Discussion:
Monza 2020 (partial spoiler)
(too old to reply)
Darryl Johnson
2020-09-06 15:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!

I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.

(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)

On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it
was Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the
teams to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want
to place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.

It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.

I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
Sir Tim
2020-09-06 16:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it
was Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the
teams to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want
to place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
Today’s result came about because of a very unusual series of events but it
certainly demonstrated that, Mercedes apart, the rest of the field (even
including RBR now that they have shot themselves in the foot by pressing
the FIA to change the engine-mode rules) are all very competitive with each
other.

The idea of some sort of reverse order sprint race to decide grid positions
is certainly attractive but I believe that to indulge in this sort of
gimmickry would be to diminish F1. The sport has achieved huge worldwide
popularity because it is generally acknowledged to pit the worlds best
drivers and most advanced cars against each other under equal conditions.

I believe that major changes to the rules regarding aerodynamics would
achieve what we all want i.e.
close racing with a more equal balance between driver ability and car
performance.
--
Sir Tim
alister
2020-09-06 17:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to
place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
Today’s result came about because of a very unusual series of events but
it certainly demonstrated that, Mercedes apart, the rest of the field
(even including RBR now that they have shot themselves in the foot by
pressing the FIA to change the engine-mode rules) are all very
competitive with each other.
The idea of some sort of reverse order sprint race to decide grid
positions is certainly attractive but I believe that to indulge in this
sort of gimmickry would be to diminish F1. The sport has achieved huge
worldwide popularity because it is generally acknowledged to pit the
worlds best drivers and most advanced cars against each other under
equal conditions.
I believe that major changes to the rules regarding aerodynamics would
achieve what we all want i.e.
close racing with a more equal balance between driver ability and car
performance.
A good race, nice to seem some changes at the front, this is what is
needed to spice up the championship not artificial shenanigans.

Lewis was very fortunate that both Max & Bottas did not have good races,
but a good recovery drive.
--
Every company complaining about Microsoft's business practices is simply a
rose bush. They look lovely and smell nice. Once a lucky company dethrones
Microsoft they will shed their petals to expose the thorns underneath. A
thorn by any other name would hurt as much.
geoff
2020-09-07 03:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by alister
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to
place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
Today’s result came about because of a very unusual series of events but
it certainly demonstrated that, Mercedes apart, the rest of the field
(even including RBR now that they have shot themselves in the foot by
pressing the FIA to change the engine-mode rules) are all very
competitive with each other.
The idea of some sort of reverse order sprint race to decide grid
positions is certainly attractive but I believe that to indulge in this
sort of gimmickry would be to diminish F1. The sport has achieved huge
worldwide popularity because it is generally acknowledged to pit the
worlds best drivers and most advanced cars against each other under
equal conditions.
I believe that major changes to the rules regarding aerodynamics would
achieve what we all want i.e.
close racing with a more equal balance between driver ability and car
performance.
A good race, nice to seem some changes at the front, this is what is
needed to spice up the championship not artificial shenanigans.
Well there was an element of artificiality involved, though self-imposed
by HAM.
Post by alister
Lewis was very fortunate that both Max & Bottas did not have good races,
but a good recovery drive.
Yeah, I'm sure that BOT's car had been somehow crippled by The Team so
as to make HAM look better than he. Eh BAK.

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-09-07 03:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by alister
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to
place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
Today’s result came about because of a very unusual series of events but
it certainly demonstrated that, Mercedes apart, the rest of the field
(even including RBR now that they have shot themselves in the foot by
pressing the FIA to change the engine-mode rules) are all very
competitive with each other.
The idea of some sort of reverse order sprint race to decide grid
positions is certainly attractive but I believe that to indulge in this
sort of gimmickry would be to diminish F1. The sport has achieved huge
worldwide popularity because it is generally acknowledged to pit the
worlds best drivers and most advanced cars against each other under
equal conditions.
I believe that major changes to the rules regarding aerodynamics would
achieve what we all want i.e.
close racing with a more equal balance between driver ability and car
performance.
A good race, nice to seem some changes at the front, this is what is
needed to spice up the championship not artificial shenanigans.
Well there was an element of artificiality involved, though self-imposed
by HAM.
Post by alister
Lewis was very fortunate that both Max & Bottas did not have good races,
but a good recovery drive.
Yeah, I'm sure that BOT's car had been somehow crippled by The Team so
as to make HAM look better than he. Eh BAK.
1. It's a hell of a lot easier passing back markers.

