2014 Silly Season Thread

Gerudo Dragon · Post by **Gerudo Dragon** » 10 Dec 2013, 17:27

For the first time, I agree with Vettel on something :O

sswishbone · Post by **sswishbone** » 10 Dec 2013, 17:29

My opinion on double points for last race is that it is an absolute disgrace and devalues the entire calendar. The cynical side of me thinks that this is Bernie's plan to appease those who are of the belief that Abu Dhabi is a terrible season finale through false drama.

The only way this would possibly be fair is if the following was added to it: -

1) As double points are on offer the manufacturers must run an engine that is right at the end of the engine lifespan from Free practice through to the end of the race.

2) An engine map must be chosen before the weekend starts and there are no changes allowed at any time, any attempt to do so results in immediate disqualification from the whole weekend.

3) Teams are only allowed to run in 'standard' fuel mapping, eliminating supreme qualifying laps followed by tedious fuel conservation in the race. Any breach of this in practice or qualifying results in all times being deleted and no option to start from the pitlane. Any breach in race itself results in an immediate black flag.

4) Each car must complete at least 50% of running time in every single practice session, the only exception to this is if a failure on the car prevents safe running, to be assessed by the race scrutineers. Failure to comply with this rule is for all qualifying times to be deleted and no option to start from the pitlane.

5) DRS activation time to be decreased to 0.7 seconds instead of 1 second, meaning drivers have to get close before their aid is activated.

6) An engine or gearbox failure up to and including qualifying results in an automatic 10 place grid penalty.

7) Any driver who reaches Q3 and fails to record a lap time within 104% of pole position is to have their time deleted and an automatic five place grid drop.

With these additions teams will have increased risk of reliability, increased need to actually race and increased incentive to fully partake in the weekend. Then it would explain why it is suddenly worth double points, without these it is just free candy to the drivers.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 10 Dec 2013, 17:38

Meatwad wrote:It should not have 99 as the highest number, either. If I was a driver, number 13 would be my first choice but car number 95352 or something similar would also be nice. I wonder if they'll be allowed to use decimals.

Would love to see somebody use either pi (maybe Juan-Pablo Montoya if he returns?) or 8008135...

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
dr-baker wrote:And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!

No, Maldonado should get 69. That way, when he inevitably rolls the car, he'll still be easily identifiable!

He can have number 11...

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 10 Dec 2013, 18:08

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
dr-baker wrote:And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!

No, Maldonado should get 69. That way, when he inevitably rolls the car, he'll still be easily identifiable!

... I'm pretty sure the fact that the car has rolled over would be enough to identify that it's Maldonado.

Alextrax52 · Post by **Alextrax52** » 10 Dec 2013, 18:25

Dark77 wrote:For the first time, I agree with Vettel on something :O

If Seb calls it absurd what would Mark Webber describe it as?

Post by **mario** » 10 Dec 2013, 19:07

CoopsII wrote:
mario wrote:Personally, I must admit that I dislike the idea of overvaluing a race based purely on its position in the calendar and for FOM's commercial gain - we know Abu Dhabi has paid a premium in the past simply to be at the end of the season, and I have a feeling that such moves are designed to encourage tracks to pay higher fees by implying that their race is more "valuable" than the rest (another reason why I dislike the move). I also dislike the implication that the teams are somehow slacking off in the final races - some might, but Ferrari, Lotus and Mercedes didn't seem to abandon their fight for 2nd in the WCC, nor do I imagine that Force India and Sauber slacked off either.

I agree with the above and it baffles me that at no point in the decision making process did someone weigh up how the artificiality of this rule change is going to play out to the masses. How do you explain the reasons for this to someone new to F1 without sounding like an idiot?

There is also another aspect of this that Keith Collantine at F1Fanatic has also pointed out - that whilst FOM has an interest in the idea of double points to inject "excitement" into the season finale, there is a direct financial incentive for the FIA to double the points haul in that race too.

