| Readers' Comments | |
|
| |
| Updated: 19 May 1997 | Monaco Issue |
|
Dear Mazen,
I can see you do not agree with Villeneuve's attitude this year. First, I must say one thing about Villeneuve and Indycar. It is not because Indycar was more dangerous that he liked it. He liked it and still likes it because in Indycar, you never see such things as a solo race that made Damon Hill so famous last year. To me, when he complains about security in Formula One, it is not that he would like it to be more and more dangerous. It is because he feels that with those rules, Formula One won't be more competitive, nor will it be more secure. Jacques knows what it is to hit a wall at 350 km/h, it happened to him in 1994 in the Indy 500 qualifications. I'm pretty sure he didn't like it. So when Frentzen says "Jacques doesn't know how Formula One can be dangerous," he forgets that driving an indycar is as dangerous as driving a f1. You may say, "if Indy sounds so great, why Jacques doesn't go back to America?" Well, I think this is a very important question. Jacques came to Formula One because it is bigger, because the technology is better, and maybe because many races are ran in Europe. He felt competition was higher and he would have another big challenge. If he starts to complain about f1, it is because he thinks it lacks such competition he had in Indy. I strongly believe that if someday he gets sick of all those stupid useless rules, he'll go back to Indycar. Do you all really believe that the new grooved tires will be a great thing ? To me, it's just another method so the cars can be slower in curves and sponsors on the cars are shown longer on your tv screen. When you go to a Formula One race, you're supposed to see passings ON the track, not in the pits. If Max Mosley and the FIA continue to make more and more rules like this one, it will no longer be f1 racing, it will be a car show. It will be, "no more passing, it is forbidden because it is too dangerous." What a joke !!! You don't have to risk your life to drive a f1, but you have to face the fact that is is dangerous. It is not by putting grooved tires that you will reduce risks of death. This is what Jacques meant. I hope you all understand that what Jacques Villeneuve really wants, it is not to risk his life in every curves. He wants to be in competition with the other drivers, he wants to attempt passings, he wants YOU, the fans, to have fun watching the race on your tv.
Alexandre Forget
Dear Atlas, I must say, that many of the statements made by Mazen Baradhy are very true, and I am glad that the letter was posted on the site. I feel however, that some things must be said. It seems that a person like Villenuve is an asset to the sport despite what he says and does. Watching how the drivers act and drive in their early years provides a great deal of entertainment to the spectators. I find it exciting when I see Villenuve in this "politically correct" series stand up and say what he feels. The reason he does this can be becasue of one of two things. Yes, his head could be starting to swell. After watching Villenuve progress up through Indy however, I feel this might not be the case. I must say that he has always been a very level headed and mature driver, and to see him be so forceful towards one issue, I feel it is good. He must obviously believe in what he says. True, it could be a mistake saying this as loudly as he does, but this is what adds to the excitement of the sport. Becasue we all know it is harder to find excitement on the track. I feel this the most important reason that NASCAR is so successful as it is today. It is not the racing, but the driver personalities. If he wants to say it, let him. He can grow old later and regret it then. Concering his discreditaion of HHF: It is well know about Villenuve's mind games, I just feel that this is another one. If you are not confident about your abilities, you will not perform your best. As far as Frentzen's statement goes about death in F1, ("Jacques wasn't in Formula One in 1994 when Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger died. He doesn't know how Formula One can be dangerous.") I think that is prue ignorance. Villenuve knows good and well how dangerous racing is. His own father died racing, while being old enough to remember. It must be remembered as to why we watch Formula one. This is a samll group of men who have to rare capability to drive the most extreme cars on the planet. By taking away this extreme power, be it horsepower or tire grip, we are limiting the exclusiveness of these drivers. I myself feel that this exclusive group is already to large, and that the cars should be made more beastly and powerful. More similar to the Turbo years. Thanks for listening
Steve Neese
The comments to this website by the readers and fans of F1 are fantastic. Many of these comments probably echo the feeling of most of the other F1 fans out there, especially the recent grooved tyre issue. So, do F1 insiders (officials) actually read these comments? If not, then these valuable 'readers comments' are just wasted on this web page.
Alvin Lim
How does F1 stack up against Cart and the IRL? First of all, does anybody watch the IRL? I saw the first race (they sound like Nascar), but I lost track of when the second race was to be after 6 months had gone by. I like the fact that Cart has close racing, but close racing for 3 minutes after sitting your hands for multiple 10 minute FULL COURSE CAUTIONS is just nuts. F1 is king.
