Grand Prix Rejects

dr-baker wrote:Wonder what happened to the forumite, eagleash? He used to be a regular poster here, yet hasn't been around since February, apparently...

He's still around on Facebook, I guess he just got bored of the forums.

Rusujuur wrote:Just watched the Classic GP on Sky, 1993 European GP and I have three things to say:

a) The cars don't look very good at all. Fat and bulky. I liked the next evolution in later parts of the 90s much more. Especially the 1998 McLaren.

b) The pitcrue had absolutely NO safety gear. When did that change? I started watching in 1994 and I think they had helmets then but maybe I have forgotten.

c) SPARKS!!

After refuelling was re-allowed in 1994 the mechanics had to use fire-proof suits.

GwilymJJames wrote:

JeremyMcClean wrote:I wonder what the penalty is for not using the option tires?

If the race is red-flagged and not restarted, 30 seconds. Otherwise, disqualification.

Makes me think really the chances where we get the second option happening. Two main options

1) Accident which causes some damage to the track and/or barriers.
2) Accident on the dry circuit, red flag, followed by monsoon during the stoppage.

dr-baker wrote:I imagine this means that Damon also went on holiday with JYS a fair bit at that time? I assume that relationship continued, and continues? Don't suppose this ever led to Damon being offered a drive for the Stewart GP team in the late 1990s?

Okay, now back on a proper PC keyboard so can type posts much easier & quicker. Rather than typing a post using a PS3 joypad (not recommended).

Not sure if Damon was actually offered a driver with Stewart (I presume so at some point, perhaps for 1997?). However I do recall in a season preview show prior to the 1997 season. Damon Hill & JYS both jokingly said to each other how it was their aim to beat one another during that year.

ibsey wrote:Even GV's wife thought Didier was playing GV at the time and told Gilles to be careful of Pironi. Yet GV appeared to be quite naive in this respect. Until Imola 82. That was why GV was so upset with Didier when he broke team orders. Because he trusted Didier even though his wife told him not to because she could see DIdier was not being genuine towards GV. Especially after how GV looked out for Didier at Brazil 82.

Just to add to this. IIRC Gilles said after Imola 1982, how when Pironi initially ignored team orders and passed him for the lead, for the first few times. GV simply thought Pirioni was doing that to put on a show for the Italian crowd. That was the race with a reduced number of cars participating because of the FISA/FOCA war. Also because of this, the two Renualt & the two Ferrari’s decided to put on a bit of a show race for the 1st half of the race at least, to try & compensate for the lack of cars. So IMO that shows now naïve Gilles was towards Pironi (i.e. Gilles trusted Pironi right up until the last lap or so at Imola 1982).

Another reason why GV was so angry with Didier after San Marino 1982. Was of course the fact that Gilles had ‘earnt’ his right to be a number no. 1 at Ferrari. By following team orders and letting Jody win the WDC at Monza 1979. Then stayed loyal to Ferrari during all those bad years (despite some very tempting offers from Mclaren). So Gilles expected Didier to do the same. Hence another reason why he was so furious when Pironi disobeyed team orders.

ibsey wrote:

dr-baker wrote:I imagine this means that Damon also went on holiday with JYS a fair bit at that time? I assume that relationship continued, and continues? Don't suppose this ever led to Damon being offered a drive for the Stewart GP team in the late 1990s?

Okay, now back on a proper PC keyboard so can type posts much easier & quicker. Rather than typing a post using a PS3 joypad (not recommended).

Not sure if Damon was actually offered a driver with Stewart (I presume so at some point, perhaps for 1997?). However I do recall in a season preview show prior to the 1997 season. Damon Hill & JYS both jokingly said to each other how it was their aim to beat one another during that year.

ibsey wrote:Even GV's wife thought Didier was playing GV at the time and told Gilles to be careful of Pironi. Yet GV appeared to be quite naive in this respect. Until Imola 82. That was why GV was so upset with Didier when he broke team orders. Because he trusted Didier even though his wife told him not to because she could see DIdier was not being genuine towards GV. Especially after how GV looked out for Didier at Brazil 82.