As he rightly pointed out, the FIA's licence system changed after the 2013 season so that, instead of paying a flat fee for their licence, the teams now need to pay an additional charge based on how many points they accumulate during the season too. If the teams still have to pay the fees at that standard rate, the FIA will, at a stroke, gain an additional 5% in fees from the teams at no expense to itself - something that would, no doubt, have been attractive to Todt at a time when he is trying to squeeze more money out of F1 to fund the FIA's activities.

[EDIT] Now, I must admit that I'm not sure if the Autosport article covers this point (due to the limit on viewing their articles), but it appears that Marko has confirmed via Bild that the original proposal was that the final four races would have been double points rounds, not just the final race. He also confirmed that Red Bull voted against the original proposal for doubling the points in the final four rounds since, as he put it, "the world championship up to that point would have been almost useless". http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/139125.html

Benetton · Post by **Benetton** » 10 Dec 2013, 20:38

I like that a budget cap is now seriously a work in progress (it is to be implemented for the 2015 season) and I also kind of like the new driver numbers thing. However, the double points thing is taking things way too far and I think it won't happen. Every world championship round has been of equal importance since 1950 and to mess with that is asking for trouble.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 10 Dec 2013, 21:05

If they're going that way, they should introduce the play-off system of the Jupiler Pro League! (i'm not going to explain that again!)

Divina_Galica · Post by **Divina_Galica** » 10 Dec 2013, 21:12

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
dr-baker wrote:And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!

No, Maldonado should get 69. That way, when he inevitably rolls the car, he'll still be easily identifiable!

Maldonado to get 11.

Personally I'd love to see Susie in a 69 ...

Divina_Galica · Post by **Divina_Galica** » 10 Dec 2013, 21:12

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:
Dark77 wrote:For the first time, I agree with Vettel on something :O

If Seb calls it absurd what would Mark Webber describe it as?

...perfect.

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 10 Dec 2013, 21:16

As I said on the previous page, this double-points rule also takes away consistency as a factor for the World Championship as well as devaluing all races before the season finale. Now I'll say, it's DISGUSTING to see such a rule come into place. They already ruined historical stats with the newer points system, and screw it up even more. The old system wasn't broke, why did it need fixing?

Benetton wrote:I like that a budget cap is now seriously a work in progress (it is to be implemented for the 2015 season) and I also kind of like the new driver numbers thing. However, the double points thing is taking things way too far and I think it won't happen. Every world championship round has been of equal importance since 1950 and to mess with that is asking for trouble.

This. This is a Plus One. As for the budget cap, I'm neutral about it. I like the idea of the newer teams getting a bigger advantage, but have always seemed to like the idea of "Formula" 1. The FIA creates a forumla, and the teams create a car within that formula, and may the best driver and team win. These new rules are almost going completely against the original idea of Formula 1. And that angers me very much.

good_Ralf wrote:Sigh.

Yes, at least one rule that I won't have to possibly rant about...

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:
Dark77 wrote:For the first time, I agree with Vettel on something :O

If Seb calls it absurd what would Mark Webber describe it as?

Mark Webber wrote:What? What the bathplug are those guys thinking? I guess it was the right time for me to retire, as not only have I lost it for F1, these new rules are not very logical...

I don't know, just an idea!

Benetton · Post by **Benetton** » 10 Dec 2013, 21:43

go_Rubens wrote:As I said on the previous page, this double-points rule also takes away consistency as a factor for the World Championship as well as devaluing all races before the season finale. Now I'll say, it's DISGUSTING to see such a rule come into place. They already ruined historical stats with the newer points system, and screw it up even more. The old system wasn't broke, why did it need fixing?

Exactly, I don't understand the new points system (25-18-15...), why do the points need to go down all the way to 10th place? In 2005, the reliability of the cars was very good and then the top 8 got points. 8/20 is much better than 10/20 (50 %)!! Early 90's 6/26... percentage wise it doesn't add up. Even with the reliability. Although, I have to say that I hated the 10-8-6... point system, should've been 15-10-7-5-4-3-2-1 instead, much more comparable with 10-6-4... thus keeping the importance of winning!