Terence Beutel
I think that Gary Slegg's defense of Damon Hill as being a gracious looser is biased (but that's what being a fan is all about) but also naive. Just because he's the current World Champion does not give him the right to ram into back markers (especially as he is one of them now). No one has an inherent right to be running among the front of the pack, you have to get there on your own merits. Damon was obviously not good enough to be kept at Williams. And, the incident in San Marino can not be excused with frustration at being in a bad car. Sure, he won a lot of races last year from start to finish. However, almost every time during 1995 and 1996 that Damon was NOT in the lead he made a stupid mistake. He's a test driver who does well on empty tracks, but does not have the talent to overtake someone cleanly. As for the ranking of Hill, Villeneuve and Frentzen by performance, one needs to add up the miles each driver has driven in a Williams. Last year Villeneuve was new and Damon won the championship; this year Frentzen is new and Villeneuve will probably win. Don't forget how many seasons it took Damon to win the championship in the F1 car available. M. Schumacher had to transfer to the unreliable (in 1996) Ferrari's to give Hill his title.
Mike Podlech
Well, now we know why Villeneuve doesn't like the new rules. In Monaco we had a low grip, high downforce situation and the cars were sliding around a lot - sounds familiar? Yes, it's a situation the new rules for 1998 would create. Contrary to Villeneuve's assertion that this would level the playing field and reduce the element of driver skill look at what actually happened: Schumacher (Michael), the undisputed best driver in the world, dessimated the opposition and other excellent drivers like Barrichello and Salo did much better than normal. Villeneuve is undoubtedly a very good driver but it's not surprising that rule changes which move the emphasis from car ability to driver ablility will be slammed by Villeneuve who currently has the best car, especially when he'll still be competing against car control supremos like Schumacher and Alesi. Having cars going around corners at very high speeds as if they were on rails may be very exciting for the drivers, but for the spectators there's not many more exciting things to watch than a perfectly executed four wheel drift. The rules are a step in the right direction, the next thing we need is a drastic cut in downforce.
Michael Brown
This is in reply to Gary Paul Slegg's comments (comments 14MAY97) with regards to Hill's driving abilities. As a Canadian, our English language coverage of F1 on TV is provided by TSN, coupled with commentary by Martin Brundle and Murray Walker. Yes they are a well educated (F1-wise) team but the two combined couldn't be more 'British Driver' biased if they tried. Damon pulls a stunt like he did at San Marino and all we hear the rest of the race is how "poor Damon" is out again! Poor Damon?! How about "Well Damon Hill is out again, this time no fault of the car but, rather, very amaturish driving on the EX-World Champions part." Come on Gary, let's be realistic here. Even in a Williams Damon was only a "sure-bet" when he was out on a solo Sunday Drive. The minute he got a bad start and had to actually race with other cars around him (that is what this sport is all about isn't it?) he would go to pieces. This has been the story so far this year with Australia and Brazil being the exceptions. Being Canadian, and a Quebecer, I am obviously a big Villeneuve fan. Of course, he's the home town favorite, etc, etc... However, I am also a big fan of any F1 driver who shows ability and intelligence in this sport. Villeneuve 20 seconds ahead of everybody else bores me to tears. A finish like he and Irvine had a few races back is what I, and I believe many (most?) F1 fans live for. Now that's racing and hats off to both of them. When Villeneuve makes a bad call, as I believe he did in Australia this year getting himself into that position on the first turn in the first place, I am the first to admit "He knows better and should smarten up." What gets me is you die-hard Damon fans with your "Damon can do no wrong" attitude. Yes he's a good driver, please note; so is Panis, Berger, etc..., however I believe this year Hill is showing his true colours. He has no patience in the pack, you may as well stay home Damon 'cause that's what racing's all about. Why is it so hard for you and Murray Walker to just admit that maybe Hill ain't all he's chalked up to being? Was it Nakano's fault Hill had to start from the Pits?? Was it the fault of anyone not connected with Arrows? Then why do you use the lame excuse "If Hill hadn't had to start from the pit lane..." Come on guys. Everyone's complaining about the new rules for '98. I watch Hill and his unique cornering technique at San Marino and I understand why Max does the things he does. It's this kind of mindless driving that is going to cost all drivers and, ultimately, the fans. Maybe it's time Damon took repreive of F1, give us all a break. I hear there are openings, most Friday nights, at any number of dirt tracks in Northern Ontario where Demolition Derby is all the rage, maybe Damon should check it out. He can take Alesi with him...
