Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 11:33**

DalekSam wrote:I miss the Marlboro sponsorship logos plastered all over the place.

I don't smoke, but it is a missing void..

I miss it too, it may be an industry that divides opinion, and I'm sure we've all lost family members due to the effects of smoking, I certainly know that I have, but in F1 it was a vital line of funding.

I wonder if the ban has actually reduced the number of smokers, primarily within the EU, but also around the world? I'd be inclined to say it's probably made no difference to be honest. Kids will still get their hands on and sell fags at school, and they'll do it because they think it's 'cool'. No amount of advertising trying to avert them off it, or a reduction in exposure to the brands and products themselves will change it. People who don't live in the UK, you should come and check out our supermarkets, corner shops, local food stores, etc. They all have to have a screen in front of the cigarette stand which itself is located behind the counter, so none of the products can even be seen any more! I want to meet the person who thought that was a good idea! :roll:

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 11:59**

DalekSam wrote:I miss the Marlboro sponsorship logos plastered all over the place.

I don't smoke, but it is a missing void..

What I really hate is to see museum F1 cars who, at some point, had Marlboro branding and now that's been completely stripped off. Show a bit of respect to history!

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 12:08**

AndreaModa wrote:
DalekSam wrote:I miss the Marlboro sponsorship logos plastered all over the place.

I don't smoke, but it is a missing void..

I miss it too, it may be an industry that divides opinion, and I'm sure we've all lost family members due to the effects of smoking, I certainly know that I have, but in F1 it was a vital line of funding.

I wonder if the ban has actually reduced the number of smokers, primarily within the EU, but also around the world? I'd be inclined to say it's probably made no difference to be honest. Kids will still get their hands on and sell fags at school, and they'll do it because they think it's 'cool'. No amount of advertising trying to avert them off it, or a reduction in exposure to the brands and products themselves will change it. People who don't live in the UK, you should come and check out our supermarkets, corner shops, local food stores, etc. They all have to have a screen in front of the cigarette stand which itself is located behind the counter, so none of the products can even be seen any more! I want to meet the person who thought that was a good idea!

Exactly. During the tobacco F1 era, I loved the liveries of the cigarette companies. Not once did I think 'Oh, I want to try some Mild Seven when I'm older'. I'm nearly 18 and I've never touched a cigarette, ever. Bring back the tobacco sponsorship I say

This obsession with ramming the message down everyone's throat that 'smoking will kill you and everyone around you' has to stop. I don't like smoking myself, but I understand it is one's choice to smoke. The government and these idiot health freaks who have been allowed to run amok over the last decade need to allow people to make their own life choices, not force everyone to conform to their own agenda. Those screens in off-licences and supermarkets are not gonna make people quit, you know. :roll:

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 12:51**

AndreaModa wrote:I miss it too, it may be an industry that divides opinion, and I'm sure we've all lost family members due to the effects of smoking, I certainly know that I have, but in F1 it was a vital line of funding.

I wonder if the ban has actually reduced the number of smokers, primarily within the EU, but also around the world? I'd be inclined to say it's probably made no difference to be honest. Kids will still get their hands on and sell fags at school, and they'll do it because they think it's 'cool'. No amount of advertising trying to avert them off it, or a reduction in exposure to the brands and products themselves will change it. People who don't live in the UK, you should come and check out our supermarkets, corner shops, local food stores, etc. They all have to have a screen in front of the cigarette stand which itself is located behind the counter, so none of the products can even be seen any more! I want to meet the person who thought that was a good idea!

It's a similar matter here in Finland. In most of the supermarkets, one can buy cigs from a vending machine which is right next to the cashier. For a long time the machine had the labels of each cigarette brand and variety so that it was easy for anyone to know from which button they would be getting their favorite. Nowadays they've been replaced by numbers and you have to ask the cashier to know which brand is behind each number. Any other tobacco products are hidden behind the vending machine and you have to ask for the cashier if you want to have any of them. I'm a non-smoker (only tried once from a mate, didn't like it) and while I don't feel bad at all if it's made more inconvenient for the smokers to get their daily fix (although it does slow down the queue to the cashier a bit), I do question whether or not it had any effect at all on the amount of smokers.

