Dave, I don’t think your right about the points and race duration.

Places were awarded yes, you’ll note that Trulli shows as 7th and Raikonnen 8th, reflecting their P1 and P2 qualifying positions. This will help them to some degree in qualifying for the next race. But they, and their manufacturers, scored no points. You must finish the race to score points.

And the race starts when the lights go out. Have a look at the next telecast (or your tape of this one if you still have it) and you see 70/70 or however many laps it is at the top of the screen as we wait for the lights to go out. If there’s a false start and a further parade lap is required, or if the race starts behind a safety car, then those laps count as laps of the race. But the initial formation part-lap and the (first if plural) warm-up lap do not count.

dhfan ~ I readily concede that Michelin stated that their tyres were not safe to race on. Why then did they support/agree to the chicane? A. Because reduced speed would make their tyres safe as I argue above.

My few cents worth …

F1 teams create cars, the cars consist of parts. They make some themselves, some parts are sourced from outside suppliers – tyres are an example. The teams contract with the FIA to race, and they are remunerated on the basis of performance. So for this and other reasons (pure competitive reasons and to reward/hold sponsors for their funding) they endeavour to create competitive cars. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail.

When they succeed they can get on a winning streak as improved performance leads directly to greater funding and knowledge. There have been any number of long winning streaks in F1, the most marked being those of MacLaren and Renault in the 80’s and early 90’s. And Ferrari has had a recent winning streak. Good on them all, this is the whole point of competition. Win!

Sometimes they fail, and the cars perform badly. Normally when that happens no attempt is made to reduce the performance of the successful team, rather the underperformer is told to put up or shut up. As an interesting aside, the recent tendency has been to blame Ferrari for its winning streak – quite a reversal of the longer run norm in F1. Anyway, what happened last weekend is that a number of teams found they had underperforming cars. They were nevertheless obliged and expected to race. They could and should have done so. They did not. They are the one’s who erred and I fully support the FIA in its position.

There is the argument that the problem was that the tyres were unsafe and therefore the teams had no choice but to withdraw. (As another aside perhaps someone should have mentioned that to MacLaren/Raikonnen just a few weeks ago.) The argument is self-evidently untrue. The suggestion was that if a chicane was installed at turn 13 the tyres would apparently become safe. How? Not because of any miraculous tyre-reparing properties inherent in a chicane, but simply because it would stop the cars from taking turn 13 at high-speed. Ah, so now we have the answer, if the teams limited their speed on turn 13 the tyres would not be unsafe. The FIA suggested that the teams with inadequate equipment proceed more slowly through that corner and if necessary pit more often to replace unsafe tyres. I presume (but don’t know for sure) that this could be accomplished through gear selection, rev limiting or other telemetry. This would eliminate the circumstance that affected the safety of the Michelin tyre/s without penalising those whose equipment was operating effectively.

If one assumes that, as result of this, the two Bridgestone shod Ferraris would run away at the front of the field then P3 through P8 and their associated championship points may have been up for grabs (depending on the relative pace of the Michelin front-runners and the Jordans and Minardis). What was wrong with having a go at those points? Would Alonso’s or Raikonnen’s championship hopes have been enhanced by having at go at those points? Yes.

Summing all that up:
– From time to time some cars are faster/slower than others – c’est la vie
– All F1 teams are contracted to race
– If your car is slower you either race for the lesser positions or retire.
– If you retire, you do so during the race, not before it (and BTW the race starts when the 5 red lights go out, not before then).

And as I’m sure all agree, the root cause of the problem was Michelin’s failure to ensure that both sets of tyres (2 compounds are offered to teams) were capable of lasting full distance in all circumstances. But the contributing factors were that …
– all the Michelin teams chose the less durable, more racey tyre
– none of those teams was willing to reduce its performance unless all teams had to reduce their performance (and since when has that been acceptable?)

At the end of the day, the obligation was on those teams to put-up. They did not.

ah well, thanks for the definition Ben … apparently and IMHO understandably I’m a post-modernist. Interesting however that I’m 100% post-modernist AND 38% modernist … damn good thing I’m not an empiricist :rolleyes:

Must say I struggled with this question … what is it asking?
“Life has been a self-alienation of the divine and we’re moving closer to realizing our true nature.”

———–

You scored as Postmodernist.

Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.

Postmodernist 100%
Cultural Creative 94%
Romanticist 44%
Existentialist 44%
Idealist 38%
Modernist 38%
Materialist 25%
Fundamentalist 19%

Gaz? Gazza? Bazza? Barry! How about this – a Barry Sheen MANX replica 500cc Norton.

http://www.motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/classic_bikes/manx_replica.html

requiescat in pace Barry

Many thanks Damien, Flood. And I see Zulu came in at number 8. Judging by the website I’d say it must’ve been interesting viewing. Some great quotes there too (see menu at the link above).

Somewhat confused by scoring system for this series.

You’re confused – what are you guys talking about? Something on UK TV? How is a “war film” defined? Would “Zulu” qualify for example?

Anyway, for my money – I’d put “Apocalypse Now” well up the list.

Nice shots Robbo – but just a quick question re. contents as I’m not at all au fait with what’s at Hendon. Is that a B17 I see in top left background of the Lanc photo? And what sort of colour-scheme is it in (orange cowlings and so on)?
Many thanks, D

ps. Tigercatno1fan – when I read the title of this thread I thought you were referring to some sort of dam raids night-time reenactment – sounded pretty cool. In fact I’d love to see it! I think you meant “Damn”.

To those of you who said B17—- If you were in WW2 and had a choice as to which bomber you would want to fly in I’m quite sure you would choose the B17 because it would be your best chance of surviving a tour. This in spite of it’s smaller bomb load.

Totally agree Jules – see my post #39 above – if heaven forbid I had to do a tour of ops in any one of the aircraft we’re blathering on about here it’d be the B17 for me. And frankly I respect the philosophy of the powers-that-be that put survivability above load carrying capacity. In fact it is that very point (inverted) that I consider to be a negative about the Lancaster/RAF Bomber Command.