Andy Wilson
With all the attention being focused on the Italian Williams/Senna court case, it is small wonder that FIA is so intent on making F1 racing foolproof! In North America we are used to people suing for any real or imagined reason, and see this as a good reason to have lots of insurance. But a criminal case for negligence will set a precedent that could destroy all motorsports, not just F1. Whilst I would be happy to see other teams in the lead of F1, and would love to see passing taking place, I don't want to see Formula One emasculated just to show that Mr. Mosely cares about the drivers welfare. I think that everyone likes close racing, and history shows that the wealthy teams can respond more quickly to technical rule changes than can the small budget teams. Leave the rules alone for a while, and the smaller teams can catch up, and the racing should improve. Grooved tires? why not use street snow tires with 75% profiles and have done with it! I can just see a Williams FW21 with 165/75 13 M&S tires passing a similarly shod Ferrari! I hope that FIA won't read this, I don't want to give them ideas for 1999.
Roger Jubinville
Every other Sunday my friend Ken and I get together at his house - the agreed uopn time is 6 pm - and sit down with a few cold ones and enjoy the F1 qualifying and race he has taped off of ESPN2. It is a ritual I really look forward to, especially with the drama that is accmopanying the racing this year. In response to Olivier Raoust, Derek Bell and his cohort John Watson leave us in stiches consistently, and a race has not gone by that one of us has not mentioned how happy we were that Bob Varsha has disappeared from the landscape. The vast knowledge and deadpan humor of these two compliment the racing superbly and leave me feeling lucky to have them. As for the grooved tire contreversy, I found it interesting to note that in Autosport magazine it was reported that as the Williams test driver followed Villneuve - in a 1998 spec car - around the track the car pulled away unassailably on the straights, but was reduced to a oversteering / understeering mess in the corners. After watching Schumacher at Monaco last weekend, I was left with no questions in my mind as to why Ferrari was the only team not to have lodged a complaint with the FIA to overturn the new regulations. My only concern is that it seems that a rough parity has been achieved; at least more so than in recent years among the teams, and the racing has been much closer and exponentially more exciting. There was overtaking "a-plenty" at the supposedly "pass-proof" Monaco circuit, and Imola before it had its share of overtaking. I seriously doubt that the genius of the engineers in F1 won't be able to come up with some inventive solutions to the problems they face with the 1998 rule changes, but I don't doubt that the smaller teams will require years to get back to the level of competition they now present. But until then I will continue to thrill to the most entertaining Formula One season I've seen in some time.
John Hodges
I can't understand how Jean Alesi was lapped by H-H Frentzen and Michael Shumacher in Imola with the same engines as Williams. I know that Jean Alesi has seen his best days. But, he is not "one lap down" bad. Something is very wrong with the Benetton Team. Berger was 17th in the qualficions at Monaco. Was this Berger worst ever in his carrer? Dear Atlas F1, I just read the current comments in Atlas and I'm compelled to make some comments regarding a few things. In regards to Olivier Raoust's comments on Ligier being the most improved team of 1997, I believe he is mistaken. The most improved team of the 1997 season so far has been Jordan. With two inexperienced drivers in Ralf Schumacher and Giancarlo Fisichella, they have out qualified McLaren and Bennetton's more experienced teams, as well as Ligier without having the early advantage of having Bridgestone rubber. These results can only say one thing -- the car has the power to be up with the "big 4". For those thing is, we have to wait if this driver pairing can come along. To anyone who pity Hill for suffering with Arrows, I say simply "Tough!" He could have had the Jordan ride, but turned it down. With him in the 197, we could have seen a Jordan win (for sure it would be a regular podium visitor). So, watch out Bennetton and Mclaren .. ya might get snake-bit. As far as Gary Slegg 's comments about Hill accepting things graciously I have to agree whole heartedly. he has "taken his medicine" with Arrows rather well, considering. Kinda reminds me of Schumacher's patience with a Ferrari that could blow up on parade laps and drop driveshafts at inopportune times, only Hill's is a bit more admirable because the Arrows simply sucks (He should have tried the yellow car). The comments about competitiveness keep coming up -- whether it be pre-qualifying, the 107% rule, the relative competitiveness of the fields in the top racing series' or many others... if you're reading this article, you know what I mean. The bottom line is this. If you have a set of rules (dosen't matter what they are) that promotes competitive racing, then it's good for the particular series. NASCAR is extremely competitive nowadays because they want to keep their large fields (43 car grids) and that is good for NASCAR. F1 wants to keep the cars competitive to improve racing and that is good for F1 (the methods are suspect, however, but I could write a book ;-)). It all depends on the needs of the particular series and one cant judge the merits of any series without taking that into consideration. Thanks for reading
