Grand Prix Rejects

ibsey wrote:Can anyone think of another F1 driver who used to hold a steering wheel like Jean Alesi (10 o clock to 2 o clock position...rather than the normal 9 o clock to 3 o clock).

I'm going from clouded memory here (it was 12 years ago since he retired) but didn't Hakkinen also keep his hands in a certain way?

DanielPT wrote:

dr-baker wrote:I wonder how a Button/Webber line-up at McLaren would turn out?

Better than a Button/Perez line-up I reckon. McLaren said the lad didn't put a foot wrong, which is maybe right. What is also right is that he didn't do anything of note...

To be fair to Perez, it has to be said that it has been something of a tough start to his career at McLaren.

He is up against a very experienced driver, and although Button may not be considered to be the outright fastest driver on the grid, when he has the car working to his liking he can put in a quite strong performance. The car is currently difficult to drive, although there are signs that the team are perhaps starting to get to grips with it, and although Perez was overshadowed by Button in Malaysia, he did a respectable enough job in Melbourne when you consider what Button did (Perez finished that race within two seconds of Button, and arguably both he and Grosjean were being held up by Button in the final stages of that race).
Maybe he hasn't done much of note as of yet (and, given the struggles he had at the end of 2012, I must admit that I do have one or two slight reservations about him at the moment), but at the same time we are only two races into the season, so it is quite possible that Perez will build up his performance over the season and finish the season more strongly than he has started it.

ibsey wrote:Might Perez be given more leeway at Mclaren than most, even if his Fisichelaitiis symptoms do continue?
I mean aren't Vodaphone leaving Mclaren at the end of this year, & Perez appears to have pretty handy backers.

Can anyone think of another F1 driver who used to hold a steering wheel like Jean Alesi (10 o clock to 2 o clock position...rather than the normal 9 o clock to 3 o clock). Similarly are their any other drivers who used to lean their heads into a corner like Jean also? Seems to me Jean was pretty unique in this respect, I wonder why?

He might do, but probably not too much leeway - Fisichella's performance at Renault was tolerated because the team had (and still has) a hierarchical approach with its drivers, so it probably suited them quite well to have one driver that was a little less competitive and therefore would fit more naturally into the second driver role (particularly given how Trulli had left the team in rather acrimonious circumstances over disputes over driver equality within the team).

In the case of Perez, whilst he is in a team that aims to offer driver parity, it also expects similar levels of performance from its drivers. Vodafone's departure from the team may hurt its finances a little - though the team say they already have a new title sponsor in the wings - and Perez's links with the Slim family will be attractive if they are prepared to provide sponsorship, but at the same time the team will be aware that, with the WCC likely to be a tight contest, an underperforming driver could easily cost them quite a bit in the WCC and in terms of lost revenue from FOM.

They already have a lot of ground to make up in the WCC at the moment - to be mired in 7th place will be humiliating for them, for a start, but ending up in, say, 5th in the WCC would not just cost them some of their dignity, it'd probably cost them something like $20 million in revenue from FOM. Perez will probably get some slack for now, but the patience of the team will be finite and they will start to expect better results, particularly since Button's form in Malaysia hinted that they may be beginning to tap into some of that much talked about potential of the car.

mario wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

dr-baker wrote:I wonder how a Button/Webber line-up at McLaren would turn out?

Better than a Button/Perez line-up I reckon. McLaren said the lad didn't put a foot wrong, which is maybe right. What is also right is that he didn't do anything of note...

To be fair to Perez, it has to be said that it has been something of a tough start to his career at McLaren.

He is up against a very experienced driver, and although Button may not be considered to be the outright fastest driver on the grid, when he has the car working to his liking he can put in a quite strong performance. The car is currently difficult to drive, although there are signs that the team are perhaps starting to get to grips with it, and although Perez was overshadowed by Button in Malaysia, he did a respectable enough job in Melbourne when you consider what Button did (Perez finished that race within two seconds of Button, and arguably both he and Grosjean were being held up by Button in the final stages of that race).
Maybe he hasn't done much of note as of yet (and, given the struggles he had at the end of 2012, I must admit that I do have one or two slight reservations about him at the moment), but at the same time we are only two races into the season, so it is quite possible that Perez will build up his performance over the season and finish the season more strongly than he has started it.

