Your Reject of the Race - Australia!

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 26 Mar 2010, 03:15

You should know how this works by now.

Kobayashi's front wing for repeatedly falling off.

Timo Glock for finishing behind the HRTs.

Dj_bereta · Post by **Dj_bereta** » 26 Mar 2010, 04:42

Michael Schumacher:More than 1s slower than rosberg and Finished behind a test driver(Di Resta).

SuperAguri · Post by **SuperAguri** » 26 Mar 2010, 05:05

Chandhok - For failing to do more then 1 lap again

Schumacher - For spinning off in the wet

RAK · Post by **RAK** » 26 Mar 2010, 08:35

SuperAguri wrote:Chandhok - For failing to do more then 1 lap again

24 laps in first practice sounds like a lot more than just one lap.

25 > 1.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 26 Mar 2010, 11:45

Schuey does seem to be under pressure again; beat Rosberg in the wet, but still struggling in the dry.

coops · Post by **coops** » 26 Mar 2010, 12:56

Virgin. For maximising their own embarassment by declaring their fuel tank cock up at the start of the race meeting. If they'd sent a press release out last weekend it would be old news by now.

midgrid · Post by **midgrid** » 26 Mar 2010, 14:06

So far it has to be Karun Chandhok, for his Perry McCarthy impression.

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 26 Mar 2010, 19:40

As far as now, HRT for it''s treatment on chandhok, a-la McCarthy.

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 26 Mar 2010, 21:42

I correct myself. Virgin Design team or CFD for creating a fuel tank not big enough to end the race if confirmed.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 26 Mar 2010, 23:19

Popi_Larrauri wrote:I correct myself. Virgin Design team or CFD for creating a fuel tank not big enough to end the race if confirmed.

Actually, the Virgin fuel tank will only struggle on races with a heavy fuel consumption.

Waris · Post by **Waris** » 26 Mar 2010, 23:27

Why are you folks nominating people for reject of the Race before the race has even started, let alone finished? If stuff that happened in free practice would count, surely it would be called 'Reject of the Weekend'?

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 27 Mar 2010, 02:24

Jason Coleman

For our international members, Jason Coleman is one of the judges on So You Think You Can Dance.

Why have I nominated him for Reject of the Race?

Because Channel Ten just interviewed him about Mark Webber's chances this weekend ...

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 27 Mar 2010, 04:06

Hispania's Hydraulics System: Seriously how many times has it failed on either car this weekend? Chandok's failed about 5 minutes ago at time of posting and Senna's gave way halfway through the session just then and there was atleast 2 more failures yesterday too.

J Washburn Stoker · Post by **J Washburn Stoker** » 27 Mar 2010, 08:31

Captain Hammer wrote:Jason Coleman

For our international members, Jason Coleman is one of the judges on So You Think You Can Dance.

Why have I nominated him for Reject of the Race?

Because Channel Ten just interviewed him about Mark Webber's chances this weekend ...

Frankly it would be easier just to nominate Ten's entire coverage: it covers a multitude of sins.

thalion · Post by **thalion** » 27 Mar 2010, 08:42

Waris wrote:Why are you folks nominating people for reject of the Race before the race has even started, let alone finished? If stuff that happened in free practice would count, surely it would be called 'Reject of the Weekend'?

Because it's fun. Are we disrupting the flow of serious, reasoned, dispassionate discussion that otherwise characterizes this most solemn of F1 forums? (or should it be fora?)

Anyway, Hamilton seems to in the running for ROTR honors--we'll see how his campaign progresses tomorrow.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 27 Mar 2010, 09:14

Waris wrote:Why are you folks nominating people for reject of the Race before the race has even started, let alone finished? If stuff that happened in free practice would count, surely it would be called 'Reject of the Weekend'?

It's been a tradition since the forum opened at the beginning of the 2010 season. It is, I suppose, a way of pointing out anyone/thing that is making him/her/itself liable for such an honorific award.

Besides, discussing who was faster up ahead isn't amusing at all.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 27 Mar 2010, 09:29

J Washburn Stoker wrote:Frankly it would be easier just to nominate Ten's entire coverage: it covers a multitude of sins.

Aye, why do we care what John Travolta and the guy from The Biggest Loser care? There's also the shameless Webber hyping (which is bad enough normally, but reaches stratospheric new heights during the Melbourne race) and the commentators believing they actually know what they're talking about.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 27 Mar 2010, 09:31

Captain Hammer wrote:
J Washburn Stoker wrote:Frankly it would be easier just to nominate Ten's entire coverage: it covers a multitude of sins.

Aye, why do we care what John Travolta and the guy from The Biggest Loser care? There's also the shameless Webber hyping (which is bad enough normally, but reaches stratospheric new heights during the Melbourne race) and the commentators believing they actually know what they're talking about.

Bingo! Someone give both these men a beer :mrgreen:

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 27 Mar 2010, 09:36

Well, they did use Them Crooked Vultures' Mind Eraser, No Chaser during the outro to ad breaks (the song that went "Drug company, where's a pill for me? / I call it mind eraser, no chaser / And I could really need one of everything / Law-biding, dick-riding fun police leave us alone!") and they let the BBC people (read: the experts) take over during qualifying (even if Channel Ten do treat Brundle and Legard as being junior commentators) so it wasn't all bad.