Cecil King
There is no doubt about the fact that grooved tyres have been a controversial proposal here in F1. It has produced even more furore than the re-introduction of refuelling. These changes which appear not to be in the interest of safety but rather in the interest of spectator enjoyment may not be so negative as so many people portray them to be. Not many people will forget the incident to Verstappen's Benetton a few years ago when it essentially just caught fire because of a refuelling problem. Those problems appear to have been resolved. Refuelling seems to be safe and all teams take the necessary precautions. The fire suits are technologically more advanced so we should never have anything like what happened to Lauda. Even Berger's Imola accident shows the improvement in technology. It was worrysome for all, especially Berger and Verstappen, but it is a fact that the drivers are safe. The danger issues that are being addressed are: decellaration from 300 km/h to 0 in under 1 second. Progress has been made there. At the moment F1 is safe. What will happen with grooved tyres? A number of drivers have expressed their disapproval with grooved tyres. Villeneuve for one, and if I'm not mistaken a few others. The important thing to analyse is the effect of grooved tyres. We are looking in short at reduced grip. Reduced grip has various further effects. Greater speed in straights. INCREASED breaking distances, SLOWER cornering speeds. Aside from "speed in straights" the effect of grooved tyres will be similar to the effect of driving in the wet. Driving in the wet, considerably increases driver importance in the driver-car package. Grooved tyres will do the same. Have we not more a long time wished the drivers to play a greater part in racing. Is that not why we enjoy watching qualifying at Monaco so much. Is that not why we enjoy wet races so much. It is driver ability that comes out. It is not surprising then to see Villeneuve, currently in the fastest all-round car to be against these changes. Even his own confidence and arrogance will recognise there are a number of drivers in the GP circuit that are probably faster than him. M. Schumacher, R. Schumacher, J. Trulli?, Damon Hill (let us remember Damon was usually faster than Villenueve in qualifying. He didn't know the tracks? Lame excuse). I also hear people mention, "But even the tyre manufacturers are against it." Of course they are. They have to start Research and Development from zero. They just want to make money. F1 is a spectator sport. Spectators fund it. Indirectly, but it is spectators that fund it. If grooved tyres will make for closer racing, I'm all for it.
Miki Tommasi
It seems to me that everyone has got the wrong of the stick on grooved tyres (including the officials). What's wrong with grooved tyres is not that they reduce speed, it's that they reduce speed in a stupid way. Grip and speed are two different issues. Grooved tyres will not give us a sport of highly-sponsored racing lawn-mowers. The ability to take corners at over 200mph will, however, give us the blandest tracks we have ever seen. And if the truth be known, it's this fact that makes Indy and NASCAR bad motor racing: obsession with parity for TV spectacle and very poor circuits. If cornering speeds reach the point of knocking out some of the great tracks (like Monaco) or detroying their character (like Imola) because they are unsafe at that speed (and they are), then F1 is the big loser. That, amongst other things, lost us Nurburgring. So instead of getting all uptight about competition and racing and technology and whatever else, slow down and think about what made the great racing of the past (and this season) possible. Cars where power could overcome grip, drivers who had to fight on the very margins of traction, and enough space to get away with it if it came unstuck. So I say reduce tyre size (not by grooving), or kick out traction control devices (including throttle controls and electronic diffs) and keep good circuits which encourage good racing. A few bits from Monaco: Hard to argue about Michael, simply an overwhelming performance -- rain verified the general lack of creative driving talent these days, lots of ways to win beyond pushing buttons on a sterile, dry track-- Irvine's comment about coasting through hairpin tells much about the technical overdevelopment, similar to fighter pilots where tech exceeds human ability, barely managed without foot clutch, not alone as most couldn't--had to appreciate enthusiasm of Watson & Bell (ESPN) over actual challenges and truly brave maneuvers -- hope rule adjustments (not necessarily grooved tires) put more driver into the equation, if so may be a whole new cast. Monaco was great fun for us diehard former ice & FV racers....Ciao.