When I wrote that, I wasn't menaing to be disparaging to Perez at all. I was pondering more on Webber leaving the Red Mist team and where he might consider going if he were to stay in the sport. Let's just assume that Perez goes in the opposite direction to Webber.

Would you consider that Webber and Button would get on well together? Would it be a harmonious relationship to everyone's mutual benefit (including the car developers)?

dr-baker wrote:

mario wrote:To be fair to Perez, it has to be said that it has been something of a tough start to his career at McLaren.

He is up against a very experienced driver, and although Button may not be considered to be the outright fastest driver on the grid, when he has the car working to his liking he can put in a quite strong performance. The car is currently difficult to drive, although there are signs that the team are perhaps starting to get to grips with it, and although Perez was overshadowed by Button in Malaysia, he did a respectable enough job in Melbourne when you consider what Button did (Perez finished that race within two seconds of Button, and arguably both he and Grosjean were being held up by Button in the final stages of that race).
Maybe he hasn't done much of note as of yet (and, given the struggles he had at the end of 2012, I must admit that I do have one or two slight reservations about him at the moment), but at the same time we are only two races into the season, so it is quite possible that Perez will build up his performance over the season and finish the season more strongly than he has started it.

When I wrote that, I wasn't menaing to be disparaging to Perez at all. I was pondering more on Webber leaving the Red Mist team and where he might consider going if he were to stay in the sport. Let's just assume that Perez goes in the opposite direction to Webber.

Would you consider that Webber and Button would get on well together? Would it be a harmonious relationship to everyone's mutual benefit (including the car developers)?

Likewise, I never said Perez was a complete waste of a good seat (probably not so good this season). I just meant that Webber is still better than Sergio, which I think it is rather consensual. To illustrate this point I will do my ranked list of active drivers based on past performances (and not on potential or results) up until now:

1- Fernando Alonso
2- Lewis Hamilton
3- K. Raikkonen
4- S. Vettel
5- N. Rosberg
6- J. Button
7- M. Webber
8- N. Hulkenberg
9- S. Perez
10- P. Maldonado
11- A. Sutil
12- F. Massa
13- P. Di Resta
14- R. Grosjean
15- J. Vergne
16- J. Bianchi
17- C. Pic
18- D. Ricciardo
19- V. Bottas
20- E. Gutierrez
21- G. van der Garde
22- M. Chilton

DanielPT wrote:1- Fernando Alonso
2- Lewis Hamilton
3- K. Raikkonen
4- S. Vettel
5- N. Rosberg
6- J. Button
7- M. Webber
8- N. Hulkenberg
9- S. Perez
10- P. Maldonado
11- A. Sutil
12- F. Massa
13- P. Di Resta
14- R. Grosjean
15- J. Vergne
16- J. Bianchi
17- C. Pic
18- D. Ricciardo
19- V. Bottas
20- E. Gutierrez
21- G. van der Garde
22- M. Chilton

To make such a list is really difficult, imo .. especially the top 5

But something got my attention, would you really prefer to have Maldonado on-board, rather than Sutil ?
I don't particularly rate them too highly, but at least Sutil brings the car home

DanielPT wrote:Likewise, I never said Perez was a complete waste of a good seat (probably not so good this season).

Me too, I only asked what I thought was a fair question about Perez going forward. Obviously I acknowledge it is still early days to properly judge him at Mclaren. Particularly when the car isn’t fully sorted as Mario correctly eluded to. I suspect that once it is, we will see Perez much closer to Button than he currently appears to be able to get. A bit similar to how Button struggled in early to 2001 to get close to Fisico in a horrible car. Yet around mid 2001 onwards, when the Benetton Renault started to move up the grid. Button’s performances got closer & closer to Fisico.

dr-baker wrote:When I wrote that, I wasn't menaing to be disparaging to Perez at all. I was pondering more on Webber leaving the Red Mist team and where he might consider going if he were to stay in the sport. Let's just assume that Perez goes in the opposite direction to Webber.

Would you consider that Webber and Button would get on well together? Would it be a harmonious relationship to everyone's mutual benefit (including the car developers)?

