|
Racing is racing isn't it? Or would people prefer these ground-based aero planes go airborne at 300 mph? I thought racing was just as exciting 30 years ago when there was NO aero and the size of the driver's cajones was then as now still the common denominator among the best drivers.
Here's an excerpt from a GP race from years back (writer unknown):
"Arnoux blasted past the French-Canadian on that lap but then his engine started to misfire. Maybe the turbo wasn't as perfect as everybody thought? Villeneuve, despite his Ferrari now handling atrociously, slipped back ahead on lap 79. The last lap would go down in legend, as corner after corner the pair raced flat out, two-abreast for the majority of the lap. Tyres touching, both cars bumping around over the rumble strips, millimetres away from causing an accident, both drivers wanted second place and neither would give up. As the sparks flew, the fans held their breath in awe, anticipation, fear and excitement. If either driver made a mistake, the ending was unlikely to be a happy one."
Those same cars might be equivalent to current backmarkers, but would the racing be any less spectacular if repeated today? I say no.
Sherwood
|