Unpopular F1 opinions

[Nessafox]

To end this discussion: you don't need any talent for F1RWRS, when an over 40 year old transgendered driver is actually able to qualify for a race, then so could anyone.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Volker Scrattenheim iz gonna blow all yo asses off biatches.

Finally fixed

And I have never understood aerond's rules so therefore I don't like them. If I was a lot smarter I would probably love them

[Gerudo Dragon]

I like Ralf Schumacher, infact I respect him more than his brother.

*Puts on flame suit*

[UncreativeUsername37]

I like Ralf Schumacher, infact I respect him more than his brother.

*Puts on flame suit*

It'd take a lot to be respected less than Michael Schumacher.

[ibsey]

Been meaning to post this one here for a while (well since before the Oz GP). Anyway I prefer watching races at Adelaide over Melbourne.

Let me bet clear. I think Melbourne is a nicer track to drive, probably slightly better for overtaking (?), a nicer city & overall better facilities for the GP etc. It just that Adelaide IMO was a ‘proper’ old school street circuit. Similar to say Long Beach or Detriot. With more concrete walls lining the track, pavements, bumps, manhole covers or kerbs etc that in comparison to Melbourne. Also in Adelaide the track was right in the city, so you would see all the buildings and cityscape being much closer. Rather than Melbourne which is in a park, with skyscrapers or building much further away. And since we see grass surrounding most other race tracks therefore IMO Melbourne doesn’t feel like a ‘proper’ street circuit.

So even despite its flaws, I would prefer Adelaide over Melbourne to watch a race. Driving, now that’s a completely different matter.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Been meaning to post this one here for a while (well since before the Oz GP). Anyway I prefer watching races at Adelaide over Melbourne.

Let me bet clear. I think Melbourne is a nicer track to drive, probably slightly better for overtaking (?), a nicer city & overall better facilities for the GP etc. It just that Adelaide IMO was a ‘proper’ old school street circuit. Similar to say Long Beach or Detriot. With more concrete walls lining the track, pavements, bumps, manhole covers or kerbs etc that in comparison to Melbourne. Also in Adelaide the track was right in the city, so you would see all the buildings and cityscape being much closer. Rather than Melbourne which is in a park, with skyscrapers or building much further away. And since we see grass surrounding most other race tracks therefore IMO Melbourne doesn’t feel like a ‘proper’ street circuit.

So even despite its flaws, I would prefer Adelaide over Melbourne to watch a race. Driving, now that’s a completely different matter.

Adelaide does feel more old school, I'll give you that; but like you said, Melbourne's a better drive and better for overtaking. I don't really care about the scenery much as long as those two things are good, although I still definitely prefer something pretty like Monaco or the old Hockenheim to what feels like the middle of nowhere like Korea or India. Also, I actually think it's cool when tracks feel like some sort of middle ground between street and purpose-built, like Melbourne or to some extent CGV. So taking all of that in, I definitely like Melbourne more than Adelaide and would rather see a race there.

[ibsey]

Been meaning to post this one here for a while (well since before the Oz GP). Anyway I prefer watching races at Adelaide over Melbourne.

Let me bet clear. I think Melbourne is a nicer track to drive, probably slightly better for overtaking (?), a nicer city & overall better facilities for the GP etc. It just that Adelaide IMO was a ‘proper’ old school street circuit. Similar to say Long Beach or Detriot. With more concrete walls lining the track, pavements, bumps, manhole covers or kerbs etc that in comparison to Melbourne. Also in Adelaide the track was right in the city, so you would see all the buildings and cityscape being much closer. Rather than Melbourne which is in a park, with skyscrapers or building much further away. And since we see grass surrounding most other race tracks therefore IMO Melbourne doesn’t feel like a ‘proper’ street circuit.

So even despite its flaws, I would prefer Adelaide over Melbourne to watch a race. Driving, now that’s a completely different matter.

Adelaide does feel more old school, I'll give you that; but like you said, Melbourne's a better drive and better for overtaking. I don't really care about the scenery much as long as those two things are good, although I still definitely prefer something pretty like Monaco or the old Hockenheim to what feels like the middle of nowhere like Korea or India. Also, I actually think it's cool when tracks feel like some sort of middle ground between street and purpose-built, like Melbourne or to some extent CGV. So taking all of that in, I definitely like Melbourne more than Adelaide and would rather see a race there.