2. Who says his car wasn't damaged?
Alan Baker
2020-09-06 17:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to place
more importance on following and passing than in leading or running in
"clean air". That I would agree with.
To be fair, they were suggesting reverse grid races to use as qualifying
for the GP itself.
Post by Darryl Johnson
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
But you do suddenly get to see that being out front and running away
doesn't mean that you're necessarily that much faster than cars hampered
by the turbulence of other cars...
alister
2020-09-06 19:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to
place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
To be fair, they were suggesting reverse grid races to use as qualifying
for the GP itself.
Post by Darryl Johnson
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
But you do suddenly get to see that being out front and running away
doesn't mean that you're necessarily that much faster than cars hampered
by the turbulence of other cars...
Lewis did manager to get all the way back to 7th where as Bottas remained
stuck behind Noris, but certainly not as simple as his initial pace would
have suggested.
--
Backbone Scoliosis
Alan Baker
2020-09-06 20:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to
place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
To be fair, they were suggesting reverse grid races to use as qualifying
for the GP itself.
Post by Darryl Johnson
It's frustrating to me -- and I assume to the teams as well -- when a
car that is markedly faster when running in front suddenly becomes so
much slower and unable to pass when they are forced into following
another car. I realize that the teams make choices already, between
higher and lower levels of downforce: choosing either to go faster on
the straights or faster in the corners, depending on the configuration
of the track. But if you are confident in qualifying at the front, you
are going to hope to stay there and lessen your reliance on being able
to follow and pass any car in front of you.
I don't know. It's obviously a complex subject and I certainly am no
race engineer or strategist.
But you do suddenly get to see that being out front and running away
doesn't mean that you're necessarily that much faster than cars hampered
by the turbulence of other cars...
Lewis did manager to get all the way back to 7th where as Bottas remained
stuck behind Noris, but certainly not as simple as his initial pace would
have suggested.
You have to remember that defending a position against a car that is
going to eventually overtake you doesn't make much sense. It slows you
down and thus potentially puts you at risk of letting the car you're
actually racing with get close enough to attack.
Mark Jackson
2020-09-06 18:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
"Other"? This was not one such - most correctly picked the pole
position and one competitor had Sainz on the podium.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
When all you have is a hammer every problem becomes a nail.
When all you have is the police every problem becomes a crime.
- Danielle Ponder
Darryl Johnson
2020-09-06 22:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that
Mark has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
"Other"?  This was not one such - most correctly picked the pole
position and one competitor had Sainz on the podium.
Ah, my fault for looking at the poll results before Mark had a chance
to update them.
~misfit~
2020-09-07 02:29:18 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark has been running the pool
when no one has scored any points.
"Other"?  This was not one such - most correctly picked the pole position and one competitor had
Sainz on the podium.
I also picked Ferrari DNFx2 but sadly no points for that.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
geoff
2020-09-07 03:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it was
Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the teams
to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want to place
more importance on following and passing than in leading or running in
"clean air". That I would agree with.
Maybe I don't understand, but would a reverse grid be an impetus for
drivers to qualify slowest ?

Or is the reverse grid worked out from the classifiations of the
previous race ?

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-09-07 03:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a fair
bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic about
reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I think it
was Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might induce the
teams to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They might want
to place more importance on following and passing than in leading or
running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
Maybe I don't understand, but would a reverse grid be an impetus for
drivers to qualify slowest ?
No, no: a reverse grid RACE with the winner starting from pole.
Post by geoff
Or is the reverse grid worked out from the classifiations of the
previous race ?
If they were going to do it, I would hope they'd do it based on the
standings to date.