Just to add to this. IIRC Gilles said after Imola 1982, how when Pironi initially ignored team orders and passed him for the lead, for the first few times. GV simply thought Pirioni was doing that to put on a show for the Italian crowd. That was the race with a reduced number of cars participating because of the FISA/FOCA war. Also because of this, the two Renualt & the two Ferrari’s decided to put on a bit of a show race for the 1st half of the race at least, to try & compensate for the lack of cars. So IMO that shows now naïve Gilles was towards Pironi (i.e. Gilles trusted Pironi right up until the last lap or so at Imola 1982).

Another reason why GV was so angry with Didier after San Marino 1982. Was of course the fact that Gilles had ‘earnt’ his right to be a number no. 1 at Ferrari. By following team orders and letting Jody win the WDC at Monza 1979. Then stayed loyal to Ferrari during all those bad years (despite some very tempting offers from Mclaren). So Gilles expected Didier to do the same. Hence another reason why he was so furious when Pironi disobeyed team orders.

Suggesting that Gilles was being naïve could even be borderline offensive. I think it's incredibly sad that a properly sporting attitude can be considered a flaw. Gilles was entirely reasonable throughout and Pironi just upped and decided to screw him over. It's disgraceful. It's not the same as Ferrari from 1996 onwards. GV bided his time and earnt the right. Pironi would have followed. But Didier decided not to wait and his selfishness destroyed the entire team.

But I guess that's the lesson you have to learn about humanity, we are single minded being willing to screw over anyone in our path if it benefits our own goals. Apparently there's no room for integrity in Formula One...

Bleu wrote:

GwilymJJames wrote:

JeremyMcClean wrote:I wonder what the penalty is for not using the option tires?

If the race is red-flagged and not restarted, 30 seconds. Otherwise, disqualification.

Makes me think really the chances where we get the second option happening. Two main options

1) Accident which causes some damage to the track and/or barriers.
2) Accident on the dry circuit, red flag, followed by monsoon during the stoppage.

If a driver was planning on pitting at the last possible moment (end of the penultimate lap), but the race was stopped on that lap, before he pitted, that would cause a huge row.

EDIT-Also, in the case of a race starting on damp conditions, if everyone except one driver started on inters, would the one driver on dry tyres have to use both compounds?

Stramala wrote:Suggesting that Gilles was being naïve could even be borderline offensive.

Stramala I get the impression you are also a fellow GV fan. So I really don’t wish to offend you in any way. But Gilles even admitted himself when interviewed by Nigel Roebuck (then working for Autosport) on IIRC the Tuesday after Imola 1982 that he had been naïve with Pironi. For your ease I will quote a section of Gilles comments from that interview;

“…As soon as the Renault was out, I slowed. The only thing in my head was making the fuel last. Pironi had dropped back and that let him catch up. I made a mistake coming out of a corner and he passed me. I wasn’t worried; I figured he’d lead for a few laps and then give it back. Maybe he wanted to put on a show. But what worried me was he was going so quickly, which meant I had to go quickly too….

…Can you imagine a scene where two Ferraris, leading in Italy, run out of fuel on the last lap? That was my only thought. So I lapped in the 1-37, 1-38 for three laps and then he passes me again. I thought it was bloody stupid. On lap 59 I passed him on the approach to Tosa. I thought he lifted a little, but he says he had a small engine problem. Whatever it was I got by, and even at that stage I thought he was being honest. He was obeying the pit signal. He’d left it late, but never mind…

…He let me by on lap 59 because he wanted to draft me on lap 60. And I was stupid enough to believe he was being honourable. After the race I thought that everyone would realise what had happened, but no.”

Also clearly GV’s wife thought Gilles was also being naïve with Pironi. IIRC she said to Gilles something like “he hasn’t even invited you to his wedding? Doesn’t that tell you something about Didier?”.

Also I could dig out many quotes from Gilles biography by Gerald Donaldson or magazine articles on the subject. All of which also suggest Gilles was be naïve in relation to Didier. So I don’t see how it could be considered to be borderline offensive to suggest Gilles was being naïve? In many ways being naïve / innocent is a characteristic that I believe some people (including myself) actually warm to. Hence just one of the many reasons why I am a massive GV fan.

Stramala wrote:I think it's incredibly sad that a properly sporting attitude can be considered a flaw.