Sorry, perhaps I didn’t explain myself fully enough. Its not just the scenery I was trying to get that, that I think was better with Adelaide. I also think, since Adelaide has more concrete walls lining the track, so we would see more crashes than Melbourne (i.e. more challenging). Also because of the walls, perhaps there was more scope for good drivers to excel at Adelaide in comparison to Melbourne. (i.e. the better drivers would ‘kiss’ the walls). So car performance became less vital as in Melbourne. And size of drivers balls becaming more vital. Also because of increase chances of crashing it met potentially more of a mixed up result.

Also because of more pavements, bumps, manhole covers or kerbs etc than in comparison to Melbourne. When watching F1 cars on the limit at Adelaide, they would appear to bounce around, spark & get out of shape more in comparison to the smooth tarmac of Melbourne. So the actual speculate of watching an F1 car on the limit at Adelaide is IMO more enjoyable than the speculate of watching an F1 car on the limit at Melbourne. I guess the best way to see what I mean is watch a lap quail lap from 1995 at Adelaide & how much more the cars were jumping / moving over the bumps and kerbs. Then compare that to the next race at Melbourne in 1996 (obviously slightly different cars, but only a few months apart) & see how planted the cars looked at Albert Park in comparison.


For me watching an F1 driver slide & catch a slide is probably as enjoyable as watching most F1 passing moves (expect the classics of course). Perhaps that’s another unpopular F1 opinion right there. So whilst Melbourne's is better for overtaking etc. I would be prepared to sacrifice some of that just to see cars sliding more at Adelaide. Or cars hopping over kerbs / pavements etc and trying to work out which cars & drivers are better at this seemly (in today’s F1) lost art form.

Having said all of this, I’m not sure how much they have ironed out the bumps these days at Adelaide? And surely V8 supercars (which am I correct in thinking still race at Adelaide?) have a softer suspension than F1 cars. Hence will react differently to bumps than an F1 car. But juding from the last F1 race there in 1995, it still seemed pretty bumpy (at least equal to Singapore / Monaco today i’d say). Which is only a good thing in my book. Hopefully that clarifys things.

[AndreaModa]

I see Melbourne as very similar to Montreal. If you take it literally it is a street circuit, but in a park setting. I agree I prefer the more "cramped" street circuits that are set on real streets, that's why I was so looking forward to New Jersey. I hope they make it happen for 2014. Singapore is also good for this reason - proper bumpy, difficult track over a long distance which really tests the drivers.

[Klon]

I like Ralf Schumacher, infact I respect him more than his brother.

I like you. To be honest, I think Ralf has suffered a worse judgement than objectively worse drivers just because his brother, like him or not, happens to be one of the greatest racing drivers of all time and he, like 99 % of racing drivers, just couldn't match that performance. If his name was Ralf Ralfson or something like that there would be a lot more Ralf fans.

As far as the track debate goes: in my opinion, there needs to be a healthy mix of tracks, quality of racing be damned: we need high-speed racing tracks (which is why Monza must always be on the calendar), we need slow-speed racing tracks (as in Hungaroring), we need street tracks in downtown (Monaco, Singapore), we need street tracks "outside of town" (Albert Park, Montreal), we need Tilke-domes, we need ovals - a world championship needs to cover as many track types as reasonably possible.

[UncreativeUsername37]

With more concrete walls lining the track, pavements, bumps, manhole covers or kerbs etc that in comparison to Melbourne.

I don't know how, but when I was responding to your post, I completely forgot about that sentence. I definitely agree with you on that point, no runoff is of course cooler for a street circuit and more challenging than having runoff, but whether it's none (e.g. Monaco), a little (e.g. Canada, Singapore in some places), or a lot, different amounts of runoff all have their own charm and atmosphere to them. Like Klon said, variety across the calendar is really important.

[dr-baker]

Variety across the calendar? Sounds like you're describing Champ Car!!!

[Klon]

Variety across the calendar? Sounds like you're describing Champ Car!!!

Yeah, at least as far as challenging the drivers and teams by varying tracks go, CART around the turn of the millenium was great. You had everything and then some. That is the stuff we need.