First place: start last in the qualifying race.
geoff
2020-09-07 04:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a
fair bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic
about reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I
think it was Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might
induce the teams to change their philosophy of car setup/design. They
might want to place more importance on following and passing than in
leading or running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
Maybe I don't understand, but would a reverse grid be an impetus for
drivers to qualify slowest ?
No, no: a reverse grid RACE with the winner starting from pole.
Post by geoff
Or is the reverse grid worked out from the classifiations of the
previous race ?
If they were going to do it, I would hope they'd do it based on the
standings to date.
First place: start last in the qualifying race.
OK so not a qualification session effectively to see who could drive
slowest and gain pole ;- )

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-09-07 05:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that
Mark has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
(I put "partial spoiler" in the subject since the above reveals a
fair bit about the finishers.)
On another topic: the Sky commentators seemed quite enthusiastic
about reverse grids. I can't say that I agree. But that aside, I
think it was Martin Brundle who suggested that reverse grids might
induce the teams to change their philosophy of car setup/design.
They might want to place more importance on following and passing
than in leading or running in "clean air". That I would agree with.
Maybe I don't understand, but would a reverse grid be an impetus for
drivers to qualify slowest ?
No, no: a reverse grid RACE with the winner starting from pole.
Post by geoff
Or is the reverse grid worked out from the classifiations of the
previous race ?
If they were going to do it, I would hope they'd do it based on the
standings to date.
First place: start last in the qualifying race.
OK so not a qualification session effectively to see who could drive
slowest and gain pole ;- )
geoff
Yeah... ...I can't imagine why anyone with even half a brain would think
that that might be the idea for a moment!

;-)
texas gate
2020-09-07 05:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
OK so not a qualification session effectively to see who could drive
slowest and gain pole ;- )
geoff
Yeah... ...I can't imagine why anyone with even half a brain would think
that that might be the idea for a moment!
;-)
You queer mother fuckers have changed your smileys a bit.
Its a love fest. Fucking pair of weird bitches
geoff
2020-09-07 06:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by texas gate
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
OK so not a qualification session effectively to see who could drive
slowest and gain pole ;- )
geoff
Yeah... ...I can't imagine why anyone with even half a brain would think
that that might be the idea for a moment!
;-)
You queer mother fuckers have changed your smileys a bit.
Its a love fest. Fucking pair of weird bitches
This smilie should appeal more you you taxarse (_)*(_)

geoff
Mark
2020-09-07 14:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
Well! Didn't that race offer some interesting events!
I wonder if there have been any other races in all the time that Mark
has been running the pool when no one has scored any points.
But...FB *did* score points on the race, and lots of people scored
points on the pole.

To answer the close question: I can't think of another race that
delivered so few points, particularly in the race.

...so, I looked back at the datasets.

Looking at the results, there are two different measures, I suppose.
The first is the round with the smallest maximum score for a round.
Over the years, this is how it looks:

2008 Round 7: 6
2009 Round 3: 6
2010 Round 2: 9
2011 Round 18: 12
2012 Round 4: 6
2013 Round 6: 14
2014 Round 1: 12
2015 Round 10: 8
2016 Round 16: 12
2017 Round 8: 10
2018 Round 9: 10
2019 Round 20: 6
2020 Round 8: 4

So, on that measure, this year was the worst...

...but a different measure would be the worst average points. Now, you
might imagine that nothing could be worse than a round where almost
no-one scores in the race, but you have to remember both that the points
system has changed multiple times, and also there have been periods
where everyone (like now) has predicted the same winners but a freak
result has come in which leaves most with zero (pulling down the
average) but where someone has put in an entry which won lots of points.
That wouldn't show above, but would show as a very low average.

Anyway, averages work out like this (it ignores non-entrants):

2008 Round 14: 1.7
2009 Round 3: 0.2
2010 Round 5: 2.8
2011 Round 15: 5.7
2012 Round 4: 1.5
2013 Round 6: 5.2
2014 Round 11: 5.4
2016 Round 10: 4.1
2015 Round 16: 6.1
2017 Round 18: 4.3
2018 Round 9: 4.5
2019 Round 20: 2.3
2020 Round 8: 1.8

So, now it doesn't look quite as bad. Worse averages were recorded in
2012 (1.5 in round 4, Bahrain) and 2008 (1.7 in round 14, Monza). The
worst, though, was in round 3 of 2009 in Shanghai where the Red Bulls
really showed their hand. 26 people scored zero points (tough scoring
system back then) with just a single person scoring 6 points for
guessing Button was third.

Loading...