The Formula One season started today at Melbourne’s Albert Park with the Australian Grand Prix, to yet another boring season. How can I predict that? Come on, haven’t we seen this all, last season? Sebastien Vettel takes up pole and podium for Red Bull, while Lewis Hamilton plays catch-up for McLaren – that is how, ladies and gentlemen, I predict this year is going to go by. You need not watch any race this year at all: it is all going to be boring sets of cars going around in circles; at least these circles were interesting to watch in 2004 because they were fast, these are slow.
The sights of a German singing the German national anthem race after race reminds us of the 2004 season, when Michael Schumacher blazed through all circuits with aplomb. It was boring. I am a big Schumacher fan, cause without doubt he is still one of the best drivers ever to live on the face of planet earth who provided enough controversies, entertainment and glitz in a sport where the final displacement of cars is zero after the end of the race.
2004 was interesting, in part, because of V10s and the unpredictable retirements, along with the bitter-sweet relationship between Barrichelo and Schumacher. But, and most importantly of all, it had pure racing. I am not talking of defending racing lines, but about speed. Yes, 2004 had speed. People watch formula one because of speed. 348 km\h, I think, was recorded at the Monza circuit. And, I bet, Albert Park had a similar story, about 320 km\h in comparison with the current top speed of 310 km\h.
FIA is making the sport slower, despite adding all the aerodynamic and kinetic improvements in the name of KERS and DRS. I just don't understand what will happen when Formula 1 does not remain the fastest motor-sport of the world. Loss in popularity, that’s what gonna happen. Already Formula 1 has lost much ground after the debacle of the disastrous 2005 Indianapolis Grand Prix.
After Schumacher retired, the regulations on fuel load caused some of the best seasons in recent history. One can especially recollect Kimi Raikkonen’s last gasper 1-point victory. Even 2009 brought up Force India with their high-down force configurations dominating (well, almost) Hungaroring and Monza.
The point is that the race wasn’t over till it was over. Anything and everything could have happened as the strategies, including tires and fuel load, played a crucial role in deciding the winner. Teams had tricks up there sleeves, and it was very interesting to watch them play out on the field. People would expectantly wait for the pit-stops to happen.
BUT NOW! If something is messed up on the first lap, the race is messed up! No longer can you think that a driver in 11th can jump up to podium finishes. And is it just me or is overtaking technically forbidden in Formula one?
IT seems now that as Formula one is getting less interesting over the past season, people would comfort themselves by watching the Premier League, as Chelsea still sniff some blood at the top of the table. There is dynamism, which is completely absent in Formula one. FIA needs to consider new markets and try to make Formula One a little bit more exciting, a little bit more wild, a little bit more unpredictable. And allow overtaking once more.
Otherwise, it surely is going to lose out to other more exciting series like the Le Mans. Otherwise, who wants to see boring cars go circling by through a road. We all drive, and we all see enough traffic already.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
To Bomb or not to Bomb: is bombing of
Yes. If you are to consider the consensus of a mostly NATO led Security Council of the UN. A few days ago it considered that the situation in Libya was getting out of hand and Gaddhafi's forces were pushing the frontiers of the Rebel forces backwards. It seems, most people in the international community wanted to see a third “Jasmine Revolution” unfold in the deserts of Libya, but were hugely disappointed when it didn't unfold completely.
When Libya started its offensive movement that so damnably killed many militia of the Rebel forces in the Port city of Ras Lanuf, it became imperative for the international community to do something, and the move to enforce a “No-fly zone” was a welcome one for people who like peaceful protests. Being from the country of Mahatma Gandhi, I am welcome to dissent, because it brings forward viewpoints which remain largely unavailable to people who shun protests, like Gaddhafi.
One must be aware what a “No-fly zone” is: it is an area demarcated through geographical boundaries where flying, of any kind, isn't allowed. It does not, in any case means an area where you are free to bomb. If the mandate was to completely annhilate the standing aircraft machinery of the Libyan Armed Forces, then the bombings should have been restricted to this purpose only. But, the bombings have revoked the belief of the people in the world at large that these were only intended for enforcing the “no-fly zone” or a ceasefire in the brief civil war. However targets in the city have also been bombed, the justification being that these were military strongholds. Sadly, these justification were presented to the world many times before, along with one or the other invented excuses to get deliberation in countries which don't conform to the foreign policy of the NATO countries.
These excuses have been many, including the famous hoax of WMDs in Iraq, which subsequently resulted into the Iraq war, which made former President of the United States of America G.W.Bush a favourite with shoe throwers. In fact, that particular incident sparked something of a revolution in protests. Invading Iraq on the pretext of human rights abuse and possession of WMDs only triggered massive opportunity for the Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba and other condemnable terrorist groups to recruit young,dissident, frustrated and brain-washed men, and possibly even women.
The West, and from that I mean the NATO, must beware of their own immediate actions in the aftermath of a step-down of Muammar Gaddhafi, who, after all, is a moderate Muslim. If the Mediterranean Sea is empty of these scandalous groups, it is largely due to the vigilance and efficiency of the nations that border it. However, if extremist groups gather power and support in the wake of popular uprisings, it going to be hard for the world to face the next 20 years without a major conflict spreading out and engulfing it in flames. I would rather have 100 Muammar Gaddhafi’s on Earth, than a single Osama bin Laden.
Everyone clearly remembers what happened in Afghanistan, and the international community must ensure that a similar situation does not develop in Northern Africa.
When Libya started its offensive movement that so damnably killed many militia of the Rebel forces in the Port city of Ras Lanuf, it became imperative for the international community to do something, and the move to enforce a “No-fly zone” was a welcome one for people who like peaceful protests. Being from the country of Mahatma Gandhi, I am welcome to dissent, because it brings forward viewpoints which remain largely unavailable to people who shun protests, like Gaddhafi.
One must be aware what a “No-fly zone” is: it is an area demarcated through geographical boundaries where flying, of any kind, isn't allowed. It does not, in any case means an area where you are free to bomb. If the mandate was to completely annhilate the standing aircraft machinery of the Libyan Armed Forces, then the bombings should have been restricted to this purpose only. But, the bombings have revoked the belief of the people in the world at large that these were only intended for enforcing the “no-fly zone” or a ceasefire in the brief civil war. However targets in the city have also been bombed, the justification being that these were military strongholds. Sadly, these justification were presented to the world many times before, along with one or the other invented excuses to get deliberation in countries which don't conform to the foreign policy of the NATO countries.
These excuses have been many, including the famous hoax of WMDs in Iraq, which subsequently resulted into the Iraq war, which made former President of the United States of America G.W.Bush a favourite with shoe throwers. In fact, that particular incident sparked something of a revolution in protests. Invading Iraq on the pretext of human rights abuse and possession of WMDs only triggered massive opportunity for the Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba and other condemnable terrorist groups to recruit young,dissident, frustrated and brain-washed men, and possibly even women.
The West, and from that I mean the NATO, must beware of their own immediate actions in the aftermath of a step-down of Muammar Gaddhafi, who, after all, is a moderate Muslim. If the Mediterranean Sea is empty of these scandalous groups, it is largely due to the vigilance and efficiency of the nations that border it. However, if extremist groups gather power and support in the wake of popular uprisings, it going to be hard for the world to face the next 20 years without a major conflict spreading out and engulfing it in flames. I would rather have 100 Muammar Gaddhafi’s on Earth, than a single Osama bin Laden.
Everyone clearly remembers what happened in Afghanistan, and the international community must ensure that a similar situation does not develop in Northern Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)