Although I do think Webber & Button would get on well & be fairly evenly matched (maybe Button slightly ahead) if they were at Mclaren together next season. TBH the impression I am getting is Webber might retire at the end of this season. Also will Mclaren want to take on a driver who is over 37, as I believe Webber will be next year?

Im wonder if f1 could host the annual indy 500 race as a non championship race.

Offer 3 cars per team (the third driver can be completely optional, ie From US/Nascar/Indy), totalling 33.
No Championship points
Cash prizes awarded
Waaaay more US coverage then say the US GP.

I can't imagine f1 cars struggling to be safe/reliable, The engines would probably be need to detuned, maybe some suspension parts hardened). I suspect the drivers would tire quite easily though.

McJaggers wrote:Im wonder if f1 could host the annual indy 500 race as a non championship race.

Offer 3 cars per team (the third driver can be completely optional, ie From US/Nascar/Indy), totalling 33.
No Championship points
Cash prizes awarded
Waaaay more US coverage then say the US GP.

I can't imagine f1 cars struggling to be safe/reliable, The engines would probably be need to detuned, maybe some suspension parts hardened). I suspect the drivers would tire quite easily though.

The tyres, I believe, would need some fundamental changes...

Yeah, but that was only a michelin problem.

Tyres would be a unique compound specifically for the race i guess.

McJaggers wrote:Im wonder if f1 could host the annual indy 500 race as a non championship race.

Offer 3 cars per team (the third driver can be completely optional, ie From US/Nascar/Indy), totalling 33.
No Championship points
Cash prizes awarded
Waaaay more US coverage then say the US GP.

I can't imagine f1 cars struggling to be safe/reliable, The engines would probably be need to detuned, maybe some suspension parts hardened). I suspect the drivers would tire quite easily though.

For a start, as you've alluded to in subsequent posts, the tyres would probably need to be very extensively modified in order to cope with the sort of loads that would be put through them - which would be a very costly operation.

The bigger problem, though, would be the engines - the current engines are not really designed to operate at their maximum rpm for more than a short stretch at a time (as things stand, most teams try to avoid hitting the limiter at all in race trim, partially to give the drivers a little bit in reserve if slipsteaming another car, and partially because even a very slight reduction in engine rpm helps to minimise wear and tear on components).
Now, I know that the current engines operate for about 2,000 to 2,500 miles before failure under normal circumstances, but that is under quite different conditions - i.e. around circuits which they have been optimised to work at. They might be able to take a full Indy 500 race, but I wouldn't necessarily bank on it.

I don't think an F1-Indy 500 would work, as even the weakest cars could probably generate enough downforce to allow them to run at full speed. This would then just turn the race into a top speed contest, or a slipstreaming fight, which while exciting, is not what F1 is about in my opinion.

EDIT-Also, a more obvious problem is that I'm not convinced the cars could run 500 miles on one tank, so refuelling would have to be brought back.

andrew2209 wrote:EDIT-Also, a more obvious problem is that I'm not convinced the cars could run 500 miles on one tank, so refuelling would have to be brought back.

They already struggle to manage 190 miles, so 500 miles would require at least two fuel stops...

dr-baker wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:EDIT-Also, a more obvious problem is that I'm not convinced the cars could run 500 miles on one tank, so refuelling would have to be brought back.

They already struggle to manage 190 miles, so 500 miles would require at least two fuel stops...

And, because of the current regulations in F1, it would have to be done with gravity drainage systems rather than pressurised fuel pumps - I can't imagine too many mechanics would be happy about having to lug 140kg of fuel around the pit lane multiple times in a race.

On another note, I see that John Watson has been interviewed by the BBC and had had some harsh words about McLaren and Perez in particular:

"Red Bull have two drivers of a high level of experience, as do Ferrari and Mercedes. McLaren look like they've got one and a half drivers."