West McLarens, Marlboro Ferraris, Benson & Hedges Jordans, Mild Seven Benettons, Rothmans and later Winfield Williamses, Gauloises Prosts... all part of F1 when I started to watch it. Not forgetting the moving cigarette package known as BAR. And as I said above, I'm not a smoker and never will be despite being "exposed" to moving adverts of them since childhood.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 13:19**

Nuppiz wrote:West McLarens, Marlboro Ferraris, Benson & Hedges Jordans, Mild Seven Benettons, Rothmans and later Winfield Williamses, Gauloises Prosts... all part of F1 when I started to watch it. Not forgetting the moving cigarette package known as BAR. And as I said above, I'm not a smoker and never will be despite being "exposed" to moving adverts of them since childhood.

This, I don't smoke. But I did think the tobacco advertisements were very good on the cars.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 13:24**

East Londoner wrote:This obsession with ramming the message down everyone's throat that 'smoking will kill you and everyone around you' has to stop. I don't like smoking myself, but I understand it is one's choice to smoke. The government and these idiot health freaks who have been allowed to run amok over the last decade need to allow people to make their own life choices, not force everyone to conform to their own agenda. Those screens in off-licences and supermarkets are not gonna make people quit, you know.

I disagree. Smoking's not just harmful to the smoker, but those around them as well who have no say in the matter. Plus the smell is godawful I mean seriously come on.

That said, I do miss the old paintschemes, specifically the B&H Jordans and the West McLarens.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 13:41**

These smoking regulations are there for a reason. As BlindCaveSalamander says, you just don't have to factor the smokers, but also people that doesn't smoke regularly, and that who doesn't smoke at all. Smoking in places where there are non-smokers is harmful, especially if those are pregnant women or kids, or people with pulmonary/respiratory tract conditions. I'm all in favour of banning smoking on public places. If you don't like tobacco you shouldn't have to smell and breath cigarette fumes.

Now, about the issue of tobacco advertisement. Again, I can understand why those rules were implemented, since advertising is thought to promote the consuming of a product, that's how it works. However, I have to say, I never wanted to smoke just because I thought the West McLarens looked awesome back in my teens. Neither do I feel like switching to Vodafone despite McLaren being my favourite team.

Anyway, what I want to say is, advertising tobacco is not like advertising cleaning products. Tobacco is an extremely polarising product - that means, you either love or hate it, more or less. Only the smokers would likely feel appealed by tobacco advertising.

No, what really makes people smoke are those TV series and films in which all cool characters appear smoking and doing all the cool things they're supposed to do while smoking, or not. Anyway, what you have is what is called an "anchorage" (correct term in English language?), a mind function in which you associate two or more things between them in your mind. This might be a tad outdated now, but it left its mark in the past, and now you have kids thinking it's cool to smoke because they see other kids (usually "tough guys") doing that.

In my opinion, the big efforts should go into erasing the image of smoking as something cool. It's merely a choice, but you should only do it at a certain age, when the body can tolerate nicotine better. For me, the ideal age to begin smoke would be 21 years rather than 18. You can sell tobacco like any other product and let people above that age decide if the like it or not, but never promote it as something cool.