[roblo97]

Variety across the calendar? Sounds like you're describing Champ Car!!!

Yeah, at least as far as challenging the drivers and teams by varying tracks go, CART around the turn of the millenium was great. You had everything and then some. That is the stuff we need.

Including qualifying laps at an average speed of 242 mph ( 387 kph ) followed by a tight street circuit

[CoopsII]

I like Ralf Schumacher, infact I respect him more than his brother.

I respect him because I think he actually folded this photograph to remove Michael from it

[takagi_for_the_win]

And also, going back to the calender variety topic, with more varied track characteristics, the field would be shaken up more race-by-race as well, as certain cars would work better on certain track characteristics. Of course, you then get the possibility of one team getting their car to work brilliantly on all tracks, dominating the season, but thats tangential. Back to the point, I believe the relative similarity in tracks is one of the reasons why we have so few different race winners these days, as most tracks have the same basic layout.

[go_Rubens]

There should also be a track or two that test the reliability of the cars. Like, for example, old Hockenheim was an engine killer going down the forested straights. F1 needs a track that tests reliability. F1 might already have a track to test engines, gearboxes, and other parts, but a track that stands out as an engine killer would be great.

[mario]

There should also be a track or two that test the reliability of the cars. Like, for example, old Hockenheim was an engine killer going down the forested straights. F1 needs a track that tests reliability. F1 might already have a track to test engines, gearboxes, and other parts, but a track that stands out as an engine killer would be great.

The thing is, the requirement for extended service lives in order to bring down costs also means that there are very few "engine breaker" circuits out there as the engineers are already designing to the worst case scenario.

The drivers now spend at least as much, if not more time, on full throttle at Monza (figures of about 72% of the lap spent on full throttle are quoted) than they used to at Hockenheim, whilst in Spa the drivers are on full throttle for about 17 seconds (the time taken to get from La Source to Les Combes), with the engines going through very extreme G-loads in the process, and yet engine failures are quite rare in those circumstances.

When it came to redesigning the CA2006 engine for 2010, Cosworth bench tested the engines on simulated laps of Monza, and their engines took multiple race distances of that sort of abuse before finally failing, and that was with an engine that had been underdeveloped for three years. The combination of several years of incremental refinement under relatively static rules, combined with more exacting manufacturing processes, means that these days the circuits are no longer quite so taxing on the cars.
OK, last year we had an unusual spate of gearbox problems, but when you consider the amount of abuse the drivers can give their cars at certain circuits - like Singapore, which is very bumpy, or Monaco, where drivers can hit bumps that in the past would have destroyed the transmission, and get away with it, it shows how difficult it would be to create a circuit that would push the mechanical limits of the cars.

Equally, whilst the fans might enjoy those sorts of circuits, the teams, who are the ones that have to pick up the bill when that multi-million pound engine explodes, are probably understandably less keen to see the same sort of scenario. It reminds me of the NASCAR driver (I cannot remember his name, unfortunately), who lashed out at the fans who wanted to see more crashes and action on track by saying "Yes, because I love having to spend another $150,000 in the workshop rebuilding the car after the race" - somebody has to pick up the bill for that at the end of the day, and for a smaller team that can be a crippling expense.

[Jonny83]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Which I guess brings me to why we'll probably never see this happen ever again, with the engine life restrictions and tyres the way they are, drivers are pretty much obliged to back off once fairly comfortable, which to me is the equivalent of a football team taking it easy once 2 or 3 goals up instead of pushing on and trying to smash a few more in the net.

Although part of me actually doesn't want to see this happen, since no doubt if it did we'd have the torches and pitchforks assembled immediately and more knee-jerk rules and tyre changes for the next race no doubt.

[Londoner]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Whilst I agree that Williams probably had everyone beaten that day already, I wonder what the result would have been if Ralf hadn't taken out Raikkonen and Barrichello at the first corner.

It was also one of those mid-2003 races where Schumacher was right off the pace for some unknown reason.

[DanielPT]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Which I guess brings me to why we'll probably never see this happen ever again, with the engine life restrictions and tyres the way they are, drivers are pretty much obliged to back off once fairly comfortable, which to me is the equivalent of a football team taking it easy once 2 or 3 goals up instead of pushing on and trying to smash a few more in the net.