"Signing Perez to replace Hamilton did raise a few eyebrows in the paddock. While I think most would say he's got a single fast lap in him, his race performances are less of a known quantity. He had some great races last year but I'm not yet clear as to what level of information or value he brings the team."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22031593

Now, although some have expressed similar reservations about Perez in the past, it looks like the criticism is going to build up on him reasonably quickly if he and the team aren't more careful.

mario wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22031593

Now, although some have expressed similar reservations about Perez in the past, it looks like the criticism is going to build up on him reasonably quickly if he and the team aren't more careful.

I think the lad and the team are being careful. But it is a bit too much I think. He needs to risk a bit more and get closer to Button.

ibsey wrote:Can anyone think of another F1 driver who used to hold a steering wheel like Jean Alesi (10 o clock to 2 o clock position...rather than the normal 9 o clock to 3 o clock). Similarly are their any other drivers who used to lean their heads into a corner like Jean also? Seems to me Jean was pretty unique in this respect, I wonder why?

Jos Verstappen had quite an unique way of holding the steering wheel, especially in his Arrows days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RouJd25lSc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1E0jhwOv_0

The signig of Perez, at the moment, has been criticised, but in hindsight, there was little else McLaren were likely to do in that situation. At the time, Perez was in good form, and very few other drivers were open to offers. (The Force Inida pair, IIRC were not as quick as Perez at the time).

andrew2209 wrote:The signig of Perez, at the moment, has been criticised, but in hindsight, there was little else McLaren were likely to do in that situation. At the time, Perez was in good form, and very few other drivers were open to offers. (The Force Inida pair, IIRC were not as quick as Perez at the time).

Let me spell it out for everyone here so there can't be any mistakes made;

K O B A Y A S H I

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Random thought.

If you'd said in 1997 that in 16 years time Williams would be a lower midfield outfit with as many wins as Minardi in the past eight years, and that Stewart and Tyrrell will have won the last four championships between them, and that "Lotus" would be grand prix winners again, you'd have been carted down the insane asylum.

In fact you could even substitute 1997 for 2003, 16 years for 10, Stewart for Jaguar and Tyrrell for BAR with similar effect (I mean the original Tyrrell link is pushing it I guess since BAR pretty much bought the entry and not a lot else, but you could argue they'd have actually started off better than they did had they put their money behind the existing Tyrrell organisation)

Makes you wonder what 2029 might look like. Backmarker McLarens, bought-out and renamed Caterham and Marussia at the front, Enstone-run Brabhams winning races?

What if Toleman had said during their darkest days of '85 "Come back in 9 years and we'll have won the WDC and the year after that we'll win both titles!"

Anything can truly happen in F1. It still feels strange to see Ferrari so competative as I lived through years of them being a team Unlikely To Win Anything.

Jonny83 wrote:Makes you wonder what 2029 might look like. Backmarker McLarens, bought-out and renamed Caterham and Marussia at the front, Enstone-run Brabhams winning races?

In that case we should also be guessing which two of current drivers have never retired by then. My guess is that Lewis Hamilton will doing a fat comeback at some point and Paul Di Resta, having fluked a WDC in a brilliant year for FI, will still be saying how a great driver he is and that his new musical career is thriving!

DanielPT wrote:

Jonny83 wrote:Makes you wonder what 2029 might look like. Backmarker McLarens, bought-out and renamed Caterham and Marussia at the front, Enstone-run Brabhams winning races?

In that case we should also be guessing which two of current drivers have never retired by then. My guess is that Lewis Hamilton will doing a fat comeback at some point and Paul Di Resta, having fluked a WDC in a brilliant year for FI, will still be saying how a great driver he is and that his new musical career is thriving!

music career as a Justin Beiber tribute for Di Resta

DanielPT wrote:

mario wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22031593

Now, although some have expressed similar reservations about Perez in the past, it looks like the criticism is going to build up on him reasonably quickly if he and the team aren't more careful.

I think the lad and the team are being careful. But it is a bit too much I think. He needs to risk a bit more and get closer to Button.

To be fair to Perez, I do think that quite a few drivers would have struggled in his position.

Perez hasn't even completed 40 races as of now, whereas Button has 230 starts to his name, so the team have said that, ultimately, they are looking more towards him than Perez to develop the car because of his greater level of experience and because, having been there since 2010, he can offer a better comparison between the previous cars they have developed and their latest developments.
Equally, Perez has the disadvantage that he is being compared, indirectly, to Hamilton because Button gave him a tougher time than some might have expected (again, not an easy barometer to match up to), the pressure of having to consistently deliver strong results for a team that is one of the biggest in the paddock and the difficulty of dealing with an unexpectedly difficult car to drive that is currently not as competitive as he might have hoped.