So, what's my point? Bring back tobacco sponsorship, but allow it only on the cars and trackside placards. What I don't support, however, is racing drivers publicly advertising tobacco. They are taken as role models by many people, and that would bring us back to the issue I mentioned above.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 17:00**

I agree to bringing back tobacco sponsorship. The thing that intrested me the most was the alternate logos the teams ran in the tobacco-advertising banned countries. The cigarette companies always had the best liveries -
Marlboro, Camel, Mild Seven - and it was great to see the ones that failed to make an impact, like Chesterfield and Winfield

At my school the people who smoke happen to be the biggest douchebags in the entire year. The type of people who walk around smelling of fags, constantly trying to get fags, and are so thick they don't give a crap about school and know what they're doing to themselves but don't care. I've never smoked, and don't plan to 'try it' unless I ge pissed out of my head and do something stupid.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 17:41**

Re. tobacco sponsorship: When I was in London two years ago, I wanted to try out smoking. Seeing all those cigarette brands, I spontanously chose the one that crossed my mind first; Marlboro! Why? Because of their ongoing sponsorship in motorsport. As I've been following auto racing since childhood, I remember the McLaren, Ferrari or Penske racing cars, which were all sponsored by Marlboro. Perhaps the ban on tobacco sponsorship is quite right, to lessen the possibility of children remembering cigarette brands.

Here's a controversial one: Bernie Ecclestone isn't to blame for the demise of the ITC! But before I tell you why, here's a little history lesson:

There was already a DTM back in the 80's/90's. It was an actual German championship, with its heyday being the Group A era, where Mercedes, Ford, BMW, Audi and Opel fielded works supported cars. For example, Mercedes fielded 10(!) works supported cars in 1991. In contrast, Audi started its debut season in 1990 with a sole car for Hans-Joachim Stuck, and only went to 4 works cars in the next 2 years. But the problem with this series was that every manufacturer could run any car he wanted. This wasn't so much of a problem for the fans, but the manufacturers didn't like that fact. They didn't like Audi racing the 4WD Audi V8 that supposedly put out 520 BHP, whereas Mercedes and BMW only managed to do 370 BHP. It also became pretty expensive to build the required 100 road models of the evolution models. Thus, a new set of regulations was needed, and this was how "Class 1 Touring Cars" were born. While the maximum engine capacity was 2500³, the rest was free from any restrictions.
While BMW and Audi pulled out before the 1993 season (The first one contested with Class 1 cars), Alfa Romeo and Opel made good substitutes. But shortly after the arrival of Class 1, all manufacturers started to spend a lot of money for the development of their cars. The worst in this regard was Mercedes, who had the deepest pockets of all manufacturers, and easily won the '94 and '95 championship.
By 1995, it became apperant that the DTM was too expensive. At least for a series soley based in Germany, which is why the organizing body, the ITR, decided to launch an European series, called the ITC. For 1995, the series ran alongside the DTM, whereas it absorbed the DTM for 1996. The series even got the sanctioning of the FIA. But because the ITR was inexperienced in promoting an international series, they seeked help from a man, who knew how to promote an international series; Bernie Ecclestone! But contrary to popular belief, Ecclestone isn't (completely) to blame for the demise of the ITC. While he raised the ticket prices by a huge margin, I reckon that he did so in order to get some revenues. But that's not the real point. The point is, no one has forced the ITR to deal with Ecclestone. They had the FIA sanctioning, which is almost a license to print money (Or rather "was"). Of course, the Ecclestone deal gave them someone to put the blame. It's not like they completely screwed up with their regulations, thus allowing a spending war.
But the worst part is, that the ITC was better than the DTM we currently have now. While the DTM shows some signs of improvement, it's still far away from the glory days of the '90s. But the ITC was perhaps the ultimate touring car series, and no series ever got close to that. The WTCC may have been a decent series, but it's still miles away from that.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 18:12**

From an aesthetic point of view, tobacco advertising is unbeatable. But yes, kids are likely to remember the brands on the cars, because I am an example of that. I sometimes enjoy four or five on a night out, but I have them as a 'treat' because obviously, I know that smoking often is a big danger. But the brands I like include B&H, Camel and Lucky Strike. Sound familiar? I think that advertising has perhaps had an influence, perhaps the reason I've never tried Sovereign or Pall Mall is because subconsciously I've not seen them advertised in motor racing, to my knowledge.