I am not worried about the control of the budget cap. An independent auditor together with ONLY the FIA can keep the teams (and their cheating) in check. I study economics so I strongly believe it is entirely possible. Of course the likes of Horner says it will be difficult since Red Bull are against it. What is very important is to define what is included in the budget cap (what kind of R&D and so on) and to not start it being too low, I'd rather start with the cap being quite high and lower it as the time goes on (with taking inflation into account). The point of the budget cap should not be to make all the teams spend equals amounts of money but rather make the margin smaller than it is now!

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 11 Dec 2013, 11:07

Looks like Team Lotus have sent a set of proposals to the FIA through this memo:

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 11 Dec 2013, 11:24

Wizzie wrote:Looks like Team Lotus have sent a set of proposals to the FIA through this memo:

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 11 Dec 2013, 11:34

I like Lotus again!

Sublime_FA11C · Post by **Sublime_FA11C** » 11 Dec 2013, 12:35

I want rules 3 and 4! Badly!!

And 13 obviously. In fact i think that one doesn't go far enough. I would like drivers to do wrestling style promos where they trash talk each other before race and after qualifying. And theme entrances for all drivers except those who receive reprimands. They get a silly hat to wear for next race weekend.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 11 Dec 2013, 13:17

The double points idea looks like the latest in a long line of dubious Bernie innovations 'to improve the show'.

Of course it might improve the show a lot more if Bernie retired, CVC stopped sucking all the money out of the sport, and the lower field teams were given enough payment for them to be competitive. At the moment, most of the teams on the grid have no chance.

And, if you want an entertaining last GP, why move it from Sao Paolo to Adu Dhabi?

I'd be interested in a double points last GP, if the grid was formed up in reverse championship order. That might be fun.

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 11 Dec 2013, 13:21

Ross Prawn wrote:I'd be interested in a double points last GP, if the grid was formed up in reverse championship order. That might be fun.

Shush damn you! Bernie's probably got his own PRISM program sifting through these threads for ideas as we speak.

In fact, if you have the time, I'm sure this double-points-for-the-last-race-because-we-want-to-look-like-knobheads idea could be found archived somewhere. I'm sure the Hemogoblin came up with it (god rest his/her internet soul).

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 11 Dec 2013, 13:48

CoopsII wrote:Shush damn you! Bernie's probably got his own PRISM program sifting through these threads for ideas as we speak.

In that case Bernie, please can you implement my old idea of running the Monaco GP with cars upside down along the roof of the tunnel. Which would illustrate the powers of downforce.

There is of course a precedent for this double points brainwave. I refer to Bathurst which scores double points in the colonies tintop series. So double points, but run the final race at Bathurst would make sense to me. (And yes, I know that it would be a teeny bit dangerous for open wheelers, but maybe thats the point.)

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 11 Dec 2013, 15:46

Hoo boy has the FIA done it again. My thoughts on these new regs:

Permanent numbers: Dumb, really dumb. "One number for life is an American thing, and only because over here you can usually use the same number for all the various lower categories (I for example have run R102 for over a decade) however, don't FR3.5, GP3, GP2 etc use the F1 system? Why would any driver pick any number? Also the champion can take number 1 "if he so desires" NO. YOU WIN, YOU TAKE 1. PERIOD. none of this Indycar bullshite, where RHR did it any nobody knew why. And then he kept 23 inside the 1 anyway. Why? And this year Dixon isn't. And ok, you have one number for life. Can Vettel pick his number to save it after he loses the 1? Or does he get the shaft? And why no three digit numbers, if we're going this way. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Double Points Abby Dabby: I must admit, I like the idea of a double points race, but not the last race (can you cheapen the season anymore?) and certainly not at that hellhole. My idea? Make a "Triple Crown" of Monaco, Silverstone, and Monza (the Original 3) and have them be 1.5x points races but allow the teams to run 3 cars (impossible at Monaco I know, but I can dream). And if Anyone can somehow win all three award a 100 point bonus and just watch somebody go for broke with 2 legs won.

Budget Cap This will never happen, so I'm not worried about it. I will take ANY avatar challenge based on it, that's how 100% sure I am it won't actually occur. (Thank God).