I fear you may have misunderstood me. I wasn’t for one minute trying to suggest that. In fact only yesterday had Mario & myself discussed this very same point within this thread. Where we both mentioned how we respected Moss in 1958 for acting in such a sportingly way that year. For your ease I will quote exactly what I had said from my post dated 13 Apr 2013, 21:46;

ibsey wrote:If that happened in today’s F1…should the driver in Moss’s position be applauded for sportingly helping his title rival claim back lost points? Or should he be heavily critized for not ‘winning at all costs’?...

…To answer my own question, personally I think it show more balls & courage for Moss to do what he did in 1958, then had he simply kept quiet about the matter & won the WDC as a result. So I have to say not only do I respect Moss much more for acting so sportingly. But whenever I think of Hawthorn winning the 1958 WDC (which is rare admittedly) I also tend to think along the lines of ‘well he largely won it due to Moss’ sporting behaviour’. Which IMO is a better legacy than had Moss won the WDC himself.

So I concur with your above comment. Instead what I was trying to do with my last post, was to highlight how Gilles was prepared to trust Pironi (against the advice of his own wife) right up until the last lap or so at Imola 1982. Something I consider to be an extremely honourable thing on behalf of GV. Hence another reason why I am such a massive fan of his. So perhaps lessons can be learnt from that day. As you say yourself;

Stramala wrote:But I guess that's the lesson you have to learn about humanity, we are single minded being willing to screw over anyone in our path if it benefits our own goals. Apparently there's no room for integrity in Formula One...

Whislt I agree “that’s the lesson you have to learn about humanity”. However I don’t think every single person in the world is ‘willing to screw over anyone in out path if it benefits our own goals’. Moss in 1958, Collins from 1956, Peterson from 1978 and Villeneueve from 1979, or even Shaun Murphy from the 2012 UK Snooker Championship are just IMO a small selection of examples of this.

Instead for those people who still have ‘intergrity’ & therefore would not feel comfortable within themselves by having to screw over someone else, in order to win. Then I feel it is important to identify & learn from the mistake Gilles made from Imola 1982 (that he himself admitted to). In automatically assuming that your rival is also willing to fight 'honorably' like you. Since I consider myself similar to Gilles in many respects, I am therefore especially keen to learn from my hero’s past mistakes.

So at Imola 1982 perhaps Gilles should have taken more measures to safeguard himself from Pironi (i.e given Pironi until 80% race distance to obey team orders otherwise Gilles would fight back against Didier). Similarly I mentioned earlier today how someone should have advised Gilles Villeneuve to vent his frustrations / anger in a more Graham Hill esq fashion, following Imola 1982. And just maybe Villeneuve might have lived a bit longer as a result.

If Vettel and Raikkonen become team mates and Vettel beats him, will F1 fans finally acknowledge Vettel as one of the greats?
Over at reddit's F1 section they all hate Seb and love Kimi to the point where any logical discussion is wasted.

Having seen Captain Interesting di Resta drop from 5th (I think) to 8th following his late pitstop onto the option, I got thinking. In Shanghai, the finish line is after the pitboxes, i.e. You pit at the end of a lap, not at the start of a lap. Anyway, would it have been legal for F.I. to have brought di Resta in on the last lap for his switch to option tyres, before driving 100 metres to the finish line, or do drivers have to do a full lap on each compound?

Shadaza wrote:If Vettel and Raikkonen become team mates and Vettel beats him, will F1 fans finally acknowledge Vettel as one of the greats?
Over at reddit's F1 section they all hate Seb and love Kimi to the point where any logical discussion is wasted.

I quite like /r/Formula1, just because Will Buxton drops in every now and then to have his say.

Then again, the Grosjean hate gets on my tits a bit as well. There's no pleasing some people.

Shadaza wrote:If Vettel and Raikkonen become team mates and Vettel beats him, will F1 fans finally acknowledge Vettel as one of the greats?
Over at reddit's F1 section they all hate Seb and love Kimi to the point where any logical discussion is wasted.

Beating Alonso last year made me finally concede that yes, Vettel is probably one of the 10 best-ever drivers.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Having seen Captain Interesting di Resta drop from 5th (I think) to 8th following his late pitstop onto the option, I got thinking. In Shanghai, the finish line is after the pitboxes, i.e. You pit at the end of a lap, not at the start of a lap. Anyway, would it have been legal for F.I. to have brought di Resta in on the last lap for his switch to option tyres, before driving 100 metres to the finish line, or do drivers have to do a full lap on each compound?

2013 FIA F1 Sporting Regulations wrote:25.4 Use of tyres:
Tyres will only be deemed to have been used once the car’s timing transponder has shown that it has left the pit lane.

So, no, it would not have been legal. Regardless of where the pitboxes are located, they must take to the pit entry on or before the penultimate lap of the grand prix.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Shadaza wrote:If Vettel and Raikkonen become team mates and Vettel beats him, will F1 fans finally acknowledge Vettel as one of the greats?
Over at reddit's F1 section they all hate Seb and love Kimi to the point where any logical discussion is wasted.

Beating Alonso last year made me finally concede that yes, Vettel is probably one of the 10 best-ever drivers.

But Vettel was in a Red Bull and Alonso was in a not Red Bull.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Beating Alonso last year made me finally concede that yes, Vettel is probably one of the 10 best-ever drivers.

Vettel was in a considerably better car imo

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Shadaza wrote:If Vettel and Raikkonen become team mates and Vettel beats him, will F1 fans finally acknowledge Vettel as one of the greats?
Over at reddit's F1 section they all hate Seb and love Kimi to the point where any logical discussion is wasted.

Beating Alonso last year made me finally concede that yes, Vettel is probably one of the 10 best-ever drivers.

But Vettel was in a Red Bull and Alonso was in a not Red Bull.

True, which is still why I rate him below Alonso, but the Red Bull was not all-conquering in the first half of the season.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:But Vettel was in a Red Bull and Alonso was in a not Red Bull.

True, which is still why I rate him below Alonso, but the Red Bull was not all-conquering in the first half of the season.

While the Red Bull was not all-conquering, it was still pretty fast, it just could not run away to pole and then easily win races from there, like they usually did in the second half. I reckon they were still 2nd fastest overall. I still think though, that Vettel is pretty much suited to explore the strengths of Red Bull like few people are and indeed got lucky with the car he dropped in. To underline my point, if you to the drivers GC after Belgium, Vettel was only 8 points ahead of Webber and you don't include Webber in GOATs talk. After Italy, Red Bull found some more cornering speed and Vettel proceeded to dominate while Webber struggled to make the car work.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:But Vettel was in a Red Bull and Alonso was in a not Red Bull.

True, which is still why I rate him below Alonso, but the Red Bull was not all-conquering in the first half of the season.

It was still comfortably better than the Ferrari though, in my opinion. But yeah, I too reckon Vettel is now one of the all time greats

In Shanghai finish line is before the pits. Therefore Gutierrez retired having completed 4 laps and Sutil after 5.

Bleu wrote:In Shanghai finish line is before the pits. Therefore Gutierrez retired having completed 4 laps and Sutil after 5.

Yeah, that's the case with most circuits - or, at least, F1 circuits. They've separated the start and finish lines.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:But Vettel was in a Red Bull and Alonso was in a not Red Bull.

True, which is still why I rate him below Alonso, but the Red Bull was not all-conquering in the first half of the season.

It was still comfortably better than the Ferrari though, in my opinion. But yeah, I too reckon Vettel is now one of the all time greats

The thing about 2012 is that neither of the first too finishers in the championship drove a competitve car for the entire year. Alonso's Ferrari had the upper hand in the first half of the year, and when Newey figured out the RB's problems midway through the year and incorporated the double diffuser, the Red Bull gained some of it's unbeatableness back from 2011. Still, the fact is, had Alonso not had those two DNFs in Belgium and Japan, and provided he got some solid points, maybe even podiums, on the board, he would have won the title.

Still, it takes some skilll to win and to challenge Alonso, and I';m not denying Vettel is a gret driver, but for me I can't think of him as an all-time great, not yet anyway. Think of all the drivers we label as an All-Time Great, all of them proved their talent in lower-end cars. Maybe they didn't get a win or podium, but they still out performed the meagre equipment they were saddled with. Vettel for me has yet to do that. Yes, you can (and probably will) say oh but Monza 2008 he won and this and that and this about that weekend. That weekend was simply down to the conditions, as Bourdais proved by qualifying right up there as well. Aside from that weekend, there's no proof he outperformed the car. We will never know, as Sebastian Bourdais is not a good comparison point (as talented as he was he never adapted to F1).And considering Bourdais was 4th when Vettel scored pole at Monza 2008....

pasta_maldonado wrote:The thing about 2012 is that neither of the first too finishers in the championship drove a competitve car for the entire year. Alonso's Ferrari had the upper hand in the first half of the year, and when Newey figured out the RB's problems midway through the year and incorporated the double diffuser, the Red Bull gained some of it's unbeatableness back from 2011. Still, the fact is, had Alonso not had those two DNFs in Belgium and Japan, and provided he got some solid points, maybe even podiums, on the board, he would have won the title.

