FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[LewEngBridewell]

Of course, the obvious answer is 161, but there's no F1 knowledge needed for that.

Clue time!!!!!

[andrew]

Of course, the obvious answer is 161, but there's no F1 knowledge needed for that.

Clue time!!!!!

Damn it all to puss spewing hell!!!!

I asked for the next number and you gave it to me! In an attempt to claw back some credibility, any idea as to what these numbers are?

[LewEngBridewell]

Of course, the obvious answer is 161, but there's no F1 knowledge needed for that.

Clue time!!!!!

Damn it all to puss spewing hell!!!!

I asked for the next number and you gave it to me! In an attempt to claw back some credibility, any idea as to what these numbers are?

I have to hold my hands up and admit I have no idea at all

I'll be kicking myself when it's revealed, I know......

[andrew]

Of course, the obvious answer is 161, but there's no F1 knowledge needed for that.

Clue time!!!!!

Damn it all to puss spewing hell!!!!

I asked for the next number and you gave it to me! In an attempt to claw back some credibility, any idea as to what these numbers are?

I have to hold my hands up and admit I have no idea at all

I'll be kicking myself when it's revealed, I know......

I was hoping to get a bit of revenge on Smokin fior his stincker but you've shot the fox on that now!

Looks the the drivers point this time last year before the Belgian GP.

You're go I suppose.

[LewEngBridewell]

Of course, the obvious answer is 161, but there's no F1 knowledge needed for that.

Clue time!!!!!

Damn it all to puss spewing hell!!!!

I asked for the next number and you gave it to me! In an attempt to claw back some credibility, any idea as to what these numbers are?

I have to hold my hands up and admit I have no idea at all

I'll be kicking myself when it's revealed, I know......

I was hoping to get a bit of revenge on Smokin fior his stincker but you've shot the fox on that now!

Looks the the drivers point this time last year before the Belgian GP.

You're go I suppose.

oHH dammit, I was looking at drivers points last year, but foolishly only considered the final few standings

Right i'll think of one now.............................

[andrew]

Shake a leg then.

[LewEngBridewell]

This is my idea of an EASY question. And the only numbers involved are dates.

The image below shows part of the first chicane at Monza before it was re-profiled, along with the second chicane also. These changes were made in order to reduce collisions at the first and second chicane.



So guys, which year did the changes take place, and what was awfully ironic about the the first race with these changes?

[andrew]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

[LewEngBridewell]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

No, it was later than that.

[LewEngBridewell]

The tyres were erected in 1996 to stop kerb-hopping, but that's not the question. I'm asking about a whole re-profile at chicanes 1 and 2.

[andrew]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

No, it was later than that.

I've got it now.

Hill and Villeneuve along with Berger were involved in deciding placing tyres on the chicance and it was these tyres that were Hill and Villeneuve's dowfall. There your irony right there!

[LewEngBridewell]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

No, it was later than that.

I've got it now.

Hill and Villeneuve along with Berger were involved in deciding placing tyres on the chicance and it was these tyres that were Hill and Villeneuve's dowfall. There your irony right there!

That is an excellent answer, although not the one I was after.

I'm going to reword it.

* The picture above shows the first chicane BEFORE it got reprofiled.
* Which year was the first chicane (and also VERY SLIGHTLY) the second chicane re-profiled (to its current format) to reduce accidents?
* What was terribly ironic about the race, that year?

[Denthúl]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

No, it was later than that.

I've got it now.

Hill and Villeneuve along with Berger were involved in deciding placing tyres on the chicance and it was these tyres that were Hill and Villeneuve's dowfall. There your irony right there!

That is an excellent answer, although not the one I was after.

I'm going to reword it.

* The picture above shows the first chicane BEFORE it got reprofiled.
* Which year was the first chicane (and also VERY SLIGHTLY) the second chicane re-profiled (to its current format) to reduce accidents?
* What was terribly ironic about the race, that year?

2000 and there were accidents at both chicanes, the one at the second chicane sadly resulting in the death of a marshal.

[LewEngBridewell]

1996.

Schumacher got away with tapping one of the stacks but I don't see how this was ironic.

No, it was later than that.

I've got it now.

Hill and Villeneuve along with Berger were involved in deciding placing tyres on the chicance and it was these tyres that were Hill and Villeneuve's dowfall. There your irony right there!

That is an excellent answer, although not the one I was after.

I'm going to reword it.

* The picture above shows the first chicane BEFORE it got reprofiled.
* Which year was the first chicane (and also VERY SLIGHTLY) the second chicane re-profiled (to its current format) to reduce accidents?
* What was terribly ironic about the race, that year?

2000 and there were accidents at both chicanes, the one at the second chicane sadly resulting in the death of a marshal.

Yes! We have a winner. The chicanes that were re-profiled to reduce accidents actually both caused pile-ups, the one at the second chicane proving fatal for a trackside marshal (Paolo Gislimberti).

Your go Denthúl!

[andrew]

New question please!