Dan Hyde
With all the vociferous comments about Hill, Frentzen, et al, I'm frankly surprised no one has yet mentioned THE most improved team of 1997: the former Ligier cum Prost Mugen-Honda. It is refreshing to see a smaller team (how long will that last?) come up with the goods. And while Im not quite ready to profess Olivier Panis as the next great one, he has shown maturity and great potential in an ever improving package. Dare we say the same about his compatriot, Jean Alesi? As for the ESPN TV coverage here in the States, I have but one question: where is Bob Varsha? There cannot be a more uninformed, biased and generally boring commentator then John Watson. Add Derek Bell to the mix and it makes me long for the good old days of John Bisignano and company. Just proof that former and current drivers do not necessarily make good TV personalities. Shame ESPN!
Olivier Raoust
I wonder what fans of F1 racing think of groved tires? If Max Mosley is not going to listen to drivers complaints about grooved tires, perhaps if there was a fan-based protest or complaint or petition - whatever it takes really - Mosley might think again. Maybe I am dreaming, but maybe since we are all fans of the sport, and fans of drivers, we might support the drivers (and the tire companies) in speaking out against grooved tires. If safety is paramount why doesn't Mosley fly down to Rio and look at the new wall/tire-barrier set up at the Emmerson Fittipaldi Oval. Surely such an innovation might be good for F1 in places where there is a danger of cars hitting the wall. Aside from that, I urge fans of the sport and its drivers - if they feel they can support the move against grooved tires - to let it be known. Maybe Atlas is against grooved tires and is willing to captain a fans' petition?
Bob Pearson
I am rather suprised by Chris Becker's assertion that Damon Hill is unable to lose graciously. After the dignified way Hill accepted defeat in 1994 when in my opinion Schaumacher purposely drove into him, to rob him of the Championship, and also the way he has acted since ludicrously being dropped by Williams, graciousness, along with driving ability, is a quality that Hill has in abundance. Although I would admit that Hill's overtaking manoeuvre at the San Marino Grand Prix was suicidal I think his comments afterwards were quite correct. If Hill hadn't had to start from the pit lane he wouldn't have had to be stuck behind Nakano (a driver whose own team owner seems to agree is out of his depth in Formula 1). Sure, Hill would have done better to wait until the pit stops where I'm sure he would have got ahead of Nakano, but Hill has been criticised in the past for not being aggressive enough - so if the balance tips too far the other way sometimes we should not be too suprised. To claim as Chris Becker does, that Hill is a 'Claytons' world champion uses neither the benefit of hindsight, nor the common sense of logic. Qualifying is often cited as being the true indicator of a drivers ability and speed. Simply put then, Hill outqualified Villeneuve 13 times last season...something Frentzen has yet to do. Obviously then, he is already better than both the current Williams drivers. Every full season he has raced in Formula 1 he has beat his team mate - despite being pitted against some of the best, and not having the benefit of having the team built around him like Schaumacher has. If anyone deserves a World Championship it is Hill. As for Chris Becker's comment that being German and driving F1 is a fantastic combination, well, that's true only if you add the ingredients of a British or Italian car, a French engine, and American tyres!! Formula 1 is truly an international sport, and I for one hope it will stay that way.
Gary Paul Slegg
I too hate the grooved tires idea. If I wanted to see that I'd go watch an enduro race or some crap like that. Or maybe organize a race of Ford Pintos in a parking lot. F1 is so competitive right now, and now they want it so the driver can have no feel for the car. If F1 goes to grooves, count me out, I'll be watching Indy Car, who knows not to dick with things. I don't know what it is in the European racing officials attitude that makes them want to see the cars get worse and worse. This safety business has gone way overboard and it's all because three racing accidents happened to occur at Imola in 94. Get over it. I loved Ayrton Senna too, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to see F1 go to grooved tires as a memorial to him so no car ever drives over 100 kph. Ayrton loved speed, and the feel of the car. Add in Ratzenburger's death and Barrichello's cash, and the F1 becomes a bunch of pansies. All these crashes, and other like them say, is that racing is a risky business and that the drivers, mechanics, and owners better respect it. Most do. You don't see Indycars putting bars around the cars completely because Jeff Krosnoff hopped Stephan Johansson's car and was killed? Nope, and all the injuries at Indy? Indycar never said, lets make the cars go 10 mph and be pieces of shit racing around in a toilet bowl. The F1 cars are fine as they are, don't touch them. This damn Senna thing is the worst thing to happen to F1. And it's a lot worse than just Ayrton's death. That should say a lot.
