|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
6 Dec 2011, 22:19 (Ref:2996174) | #126 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
your in a thread titled Bathurst 1000 is there something wrong with it and your answer is closing the pit lane (for safety purposes) Ive asked you how that will make a better race. Ive then told you how it will make the race worse. im still waiting after 4 weeks for you to tell me how it will make the race better. I understand, that it may have some safety benefits for officials trying to clear a track, but i believe there are better ways to get those safety benefits than making the race worse. but thats not what this thread is about. |
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 01:45 (Ref:2996232) | #127 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,117
|
who cares what the thread is about, you cannot imply because I have written something in this thread therefore it means it is in respect to the thread title. Many people on here, including yourself, digress from the topic of the thread.
I have never said it would make it a better race, for your benefit what i said was (even though you quoted it above) "I think most people agree on the closing of pit lane under yellow, or whatever else, to afford better safety" As such, I cannot answer how it will make it a better race, as that is not what I wrote. How many times do I have to say it? |
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 01:58 (Ref:2996235) | #128 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
thank you for your irrelevant side comment on how we can inmprove bathurst then |
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 02:37 (Ref:2996241) | #129 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,117
|
Quote:
your welcome. now, can you clear up for me, how closing the pits, will produce more safety cars than if the pits were to remain open, all other things being equal? Or shall I be hearing crickets again? as you have a distinct history of not looking things up accurately, this is where you said it: http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....9&postcount=93 note the 4th line, or to be more accurate, the 5th sentence in that post as for side comments relevant or not, Hello Mr Pot, i'm a kettle, and you're black also. |
|||
|
7 Dec 2011, 03:04 (Ref:2996246) | #130 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,527
|
|
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 03:08 (Ref:2996247) | #131 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 585
|
|||
|
7 Dec 2011, 04:47 (Ref:2996261) | #132 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,117
|
|||
|
7 Dec 2011, 04:55 (Ref:2996267) | #133 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Yeah sorry ive got a job and i dont have time at work to trawl through this thread to re-tell you what ive allready told you with seconds of you asking (post 95 if it helps)
even though i asked you a question 4 weeks ago and the best answer you've got is that you dont have an answer |
|
|
7 Dec 2011, 09:40 (Ref:2996335) | #134 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,117
|
you had a good go this morning with your constant replies, this must mean you are always available to respond. Or am I assuming too much?
oh and FYI post 95 does nothing of the sort. did i not give the hint somewhere, something about reading before replying? Unless you disagree, perhaps quote it here for me to see. to use your analogy, as you haven't said you know what the 3rd street sign on the left says on the road across from my house, so i'm going to ask you what it says, and you have a month to answer, otherwise the street sign fairys will come and steal your keyboard. Give it a rest, we already agree your posts do not back up your argument. move on |
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 11:24 (Ref:2996378) | #135 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
I have time to read and reply at work, but that is different to spending time trawling through posts But now i am here and i will reply.