Although part of me actually doesn't want to see this happen, since no doubt if it did we'd have the torches and pitchforks assembled immediately and more knee-jerk rules and tyre changes for the next race no doubt.

What is more is that FIA would immediately ban that car on the "too far ahead for our tastes" grounds. People want to see a good show, not racing. That is why the Schumacher years are disliked by many and why Vettel receives so much flak these days. People get bored when someone dominates like this and consequently give up the sport in hordes. What is left is a promoter and an organizer rewriting the rules in panic to prevent a team domination.

I also suspect that, after 2014, either the engine development will be frozen or only previously sanctioned new parts will be allowed in order to balance the engines.

[Jonny83]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Whilst I agree that Williams probably had everyone beaten that day already, I wonder what the result would have been if Ralf hadn't taken out Raikkonen and Barrichello at the first corner.

It was also one of those mid-2003 races where Schumacher was right off the pace for some unknown reason.

I'm sure it would have been closer, but what I liked was that with what did transpire, JPM didn't say halfway through the race "sod it, I'm over a pitstop clear, time to wind it down and go on a nice Sunday drive", but kept it up. Just checked Forix in case my memory was decieving me and that he actually had a creditable threat that retired or fell away in the closing laps, and from lap 40 (less than two thirds distance) he was home and dry reliability permitting.

I'm not having a contrarian rant against close racing (well kind of since it's in the Unpopular thread I guess!), I love it as much as the next guy when it happens organically, but the idea of someone putting in a "dominant/crushing/(insert appropriate adjective here) performance" that culminates in them cruising over the line 5 seconds clear of second place just seems weird to me.

Again my memory isn't crystal clear but I did notice Schumacher was top Bridgestone runner in that race (7th ahead of the two BARs and Heidfeld's Sauber) so it might have been down to tyres - a reason why I'm in favour of tyre wars that I posted in this thread previously, to this day I'm convinced Schumacher would be a nine-time champion (and won much more comfortably in '03) had that whole era been a spec-Bridgestone one.

[takagi_for_the_win]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Whilst I agree that Williams probably had everyone beaten that day already, I wonder what the result would have been if Ralf hadn't taken out Raikkonen and Barrichello at the first corner.

It was also one of those mid-2003 races where Schumacher was right off the pace for some unknown reason.

I'm sure it would have been closer, but what I liked was that with what did transpire, JPM didn't say halfway through the race "sod it, I'm over a pitstop clear, time to wind it down and go on a nice Sunday drive", but kept it up. Just checked Forix in case my memory was decieving me and that he actually had a creditable threat that retired or fell away in the closing laps, and from lap 40 (less than two thirds distance) he was home and dry reliability permitting.

I'm not having a contrarian rant against close racing (well kind of since it's in the Unpopular thread I guess!), I love it as much as the next guy when it happens organically, but the idea of someone putting in a "dominant/crushing/(insert appropriate adjective here) performance" that culminates in them cruising over the line 5 seconds clear of second place just seems weird to me.

Again my memory isn't crystal clear but I did notice Schumacher was top Bridgestone runner in that race (7th ahead of the two BARs and Heidfeld's Sauber) so it might have been down to tyres - a reason why I'm in favour of tyre wars that I posted in this thread previously, to this day I'm convinced Schumacher would be a nine-time champion (and won much more comfortably in '03) had that whole era been a spec-Bridgestone one.

From memory, Schumi suffered a puncture when he was lying 3rd (IIRC). All I can remember was seeing the Ferrari limping around the track and thinking "YES, YES, YES, YES!!!" It might be worth pointing out I was very anti-Schumi at the time...

[dr-baker]

It might be worth pointing out I was very anti-Schumi at the time...

At the time? I have been anti-him ever since early- to mid-1994, when I realised he was Williams's (and particularly Hill's) main rival for the championship. Cheating with the fuel rigs didn't help my perception, neither did Schumi's overtaking on the parade lap of the British GP. And the rumours of traction control/launch control etc. wasn't winning me over. Adelaide that year was the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. Further incidents in his career were seen in the light of 1994. So you were not a fan of his at the time...? I never was!

[takagi_for_the_win]

It might be worth pointing out I was very anti-Schumi at the time...