That said, I could never stomach doing it all the time. As I said, 4 or 5 on a night out and that's me done; I give the rest away, because I'm a nice person :lol:

Another unpopular opinion; I preferred the Winfield livery on the Williams to the Rothmans one...(ducks for cover)

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 18:22**

The thing is, advertising won't make you start smoking. Ferrarist, you said that you thought of Marlboro when you wanted to start smoking, but you didn't say that Marlboro actually made you start smoking. Advertising only influences which brand you choose, not which product you buy.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 19:07**

Advertising doesn't make someone start smoking. But it does contribute to making smoking seem socially acceptable. The only way that smoker rates (and our NHS bill) will lower is if it is seen to be a minority activity. The smoking ban has largely contributed to that and things like removing advertising and concealing cigarettes do help too I think.

I hate smoking and especially dislike seeing parents smoking in front of their kids. Quite apart from the health issues it is a terrible example to set them and I think that is a far bigger factor in how people start smoking than advertising on an F1 car.

Having said that, yes I do miss some of the tobacco liveries because the cars were prettier. But for every JPS Lotus or Marlboro McLaren there was a BAR or a WInfield Williams where the livery did nothing for the car. I certainly wouldn't want it back.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 19:17**

In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 19:20**

Meatwad wrote:In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.

Karthikeyan isn't under-rated. He's just crap.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 22:34**

Meatwad wrote:In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.

That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 23:10**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Meatwad wrote:In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.

That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.

I do think Sergio Perez would have done a better job...

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 23:21**

JeremyMcClean wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Meatwad wrote:In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.
That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.
I do think Sergio Perez would have done a better job...

He would still be bathplugged by Alonso...

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 23:32**

JeremyMcClean wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Meatwad wrote:In my opinion, Massa is the worst driver on the grid this year. Karthikeyan and Yamamoto (two underrated drivers) would have scored more points in that Ferrari.

That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.

I do think Sergio Perez would have done a better job...

Considering he's ahead of Massa in a worse car, I think that's pretty much fact.

Posted: **19 Sep 2012, 23:34**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
JeremyMcClean wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.

I do think Sergio Perez would have done a better job...

Considering he's ahead of Massa in a worse car, I think that's pretty much fact.

Which further proves di Montezemolo's wrong in the head...

Posted: **20 Sep 2012, 00:27**

I'm liking all the anti-smoking posts in here :lol:

I'll keep quiet about my 20 a-day habit then

Posted: **20 Sep 2012, 11:55**

Phoenix wrote:These smoking regulations are there for a reason. As BlindCaveSalamander says, you just don't have to factor the smokers, but also people that doesn't smoke regularly, and that who doesn't smoke at all. Smoking in places where there are non-smokers is harmful, especially if those are pregnant women or kids, or people with pulmonary/respiratory tract conditions. I'm all in favour of banning smoking on public places. If you don't like tobacco you shouldn't have to smell and breath cigarette fumes.

LellaLombardi wrote:Advertising doesn't make someone start smoking. But it does contribute to making smoking seem socially acceptable. The only way that smoker rates (and our NHS bill) will lower is if it is seen to be a minority activity. The smoking ban has largely contributed to that and things like removing advertising and concealing cigarettes do help too I think.

I hate smoking and especially dislike seeing parents smoking in front of their kids. Quite apart from the health issues it is a terrible example to set them and I think that is a far bigger factor in how people start smoking than advertising on an F1 car.

Having said that, yes I do miss some of the tobacco liveries because the cars were prettier. But for every JPS Lotus or Marlboro McLaren there was a BAR or a WInfield Williams where the livery did nothing for the car. I certainly wouldn't want it back.

