Grand Prix Rejects

CoopsII wrote:Willams only ever wanted Damon Hill to be a solid Number 2 driver for Prost and Senna and they also expected he would do the same when Mansell resurfaced for Magny-Cours.

Which makes his success with Williams across only 4 seasons quite remarkable.

I'd agree with that - it'd make sense why they dumped him after 1996.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Willams only ever wanted Damon Hill to be a solid Number 2 driver for Prost and Senna and they also expected he would do the same when Mansell resurfaced for Magny-Cours.

Which makes his success with Williams across only 4 seasons quite remarkable.

I'd agree with that - it'd make sense why they dumped him after 1996.

Not bad for a number two driver...

The Hispania F111 actually looked pretty cool.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The Hispania F111 actually looked pretty cool.

Erm.....no. The best HRT in my opinion is the current one.I even think it's the best looking car on the grid.

WaffleCat wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The Hispania F111 actually looked pretty cool.

Erm.....no. The best HRT in my opinion is the current one.I even think it's the best looking car on the grid.

Agreed. I can't wait for F1 2012 to be released so I can drive it.

More opinoination time:

I would love to see Buenos Aires back on the schedule,especially with the layout they used from 1972-1981.

Mika Hakkinen was incredibly boring to watch.

I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

2005-07 at least I agree with. The 2008 cars were mostly hideous, except for the Williams, that car was beautiful, especially for 2008 standards.

darkapprentice77 wrote:Takagi was better than Mika Hakkinen in 1999.

Fixed

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Badoer was better than everyone in 1999.

Fixed

Fixed again.

kostas22 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Badoer was better than everyone in 1999.

Fixed

Fixed again.

Only because HWNSNBM wasn't racing, and he chose him to be The Chosen One...

kostas22 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:BAR wiped the floor with everyone in 1999.

Fixed

Fixed again.

Le fix'd

kostas22 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:FIRST wiped the floor with everyone in 1989.

Fixed

Fixed again.

Moar fixing.

kostas22 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Zanardi was better than everyone in 1999.

Fixed

Fixed again.

Fixed. Again.

kostas22 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Deletraz wiped the floor with everyone ever.

Fixed

Fixed again.

Fixed forever.

dr-baker wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Badoer was better than everyone in 1999.

Only because HWNSNBM wasn't racing, and he chose him to be The Chosen One...

Badoer chose himself to be The Chosen One, he has those powers you know.

redbulljack14 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

2005-07 at least I agree with. The 2008 cars were mostly hideous, except for the Williams, that car was beautiful, especially for 2008 standards.

I don't know, in a certain way I can see a sort of beauty in the raw functionality of the cars from 2008 - at least before they started putting the winglets and turning vanes on the front nosecose, as they looked fairly ugly by comparison.

mario wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

2005-07 at least I agree with. The 2008 cars were mostly hideous, except for the Williams, that car was beautiful, especially for 2008 standards.

I don't know, in a certain way I can see a sort of beauty in the raw functionality of the cars from 2008 - at least before they started putting the winglets and turning vanes on the front nosecose, as they looked fairly ugly by comparison.

It's the winglets and the shark fin engine cover that ruined the 2008 cars. Honda and Renault were ruined just by the liveries.

mario wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

2005-07 at least I agree with. The 2008 cars were mostly hideous, except for the Williams, that car was beautiful, especially for 2008 standards.

I don't know, in a certain way I can see a sort of beauty in the raw functionality of the cars from 2008 - at least before they started putting the winglets and turning vanes on the front nosecose, as they looked fairly ugly by comparison.

redbulljack14 wrote:It's the winglets and the shark fin engine cover that ruined the 2008 cars. Honda and Renault were ruined just by the liveries.

Personally, I don't think that the shark fin engine covers were that bad - certainly no worse than some of the various aero devices we have seen strapped onto the cars in the past.

As for the winglets, the ones on the nose were ugly, but in a way I kind of liked the ones on the sidepods - the way that they were sculpted almost gave a sense of the thought process from the designers, as they way that they were crafted gave a real sense of how they wanted to shape the airflow around the car (hence why I felt that there was a certain sense of aesthetics in their functionality).

If Di Resta replaces Schumacher at Mercedes for 2013 then Rosberg would convincingly win the team battle.

eurobrun wrote:If Di Resta replaces Schumacher at Mercedes for 2013 then Rosberg would convincingly win the team battle.