and post 95 does hive the reason why there would be more SC's, But obviously I havent explained it clear enough, so i will at the end of this post But first lets go back. The title of this thread is "Bathurst 1000 - is there something wrong with it?" and people came on here and gave some ways to improve it, including me and including you, some good, some not so good in post 32 you said "Safety Car issues? I think most people agree on the closing of pit lane under yellow, or whatever else, to afford better safety. Its been done to death." I said" could you maybe explain to me how closing pitlane during safety cars will make for a better race? I fail to see any benefit, in fact i see more negatives to this than positives from a better race point of view." I then preceded in subsequent comments to tell you how that would make the race worse, over many posts, as did some others writers The major reason is that it destroys strategy Remembering this is a thread about Bathurst and whats wrong with it. Now i can go over those reasons, but i think we have moved on on that But i have continued to ask you how does closing the pit lane during a SC makes the race better, and the answer is' It doesnt, there is no benefit to improving Bathurst, it makes it worse, It may provide some safety benefit, but it is a simplistic way of providing that benefit, there are at least two better ways, that dont make the race worse, (one might even improve it, but that depends on a persons point of view) so thats where we are at, Im not sure what else you think i am asking or thinking or accusing me of doing, or how i am misquoting you or what the 3rd street sign on the left says All i know is that i asked you multiple time how it improves the race and you didnt give me any answer until two days ago, when you said that it didnt improve the race. Now why would it potentially create more SC's in post 93 i mentioned this in post 94 from you "to drag out the oft comparison to NASCAR, they close the pits, and can you tell me that those races, quite often 800km in length, are made more predictable and less strategic because of it?" admiringly not to that direct statement, but NASCAR is the answer to the question in post 95 i said "the only fair way to operate the rule is to throw the yellow as soon as an incident occurs and not allow time for a driver to get going, otherwise you benefit drivers at the expense of others, the result is more safety cars." That is the answer to your question. And i agree if we continue with the current system of calling for a SC then there will be no increase in SC's The problem is (lets use 2 drivers Craig and Jamie as examples) Jamie is leading by 20seconds from Craig. Paul spins on the other side of the track and comes to a halt in the middle of the track. Both Craig and Jamie get the call "PIT PIT PIT" Jamie dives into an open pit. The muppet (uncle crankers term for a certain official) calls for a SC, but Jamie is already in the pit. The pit entrance closes when the SC is called, but Craig is 20 seconds behind and is unable to pit in time. Race over for Craig Alternately same scenario Jamie has already passed pit entrance, Criag dives in before the SC Call and gets his pit completed joins the back of the field, Jamie is at the head of the field , but has to pit, He can say goodbye to his 20 second lead and after he pits, when they open he will be 45 seconds behind. This is a problem, A solution is we do what NASCAR does, we throw the yellow at the first sign of trouble, Closing the pit entry, which stops Craig or Jamie getting an advantage, the problem is that 2 times out of 3, Paul manages to get going again but its too late SC has been called. Under our current rules we would give time for Paul to get going, But to save disadvantaging the drivers we would close the pits thus more SC's I hope that explains why, happy to clarify any questions |
|
|
7 Dec 2011, 12:42 (Ref:2996431) | #136 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,527
|
|
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 15:52 (Ref:2996539) | #137 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 702
|
Using Nascar as an example is not the best IMHO, they freeze all positions on the most recent timing loop when the yellow come out and time gaps do not matter as they line you up and do a couple of laps while the lapped cars get a chance to pit then after another lap let the lead lap drivers pit and then form up again in order for the restart..
|
|
|
7 Dec 2011, 20:44 (Ref:2996688) | #138 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,447
|
[Mod]Axeman44, Peckstar, please, just get a room. It's not as if either of you properly read what anyone else posts anyway so being pedantic about who did or said what in 1973 is getting a bit old. Move on and let other people join in the thread[/Mod]
|
||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
7 Dec 2011, 20:48 (Ref:2996691) | #139 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
thats not correct stooge.
In NASCAR you race out of the pits, positions can be made and lost in the pits, if a car doesnt pit, you go behind them, you dont automatically get to go back pass them but thats really irrelevant to what i said because an example i gave how it could work in v8's, and i also only said that it may, depending on the method of using a Safety car, cause more safety cars. Sizzle I'm assuming your banging your head against the wall, because you wish you could be so clear minded. Alternately, maybe you could tell me how closing pits is any more than a really simplistic way of improving safety that comes at a significant negative of making bathurst worse |
|
|
7 Dec 2011, 20:53 (Ref:2996696) | #140 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
The discusion was not finished as there were at least two questions that had been asked that had not been answered But seeing how you feel the need to post, why dont you tell us how we can improved Bathurst (if it needs it) and maybe you can also answer how closing the pits during a safety car would improve bathurst. |
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 21:57 (Ref:2996730) | #141 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,117
|
bored from repetition... moving on now
|
||
|
7 Dec 2011, 22:13 (Ref:2996737) | #142 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
it might have been much nicer to just say thanks
|
|
|
8 Dec 2011, 01:14 (Ref:2996815) | #143 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,447
|
Utterly, utterly bored with nit-picking, navel gazing pedantic threads with the same minor details being discussed over and over again.