Kevin Wey
The grooved tires idea for next year is really strange. Since grooves can't just be cut in existing slicks, the new tires have to be started from scratch. So why not develop new, narrower slicks? It shouldn't be any more difficult than developing grooved tires. The grooved tires will just be another headache for the scrutineers. With competing tire companies trying to shave the regulations to get an advantage, this problem will be even worse. The grooves will also offer new locations for tires to fail. It seems an awfully round-about way to get a smaller tire area on the pavement. The FIA's stated purpose in doing this is to slow the cars down and reduce braking distances so that there will (presumably) be more passing, closer racing and more excitement for the spectator. But the FIA should be wary of sacrificing top-echelon motor racing to the god of competitive parity. This has happened here in the U.S. where the second division IRL has hijacked the Indianapolis 500. NASCAR has developed a tremendous following here in the past few years, and always has very close racing. But ask any knowledgeable fan what the most exciting thing in NASCAR has been and they will say "Richard Petty". Dale Earnhardt might have been Petty-caliber superstar. Jeff Gordon could become a legend, but he'll never get the chance to try. If one of these guys starts winning too many races, NASCAR will jigger with the nose of his car or shave quarter inches off of his spoiler in order to slow him down. It's true that NASCAR, unlike F1, appeals to the traditional American virtues of instant gratification and short attention spans. But for those people who like to involve their brains in their racing, F1 as it has been in the past and is today, is worlds better. I have followed F1 closely (as closely as one can from Texas) since Phil Hill's championship year. I remember Rindt chasing down Brabham at Monaco in 1970, the tire-smoking Villeneuve-Arnoux duel at Dijon in 1979, the whole 1976 championship year, the entire careers of Clark, Lauda and Senna. There has been no shortage of excitement. Would F1 have been better off if Senna, Berger, Alesi and Warwick had all had the same number of wins? What about one of Senna's Championships going to, say, Patrese instead, and one to Brundle. If someone has the ability to dominate at something as difficult as F1, I for one want to give them the chance to do it.
Bob Butsch
This is in response to Ferenc Gogos article on the 107% rule. The rule has been good for the sport in forcing teams to get their cars fast enough to compete safely. In the interest of safety, I believe it would be a good idea to narrow it farther to get the drivers that don't belong on the track (i.e., Diniz and the various japanese drivers over the past few years) out of the way, instead of having them parade around as rolling roadblocks. As for the reason for the popularity of Nascar, a 102% rule would have covered the field at Sears Point last weekend. The sport is popular because it is naturally competitive, with the rules drawn to make the cars as equal as possible. Cars are exlcuded for not meeting the speed of the top 38 cars. This is not to say that it is better than the current state of Formula One, just different. In fact there has been a lot of talk among the drivers that the field is too close at places such as Daytona and Talledega, where 15 car pileups at close to 200 mph have occured in almost every race at the two tracks for the past 5 years. As a warning to those trying to make the cars "safer" by slowing them down, the reason for such closeness at the superspeedways is the advent of restrictor plates on the carbeurators in order to slow the cars below 200 mph after Bobby Allison's crash into the main grandstand catch fench in the late 80's. The driving has been taken out of the sport at the big tracks, the drivers just floor it, hold on, and pray that no one makes a mistake. We could see a return to fatalities being a regular occurence in Formula One if the rules are drawn such to make the field as close as possible. There has to be some kind of medium wherein the cars are all fast enought to safely compete, yet not so close that it is impossible to race safely. It only takes a small mistake, and contact is unforgiving in open wheel cars (the Jordan crash in Australia last year, for example, could have been much worse). As for the Indy 500, it has been so wrecked by Tony Georges megalomania, it hardly merits mention. All the rules are out the window with regards to that race anymore. And no, 50 mph qualifying differentials are not a good thing. The past few Indy's have been so accident filled, they have been a 3-4 hour parade of race cars under caution. Lastly, I agree with Alan Owens' comment about reducing aerodynamic grip and increasing the mechanical grip. This should make for a more difficult car to make go fast, yet still be forgiving for small errors. A driver that could handle a car half in and half out of control would likely be the fastest, and the overall speed would be down some. |