At the time? I have been anti-him ever since early- to mid-1994, when I realised he was Williams's (and particularly Hill's) main rival for the championship. Cheating with the fuel rigs didn't help my perception, neither did Schumi's overtaking on the parade lap of the British GP. And the rumours of traction control/launch control etc. wasn't winning me over. Adelaide that year was the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. Further incidents in his career were seen in the light of 1994. So you were not a fan of his at the time...? I never was!

It might be worth pointing out here that I was born in 1996, so I never witnessed his dodgy actions of '94 firsthand. What turned me against him was , given I started watching F1 in late 2001, when from then until the end of 2004, he won around 40 races in 3 and a bit seasons, which made me dislike him

[pasta_maldonado]

It might be worth pointing out I was very anti-Schumi at the time...

At the time? I have been anti-him ever since early- to mid-1994, when I realised he was Williams's (and particularly Hill's) main rival for the championship. Cheating with the fuel rigs didn't help my perception, neither did Schumi's overtaking on the parade lap of the British GP. And the rumours of traction control/launch control etc. wasn't winning me over. Adelaide that year was the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. Further incidents in his career were seen in the light of 1994. So you were not a fan of his at the time...? I never was!

It might be worth pointing out here that I was born in 1996, so I never witnessed his dodgy actions of '94 firsthand. What turned me against him was , given I started watching F1 in late 2001, when from then until the end of 2004, he won around 40 races in 3 and a bit seasons, which made me dislike him

1996? Vintage year mate! What half?

[takagi_for_the_win]

At the time? I have been anti-him ever since early- to mid-1994, when I realised he was Williams's (and particularly Hill's) main rival for the championship. Cheating with the fuel rigs didn't help my perception, neither did Schumi's overtaking on the parade lap of the British GP. And the rumours of traction control/launch control etc. wasn't winning me over. Adelaide that year was the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. Further incidents in his career were seen in the light of 1994. So you were not a fan of his at the time...? I never was!

It might be worth pointing out here that I was born in 1996, so I never witnessed his dodgy actions of '94 firsthand. What turned me against him was , given I started watching F1 in late 2001, when from then until the end of 2004, he won around 40 races in 3 and a bit seasons, which made me dislike him

1996? Vintage year mate! What half?

September, a week and a day after the Italian grand prix I'm guessing you were also born in 1996?

[pasta_maldonado]

It might be worth pointing out here that I was born in 1996, so I never witnessed his dodgy actions of '94 firsthand. What turned me against him was , given I started watching F1 in late 2001, when from then until the end of 2004, he won around 40 races in 3 and a bit seasons, which made me dislike him

1996? Vintage year mate! What half?

September, a week and a day after the Italian grand prix I'm guessing you were also born in 1996?

I was indeed, November 1996, into the celebrations of Hill's title

[takagi_for_the_win]

1996? Vintage year mate! What half?

September, a week and a day after the Italian grand prix I'm guessing you were also born in 1996?

I was indeed, November 1996, into the celebrations of Hill's title

Truly a vintage year!

[UncreativeUsername37]

The icon sure is earning its pay today....

[roblo97]

I was born in June 1997 just after Panis broke his legs in Montreal

[Gerudo Dragon]

I was born on October 30 1998, just before Hakkinen's first title

[Londoner]

I was born on October 30 1998, just before Hakkinen's first title

That means you're almost exactly the same age as Jeroen. And considering Mr Metcalf never comes here anyone, that must make you the Youngest Forum Member.

Bloody kids. I come from a faraway place. February 1995 to be exact.

[mario]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Whilst I agree that Williams probably had everyone beaten that day already, I wonder what the result would have been if Ralf hadn't taken out Raikkonen and Barrichello at the first corner.

It was also one of those mid-2003 races where Schumacher was right off the pace for some unknown reason.

I'm sure it would have been closer, but what I liked was that with what did transpire, JPM didn't say halfway through the race "sod it, I'm over a pitstop clear, time to wind it down and go on a nice Sunday drive", but kept it up. Just checked Forix in case my memory was decieving me and that he actually had a creditable threat that retired or fell away in the closing laps, and from lap 40 (less than two thirds distance) he was home and dry reliability permitting.