Of course that's true. Hulkenberg has been getting the better of Di Resta for the last 4 consecutive races. Rosberg is definitely a step up from Hulk.

It might actually do Rosberg's career good to convincingly beat another teammate.

redbulljack14 wrote:

eurobrun wrote:If Di Resta replaces Schumacher at Mercedes for 2013 then Rosberg would convincingly win the team battle.

Of course that's true. Hulkenberg has been getting the better of Di Resta for the last 4 consecutive races. Rosberg is definitely a step up from Hulk.

It might actually do Rosberg's career good to convincingly beat another teammate.

Rosberg's still an enigma to me as I still can't figure out if he'll go on to great things or if he's just a Type-1 sufferer of Fisichellitis. I guess only time will tell...

Wizzie wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

eurobrun wrote:If Di Resta replaces Schumacher at Mercedes for 2013 then Rosberg would convincingly win the team battle.

Of course that's true. Hulkenberg has been getting the better of Di Resta for the last 4 consecutive races. Rosberg is definitely a step up from Hulk.

It might actually do Rosberg's career good to convincingly beat another teammate.

Rosberg's still an enigma to me as I still can't figure out if he'll go on to great things or if he's just a Type-1 sufferer of Fisichellitis. I guess only time will tell...

Rosberg's career has been kind of weird so far - he has tended to go through phases when he has been quite successful and put in some surprisingly strong performances, only to later drop back into utter anonymity and be surprisingly underwhelming.

We saw it at Williams, where he was able to pick up two podiums for them in 2008 and came close to the podium several times in 2009, but at the same time he also botched a couple of chances to be on the podium for Williams (such as overcooking his exit in the 2009 Singapore GP when he was running in a pretty secure 2nd place), or the relatively poor race he had in the 2010 Spanish GP where Schumacher had the measure of him throughout the weekend.
Back in 2010, there was a period in which Rosberg was, briefly, as high as second in the WDC, although it promptly went pear shaped after that poor race in Spain that saw him finished out of the points; similarly, there was a period this year when Rosberg was the most consistent and highest points scorer (up until the European GP, I believe), but since then he has only scored two points (only some of which can be attributed to a decline in the performance of Mercedes, given that Schumacher has taken two 7th place finishes and 12 points in the same period).

All in all, he is a frustrating driver at times - his race victory in China was every inch the perfect drive, since he relied on clever tyre management and put in a very measures, mature drive, whilst some of his other races have been fairly poor and seen him beaten thoroughly by Schumacher. With Mercedes consistently being moderately competitive but never quite at the front, we've never really seen whether Rosberg could lead a team to a WDC - unless Mercedes can turn the W04 into a real WDC contender or Rosberg goes to a more competitive team, I guess that we'll never get a definite answer.

Downforce will be the death of Formula 1.

Not from a racing point of view, but rather with from a relevance point of view.
The problem with downforce is not so much related to how it affects the racing, but rather to how utterly pointless it is. Aerodynamic research for the magnification of downforce in racing cars is borderline useless because it is not transferrable to any vehicles except supercars and barely transferrable to aerospace, hydrodynamics or just about anything else.
Initial aerodynamic development in racing cars was concerned with drag reduction and was relevant to road cars. Aerodynamic development in Formula 1 days is about increase in downforce through pointless iterations of a concept by changing fillet radii and chamfers. Even the particular application of the Coanda Effect and the Magnus Effect to Formula 1 cars is of little to no use to any other industry.
Unfortunately, once learned, these methods can't be unlearned. It is impractical to remove wings from Formula 1 cars, if nothing else than for the advertising space. Even if aerodynamic profiling of components and wing and underbody aerodynamics were banned through regulations, the sport would still be an aerodynamics arms race.

Faustus wrote:Downforce will be the death of Formula 1.

