HighPlainsDrifter - 30 August 2008 11:38 AM

Rand - 30 August 2008 11:18 AM

Fix the rollers, and I don't have a problem with them...otherwise go to standing starts..

The problem with that line of thinking, is that you are insinuating that all standing starts are executed to perfection and that nothing ever goes wrong with them.

They can't be any worse then the rollers are now, HPD...

Maybe when Race Control screws up enough rollers AND standing starts, they might actually show a little testicular fortitude and actually fix the #### things...

Last count before the webmasters removed the poll was 71% in favor of a standing starts and 29% against.

This is merely for your consideration and does not reflect my views. FYI and nothing more.

As mentioned above, if they control the rolling starts the way that they should and used to be: everyone in rows, things will be fine. If a driver is out of line, send them all around again and those who cant stay in proper position go to the back. Issue this warning in the drivers meeting and enforce it and you solve the problem. This should be on restarts also.

The race start in Detroit was brutal.

openwheelguy - 01 September 2008 05:48 AM

The race start in Detroit was brutal.

Brutal is being polite.....

B Glover - 07 September 2008 06:18 AM

Anyone that watched the F1 Spa race today can attest, the combination of standing starts and paved runoff areas makes for the sloopiest starts in racing history, bar none. For those that continue to whine about "fairness", when a car can overcook a turn, skid 100ft into the runoff, accelerate and return to the circuit traveling faster than the cars it re-enters next to, I would welcome any arguement that can satisfactorily describe how that is "fair" to the drivers that had the fortitude to remain ontrack. At Spa, a total of 6 cars went deep into the run-off at the start and re-entered without any significant loss of position. How any of this can even remotely considered as an advancement is beyond my comprehension. Cars that leave the racing circuit should pay a price, anything less is a diminishment of the skill required to drive a car. It's a dumbing down of the sport that will contribute nothing to any future success. End of story.

The start? The start was perfect. No stalls, nobody jumped, no contact on the grid. What happened AFTER the start in the first turn is a different issue. Frankly, it looked like the typical traffic jam you get no matter what type of start you use. That's unavoidable, so paving the runnoff makes sense (Champ Car had that done at Portland, and it helped.) The idea is that the cars keep going instead ending thier race beached in the gravel trap on the first lap.. Given that most cars are FORCED off the pavement in that situation, it makes no sense to penalize them. As long as shortcutting a turn is not done to defend a position (Which would be like blocking), or GAIN a position, no penalty is required. Drivers typically will give up a position gained by shortcutting without even being asked, because that's the rule and they know it. It was the rule in CC, and the IRL, AND F-1, and just about every race series out there.

B Glover - 07 September 2008 06:18 AM

Anyone that watched the F1 Spa race today can attest, the combination of standing starts and paved runoff areas makes for the sloopiest starts in racing history, bar none. For those that continue to whine about "fairness", when a car can overcook a turn, skid 100ft into the runoff, accelerate and return to the circuit traveling faster than the cars it re-enters next to, I would welcome any arguement that can satisfactorily describe how that is "fair" to the drivers that had the fortitude to remain ontrack. At Spa, a total of 6 cars went deep into the run-off at the start and re-entered without any significant loss of position. How any of this can even remotely considered as an advancement is beyond my comprehension. Cars that leave the racing circuit should pay a price, anything less is a diminishment of the skill required to drive a car. It's a dumbing down of the sport that will contribute nothing to any future success. End of story.

+1

Anyone that watched the F1 Spa race today can attest, the combination of standing starts and paved runoff areas makes for the sloopiest starts in racing history, bar none. For those that continue to whine about "fairness", when a car can overcook a turn, skid 100ft into the runoff, accelerate and return to the circuit traveling faster than the cars it re-enters next to, I would welcome any arguement that can satisfactorily describe how that is "fair" to the drivers that had the fortitude to remain ontrack. At Spa, a total of 6 cars went deep into the run-off at the start and re-entered without any significant loss of position. How any of this can even remotely considered as an advancement is beyond my comprehension. Cars that leave the racing circuit should pay a price, anything less is a diminishment of the skill required to drive a car. It's a dumbing down of the sport that will contribute nothing to any future success. End of story.