2014 Random F1 Discussion

Gaara · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:31 pm

StanV wrote:

coldtyre wrote:

Even without the freak deaths at Imola, I believe 1994 was a turning point anyway, as evidenced by the fair amount of injuries early season compared to the previous years.

The only regret I still have from it is that the old Imola layout, with a SAFER wall closer to the track, would be super-spectacular and reasonably safe to race in today's cockpits. Instead we now have tracks that give no sense of speed as the closest reference point is miles away from the road.

"Funny" thing is that they've revamped Imola in such a way now that it has become more dangerous again than back then (an angled wall at the part with the highest speed, what?)

Yeaa, just ask Marcel Tiemann. I have no idea why they had it like that, so simple to have made it less of an angle. Even put up a SAFER barrier instead of bare concrete.

mclaren2008 · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:02 pm

Great piece of track design that is. No tyres even.

ellis · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:04 pm

Odd really though. Anyone who has driven it in a game (like Assetto Corsa) would not identify it as an accident spot. It just doesn't appear dangerous at all.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:26 pm

Artur Craft wrote:

You can rule out lack of downforce with it. Even if he had a loss of downforce, it wouldn't have been much and Tamburello is not even a real corner. You can very easily corner it flat out even with no downforce at all

I think Gerhard Berger may disagree with you on this.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:27 pm

StanV wrote:

coldtyre wrote:

Even without the freak deaths at Imola, I believe 1994 was a turning point anyway, as evidenced by the fair amount of injuries early season compared to the previous years.

The only regret I still have from it is that the old Imola layout, with a SAFER wall closer to the track, would be super-spectacular and reasonably safe to race in today's cockpits. Instead we now have tracks that give no sense of speed as the closest reference point is miles away from the road.

"Funny" thing is that they've revamped Imola in such a way now that it has become more dangerous again than back then (an angled wall at the part with the highest speed, what?)

Whaa? Which corner?

ellis · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:30 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

StanV wrote:

coldtyre wrote:

Even without the freak deaths at Imola, I believe 1994 was a turning point anyway, as evidenced by the fair amount of injuries early season compared to the previous years.

The only regret I still have from it is that the old Imola layout, with a SAFER wall closer to the track, would be super-spectacular and reasonably safe to race in today's cockpits. Instead we now have tracks that give no sense of speed as the closest reference point is miles away from the road.

"Funny" thing is that they've revamped Imola in such a way now that it has become more dangerous again than back then (an angled wall at the part with the highest speed, what?)

Whaa? Which corner?

kals · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:32 pm

Looking at the circuit on Google Maps, the wall and angle of the wall seems ok. This was a freak'ish accident.

Ian-S · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:33 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

Artur Craft wrote:

You can rule out lack of downforce with it. Even if he had a loss of downforce, it wouldn't have been much and Tamburello is not even a real corner. You can very easily corner it flat out even with no downforce at all

I think Gerhard Berger may disagree with you on this.

LOL I think someone's making a lot of assumptions on how easy F1 cars are how to drive based on Codemasters products...

Also IIRC, the penetration that killed Senna went through his visor, not the helmet, it was a myth that visors were bulletproof in those days.

kals · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:34 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

Artur Craft wrote:

You can rule out lack of downforce with it. Even if he had a loss of downforce, it wouldn't have been much and Tamburello is not even a real corner. You can very easily corner it flat out even with no downforce at all

I think Gerhard Berger may disagree with you on this.

A lot of drivers would disagree with that (not just those who crashed there). Tamburello was still very much a corner.

kals · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:35 pm

Ian-S wrote:

...it was a myth that visors were bulletproof in those days.

Poor choice of words considering the sniper theory Ian :whistling:

Ian-S · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:36 pm

shhhh, nobody will notice.

ellis · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:43 pm

kals wrote:

Looking at the circuit on Google Maps, the wall and angle of the wall seems ok. This was a freak'ish accident.

There's been 3 or 4 there now though. I think it's a funnel effect on the drivers causing them to bunch together.

Gaara · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:49 pm

On the normal racing line it probably is fine but if you get knocked off then it becomes a problem as it did for Tiemann and the Porsche driver.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:13 pm

Jesus, that is a poor bit of planning! The corner *should* be fine, but ceases to be the moment you can't steer around it. Pretty much like the old Tamburello and Villeneuve, tbh. I'm amazed there is no SAFER barrier there, and even more so if they didn't install it after the first accident.

Coldtyre · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:59 pm

Next topic: Schumacher vs Hill, Adelaide 1994, who's at fault?

Discuss.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:23 pm

coldtyre wrote:

Next topic: Schumacher vs Hill, Adelaide 1994, who's at fault?

Discuss.

Pfft. You suck at the dead horse-flogging game!

Fangio and Moss - did he let him past?

Cheeveer · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:44 pm

The Tripoli race was fixed. :roll:

micha · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:09 pm

coldtyre wrote:

Next topic: Schumacher vs Hill, Adelaide 1994, who's at fault?

Discuss.

Hill. he even admitted it later on. He knew that Schumacher's car was badly damaged and he himself was an idiot for making the pass knowing he would have done the same and Schumacher had to pit.

am I doing this right??

Gaara · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:17 pm

No, Hill said if he'd known Schumacher had been damaged he wouldn't have tried to make that move.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:18 pm

micha wrote:

coldtyre wrote:

Next topic: Schumacher vs Hill, Adelaide 1994, who's at fault?

Discuss.

Hill. he even admitted it later on. He knew that Schumacher's car was badly damaged and he himself was an idiot for making the pass knowing he would have done the same and Schumacher had to pit.

am I doing this right??

Yes!

Ah, but Hill admitting he was at fault because he went for the gap isn't too different to Prost (hypothetically) saying he was at fault for closing Senna down in 1990

Edit: I think we need an "Outlandish-but-plausible F1 Conspiracies" thread tbh.

TBK-Light.com

2014 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online