Not from a racing point of view, but rather with from a relevance point of view.
The problem with downforce is not so much related to how it affects the racing, but rather to how utterly pointless it is. Aerodynamic research for the magnification of downforce in racing cars is borderline useless because it is not transferrable to any vehicles except supercars and barely transferrable to aerospace, hydrodynamics or just about anything else.
Initial aerodynamic development in racing cars was concerned with drag reduction and was relevant to road cars. Aerodynamic development in Formula 1 days is about increase in downforce through pointless iterations of a concept by changing fillet radii and chamfers. Even the particular application of the Coanda Effect and the Magnus Effect to Formula 1 cars is of little to no use to any other industry.
Unfortunately, once learned, these methods can't be unlearned. It is impractical to remove wings from Formula 1 cars, if nothing else than for the advertising space. Even if aerodynamic profiling of components and wing and underbody aerodynamics were banned through regulations, the sport would still be an aerodynamics arms race.

The aerodynamic arm's race is a continuation of it's precedor, the engine's arms race. It used to be who could make the best engine. Now, it's who can produce the best aerodynamic features. It's the nature of competiton. Without aerodynamics, the cars would go much slower around corners, producing unneseccarily long and boring lap times.

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Faustus wrote:Downforce will be the death of Formula 1.

Not from a racing point of view, but rather with from a relevance point of view.
The problem with downforce is not so much related to how it affects the racing, but rather to how utterly pointless it is. Aerodynamic research for the magnification of downforce in racing cars is borderline useless because it is not transferrable to any vehicles except supercars and barely transferrable to aerospace, hydrodynamics or just about anything else.
Initial aerodynamic development in racing cars was concerned with drag reduction and was relevant to road cars. Aerodynamic development in Formula 1 days is about increase in downforce through pointless iterations of a concept by changing fillet radii and chamfers. Even the particular application of the Coanda Effect and the Magnus Effect to Formula 1 cars is of little to no use to any other industry.
Unfortunately, once learned, these methods can't be unlearned. It is impractical to remove wings from Formula 1 cars, if nothing else than for the advertising space. Even if aerodynamic profiling of components and wing and underbody aerodynamics were banned through regulations, the sport would still be an aerodynamics arms race.

The aerodynamic arm's race is a continuation of it's precedor, the engine's arms race. It used to be who could make the best engine. Now, it's who can produce the best aerodynamic features. It's the nature of competiton. Without aerodynamics, the cars would go much slower around corners, producing unneseccarily long and boring lap times.

Before you know it, it'll be a KERS arms race...or something to that effect.

Here's one; it might not be unpopular but hey-ho...Honda, Toyota and BMW pulling out was good for the sport, as it tightened up the midfield quite a good amount and decreased the power struggle between the manufacturers.

BaconLettuceNinja wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Faustus wrote:Downforce will be the death of Formula 1.

Not from a racing point of view, but rather with from a relevance point of view.
The problem with downforce is not so much related to how it affects the racing, but rather to how utterly pointless it is. Aerodynamic research for the magnification of downforce in racing cars is borderline useless because it is not transferrable to any vehicles except supercars and barely transferrable to aerospace, hydrodynamics or just about anything else.
Initial aerodynamic development in racing cars was concerned with drag reduction and was relevant to road cars. Aerodynamic development in Formula 1 days is about increase in downforce through pointless iterations of a concept by changing fillet radii and chamfers. Even the particular application of the Coanda Effect and the Magnus Effect to Formula 1 cars is of little to no use to any other industry.
Unfortunately, once learned, these methods can't be unlearned. It is impractical to remove wings from Formula 1 cars, if nothing else than for the advertising space. Even if aerodynamic profiling of components and wing and underbody aerodynamics were banned through regulations, the sport would still be an aerodynamics arms race.

The aerodynamic arm's race is a continuation of it's precedor, the engine's arms race. It used to be who could make the best engine. Now, it's who can produce the best aerodynamic features. It's the nature of competiton. Without aerodynamics, the cars would go much slower around corners, producing unneseccarily long and boring lap times.

Before you know it, it'll be a KERS arms race...or something to that effect.

Here's one; it might not be unpopular but hey-ho...Honda, Toyota and BMW pulling out was good for the sport, as it tightened up the midfield quite a good amount and decreased the power struggle between the manufacturers.

Judging by the FIA's proposals for the longer term, it'll be a KERS and TERS (thermal energy recovery systems) development war that kicks off, although they are still keeping a reasonably tight leash on development (tighter than the ACO are planning for endurance racing, where the charge/discharge rates are not being limited and the maximum energy storage capacity is much higher).