However, it looks like there are those that aren't willing to cut him that much slack - the persistent questioning in the tail end of 2012 only became more intense after a few spats of overdriving the car, particularly since it was coincident with a string of stronger results from his team mate. As Stramala points out, there were some who suggested that McLaren should have gone for Kobayashi instead - there was an extensive editorial from Autosport that put forth that very point, arguing that McLaren would be better off with a more experienced driver.
The fact that Carlos Slim was partially involved in the negotiations, not to mention the departure of Vodafone and the fact that McLaren now has to pay Mercedes for engines (the latter of which is denting its budget), also leaves the slightly awkward question of whether sponsorship played its part.

It is considered bad enough that small to medium outfits are picking up more and more pay drivers, but the notion that a major team like McLaren hiring a driver in part because of his sponsorship - even though there is no definitive proof of that at the moment - seems to be troubling some observers and may be an implicit reason why Perez is perhaps being given a harder time than you might expect.

andrew2209 wrote:The signig of Perez, at the moment, has been criticised, but in hindsight, there was little else McLaren were likely to do in that situation. At the time, Perez was in good form, and very few other drivers were open to offers. (The Force Inida pair, IIRC were not as quick as Perez at the time).

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment - as others have pointed out, at the time Mclaren signed Perez he looked like the best option on the open market. Kobayashi was on just 35 points at the time and was perceived at the time as being a slightly weaker driver (though arguably the context of his results suggested that wasn't entirely true), whilst Di Resta was on 44 points and Hulkenberg on 31 points (with the former rumoured to be a bit difficult to work with and the latter yet to show his best run of form at the time).

Compounding those problems is the fact that McLaren seem to have now put themselves in a situation where they can't get a top tier driver even if they wanted one - there is no reason for Vettel to leave Red Bull whilst they can offer him an equally fast or faster car and have fewer operational problems, whilst they've alienated Kimi and Alonso and possibly Hamilton too (he does seem to have a much happier demeanour than he did whilst at McLaren).

Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

Klon wrote:Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

Easy. Hans Heyer. Started a GP that he didn't even qualify for!

Klon wrote:Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

My money’s on Jean Alesi. During the 1998 season, I would consider it a bad start from Jean if he hadn’t made up 4 places off the grid!!! (races like Sliverstone 1998 where Jean jumped from 8th on the grid to 4th at the 1st corner...were the type of start I came to expect from the fiery Frenchman that year).

Also I think it was at Monza 1996, where Jean jumped up from 6th on the grid to 1st before Hill overtook him again at the Ascari Chicane. Can’t remember too many other drivers since making up 5 places off the grid. Especially at the sharper end of the F1 grid, where it would be much harder to do so in comparison to the back of the field (although DC did make up 4 places off the grid at San Marino & Nurburgring in 1996...however still not as good as Jean's start at Monza later that year).

Having said that IIRC M Schumi made up a few places off the line in Suzuka 1998 when he had to start from the back of the grid. Likewise R Schumi also at Sliverstone 1998. Although I can’t quite remember exactly how many places they both made up off the start. Finally IIRC Gilles Villeneuve was also a bit of a handy starter from what I vaguely remember of his races. IIRC Austria in 1979 is one example where he took the lead from 5th on the grid.

dr-baker wrote:

Klon wrote:Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

Easy. Hans Heyer. Started a GP that he didn't even qualify for!

After the race, he was disqualified. So he did qualify after all!

dr-baker wrote:

Klon wrote:Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

Easy. Hans Heyer. Started a GP that he didn't even qualify for!

Sir I salute your way of thinking.

If we are thinking along those lines, then may I add Mansell & Nannini from the 1989 Canadian GP. They were too quick even for the lights...

Then you had a couple of French drivers who IIRC were known for usually jumping the start. Wasn’t Jean-Pierre Jarier was nicknamed ‘Jumper’ for frequently jumping the start? Similarly I seem to recall Panis used to often get a stop go penalty in 1995 again for jumping the starts. Don’t they have traffic lights in France?