These sum up my view on the subject. There were some great liveries (the Rothmans Williams and Porsche 956 being my favourites), and provided a whole ton of money for F1 R&D. And teams like Marussia and HRT could do with that money nowadays. But it is from an activity that I find abhorrent - I detest not having a choice in passive smoking. In my first week at uni in September 2001, people were smoking in the kitchen. The smoke was not thich, but very noticeable. It did create quite a negative response in me though - it caused me to vomit copiously into the kitchen sink then again when I returned to my room moments later. It turned out later that they had mixed cannabis in with their tobacco, but why ruin a good story?!)

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 07:23**

Dr=Baker wrote:It turned out later that they had mixed cannabis in with their tobacco, but why ruin a good story?!)

Did this happen at 4:20 PM :lol:

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 10:00**

Nuppiz wrote:West McLarens, Marlboro Ferraris, Benson & Hedges Jordans, Mild Seven Benettons, Rothmans and later Winfield Williamses, Gauloises Prosts... all part of F1 when I started to watch it. Not forgetting the moving cigarette package known as BAR. And as I said above, I'm not a smoker and never will be despite being "exposed" to moving adverts of them since childhood.

I like how I can tell when you started watching F1 from the liveries. For me it was Marlboro McLaren, B&H Jordan, Mild Seven Benetton, Rothmans Williams, Gauloises Ligier, so not too far away from you. It's no coincidence that these is also the year that Edward Grabowski brought out a certain game...

What I really miss is a team changing its sponsor and having a new livery as a result. These days I know that McLaren are always going to be silver (would like them to go for the orange livery that they've used in testing though), Mercedes will be silver/grey, Marussia are going to be red and black, Caterham are going to be yellow and green, Sauber are going to be white and dark grey (or anthracite, or whatever poncy name it's given - if they're not going to have a blue and white Telmex livery, I'd rather see them go back to their original black livery), etc. etc. Will be interesting to see if Williams go down the same route and stick with their Rothmans-inspired livery.

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 18:05**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
JeremyMcClean wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
That's just absurd. Massa is one of the worst drivers, but he's not as bad as your everyday pay-driver. Though I will say I think Charles Pic would've done a better job.

I do think Sergio Perez would have done a better job...

Considering he's ahead of Massa in a worse car, I think that's pretty much fact.

BaconLettuceNinja wrote:Which further proves di Montezemolo's wrong in the head...

Or maybe not. From the point of view of Ferrari, it is something of a double edged sword - a more competitive second driver would help them enormously in the WCC, where the real money is to be made, but a more competitive second driver could potentially take points off Alonso, therefore reducing their chances of winning the WDC and possibly straining relations with Alonso (and it has to be said that Alonso has partially carried that team in the past few years).

I suppose that the other question must be, given that Ferrari will have greater information on Perez's behind the scenes performance (both through their partnership with Sauber and the tests that Perez has done for Ferrari), whether Ferrari believe that there are other areas that they'd want to see Perez improve in before hiring him. Perhaps they feel that there is some other aspect that, despite his strong driving this season, he hasn't quite delivered on just yet and is the reason why they are ostensibly holding back?
Equally, does Perez necessarily want to make the move to Ferrari right now? He has said that he is very happy to stay at Sauber due to the support network he is building up around him, so it is possible that he wants a bit more time at Sauber to mature too.

Mind you, there was an interesting comment from James Allen during the BBC's coverage of the free practise sessions - during the press conference, James Allen mentioned to Alonso that he is now the joint third highest podium finisher, having equalled Senna's total of 80 podiums at the Italian GP. During that conversation, he asked Alonso what his main motivation was, and Alonso's reply was that he wanted to equal Senna's achievement of three world championships, which would be his way of stamping his mark on the sport.
That does raise the question of, should Alonso achieve that target this season, what change will that then have on his behaviour after achieving that goal. Might he be more willing to accept a more competitive team mate as his rival if he secures his position as a modern motorsport legend (given that he could potentially become the youngest ever triple champion this season, by nature of breaking that record he would establish himself in the annals of the sport)?