I'm glad they ditched the "two tyre stops" rule. If you want more pit strategy, Allow the teams to put primes on the back, options on the front (or left/right) like the old days and bring back refueling. Done, simple and without gimmicks.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 11 Dec 2013, 16:24

Wallio wrote:

a "Triple Crown" of Monaco, Silverstone, and Monza (the Original 3)

What about Spa?

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 11 Dec 2013, 17:24

Wallio wrote:Budget Cap This will never happen, so I'm not worried about it. I will take ANY avatar challenge based on it, that's how 100% sure I am it won't actually occur. (Thank God).

I'll take you up on that. The budget cap NEEDS to happen - otherwise Formula 1 will collapse under it's own bloated girth. Even Ferrari knows that.

GwilymJJames · Post by **GwilymJJames** » 11 Dec 2013, 18:36

If the FIA really want rules changes to improve the show I have a number of suggestions. Starting with positioning Sgt. Bash at the top of Eau Rouge.

Post by **mario** » 11 Dec 2013, 19:10

Ross Prawn wrote:The double points idea looks like the latest in a long line of dubious Bernie innovations 'to improve the show'.

Of course it might improve the show a lot more if Bernie retired, CVC stopped sucking all the money out of the sport, and the lower field teams were given enough payment for them to be competitive. At the moment, most of the teams on the grid have no chance.

And, if you want an entertaining last GP, why move it from Sao Paolo to Adu Dhabi?

I'd be interested in a double points last GP, if the grid was formed up in reverse championship order. That might be fun.

It's not so much "improving the show" as improving the finances of both FOM and the FIA - the former will, no doubt, be receiving a premium from Abu Dhabi for the "double points" round, whilst the latter profits from the fact that the extra points given to the teams increases the teams licence fees for the following year.

On another note, it appears that the FIA's announcement that Pirelli's tyre test on the 17th would involve six teams is already being revised - Force India has confirmed that it will now not attend the test because of logistical issues (they claim that they have not had sufficient notice to prepare a car), whilst McLaren, for unspecified reasons (but probably also logistical) have also withdrawn from the test. Out of the teams that will go, only Ferrari has confirmed their drivers - de la Rosa for the first two days and Bianchi for the final day. http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/139249.html

Shizuka · Post by **Shizuka** » 11 Dec 2013, 19:12

mario wrote:Out of the teams that will go, only Ferrari has confirmed their drivers - de la Rosa for the first two days and Bianchi for the final day. http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/139249.html

Am I looking too much into Jules' test? I have a hunch they will evaluate him for a possible 2015 promotion...

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 11 Dec 2013, 20:08

Salamander wrote:
Wallio wrote:Budget Cap This will never happen, so I'm not worried about it. I will take ANY avatar challenge based on it, that's how 100% sure I am it won't actually occur. (Thank God).

I'll take you up on that. The budget cap NEEDS to happen - otherwise Formula 1 will collapse under it's own bloated girth. Even Ferrari knows that.

Just like it "needed" to happen back in '09? F1 was doomed blah blah blah, but we lost nothing by not having it. Well we lost USF1 but they wouldn't have made it anyway.

pi314159 · Post by **pi314159** » 11 Dec 2013, 20:18

Wallio wrote:
Salamander wrote:
Wallio wrote:Budget Cap This will never happen, so I'm not worried about it. I will take ANY avatar challenge based on it, that's how 100% sure I am it won't actually occur. (Thank God).

I'll take you up on that. The budget cap NEEDS to happen - otherwise Formula 1 will collapse under it's own bloated girth. Even Ferrari knows that.

Just like it "needed" to happen back in '09? F1 was doomed blah blah blah, but we lost nothing by not having it. Well we lost USF1 but they wouldn't have made it anyway.

It needed to happen. Of course F1 didn't immediately collapse. But we didn't only lose USF1, but HRT too. And Marussia and Caterham are still uncompetetive. Of the other 9 teams, at least two are in severe financial problems.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 11 Dec 2013, 20:22

Wallio wrote:
Salamander wrote:
Wallio wrote:Budget Cap This will never happen, so I'm not worried about it. I will take ANY avatar challenge based on it, that's how 100% sure I am it won't actually occur. (Thank God).