Lewis Hamilton shouldn't have been chucked straight into a McLaren drive from GP2.Sure,he was champion in GP2,but at least give him a test driver role or a chance to start off with a smaller team before stepping up.

WaffleCat wrote:Lewis Hamilton shouldn't have been chucked straight into a McLaren drive from GP2.Sure,he was champion in GP2,but at least give him a test driver role or a chance to start off with a smaller team before stepping up.

And how would that have benefited him, exactly? Although it does set-up an interesting what if where Alonso is '07 champion and doesn't fall out with McLaren... (at least until Hamilton turns up in '08). Spygate may not have come to light, and crashgate probably wouldn't have happened - and Flav would still be in F1. Hmmm...

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

I agree. All the flip-ups, turing vanes, chimmenys, winglets, etc were AWESOME because they were designed for one thing, speed. Function should always take precedence over form on a race car. My cousin, who knows nothing of cars in general, much less F1, went nuts over my die-cast of the 2005 McLaren because (its like a jet! it looks like its moving even if it isn;t!"

Ill do you guys one better. The X-Wings, Arrows Monaco nose-wing, and BMW Twin Towers all were legitimate advancements that were great for the sport, and should never have been banned.

Wallio wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

I agree. All the flip-ups, turing vanes, chimmenys, winglets, etc were AWESOME because they were designed for one thing, speed. Function should always take precedence over form on a race car. My cousin, who knows nothing of cars in general, much less F1, went nuts over my die-cast of the 2005 McLaren because (its like a jet! it looks like its moving even if it isn;t!"

Ill do you guys one better. The X-Wings, Arrows Monaco nose-wing, and BMW Twin Towers all were legitimate advancements that were great for the sport, and should never have been banned.

While the majority of the 2005-2007 cars looked brilliant, the 2008 cars were a step too far in my opinion. The amount of protusions and flow directors was simply amazing.

The X-Wings were dangerous when pitting, as the fuel hoses could be caught by them. They were also limiting driver's vision, for very little aerodynamic gain, so were banned.

The Arrows Monaco Nose wing looked about as flimsy as a paper hat made of tissue paper. I'm not sure how much aerodynamic bonus it brought, but the actual wing part was quite narrow so I can't imagine it being much.

The BMW Twin towers were both ugly and pointless. What did they actually do?

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Wallio wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:I think the 2005-08 cars looked way sexier than the cars we have today.

I agree. All the flip-ups, turing vanes, chimmenys, winglets, etc were AWESOME because they were designed for one thing, speed. Function should always take precedence over form on a race car. My cousin, who knows nothing of cars in general, much less F1, went nuts over my die-cast of the 2005 McLaren because (its like a jet! it looks like its moving even if it isn;t!"

Ill do you guys one better. The X-Wings, Arrows Monaco nose-wing, and BMW Twin Towers all were legitimate advancements that were great for the sport, and should never have been banned.

While the majority of the 2005-2007 cars looked brilliant, the 2008 cars were a step too far in my opinion. The amount of protusions and flow directors was simply amazing.

The X-Wings were dangerous when pitting, as the fuel hoses could be caught by them. They were also limiting driver's vision, for very little aerodynamic gain, so were banned.

The Arrows Monaco Nose wing looked about as flimsy as a paper hat made of tissue paper. I'm not sure how much aerodynamic bonus it brought, but the actual wing part was quite narrow so I can't imagine it being much.

The BMW Twin towers were both ugly and pointless. What did they actually do?

IIRC They redirected so the the air thrown up by the tyres. Not picking on you specifically pasta, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. As nothing on an F1 car (or any race car actually) is "pointless". The teams, especially pre-test ban, ran hundreds of hours of test on track and in the wind tunnel, and on computers. There IS a benefit, just most likely a small one.

In "The Mechanic's Tale" Steve Matchett mentions that while at Benetton Ross Brawn redisned the side pod so only two bolts held it on instead of four. He said it was for weight savings, and indeed the car was lighter, but there was no way such a savings could ever be seen in lap times. But still, there WAS a point ( sort of LOL).

Dont know haow many of you have seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFmWd2JkC8

That to me at least, is both pointless and stupid, but as the commentator says, it seems both Williams and Lotus were seriously considering it. I guess it was banned?


EDIT: OK This is pointless for a race car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8gu9mTkjq4 Rule of Cool applies though.....

