Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Rain


Hawk

Recommended Posts

good reasons...but if you can race a bike...you should be able to race a stock car. I'm all about safety for the drivers, crews and spectators, but there's nothing saying you have to run wide open all the time...just a thought....I'd sooner see them race in the rain at lower speed than stop the race. Just my thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F1 has traction control

Negative Ghostrider, no traction control on F1 cars this year. They've been teetering back and forth for years, some seasons they've ran with it, others they haven't but this upcoming season they won't have traction control. Nonetheless they always run in the rain.

As for superbikes, AMA races in the rain depending on how hard the rain is, World Superbike and Moto GP race in the rain no matter what. Sit down and watch a Moto GP rain race and tell me that isnt some of the most skilled, exciting driving/riding you've ever seen.

For what its worth, NASCAR could keep racing in rain on a flat track, or road course. But there is no way they would race in the rain on slick tires on banking, that would be quite the ugly scene.

Heres a link to the F1 story about no traction control this season and what the drivers think about it. Around 90% of the drivers are all for the rule change.

http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/f1-drivers-welcome-traction-control-ban/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

bump: f1 race stopped and ended do to rain. monsoon + f1 car = stop. the cars chassis actually hydroplanes as they are so low to the ground when there is standing water or puddles. rain + racing gnerally is a big no no. endurance racing do generally push through all conditions. moto gp will stop a race do to monsoon conditions and then score the race on aggregate time (total). seen tthat happen in moto gp a race or 2.

so its not actually that uncommon in racing to stop do to rain. only some enduro classes will carry on. same for rally racing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...