I'm moving to England at the earliest possible opportunity. Jut to escape them.

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 27 Mar 2010, 13:53

Lewis Hamilton for burnout-in-a-rented-merc-gate

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 27 Mar 2010, 14:01

Captain Hammer wrote:
Popi_Larrauri wrote:I correct myself. Virgin Design team or CFD for creating a fuel tank not big enough to end the race if confirmed.

Actually, the Virgin fuel tank will only struggle on races with a heavy fuel consumption.

That's supposed to be a attenuating fact? God sake that they hadn't designed a plane that doesn't fall like a piano in most of his flights!

Whole Spanish Press · Post by **Whole Spanish Press** » 27 Mar 2010, 14:06

Captain Hammer wrote:
J Washburn Stoker wrote:Frankly it would be easier just to nominate Ten's entire coverage: it covers a multitude of sins.

Aye, why do we care what John Travolta and the guy from The Biggest Loser care? There's also the shameless Webber hyping (which is bad enough normally, but reaches stratospheric new heights during the Melbourne race) and the commentators believing they actually know what they're talking about.

Yeah! We are sick of the aussie press, they only seem to care who ends 8th!

Popi_Larrauri wrote:
That's supposed to be a attenuating fact? God sake that they hadn't designed a plane that doesn't fall like a piano in most of his flights!

Don't get it wrong, boy! In HRT we are ages ahead in the fuel tank design department.

watka · Post by **watka** » 27 Mar 2010, 14:28

At the moment, Hamilton is the prime candidate for his police run in and his woeful qualifying. Surprisingly it is Button putting the car further up the grid than it should be.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 27 Mar 2010, 22:57

Wizzie wrote:Hispania's Hydraulics System: Seriously how many times has it failed on either car this weekend? Chandok's failed about 5 minutes ago at time of posting and Senna's gave way halfway through the session just then and there was atleast 2 more failures yesterday too.

I'd expand that to cover the entire spec hydraulics and gearbox systems issued by Xtrac. The teams would be better off with their own.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 27 Mar 2010, 23:59

Popi_Larrauri wrote:That's supposed to be a attenuating fact? God sake that they hadn't designed a plane that doesn't fall like a piano in most of his flights!

No, I mean people are blowing things out of proportion. I've seen a lot of people who seem to think that the Virgins will fizzle out and die ten laps from the end, but that's not the case. When the team did their calculations, they went for the smallest fuel tank they could get away with. They obviously made one that was slightly too small, so when a race - like Melbourne - has a higher rate of consumption than the average, they're going to struggle to make it.

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 28 Mar 2010, 02:10

Captain Hammer wrote:
Popi_Larrauri wrote:That's supposed to be a attenuating fact? God sake that they hadn't designed a plane that doesn't fall like a piano in most of his flights!

No, I mean people are blowing things out of proportion. I've seen a lot of people who seem to think that the Virgins will fizzle out and die ten laps from the end, but that's not the case. When the team did their calculations, they went for the smallest fuel tank they could get away with. They obviously made one that was slightly too small, so when a race - like Melbourne - has a higher rate of consumption than the average, they're going to struggle to make it.

Of course, of course. I got your point. There was irony on my answer. But, follow me in this reasoning: They must have calculated the consumption eight o nine months prior to receiving their first Cosworth unit (more or less, it doesn't matter if one more month or two less). I always read that Cosworth unit was one of the less consuming engines after teams received it and tested (after all, it could be under consideration that if really is so, but lets assume it is right). So, any calculation, even not being too conservative, should have put them on the range of the Renaults and Mercedes, which were supposed to be less thirstier than the Ferrari unit.

So, lets be for a moment Wirth and make your assumption. You can always get some advantage from having a bigger tank than others (and not needing it), if only for adding more fuel to the mixture for getting a few extra bhp if available to counter the added weight. So, the only explanation I find is one someone wrote it before in this very same thread or in the dedicated one to this very subject. That the aero-package gives that much drag that it ends being relevant to fuel consumption to the point that they are 8%-10% short for the most demanding races, thus, needing to reduce fuel in the mixture and, this way, being even slower to the low standard they are already achieving (which it is not too much considering their situation and... well, we are on the same side in this).

Then, if the aero-package is the one to blame, you can grab all your CFD mainframes and sell them by $1. But, even in this case, it is still a point they should have taken into account. Let's just imagine that the Cosworth unit given would have been significantly below the Ferrari unit in consumption standard (being that, I don't know, 10%. It would not be first case in which Cosworth presents something very uncompetitive)? What then? Would they have scraped the whole chassis and started all over again?

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 28 Mar 2010, 03:18

As with Lewisteria and Jensationalism, Webber-Mania is my new favourite for the Reject of the Race. Channel Ten are now making out that Webber vs. Vettel is a major driver rivalry like Alonso and Hamilton ...