I'll take you up on that. The budget cap NEEDS to happen - otherwise Formula 1 will collapse under it's own bloated girth. Even Ferrari knows that.

Just like it "needed" to happen back in '09? F1 was doomed blah blah blah, but we lost nothing by not having it. Well we lost USF1 but they wouldn't have made it anyway.

Oh? So the fact that HRT went bust, the fact that Caterham and Marussia are miles off the pace, have been for years, and likely will be for years to come because their proposals were only submitted with the budget cap in mind, those are all nothing? As is the fact that Lotus, a team that finished fourth in the Constructors' Championship, cannot employ their desired driver because of a lack of funds? What a load of crap. Formula 1 is too expensive. Costs have to go down.

I'm not saying F1 will go bust immediately, but if steps are not taken within the couple of years to reduce costs, we'll be facing a sharp decrease in the number of teams on the grid, and that is something I think no one wants to see.

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 11 Dec 2013, 20:37

Salamander wrote:I'm not saying F1 will go bust immediately, but if steps are not taken within the couple of years to reduce costs, we'll be facing a sharp decrease in the number of teams on the grid, and that is something I think no one wants to see.

Except Emperor Montezuma, who I suspect couldn't be happier if all the lower-ranked teams go bust, leaving only Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes. Then Mateschitz gets bored with his toy, the Merc corporate bigwigs decide to withdraw "for financial reasons" and McLaren decide they'd rather go racing with their road cars.

Bernie will say how it's awful that the lower teams are being pushed out of business and we need 12 teams to compete. Then, he'll say all the midfield-to-backmarker teams are rubbish and they should all be forced out. Then, with a 10-car grid, he'll lament that no new teams are joining F1, and when they do, they'll be uncompetitive and he'll say how this is ruining the show and they should get knotted and leave F1 to the professionals. And so on, and so on, and so on, backwards and forwards like a lap of AVUS...

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 11 Dec 2013, 21:06

dinizintheoven wrote:
Salamander wrote:I'm not saying F1 will go bust immediately, but if steps are not taken within the couple of years to reduce costs, we'll be facing a sharp decrease in the number of teams on the grid, and that is something I think no one wants to see.

Except Emperor Montezuma, who I suspect couldn't be happier if all the lower-ranked teams go bust, leaving only Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes. Then Mateschitz gets bored with his toy, the Merc corporate bigwigs decide to withdraw "for financial reasons" and McLaren decide they'd rather go racing with their road cars.

Bernie will say how it's awful that the lower teams are being pushed out of business and we need 12 teams to compete. Then, he'll say all the midfield-to-backmarker teams are rubbish and they should all be forced out. Then, with a 10-car grid, he'll lament that no new teams are joining F1, and when they do, they'll be uncompetitive and he'll say how this is ruining the show and they should get knotted and leave F1 to the professionals. And so on, and so on, and so on, backwards and forwards like a lap of AVUS...

Quite honestly, it's this sway of uncertainty that is ruining the state if competitiveness for backmarker teams. If Bernie says that there should be more than 10 teams in F1, and then after a few years, he doesn't want more than 10 or 11 because one or 2 are rubbish, that's bloody stupid. It's FOM's fault that teams beyond 10th place in the constructors can't get any prize money, because they're too biased towards the top teams and themselves. If you want to keep more money for yourself and allow backmarker teams to get money and be able to stay in the sport, then you give the top teams less money, and get it more to an equal point. I don't see why that FOM has to be so biased to Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, and McLaren, and maybe Williams to a certain extent because of their history. So my point is, if Bernie wants more than 10 teams, or 11 in this case, FOM should give prize money to everyone and give the top teams less so they give away the same amount of money they usually give out without losing money, so backmarker teams don't "suck" as much. So, their dreams of being billionaires can be supported. Or, just give out more money to the smaller teams and start to lessen up their grip on the cold hard cash they so desperately want...

On the case of uncertainty, I must say it's apalling, because if Bernie has seemingly no idea how many teams he wants on the grid, I feel it shows that he's lost it a little bit when it comes to ruling FOM and running the sport. There needs to be a clear gameplan for anything to work, and he hasn't had one for years. It'll be very interesting to see if he's actually committed to a larger grid. If not, I'm disappointed, and angry.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 11 Dec 2013, 21:08

dinizintheoven wrote:
Salamander wrote:I'm not saying F1 will go bust immediately, but if steps are not taken within the couple of years to reduce costs, we'll be facing a sharp decrease in the number of teams on the grid, and that is something I think no one wants to see.

Except Emperor Montezuma, who I suspect couldn't be happier if all the lower-ranked teams go bust, leaving only Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes.

Maybe, but he wants to see costs in F1 go down nonetheless.

KL-racer · Post by **KL-racer** » 11 Dec 2013, 21:30

Wizzie wrote:Looks like Team Lotus have sent a set of proposals to the FIA through this memo:

I personally was laughing my butt off on all of these! But numbers 4, 8 and 15 were the funniest in my opinion. Here are my reasons why

For #4, it is sure amusing for the fans to see Vettel eating Dounts during the FIA press conference after the race! Let's see how much weight if any does he gain by doing this for a entire season!

For #8, it will help bring a more honest viewpoint and hopefully save all of the spoiled butts off!

For #15: It will be awesome if you do PSY as the flagman at Start/Finish, Gayoon from 4minute driving the safety car, Hyunseung driving the medical car and Hyuna doing the podium interviews in her English voice! That I would go pay to see! :lol:

watka · Post by **watka** » 11 Dec 2013, 23:19

I personally think that #14 needs to be implemented immediately.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 11 Dec 2013, 23:29

Something tells me Taki Inoue was not only involved in Point 14

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 12 Dec 2013, 01:06

pi314159 wrote:

It needed to happen. Of course F1 didn't immediately collapse. But we didn't only lose USF1, but HRT too. And Marussia and Caterham are still uncompetetive. Of the other 9 teams, at least two are in severe financial problems.

Meh, as I said after they failed I never understood why HRT was so popular. They barely even tried. At least Marussia and Catheram have gotten quicker and developed their cars, HRT ran the same front wing all year. F1 simply doesn't need teams like that. F1 has always and will always be expensive. If its too much, go run Formula E, like Super Aguri are doing.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 12 Dec 2013, 01:22

roblomas52 wrote:
Wallio wrote:

a "Triple Crown" of Monaco, Silverstone, and Monza (the Original 3)

What about Spa?

Indeed. DOuble points is a terrible idea, but if you had to do it then do it for Spa. Maybe half points for all the Tilke tracks?

Benetton · Post by **Benetton** » 12 Dec 2013, 07:38

Double points should be for Monaco, Spa and Monza to encourage the designers to design a car that is good in a low downforce setting. The distance should be raised from 305 km to 500 km.

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 12 Dec 2013, 08:23

Why not give double points for all the races but triple points for the last one. That'll silence the critics

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 12 Dec 2013, 11:26

Wallio wrote:Meh, as I said after they failed I never understood why HRT was so popular. They barely even tried.

This is F1 REJECTS. HRT are rejects. Put two and two together...

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 12 Dec 2013, 13:02

dr-baker wrote:
Wallio wrote:Meh, as I said after they failed I never understood why HRT was so popular. They barely even tried.

This is F1 REJECTS. HRT are rejects. Put two and two together...

Obviously, but as I said in that post (I'll have to find it) this site is about celebrating the hard work and pluckiness of those teams. Again I'll use Sato passing Alonso a while back in a SA, everyone rightfully went nuts. After all there hard work to just make the grid, it was glourious. Look at Marussias celebrations at Brazil this year, they had to dump CFD-only build a car the "proper way" and develop it for most of the year. And the result was wonderful. HRT never did any of that. They were just happy to be here. And its one thing to DNQ because your slow, its outright embarrassing to DNQ because you can't build the damn car, ever Andrea Moda put a car together in two weeks. Then to blame customs.......

Anyway, my point is HRT really didn't fit this sites "preferred MO" and really wasn't a loss.