Klon wrote:Well, we know of certain bad starters and of some good starters. But who is the greatest starter of all time?

This is why I love Alesi so much...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5awDdwwXPzg

As Murray Walker once said...”ooooh Jean! you may well look a bit worried, you've got a major problem sunshine when you get back to the pits..."

Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

...In a Jordan & Minardi respectively.

ibsey wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

...In a Jordan & Minardi respectively.

Oh, but of course!

dr-baker wrote:

ibsey wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

...In a Jordan & Minardi respectively.

Oh, but of course!

Mark Webber also had a good start by his standards, he only dropped 4 places.

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

Ha ha Indy 2005, the biggest farce in the history of the sport


Question is though, could the Michelin cars have raced that day, i mean all sorts of stuff was thrown about but what would you have done if you were Bernie?

roblomas52 wrote:Question is though, could the Michelin cars have raced that day, i mean all sorts of stuff was thrown about but what would you have done if you were Bernie?

Pretty sure that's already been asked. Theoretically, yes, they could've, but they would've required a ton of pitstops.

roblomas52 wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

Ha ha Indy 2005, the biggest farce in the history of the sport


Question is though, could the Michelin cars have raced that day, i mean all sorts of stuff was thrown about but what would you have done if you were Bernie?

To be fair to Bernie, Stoddart's account of events suggests that Bernie repeatedly tried to broker a deal with Mosely and Todt in an attempt to organise some sort of compromise, but found that neither Mosely nor Todt were prepared to listen to his proposals. As it was, it seems that Bernie did throw his weight behind the compromise the Michelin runners had proposed, which was installing a temporary chicane before the banking in order to slow the cars down enough for the tyres to withstand the loads that they'd experience around the banked section of the track.

mario wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Equal best starts of all time must be a draw between Monteiro, Albers, Karthikeyan and Friesacher - starting 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Ending up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the first corner!

Ha ha Indy 2005, the biggest farce in the history of the sport


Question is though, could the Michelin cars have raced that day, i mean all sorts of stuff was thrown about but what would you have done if you were Bernie?

To be fair to Bernie, Stoddart's account of events suggests that Bernie repeatedly tried to broker a deal with Mosely and Todt in an attempt to organise some sort of compromise, but found that neither Mosely nor Todt were prepared to listen to his proposals. As it was, it seems that Bernie did throw his weight behind the compromise the Michelin runners had proposed, which was installing a temporary chicane before the banking in order to slow the cars down enough for the tyres to withstand the loads that they'd experience around the banked section of the track.

I remember Barichello saying "don't make me laugh with this bloody chicane" and I think if it wasn't for Ferrari, they would have raced but IIRC the Michelin cars would've used the pit limiter through the banking or something stupid like that?

roblomas52 wrote:I remember Barichello saying "don't make me laugh with this bloody chicane" and I think if it wasn't for Ferrari, they would have raced but IIRC the Michelin cars would've used the pit limiter through the banking or something stupid like that?

The exact speed that the Michelin drivers could have gone through that section of the track remains a little unclear, since Michelin never did say what they considered the safe maximum speed that the drivers could do was.
As for Rubens and that comment, if he did make such a comment then he didn't make it to the other drivers (the indication is that when the team bosses, save Todt, who was refusing to attend any meetings, presented their plans to the drivers, the two Ferrari drivers said that they were ultimately bound by what Todt thought would be best for the team and therefore they offered no further opinion (although Stoddart says that they didn't explicitly reject the plans either)).

That said, whilst Todt's refusal to compromise on the matter did hurt things, Stoddart had more bile for Mosely and the picture he gave suggested that Mosely was the more disruptive party (supposedly going as far as threatening to expel all North American representatives from the FIA and stripping all FIA activities from the US if they yielded to the demands of the teams and changed the circuit layout).

mario wrote:That said, whilst Todt's refusal to compromise on the matter did hurt things, Stoddart had more bile for Mosely and the picture he gave suggested that Mosely was the more disruptive party (supposedly going as far as threatening to expel all North American representatives from the FIA and stripping all FIA activities from the US if they yielded to the demands of the teams and changed the circuit layout).