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 28 Mar 2010, 03:19

Captain Hammer wrote:As with Lewisteria and Jensationalism, Webber-Mania is my new favourite for the Reject of the Race. Channel Ten are now making out that Webber vs. Vettel is a major driver rivalry like Alonso and Hamilton ...

The incessant focus on Webber by the video feed drove me nuts.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 28 Mar 2010, 06:13

3 laps into the race and we already have a clear canditate for ROTR.
BMW Sauber's Front Wing Mount. 2 failures for Kobayashi this weekend and the second one in particular was nasty

mediocre · Post by **mediocre** » 28 Mar 2010, 06:15

Sauber for attaching their front wings with tesa.

bduddy · Post by **bduddy** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:40

Sorry, but... Webber-no contest

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:42

Sauber-- Putting the no back in nosecone.

Lewis Hamilton-- Way to not execute, buckwheat.

Mark Webber-- I know it's Lewis Hamilton, but still -- you don't run square into the back of people.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:49

Race finished and my candidate for ROTR has changed to...
Red Bull Racing for throwing away a 1-2 on the grid for the following reasons:
1. They screwed up Webber's race by leaving him and Vettel out there too long.
2. Vettel had a brake failure midway through the race handing the lead to Button which Button would have had anyway had he not gone off on his outlap
3. They screwed Webber again by bringing him in to get another of new dry tyres in response to Rosberg and Hamilton.
4. Webber then compounded the issues found the gravel trap not once but twice during the race (Taking Hamilton with him on one of his trips to the kitty litter) and only had himself to blame for both incidents.

In short the operational errors are still there plus reliability concerns to boot... All in all a hero-to-zero performance for Red Bull.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:51

thehemogoblin wrote:The incessant focus on Webber by the video feed drove me nuts.

The post race commentary suggests that it's all Webbr's fault. Not once did they mention that they put unrealistic expectations on him. I can understand hyping a driver - but only when he's good enough to win. Webber hasn't shone at all this weekend, but that didn't stop the commentators from taking his FP3 times, looking at the difference between himself and Alonso and multiplying it by fifty-eight to calculate the exact margin Webber would beat Alonso by.

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:52

ROTR - Sebastian Vettel, too many good oportunities being missed, and he is not going to be the fastest forever.

Honorable mentions:
Michael Schumacher - for his fierce duel against Jaime Alguersuari
Heikki Kovalainen - mirrors, what mirrors?

Many Blue Flags · Post by **Many Blue Flags** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:52

Webber. Do I need to elaborate?

ZsoltForever · Post by **ZsoltForever** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:54

Hard not to pick Sauber for ROTR for having that optionally-attached front wing. That collision could have been far, far worse. It's a "good" thing Kobayashi hit between Buemi and Hulkenburg instead of flush into the side of one of them.

The tie for second goes to Webber and Hamilton who were equally culpable on their accident. Hamilton for trying an extremely optimistic outside passing move on Alonso that was never going to work which put him in a braking position to be rammed from behind by gung-ho Webber, who seemed hellbent not to brake so Nico Rosberg wouldn't pass him.

Honorable mention goes to the hand-wringing fans who thought F1 was doomed after Bahrain. Turns out, you put F1 on a track that isn't snooze-inducing and the racing gets a whole lot better. What a concept.

MinardiFan95 · Post by **MinardiFan95** » 28 Mar 2010, 07:58

Red Bull: 1-2 in qualifying but only two points in the race
Sauber's front wing: Two failures for Kobayashi in one weekend.
Lewis Hamilton: Mercedes are not going to be happy about their car being impounded. Also caused my publicocrapometer to explode (again) when he suggested Webber should retire at the end of the year.
Channel Ten Commentary: Any commentary team who's best member is James Allen has got to be rejectful. Bonus points for overhyping AUSTRALIA'S MARK WEBBER all weekend.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 28 Mar 2010, 08:01

rffp wrote:Heikki Kovalainen - mirrors, what mirrors?

"What mirrors?" indeed. However, that may be the problem - the mirrors are aerodynamic aids first and foremost, and driver aids second. There have been calls for mirrors tat actually allow the drivers to see who is where, so mirrors may be a good candidate for Reject of the Race. Me, I'm still going with the Webber hype.

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 28 Mar 2010, 08:12

Driver of the Day: Both Kubica and Petrov -- both passed like 8 cars after lap 1, and Petrov came screaming through the field like a bat out of hell. Fantastic podium for Kubica. Petrov pushed it so hard that the tires gave out... and then he spun.

Reject of the Race: Mark Webber. If you're going to take someone out by engaging ARCA brakes (anyone not a NASCAR fan won't get why that is funny), DO IT PROPERLY!!! Both ROTR worthy for a stupid driving error and for not even learning how to wreck people properly! ... and for having crap pace! ... and for suggesting that F1 doesn't need lots of passing moves earlier in the week!

Honorable Mention: All the idiots who want to move the race away from Albert Park. I bet it's because Albert Park has too much overtaking, and too much overtaking is BAD! Because overtaking moves are rare things like soccer goals! We can't be like those IndyCar bastards in America who pass more than once per lap for the lead, can we?! BAAH!

Rant over.