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 19:02**

mario wrote:From the point of view of Ferrari, it is something of a double edged sword - a more competitive second driver would help them enormously in the WCC, where the real money is to be made, but a more competitive second driver could potentially take points off Alonso, therefore reducing their chances of winning the WDC and possibly straining relations with Alonso (and it has to be said that Alonso has partially carried that team in the past few years).

But the thing is you could put someone like Nick Heidfeld, Adrian Sutil, or Jaime Alguersuari in the car and they'd get a hell of a lot more out of that car without coming close to challenging Alonso.

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 22:11**

eurobrun wrote:
dr-Baker wrote:It turned out later that they had mixed cannabis in with their tobacco, but why ruin a good story?!)

Did this happen at 4:20 PM

Huh? I don't get it? Why twenty-past-four in the afternoon?

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 22:14**

dr-baker wrote:
eurobrun wrote:
dr-Baker wrote:It turned out later that they had mixed cannabis in with their tobacco, but why ruin a good story?!)

Did this happen at 4:20 PM

Huh? I don't get it? Why twenty-past-four in the afternoon?

Because of this.

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 22:32**

There are too many races!!!

Posted: **21 Sep 2012, 22:52**

dr-Baker wrote:]It turned out later that they had mixed cannabis in with their tobacco, but why ruin a good story?!)

eurobrun wrote:
Did this happen at 4:20 PM

dr-baker wrote:Huh? I don't get it? Why twenty-past-four in the afternoon?

BaconLettuceNinja wrote:
Because of this.

Ahh, there you go. Just to prove my innocence concerning either American or drug culture (or maybe both!). To be honest, it was probably between 4 and 7 pm...

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 02:32**

Everyone overreacted to Crashgate.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 10:00**

The current F1 cars aren't fast enough.

No, really. 25 years ago, the cars were hitting 220 mph. They'd barely be able to crack 205-210 now, with KERS and DRS deployed. Too much aerodynamic drag, and too much turbulent air making it difficult to pass. Get rid of some of the stupidly complicated aero, and bring back a limited form of ground effect - as it was in '78 or '79.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 10:03**

darkapprentice77 wrote:Everyone overreacted to Crashgate.

Espionage-gate was worse.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 11:23**

Joe Saward's blog is actually pretty good.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 15:26**

East Londoner wrote:Joe Saward's blog is actually pretty good.

He's a good writer, I grant him that. But I cannot bear how biased he is and won't admit it, and flames anyone who dares to pull him up on it.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 16:11**

WeirdKerr wrote:There are too many races!!!

Extremely unpopular.

And I extremely agree.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 20:36**

Ferrim wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:There are too many races!!!

Extremely unpopular.

And I extremely agree.

I would have to be the third member of this outsider group...

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 21:28**

Klon wrote:
Ferrim wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:There are too many races!!!

Extremely unpopular.

And I extremely agree.

I would have to be the third member of this outsider group...

I want 16 races again. I want a greater bias towards Europe again, including Germany, Belgium, France and Imola. Australia, Canada, USA and Brazil should stay. Japan should be the last or penultimate race of the season again. Italy should be in the final quarter, the start of the climatic end of the season.

Posted: **22 Sep 2012, 21:58**

To go back to the tobacco discussion, I miss the ciggie liveries. Generally, the companies bought huge sums of money to the table, plus the majority of the liveries were magnificent. As for baccy advertising supposedly making people start smoking, I personally think its a pile of crap. I'm 16 and have never smoked in my life, and never will, despite one of my best friends doing so. Its just one of those things.

Posted: **23 Sep 2012, 00:59**

WeirdKerr wrote:There are too many races!!!

Semi-agreed, I think 17 or 18 is a good number

Posted: **24 Sep 2012, 05:22**

This might not be unpopular on the wider internet but is definitely is here.

Marussia has much more potential than HRT and also has a lot more chance of being competitive one day

Grand Prix Rejects

Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions