Grand Prix Rejects

Wallio wrote:The 2009 Red Bull was the best car that year. It was faster than both the Yota and Williams who had DDD's and even beat the Brawn in its "box-diffuser" spec. And when it was given a DDD it didn't improve that much. Certainly if the DDD had been hit with the banhammer, the Brawn walkover would have been replaced by a 2002-style Red Bull one.

Funnily enough I was rewatching the FIA 2009 season review over the weekend. Where in it Adrian Newey explained how the 2009 Red Bull rear end design was not at all suited to incorporating the DDD. Basically he said that the 2009 Red Bull rear end was shaped to be as narrow as possible & had either a push-rod or pull-rod suspension setup (I forget which one he said now, apologies). These factors meant that any gains from the DDD would have been minimual, compared to if they had a more 'standard' rear end design. Thats why once Red Bull had fitted the DDD around mid season, they didn't improve their performance perhaps as much as some other teams. Therefore perhaps another what if question to consider is, what if the DDD was banned early in 2009 as Red Bull & others teams wanted? Would Vettel now be fighting for his 4th WDC?

I also agree with you in thinking the Red Bull was the best car over the course of 2009. However Vettel in particular was affected by reliability / engine failures. So much so that towards the end of the season he had to restrict his friday practice running to save his remaining engines. Which of course is not good, for someone who was trying to challenge for the title.

My unpopular opinion, is that a point /points should be awarded for the race fastest lap. Perhaps we might therefore see the drivers from 11th & below therefore pit on the 2nd last lap for fresh option tyres in the hope of gaining the fastest lap & therefore a point. Also how funny would it be if a top driver like Vettel crashed from the lead of the race on the last lap as a result of trying to get the fastest lap.

Rubens Barrichello and J.J. Lehto proved that not every F1 driver will be good in IndyCar.

ibsey wrote:

Wallio wrote:The 2009 Red Bull was the best car that year. It was faster than both the Yota and Williams who had DDD's and even beat the Brawn in its "box-diffuser" spec. And when it was given a DDD it didn't improve that much. Certainly if the DDD had been hit with the banhammer, the Brawn walkover would have been replaced by a 2002-style Red Bull one.

Funnily enough I was rewatching the FIA 2009 season review over the weekend. Where in it Adrian Newey explained how the 2009 Red Bull rear end design was not at all suited to incorporating the DDD. Basically he said that the 2009 Red Bull rear end was shaped to be as narrow as possible & had either a push-rod or pull-rod suspension setup (I forget which one he said now, apologies). These factors meant that any gains from the DDD would have been minimual, compared to if they had a more 'standard' rear end design. Thats why once Red Bull had fitted the DDD around mid season, they didn't improve their performance perhaps as much as some other teams. Therefore perhaps another what if question to consider is, what if the DDD was banned early in 2009 as Red Bull & others teams wanted? Would Vettel now be fighting for his 4th WDC?

I also agree with you in thinking the Red Bull was the best car over the course of 2009. However Vettel in particular was affected by reliability / engine failures. So much so that towards the end of the season he had to restrict his friday practice running to save his remaining engines. Which of course is not good, for someone who was trying to challenge for the title.

My unpopular opinion, is that a point /points should be awarded for the race fastest lap. Perhaps we might therefore see the drivers from 11th & below therefore pit on the 2nd last lap for fresh option tyres in the hope of gaining the fastest lap & therefore a point. Also how funny would it be if a top driver like Vettel crashed from the lead of the race on the last lap as a result of trying to get the fastest lap.

The Red Bull had (and still has) a pull-rod rear, which is a much older design. So old infact that in "The Chariot Maker's" Steve Matchett talks about how no-one runs it anymore and basically compares it to a horse and buggy blah, blah, blah. Of course at the time of the book's printing it was true (and Twin-Keel vs. V-Keel was still the debate) but now people are realizing that low and narrow packaging provides. Many teams have switched back to a pull-rod now.

As for the Renaults, they were frankly shite that year. Down on power and prone to blow up. (Korea springs to mind, and China was it, where a spark plug exploded or some bathplugging nonsense). This season I often wonder what RBR would be doing if they still had Ferrari engines. IIRC they dumped the Ferrari lumps because of aero packaging issues that caused them to overheat. The very same problem they are having now with their Alternators......

Of course it is hard to argue with 2 (hopefully soon to be 3!) WDCs and 3 WCCs and a second place in 2009. Newey truly has mastered the "high-rear, snowplow front" regs.

My unpopular opinion, if Jag had successfully stole Newey, they'd still be around, and with quite a bit of hardware in the throphy case to boot. Even with their chaotic management. I also agree with a point for fastest lap, but I'd go one further, 2 points for pole. Stop points at 8th place, and you have your three to give away. Done.

darkapprentice77 wrote:Liuzzi is a good driver.

His weekend in Monza 2010 suggests you are right.

His driving a year later...

TheBigJ wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Liuzzi is a good driver.

His weekend in Monza 2010 suggests you are right.

His driving a year later...

Yeah, the fact that both Lotus cars outqualified him suggests that he's good.

I think the weekend you're looking for is Monza 2009, where he stepped in after Fisichella went to Ferrari and was running in 4th position before he retired.

TheBigJ wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:Liuzzi is a good driver.

His weekend in Monza 2010 suggests you are right.

His driving a year later...

Ahh yes, the 2011 race!

I was there!
There I was!
Was I there?
Yes I was!

Let's face it - unless Kobayashi pulls off a win today, he's out of F1 for good.

Vettel's way of celebration isn't especially annoying.

Here's one from me that I know will be unpopular; if it turns out HRT do not make the grid for 2013, I won't be all that bothered.

If he ever makes it to Formula 1, Johnny Cecotto Jr. will be better than his father.

Ricciardo is the most overrated driver on the grid today, bar none.

CarlosFerreira wrote:Paul di Resta is the most overrated driver on the grid today, bar none.

Fixed

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:Paul di Resta is the most overrated driver on the grid today, bar none.

Fixed

This.

The further time goes on and dulls the memory, the more I wish Montoya had stuck around in F1 after June 2006..

I'm quite happy Caterham beat Marussia to 10th in the Championship.

East Londoner wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:Paul di Resta is the most overrated driver on the grid today, bar none.

Fixed

This.

The further time goes on and dulls the memory, the more I wish Montoya had stuck around in F1 after June 2006..

Juan Pablo Montoya has to be one of my favourite drivers. The fact he drove the amazing looking BMW Williamses was a thrilling bonus!

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:Bruno Senna is the most overrated driver on the grid today, bar none.

Fixed

Properly Fixed.

CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm quite happy Caterham beat Marussia to 10th in the Championship.

Is there any particular reason why that pleases you so much? Much of the ire around here comes from the fact that Caterham have, quite publicly, failed to meet their objective for 2012, which was to close the gap between themselves and the lower midfield teams.

Now, it is true that Caterham have closed the gap between themselves and the leading teams slightly since 2011, but the same can also be said of Marussia and HRT (plus it could be argued that the situation in 2011 was exaggerated by the fact that the RB7 was so dominant in qualifying trim). Proportionally, they have remained the same distance behind the midfield teams as they were in 2011, even though their resources should now be beginning to approach similar levels to some of the smaller midfield teams, and they weren't able to maintain a consistent performance advantage over Marussia either (something which Marussia took great pride in, given that they were able to pretty much halve the gap between themselves and Caterham).

mario wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm quite happy Caterham beat Marussia to 10th in the Championship.

Is there any particular reason why that pleases you so much? Much of the ire around here comes from the fact that Caterham have, quite publicly, failed to meet their objective for 2012, which was to close the gap between themselves and the lower midfield teams.

Nothing at all against Marussia, but I'm thinking about the long term. Caterham as a team are in F1 to stay. They have a structure in place, they have the governance and are working on the partnerships, they have survived having the Lotus moniker taken away from them, and they have the ambition. OK, so maybe the car was a stinker and they failed to move up, but they'll be there next year.

In contrast, I'm not at all sure Marussia isn't going the way of HRT in a couple of years. Also, about KERS: everyone in the F1 press loved remembering viewers/listeners/readers that KERS was worth X hundredths of a second per lap in circuit Y, and that if Marussia had KERS they'd beat Caterham in qualifying by Z. But the fact is Marussia didn't put the investment and work in place to get KERS, so don't give me the "oh, if only..." story. I love Marussia, but they need to get their excrement together.

Caterham is the real deal. I'll go one better: I have the nagging suspicion that Caterham will be in F1 well after the people who bought the team-currently-known-as-Lotus have recouped their investment and decamped - i.e., sold it on to the next sucke... huh, proprietary.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

mario wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm quite happy Caterham beat Marussia to 10th in the Championship.

Is there any particular reason why that pleases you so much? Much of the ire around here comes from the fact that Caterham have, quite publicly, failed to meet their objective for 2012, which was to close the gap between themselves and the lower midfield teams.

Nothing at all against Marussia, but I'm thinking about the long term. Caterham as a team are in F1 to stay. They have a structure in place, they have the governance and are working on the partnerships, they have survived having the Lotus moniker taken away from them, and they have the ambition. OK, so maybe the car was a stinker and they failed to move up, but they'll be there next year.

In contrast, I'm not at all sure Marussia isn't going the way of HRT in a couple of years. Also, about KERS: everyone in the F1 press loved remembering viewers/listeners/readers that KERS was worth X hundredths of a second per lap in circuit Y, and that if Marussia had KERS they'd beat Caterham in qualifying by Z. But the fact is Marussia didn't put the investment and work in place to get KERS, so don't give me the "oh, if only..." story. I love Marussia, but they need to get their excrement together.

Caterham is the real deal. I'll go one better: I have the nagging suspicion that Caterham will be in F1 well after the people who bought the team-currently-known-as-Lotus have recouped their investment and decamped - i.e., sold it on to the next sucke... huh, proprietary.

If this post had been made about 12 months ago, I'd definitely be inclined to agree with you, but since then there's been a marked improvement in Marussia's organisation, and development ability. The fact they were able to match Caterham on pace by the end of the year despite not having KERS, and having missed pre-season testing, says a lot about what they've been able to get out of the car. The ideal thing for them now is the stability for 2013 which will mean the new car will continue the development trend, and hopefully see not only Marussia, but also Caterham close the gap to the midfield. Obviously I favour Marussia over Caterham for a variety of reasons, but ultimately I'd still like to see both do well and become established.

I was originally a fan of Tony Fernandes, but the more time goes on, the more I think he's a complete idiot. Not only did he try and use the Lotus name in F1, get into a protracted court case, claim he'd win, then loose and drop the issue entirely, he went and bought Caterham to cover his arse. Now his policies with QPR are mirroring all this, he's backed Mark Hughes for ages now, and then suddenly just pulls a complete u-turn and sacks him. He's all over Twitter trying to be Mr Popular, but it just keeps on blowing up in his face. It smacks of petty, shallow attention seeking, not honest hard work. He's trying to "get rich quick" and it just doesn't work like that in sport.

Looks like I have a proper unpopular F1 opinion, then.

CarlosFerreira wrote:I'm quite happy Caterham beat Marussia to 10th in the Championship.

CarlosFerreira wrote:Looks like I have a proper unpopular F1 opinion, then.

To be honest, I agree with your unpopular opinion if for no other reason than Tony Fernandes went to the same boarding school as me and was in the same boarding house at the same time as Jeremy and Time Vine, in the year I was born. Oh, and I saw him give a presentation at the school.

If I was a team boss I would rather have Senna than Di Resta. My preference would be someone faster than both though

Petrov deserves a better drive in Formula One.

WaffleCat wrote:Petrov deserves a better drive in Formula One.

I agree.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

WaffleCat wrote:Petrov deserves a better drive in Formula One.

I agree.

As do I.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:

WaffleCat wrote:Petrov deserves a better drive in Formula One.

I agree.

As do I.

I, on the other hand, don't. He had that change at Renault and was smashed by Kubica (who, admittedly, is on another league). Then he was made to look ordinary by Heidfeld who was already past his prime. He only looked good against Bruno Senna and now against Kovalainen. All this leads me to my unpopular opinion: Heikki Kovalainen's efforts at Caterham were hyped and he his overrated in this forum.

DanielPT wrote:I, on the other hand, don't. He had that change at Renault and was smashed by Kubica (who, admittedly, is on another league). Then he was made to look ordinary by Heidfeld who was already past his prime. He only looked good against Bruno Senna and now against Kovalainen. All this leads me to my unpopular opinion: Heikki Kovalainen's efforts at Caterham were hyped and he his overrated in this forum.

Most drivers looked ordinary next to Heidfeld - he beat Raikkonen, Massa, Webber and Kubica in addition to Petrov. That's not bad company.

DanielPT wrote:Heikki Kovalainen's efforts at Caterham were hyped and he his overrated in this forum.

Agreed. Kovalainen never really was a fantastic driver, certainly not one that deserved to get the McLaren seat. I would have signed either Heidfeld or Kubica. Or maybe even Rosberg with him still being unproven at Williams.

eurobrun wrote:If I was a team boss I would rather have Senna than Di Resta. My preference would be someone faster than both though

I would have thought that, in a contest between the two drivers, that whilst neither driver has had an outstanding performance this season, Di Resta had the slightly higher peaks in performance (or at least it looked that way at the start of the season).

JeremyMcClean wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Heikki Kovalainen's efforts at Caterham were hyped and he his overrated in this forum.

Agreed. Kovalainen never really was a fantastic driver, certainly not one that deserved to get the McLaren seat. I would have signed either Heidfeld or Kubica. Or maybe even Rosberg with him still being unproven at Williams.