The explanation I can recall being given by Mosely on the 2005 F1 season review DVD on why he was unwilling to yield to the demands of changing the circuit layout at USA 2005. Was something along the lines of, if there had been a serious /fatal crash at that temporary chicane. Then any court of law judge would hold Mosely (or the FIA) to account for it. Since presumably there had not been enough time to carry out the necessary safety checks etc. At least that was what Mosley said...

EDIT; Also felt M Schumi (IMO) came across as a bit of a spanner for his post race press conference comments on the subject. IIRC he said something like how he remembered at Monza 2001, his rivals (led by JV) wouldn't accept his suggestion of not wanting to race during the first two chicanes. Yet those same people were now asking for the chicane to be install at Indy 2005. Implying the reason he wouldn't agree to the chicane, was because it was a sort of revenge for over Monza 2001. Oh great Micheal so your personal vendetta takes precedent over the paying American public then?

IIRC he also went on to say, how you can't expect the Bridgestone teams to take the responsibly for Michelin's mistake. To which I believe the Michelin teams had already offered to race for no points whatsoever. Simply to save the show as it were. So no responsibly was therefore being asked of Bridgestone. IMO these reasons just sounded a bit pathetic really.

ibsey wrote:Don’t they have traffic lights in France?

You probably didn't expect a serious answer about this, but France doesn't use a lot of traffic lights. Usually only in city centres. They make much more use of roundabouts than other countries, and this actually works. I love the French roads. You can easily drive for a few hundreds of km's without any trafic lights if you avoid city centers.
A country with an endless amount of traffic lights though, is Holland, and Verstappen was quite a good starter!

ibsey wrote:

mario wrote:That said, whilst Todt's refusal to compromise on the matter did hurt things, Stoddart had more bile for Mosely and the picture he gave suggested that Mosely was the more disruptive party (supposedly going as far as threatening to expel all North American representatives from the FIA and stripping all FIA activities from the US if they yielded to the demands of the teams and changed the circuit layout).

The explanation I can recall being given by Mosely on the 2005 F1 season review DVD on why he was unwilling to yield to the demands of changing the circuit layout at USA 2005. Was something along the lines of, if there had been a serious /fatal crash at that temporary chicane. Then any court of law judge would hold Mosely (or the FIA) to account for it. Since presumably there had not been enough time to carry out the necessary safety checks etc. At least that was what Mosley said...

EDIT; Also felt M Schumi (IMO) came across as a bit of a spanner for his post race press conference comments on the subject. IIRC he said something like how he remembered at Monza 2001, his rivals (led by JV) wouldn't accept his suggestion of not wanting to race during the first two chicanes. Yet those same people were now asking for the chicane to be install at Indy 2005. Implying the reason he wouldn't agree to the chicane, was because it was a sort of revenge for over Monza 2001. Oh great Micheal so your personal vendetta takes precedent over the paying American public then?

IIRC he also went on to say, how you can't expect the Bridgestone teams to take the responsibly for Michelin's mistake. To which I believe the Michelin teams had already offered to race for no points whatsoever. Simply to save the show as it were. So no responsibly was therefore being asked of Bridgestone. IMO these reasons just sounded a bit pathetic really.

The threat of potential legal action if something went wrong probably was preying on his mind, which would probably explain why Mosely said he would strip the race of championship status and withdraw the FIA's representatives if changes were made - that way, the teams would ultimately have to take responsibility for events, since he could then argue that he had tried to prevent events but was over ridden by the teams. Stoddart has his own reasons to dislike Mosely, so perhaps his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, and Mosely's defence does have a certain logic, so perhaps the truer situation is somewhat in the middle.

As for Schumacher and the post race comments, I wonder how much of that was down to Schumacher and how much was down to Todt instructing him beforehand on what to say. The comments about the Bridgestone teams not wanting to take responsibility for Michelin's mistake was the exact same argument that Todt is supposed to have used when rejecting Bernie's attempts to broker a deal, so I wonder if a few of the comments Schumacher came out with were pre-prepared with Todt in advance.