I'm not having a contrarian rant against close racing (well kind of since it's in the Unpopular thread I guess!), I love it as much as the next guy when it happens organically, but the idea of someone putting in a "dominant/crushing/(insert appropriate adjective here) performance" that culminates in them cruising over the line 5 seconds clear of second place just seems weird to me.

Again my memory isn't crystal clear but I did notice Schumacher was top Bridgestone runner in that race (7th ahead of the two BARs and Heidfeld's Sauber) so it might have been down to tyres - a reason why I'm in favour of tyre wars that I posted in this thread previously, to this day I'm convinced Schumacher would be a nine-time champion (and won much more comfortably in '03) had that whole era been a spec-Bridgestone one.

The performance of the Michelin tyres was certainly a factor in Montoya's dominance, at least compared to the main threat from Ferrari - it's worth noting that it was only a few races later that the FIA made it controversial ruling on the construction of Michelin's tyres that lead to a notable drop off in performance afterwards.

It is the flip side of having tyres that are designed to rapidly thermally degrade - whilst it may generate the differences in performance that permit overtaking to take place on a more regular basis, at the same time the possibility of damaging the tyres quite early on in a stint forces the drivers to drive in a more cautious manner and acts as a disincentive to push too hard.

The fact that the rules are so stable, therefore leading to design convergence, added to the need to conserve the engine and gearboxes means that continuing to push for longer than necessary actively hurts you later on, either in the same race or later on in the season as engine performance degradation kicks in (a while ago, Ferrari mentioned that each full race weekend, even with relatively careful driving, reduced the peak power by about five bhp through component wear IIRC). Add to that the convergence of the design regulations, which reduces the potential performance difference between cars, and you end up in a situation where a driver out at the front would probably not want to be much more than a pit stop's worth of time ahead of the field to avoid overstressing the car.

To a certain extent, though, even when you had a driver in a car that had that sort of performance advantage and was that well hooked up, winning by that sort of margin is still pretty rare (during that season, for example, most of the winning margins were below about 20 seconds, and often quite a bit less, with the exception of Kimi in Malaysia). About the only other comparable dominant performance in recent times that I can think of that might match that would be Hamilton in the 2008 British GP, where he won by almost the same winning margin that Montoya did in that race.

[CoopsII]

Two races and then a break? OH COME ON!

It feels like the seasons over, where are the races?!?!?

[DanielPT]

Two races and then a break? OH COME ON!

It feels like the seasons over, where are the races?!?!?

Not unpopular.

[Jonny83]

Well isn't this thread making me feel old all of a sudden

John Watson's drive to win from the back of the grid at Long Beach was the last Grand Prix to take place before I was born, Prost winning at Ricard when I was a couple of days old.

[dinizintheoven]

I was born on October 30 1998, just before Hakkinen's first title

That means you're almost exactly the same age as Jeroen. And considering Mr Metcalf never comes here anyone, that must make you the Youngest Forum Member.

Bloody kids. I come from a faraway place. February 1995 to be exact.

Heh. "Far away". By February 1995 I'd done the first of my GCSEs, and I suspect dr-b wasn't far behind.

[ryangregg12345]

Well isn't this thread making me feel old all of a sudden

John Watson's drive to win from the back of the grid at Long Beach was the last Grand Prix to take place before I was born, Prost winning at Ricard when I was a couple of days old.

Fun fact: Stirling Moss won the 1961 Kanonloppet non-championship race after starting last on the grid.

[wsrgo]

Well isn't this thread making me feel old all of a sudden

John Watson's drive to win from the back of the grid at Long Beach was the last Grand Prix to take place before I was born, Prost winning at Ricard when I was a couple of days old.

My birth was preceded by a very dark moment in motorsport history.. the Monaco Grand Prix of 1994...the first race since 1983 sans Ayrton Senna..

Also preceded by Michael Schumacher's first ever pole, and the GPDA's first ever meeting..

Also preceded by Pedro Lamy's final race in a non-Minardi car..

[FullMetalJack]

I was born on October 30 1998, just before Hakkinen's first title

That means you're almost exactly the same age as Jeroen. And considering Mr Metcalf never comes here anyone, that must make you the Youngest Forum Member.

Bloody kids. I come from a faraway place. February 1995 to be exact.

Wow, people on here don't half know how to make me feel old. January 1993 for me.