To be fair, Kovalainen had come off the back of a solid season at Renault where he'd had the measure of Fisichella. To a certain extent, he also represented something that McLaren would have dearly wanted after the trauma of the fractious relationship between themselves and Alonso - a chance to start anew with a calmer, more amicable driver.

The other catch is that BMW seem to have had quite tough break clauses in their contracts - they'd already locked Heidfeld and Kubica into contracts for 2008 midway through 2007, and although relations between Alonso and McLaren had started to sour by that point, it hadn't yet got to the point where that relationship had totally broken down. Given how difficult it later proved for Kubica to try to lave his contract with BMW-Sauber in 2009, I suspect that it would have proven difficult to hire either driver for 2008 (especially Kubica, given how aggressively BMW defended their contract with him in 2009 when he tried to leave the team then).
To a certain extent, Kovalainen probably represented the next best alternative for McLaren at the time given that most teams were moving to lock their drivers into their teams quite early on that year or had drivers on existing contracts. I guess that Rosberg might have been a plausible alternative, but that would probably have depended on the terms of the contract he already had with Williams at the time (he would probably have been preferred by Mercedes for marketing purposes).

Couldn't McLaren have had Button at the time? That would have been the best choice as so proved.

They also could have had Ralf Schumacher.

James1978 wrote:Couldn't McLaren have had Button at the time? That would have been the best choice as so proved.

They also could have had Ralf Schumacher.

Honda had already renewed their contract with Button by that point (I think that they renewed their contract with him even earlier than BMW did with Heidfeld and Kubica) so he already accounted for by that point. It would have been interesting to see the two drivers paired together at McLaren in 2008, though - Button's consistency in scoring points might well have helped McLaren in the WCC at least.
As for Ralf Schumacher, it seems that Ralf's agent did actually speak to McLaren but was turned down quite quickly (salary could well have been an issue - Ralf's salary from Toyota was reportedly quite substantial, and it is plausible that he might have asked for a lot more than McLaren were ever willing to offer).

My logic behind my statement is that I would rather a slightly but not massively slower driver that brings money. Assuming the team needs extra cash though.

eurobrun wrote:My logic behind my statement is that I would rather a slightly but not massively slower driver that brings money. Assuming the team needs extra cash though.

Which is why I didn't counter it. As shite as Senna is, he has money and di Resta doesn't.

Max Chilton is going to be better, and more interesting than Paul Di Resta (assuming he gets the Marussia drive of course).

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

eurobrun wrote:My logic behind my statement is that I would rather a slightly but not massively slower driver that brings money. Assuming the team needs extra cash though.

Which is why I didn't counter it. As shite as Senna is, he has money and di Resta doesn't.

Not me though. Di Resta lost against Hulkenberg this year but I still think that he is quite good. He is better than Sutil, after all.

Are you guys familiar with DBZ? Let me put it this way:

Senna:


Maldonado:


Di Resta:


Hulkenberg:



And yes, I am a massive DBZ fan and not ashamed by it!

There's only one thing I know about Dragon Ball Z and that is...

It's over 9000!!

Di Resta didn't beat Sutil last year and he usually was not faster than Sutil. Didn't he only have 5 or 6 points before Hungary.

Bruno Senna is the Raditz to Ayrton's Goku.
Hardly unpopular, but DBZ references are being thrown around and nobody is a bigger fan than me .

Shadaza wrote:Bruno Senna is the Raditz to Ayrton's Goku.
Hardly unpopular, but DBZ references are being thrown around and nobody is a bigger fan than me .

Oh I see... So you think Ayrton could only beat Bruno with the help of a third party (Piccolo)?
I think that is very unpopular!

In fact what I meant was:

Bruno Senna is weak (read slow). Almost comical. It's a bit sad to see his vain efforts. He suits up every time in hope of helping the team only for watching the battle at a distance and feel helpless about it, because he couldn't stand a chance against stronger drivers.

Maldonado is a talented albeit a bit brainless driver. He does crazy stuff, crashes a lot and really only wants to play around with others. Doesn't seem to take racing very seriously.

Di Resta is almost as talented as Maldonado but since he has a brain, he does finish more often and gets more results. He works harder and is more serious about this racing occupation. In the end, he might have a brighter future than Maldonado, but I would bet there isn't much separating the two of them.

Hulkenberg is on another league. A very fast driver with high lower formulae credentials. In my mind his exploits at the wheel of a midfield car match, if they don't beat altogether, those of Vettel (who drove a faux-midfield car). And for a second unpopular opinion, I would say he might even be better than The Finger. Now, if only he could drive an Adrian Newey designed car...