Wallio wrote:IIRC They redirected so the the air thrown up by the tyres. Not picking on you specifically pasta, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. As nothing on an F1 car (or any race car actually) is "pointless". The teams, especially pre-test ban, ran hundreds of hours of test on track and in the wind tunnel, and on computers. There IS a benefit, just most likely a small one.

In "The Mechanic's Tale" Steve Matchett mentions that while at Benetton Ross Brawn redisned the side pod so only two bolts held it on instead of four. He said it was for weight savings, and indeed the car was lighter, but there was no way such a savings could ever be seen in lap times. But still, there WAS a point ( sort of LOL).

Dont know haow many of you have seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFmWd2JkC8

That to me at least, is both pointless and stupid, but as the commentator says, it seems both Williams and Lotus were seriously considering it. I guess it was banned?


EDIT: OK This is pointless for a race car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8gu9mTkjq4 Rule of Cool applies though.....

Touche Wallio To phrase my point in a better way, the gain was quite smaller compared to the drawbacks.

pasta_maldonado wrote:The X-Wings were dangerous when pitting, as the fuel hoses could be caught by them. They were also limiting driver's vision, for very little aerodynamic gain, so were banned.

The Arrows Monaco Nose wing looked about as flimsy as a paper hat made of tissue paper. I'm not sure how much aerodynamic bonus it brought, but the actual wing part was quite narrow so I can't imagine it being much.

I remember during one race in 98 (Might have been Spain) that Alesi had one of those wings plucked off by an errant air hose during a pitstop so it was indeed a valid concern.

And those nose wings were both hideous and downright dangerous. The Arrows one looked like they just stuck a rear wing into the Wonka shrinking machine and then simply glued it on

The no-suspension car was utterly unrealistic. Alan Jones' comment really sums it all: "Can you put a suspension in the seat?". Imagine what would be like to drive that car at the old Interlagos...

Indeed pasta, the gains are virtually nonexistant, but they DO exist lol ask any engineer, although he might have to recite PI to 50 places to prove it

Wizzie wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:The X-Wings were dangerous when pitting, as the fuel hoses could be caught by them. They were also limiting driver's vision, for very little aerodynamic gain, so were banned.

The Arrows Monaco Nose wing looked about as flimsy as a paper hat made of tissue paper. I'm not sure how much aerodynamic bonus it brought, but the actual wing part was quite narrow so I can't imagine it being much.

I remember during one race in 98 (Might have been Spain) that Alesi had one of those wings plucked off by an errant air hose during a pitstop so it was indeed a valid concern.

And those nose wings were both hideous and downright dangerous. The Arrows one looked like they just stuck a rear wing into the Wonka shrinking machine and then simply glued it on

To clear it up, it was at Argentina where Alesi's car hit a Benetton wheel gun and took the wing off. I don't know if these x-wings actually helped downforce but Alesi's incident put the nail in the x-wing coffin.

Wizzie wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:The X-Wings were dangerous when pitting, as the fuel hoses could be caught by them. They were also limiting driver's vision, for very little aerodynamic gain, so were banned.

The Arrows Monaco Nose wing looked about as flimsy as a paper hat made of tissue paper. I'm not sure how much aerodynamic bonus it brought, but the actual wing part was quite narrow so I can't imagine it being much.

I remember during one race in 98 (Might have been Spain) that Alesi had one of those wings plucked off by an errant air hose during a pitstop so it was indeed a valid concern.

And those nose wings were both hideous and downright dangerous. The Arrows one looked like they just stuck a rear wing into the Wonka shrinking machine and then simply glued it on

It isn't the first time that Arrows have experimented with something like that either - they tried a similar experiment circa 1982 (in an off season test at Paul Ricard, I believe) with their A5 model:

Phoenix wrote:The no-suspension car was utterly unrealistic. Alan Jones' comment really sums it all: "Can you put a suspension in the seat?". Imagine what would be like to drive that car at the old Interlagos...

A pretty extreme example of sacrificing mechanical performance in the hope of gaining with their aerodynamics - I guess that the only way you could make something like that work would be if you could have found a legal way of implementing the concept behind the Lotus 88.

Whoa, just.....whoa. reminds me of some of the cockpit wings from the old slingshot dragsters of the 1960s.