll
>>>> get no argument from me at all.
>>>>
>>>> But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...
>>>>
>>>> ...you're just full of shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you'd agree, 'unraceable.' OK. Whatever.
>>
>> Not as raceable as I think they should be, but essentially yes.
>
>
> Unsuitable for intended purpose. Degrading the spectacle.

Again: I have no problem with that. I agree. I look forward to seeing
them change the rules and hopefully make the racing better.

But that has nothing to do with calling the cars "undriveable". They
simply aren't.

On 9/7/2021 4:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-07 1:22 p.m., News wrote:
>> On 9/7/2021 4:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-07 12:16 p.m., News wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2021 3:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-07 7:12 a.m., News wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/5/2021 7:30 AM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/09/2021 11:07, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:10 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:22:22 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 12:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the disrepute to the sport. Uncomfortable for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the promoters,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but definitely nothing unsporting about the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other comments I'll ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stating the inconvenient truth, the obvious, that FIA and
>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to hear, that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>>>>>> the wet, despite all the runoff room in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How many F1 races have been red flagged and not restarted due
>>>>>>>>>> to wet
>>>>>>>>>> track?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia have a page that lists all F1 races that have been
>>>>>>> red-flagged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags
>>>>>>> have been shown in seventy-eight races, with the latest one being
>>>>>>> at the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix on 29 August. A total of
>>>>>>> twenty-six races were restarted on the first lap, while thirteen
>>>>>>> Grands Prix were not restarted, nine because of rain and four due
>>>>>>> to crashes involving drivers. Another five races were stopped due
>>>>>>> to incidents that resulted in fatalities:"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Nine because of rain' appears to be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1950  Indy 500
>>>>>>> 1974  BRA
>>>>>>> 1975  GBR
>>>>>>> 1975  AUT
>>>>>>> 1984  MON
>>>>>>> 1991  AUS
>>>>>>> 2009  MAS
>>>>>>> 2014  JPN
>>>>>>> 2021  BEL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fewer than should have been. Liberty and FIA should be ashamed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you can't identify any except last week makes
>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>> of your claim that the current F1 'formula' is all but
>>>>>>>> undriveable in
>>>>>>>> the wet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Undriveable and inherently unraceable in the dry (and wet), given
>>>>>> the acknowledged need for 3-4 seconds of clear air to avoid
>>>>>> turbulence, which even screws up qualy with all the 'gap' posturing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the frog in water being brought to a slow boil, the current
>>>>>> F1 vehicle specification has evolved to shyte, and smells of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to say that F1 needs to change its rules because the
>>>>> current cars have too much trouble running close together, you'll
>>>>> get no argument from me at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you call the cars in general "undriveable"...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...you're just full of shit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you'd agree, 'unraceable.' OK. Whatever.
>>>
>>> Not as raceable as I think they should be, but essentially yes.
>>
>>
>> Unsuitable for intended purpose. Degrading the spectacle.
>
> Again: I have no problem with that. I agree. I look forward to seeing
> them change the rules and hopefully make the racing better.
>
> But that has nothing to do with calling the cars "undriveable". They
> simply aren't.

When they are, as you agree, 'unraceable', what's the practical
difference? A difference without a distinction? Demo only?