And before you say I don't have to read it, I do, because you lot can't be trusted not to get into a cat fight over whether it should have been a comma or a full stop. Please knock it off, or give up the right ever again to call us Poms whingers. |
||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
8 Dec 2011, 01:23 (Ref:2996818) | #144 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
and i guess if your unable to answer a simple question regarding safety cars and Bathurst, then you agree that closing the pits during a safety car is bad for the actual race and we need to look for betetr ways of doing it |
||
|
8 Dec 2011, 01:44 (Ref:2996820) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 702
|
Quote:
I just don't think anything nascar do with regards to safety cars/yellows really applies to v8s.. Too different a beasts.. |
||
|
8 Dec 2011, 02:15 (Ref:2996824) | #146 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
My point was though, they shut the pit as soon as the incident happens, this saves advantaging anyone. In v8s if we were to close the pits, we would have to work on when to call the SC, to stop people being disadvantaged/advantaged. If we tightened this up, it would lead to more SC's alternately we could keep them the same way and that woudl lead to disadvataging drivers, but we would not have an icnrease in SC's. I am imagining the howls from certain people on here, regarding bias if that was too happen. The liklihood is we would have missed out on a great drive from lowndes at this years Bathurst, then we really would have reason to wonder what was wrong with Bathurst |
||
|
8 Dec 2011, 03:05 (Ref:2996828) | #147 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,527
|
Quote:
As for the safety car I don't know the answer. All I can say is that I spent a considerable amount of time over the weekend talking about it with several people involved in the game, both team and sponsor wise, and at the ned of the day we couldn't agree. For every scenario we came up with there was a case for disadvantaging someone. Last edited by Woolley; 8 Dec 2011 at 17:56. Reason: autocensor |
|||
|
8 Dec 2011, 03:19 (Ref:2996830) | #148 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
Quote:
I raised oen suggestion, of automatically slowing the cars to a set speed, which keeps the teams startegies and race gaps the same, the problem is too many paeople actually want the gaps to be clsoed, so that we get the race going again but with the bunched field (which as we know, Safety cars brred safety cars) There is no simple answer to the safety issue, but closing the pits is not it Last edited by Woolley; 8 Dec 2011 at 17:56. Reason: quoted autocensor |
||
|
8 Dec 2011, 07:22 (Ref:2996864) | #149 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,837
|
Quote:
The drivers slowed (there was no pace car) and had to maintain the same gap more or less to the car in front. Of course drivers took advantage of this as timing was quite primative when compared to today. With GPS what you suggest may be possible, but slowing all the cars automatically would be a little hairy. Watch the '71 Indy 500 on Youtube for a good idea of how it worked. |
|||
__________________
"Your biggest auto race may one day become a Camaro playground", Chris Economaki, Bathurst 1979 |
9 Dec 2011, 08:14 (Ref:2997410) | #150 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,499
|
Oi!
Quote:
...knit one, pearl one... |
|||
__________________
The good old days sure seem like a long time ago!! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[V8SC09R18] SuperCheap Auto Bathurst 1000, Mt Panorama Bathurst NSW (Now with poll!) | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 699 | 13 Nov 2009 09:25 |
Bathurst 1000 | kiwiboy | Touring Car Racing | 8 | 12 Oct 2002 17:06 |
Bathurst 1000 | twig | Australasian Touring Cars. | 17 | 9 Feb 2002 02:33 |
Bathurst 1000 | marcus | Cool Sites | 2 | 8 Nov 2000 15:57 |