Still, it takes some skilll to win and to challenge Alonso, and I';m not denying Vettel is a gret driver, but for me I can't think of him as an all-time great, not yet anyway. Think of all the drivers we label as an All-Time Great, all of them proved their talent in lower-end cars. Maybe they didn't get a win or podium, but they still out performed the meagre equipment they were saddled with. Vettel for me has yet to do that. Yes, you can (and probably will) say oh but Monza 2008 he won and this and that and this about that weekend. That weekend was simply down to the conditions, as Bourdais proved by qualifying right up there as well. Aside from that weekend, there's no proof he outperformed the car. We will never know, as Sebastian Bourdais is not a good comparison point (as talented as he was he never adapted to F1).And considering Bourdais was 4th when Vettel scored pole at Monza 2008....

The thing is, if you look at 2008 on the whole, he still managed to finish 8th overall, in a Toro Rosso. The only drivers ahead of him in the championship were the McLaren's, Ferrari's, BMW's and Alonso. Now, I know the 2008 Toro Rosso was by no means a bad car, but I think he delivered way more than what the car deserved. Certainly, his conduct out of the car and his attitude aren't the best, but over time, people will forget those things, and remember him for what he did in the car. I mean, look at the amount of pole positions he has. You have to have some latent speed to rack them up like he does. Also, he's won 3 titles in a row. Nobody, not even Nelson Piquet, can luck their way to 3 titles, never mind that they were done in consecutive years. Whilst I don't think he'll ever remembered as the best ever, he is certainly going to be (if he isn't already) one of the all time greats.

And just to clarify, I think Vettel is an arse.

What he did with the Toro Rosso in 2008 was good, but bear in mind that in those days it was effectively just a Red Bull anyway with a different paintscheme, engine and a few ancillaries to go with it. It's reflected in Bourdais' performance, who himself could have had a number of great results in that car, but for various reasons lost out, and ended up being terribly unlucky. Fortunately for Vettel he was in the right place at the right time, and has no doubt made the most of that.

In that sense he is comparable to someone like Piquet at Brabham in the early 80s, or Hill at Williams in the mid 90s, or even Button at Brawn in 2009. All of them were fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of excellent cars with which they used to win races and titles. Now in my opinion I'd rate Vettel probably above all of those drivers I've just mentioned, because his one lap pace and ultimate speed is often on another level. The amount of times we've seen over the past few years him race away at the front and open a gap that seems almost beyond belief is staggering. The kid has talent, and he's using it to maximum effect, which is why people may often feel a sense of injustice, that Vettel has developed a degree of entitlement because he has the best car on the grid.

The fact is though that he still has many years ahead of him, and the picture is going to change vastly by the time he considers retirement. Only then will we be able to make an accurate judgement in comparison to other GOATs like Prost, Clark, Senna, et al.

I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I mean, look at times past. Clark had THE best car on the grid when he won his titles. Same with Andretti and Lauda. Not to mention Mansell, Schumacher, Hamilton and Alonso. Yet the superiority of their machinery is barely ever brought up. (Save for Mansell but yeah.)

DonTirri wrote:I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I think theres more to it than that. People have listed other reasons for disliking him on here at least. Some of the reasons werent inane.

I always think its ironic that the year Senna and Prost won all but one race is remembered fondly, though.

CoopsII wrote:

DonTirri wrote:I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I think theres more to it than that. People have listed other reasons for disliking him on here at least. Some of the reasons werent inane.

I always think its ironic that the year Senna and Prost won all but one race is remembered fondly, though.

Although the McLarens dominated, at least there was an interesting battle between Prost and Senna. When the Red Bull was that good on 2011, Mark was practically a pushover

pasta_maldonado wrote:Although the McLarens dominated, at least there was an interesting battle between Prost and Senna. When the Red Bull was that good on 2011, Mark was practically a pushover

Very true.

DonTirri wrote:I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I mean, look at times past. Clark had THE best car on the grid when he won his titles. Same with Andretti and Lauda. Not to mention Mansell, Schumacher, Hamilton and Alonso. Yet the superiority of their machinery is barely ever brought up. (Save for Mansell but yeah.)

I'd slightly dispute a few of those - the general consensus seems to be that the MP4/23 was slightly technically inferior to the F2008 due to the fact that the FIA imposed certain restrictions on the development of certain parts of the MP4/23 that Coughlan had worked on and might have incorporated technology from the F2007 (particularly with regards to the braking system, which forced McLaren to revert to a system they'd used back in 2006 and was cited as one reason why both drivers at McLaren tended to lock their brakes more frequently than their rivals).
As for Alonso, well, that is debatable - in 2006, most observers would argue that the imposition of the ban on mass dampers meant that the 248 F1 was, in the latter half of the season, a superior car to the R26. It could also be said that, like Lauda in 1977, that in 2005 Alonso won more through reliability than outright speed (the MP4/20 was thought to be the slightly superior car, whilst in 1977 the Lotus 78 was thought to be a better car - and was favoured by Goodyear, who manufactured tyres better suited to that car rather than the 312T2 - but the fragility of the 78 knocked it out of contention).

mario wrote:

DonTirri wrote:I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I mean, look at times past. Clark had THE best car on the grid when he won his titles. Same with Andretti and Lauda. Not to mention Mansell, Schumacher, Hamilton and Alonso. Yet the superiority of their machinery is barely ever brought up. (Save for Mansell but yeah.)

I'd slightly dispute a few of those - the general consensus seems to be that the MP4/23 was slightly technically inferior to the F2008 due to the fact that the FIA imposed certain restrictions on the development of certain parts of the MP4/23 that Coughlan had worked on and might have incorporated technology from the F2007 (particularly with regards to the braking system, which forced McLaren to revert to a system they'd used back in 2006 and was cited as one reason why both drivers at McLaren tended to lock their brakes more frequently than their rivals).
As for Alonso, well, that is debatable - in 2006, most observers would argue that the imposition of the ban on mass dampers meant that the 248 F1 was, in the latter half of the season, a superior car to the R26. It could also be said that, like Lauda in 1977, that in 2005 Alonso won more through reliability than outright speed (the MP4/20 was thought to be the slightly superior car, whilst in 1977 the Lotus 78 was thought to be a better car - and was favoured by Goodyear, who manufactured tyres better suited to that car rather than the 312T2 - but the fragility of the 78 knocked it out of contention).

Plus, at the end of the season, the McLaren M26 in James Hunt's hands was very very quick as well - he could've won the last 4 races that season on the trot.

DonTirri wrote:I find it highly amusing that people keep dissing Seb on the grounds of "lolhehazdabestcar!!!!"

I mean, look at times past. Clark had THE best car on the grid when he won his titles. Same with Andretti and Lauda. Not to mention Mansell, Schumacher, Hamilton and Alonso. Yet the superiority of their machinery is barely ever brought up. (Save for Mansell but yeah.)

Exactly! It does appear as if some people think Senna won his WDC titles in a Toleman or Lotus, and Schumacher gave great performances in a Jordan etc. As for Andretti, his WDC winning car was effectively in a different Formula.

The top drivers do not get into the best cars by accident, and if they really aren't among the very best at the time they don't stop there for very long - especially these days.

DG

Why was the BAR 01 so unreliable?

darkapprentice77 wrote:Why was the BAR 01 so unreliable?

I think despite them being the old Tyrell team wasnt the car built from scratch? Fair enough I guess as the old Tyrell wouldnt have had a chance of achieving Adrian Reynards goal of Pole position at their first race

darkapprentice77 wrote:Why was the BAR 01 so unreliable?

By the looks of things, most of their problems were down to the drivetrain, with gearbox, clutch or transmission failures accounting for of their retirements due to mechanical failures. Given that the team appear to have switched suppliers for their gearbox, with Reynard forming a partnership with Xtrac for that season, it's probably the case that they underestimated the durability requirements and therefore ended up with a design that was not robust enough.

I've just found something about last year's championship which deserves to be shared, I think. It's likely that someone has already seen this - but still.

Do you remember last's years Canadian GP? Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso were racing for the win, Lewis decided to pit twice instead of once, and he came back to overtake them and win the race in the final laps. The tyre degradation was so bad that, 8 laps from the end, Red Bull decided that it would be better to bring Vettel in and take on a new set of tyres, instead of staying out until the end, as Alonso did. At the time it looked crazy, but Red Bull's decision was vindicated when, a few laps later, Vettel overtook Alonso (he had been behind before the stop).

Now, Vettel finished 4th and scored 12 points, while Alonso scored 10 points for 5th place. You are, probably, already guessing my point: if that call had never happened, the positions would never had been reversed, and therefore Vettel would have scored two less points and Alonso two more points. Now you look at the final WDC standings and understand that, at the end of the year, Red Bull's seemingly stupid call was worth a championship title.

Of course, if that result had been different everything could have changed later, and in any case we could say that Vettel lost the title because of the fuel problem at Abu Dhabi, just like right now we say that Alonso lost it because of the smallest of mistakes at Suzuka. But these are comparatively big moments in comparison with that brave, split-second decision to bring your driver in and "save the day" when most people would have tried to stay out, and I think it shows how titles (particularly, the close-fought ones) are won and lost not the good days, when you win races, but the bad ones, when you manage (or don't) to make the most out of a difficult situation.

Ferrim wrote:I've just found something about last year's championship which deserves to be shared, I think. It's likely that someone has already seen this - but still.

Do you remember last's years Canadian GP? Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso were racing for the win, Lewis decided to pit twice instead of once, and he came back to overtake them and win the race in the final laps. The tyre degradation was so bad that, 8 laps from the end, Red Bull decided that it would be better to bring Vettel in and take on a new set of tyres, instead of staying out until the end, as Alonso did. At the time it looked crazy, but Red Bull's decision was vindicated when, a few laps later, Vettel overtook Alonso (he had been behind before the stop).

Now, Vettel finished 4th and scored 12 points, while Alonso scored 10 points for 5th place. You are, probably, already guessing my point: if that call had never happened, the positions would never had been reversed, and therefore Vettel would have scored two less points and Alonso two more points. Now you look at the final WDC standings and understand that, at the end of the year, Red Bull's seemingly stupid call was worth a championship title.

Of course, if that result had been different everything could have changed later, and in any case we could say that Vettel lost the title because of the fuel problem at Abu Dhabi, just like right now we say that Alonso lost it because of the smallest of mistakes at Suzuka. But these are comparatively big moments in comparison with that brave, split-second decision to bring your driver in and "save the day" when most people would have tried to stay out, and I think it shows how titles (particularly, the close-fought ones) are won and lost not the good days, when you win races, but the bad ones, when you manage (or don't) to make the most out of a difficult situation.

You could pick out races like that for any year i guess, but yeah interesting to look at split second decisions with hindsight or after the event....

I've been wondering...

If for example Adrian Newey was given the 1982 rulebook and told "Go ahead, design a car that would be legal under these rules"... What kinda monster would he create?

And if Renault was told "Go ahead, design a 1982-legal engine for the car"... What kinda monster would we have?

With modern day F1-cars already outperforming the ground effect/Turbo-beasts of the eighties... what kind of a beast would come out if modern day tech and knowhow was used to design and build a car of that era?

Newey would probably get close to actually building the Red Bull X1. I'm not saying a carbon copy, but possibly using several cues from that.

DonTirri wrote:I've been wondering...

If for example Adrian Newey was given the 1982 rulebook and told "Go ahead, design a car that would be legal under these rules"... What kinda monster would he create?

And if Renault was told "Go ahead, design a 1982-legal engine for the car"... What kinda monster would we have?

With modern day F1-cars already outperforming the ground effect/Turbo-beasts of the eighties... what kind of a beast would come out if modern day tech and knowhow was used to design and build a car of that era?

Hah, Trackmania Stadium with its 700+ speeds springs to mind. But seriously, add the unlimited driver aides and it would be just crazy. I'd estimate nobody would be willing to drive them though, as you have minimal driver input and a VERY high risk of death if something breaks.

I wonder if there is a place to find out how long the tires last on average for each race this season...

Whatever happened to Formula One racing in Moscow?

Uncle Vlad sent it to break rocks in Siberia for the next 20 years.