Grand Prix Rejects

Rusujuur wrote: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.

No need. The car would drive for itself. Teams can do it. Hell, even I could roughly do it using a lego car fitted with sensors and some basic controlling methods and C programming with a budget of 0$ (the lego car was borrowed), then teams with millions would probably nail it.

Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

british f3 looks small this year

roblomas52 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

british f3 looks small this year

Despite the dire state it's in, the field doesn't look too bad, there's currently 16 drivers entered according to Wikipedia, with Fortec still to fill their two cars, bringing it to 18.

AndreaModa wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

british f3 looks small this year

Despite the dire state it's in, the field doesn't look too bad, there's currently 16 drivers entered according to Wikipedia, with Fortec still to fill their two cars, bringing it to 18.

It's not terrible, but it does seem to have the smallest field out of the European F3 series and has the shortest calendar too (just four different races, each one with three heats, compared to 9-10 events for, say, the German or European F3 series). However, by the looks of things the smallest F3 field is the Japanese F3 series, where, according to Wikipedia, the entry list currently sits at 13 drivers.

AndreaModa wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

british f3 looks small this year

Despite the dire state it's in, the field doesn't look too bad, there's currently 16 drivers entered according to Wikipedia, with Fortec still to fill their two cars, bringing it to 18.

the ironic thing about all of this British f3 stuff is that 7 of the best young drivers in this country, are racing in the F3 european championship including Damon Hill's son, Josh and Jann Mardenbrough who only has 1 season of experiance behind him in the British GT championship in a Nissan GTR and he nearly won the title

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

F3 Euroseries only had 12 full-time entrants in 2011, and of these only 11 lasted the whole year - Kuba Giermaziak withdrew two thirds of the way through the championship. However, with guest entries added in, they managed 16 entires at the second round of the championship at Hockenheim. Valencia had no guest entries, and Giermaziak had already withdrawn by then, so that round had the least entries, at only 11. 25% of all full-time entries were run by one team, Signature.

I challenge anyone to find a worse record than that!

Stramala wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

F3 Euroseries only had 12 full-time entrants in 2011, and of these only 11 lasted the whole year - Kuba Giermaziak withdrew two thirds of the way through the championship. However, with guest entries added in, they managed 16 entires at the second round of the championship at Hockenheim. Valencia had no guest entries, and Giermaziak had already withdrawn by then, so that round had the least entries, at only 11. 25% of all full-time entries were run by one team, Signature.

I challenge anyone to find a worse record than that!

Indy Lights this year has only 8 full time entries, down from 11 in 2012.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Stramala wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Indy Lights got me thinking, what's the smallest field an F3-level or higher racing league has ever had? Not just at one race, but as an average over the season?

F3 Euroseries only had 12 full-time entrants in 2011, and of these only 11 lasted the whole year - Kuba Giermaziak withdrew two thirds of the way through the championship. However, with guest entries added in, they managed 16 entires at the second round of the championship at Hockenheim. Valencia had no guest entries, and Giermaziak had already withdrawn by then, so that round had the least entries, at only 11. 25% of all full-time entries were run by one team, Signature.

I challenge anyone to find a worse record than that!

Indy Lights this year has only 8 full time entries, down from 11 in 2012.

That is pathetic for what is supposed to be the feeder series for the top tier of American open-wheel motorsport. Everything they had over there really has been pissed away over the past few years, both in IndyCar itself, and the categories around it.

AndreaModa wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Indy Lights this year has only 8 full time entries, down from 11 in 2012.

That is pathetic for what is supposed to be the feeder series for the top tier of American open-wheel motorsport. Everything they had over there really has been pissed away over the past few years, both in IndyCar itself, and the categories around it.

Indy Lights this year has eight entries, and Pro Mazda has twelve. Perhaps for 2014 they should be merged in some way, leaving the healthy (28 entries) U.S. F2000 intact and effectively moving it up a level?

I was wondering why the IndyCar Lights series had 8 entries in the series. When my dad overheard during the replays of the opening lap crash in Long Beach "nearly took out half the field," he thought it was a humongous (we're talking Spa 1998 big) crash. How deceptive numbers can be...

And despite the obvious low numbers, there somehow manages to be good talent in there, such as the fantastic Tristan Vautier.

JeremyMcClean wrote:I was wondering why the IndyCar Lights series had 8 entries in the series. When my dad overheard during the replays of the opening lap crash in Long Beach "nearly took out half the field," he thought it was a humongous (we're talking Spa 1998 big) crash. How deceptive numbers can be...

And despite the obvious low numbers, there somehow manages to be good talent in there, such as the fantastic Tristan Vautier.

Which is still one of the most mind boggling things I can think of. So a driver wins a championship in which only 12 other drivers are competing and ends up being a consistent front of the field challenger? I honestly wouldn't believe it if I hadn't watched him these first three races. Vautier is impressive, to say the least.

Hound55 wrote:

JeremyMcClean wrote:I was wondering why the IndyCar Lights series had 8 entries in the series. When my dad overheard during the replays of the opening lap crash in Long Beach "nearly took out half the field," he thought it was a humongous (we're talking Spa 1998 big) crash. How deceptive numbers can be...

And despite the obvious low numbers, there somehow manages to be good talent in there, such as the fantastic Tristan Vautier.

Which is still one of the most mind boggling things I can think of. So a driver wins a championship in which only 12 other drivers are competing and ends up being a consistent front of the field challenger? I honestly wouldn't believe it if I hadn't watched him these first three races. Vautier is impressive, to say the least.

Yep, just because he's beating 12 drivers instead of 20 or 25 doesn't change the skill he has. And am I the only one who'd like to see a Power/Vautier team in F1? Just as one of those crazy fantasy lineup teams?

Australian F3 has had some pretty pathetic fields in the past few years, averaging about 10 entries a race since 2009. Although it does look slightly healthier this year. Slightly being the operative word

Wizzie wrote:Australian F3 has had some pretty pathetic fields in the past few years, averaging about 10 entries a race since 2009. Although it does look slightly healthier this year. Slightly being the operative word

10 entries a race, that's a bit generous

Makes me think of how I would like James Winslow to actually race in something else other than F3

You'd struggle to actually describe it as being F3 level in terms of quality, but Nordic F3 Masters had 6 drivers at its best attended race in 2010. And then folded, unsurprisingly.

I dunno about F3-level championships..most people have already mentioned those. But this year's Formula Abarth championship has only 9 drivers confirmed thus far with just two days to go for the start of the new season. No wonder, the FIA are planning to start an official F4 series next year.
First the Italian F3 seies folded(on express request of His Highness Gerhard Berger), and now this. A sad state of affairs for Italian championships. Also, take a look at Auto GP, abother Italian series, they've got just 15 drivers, including 47-year-old Italian restaurateur Giuseppe Cipriani..not forgetting Narain Karthikeyan.
The only functional Italian championship is the one named after a mountain range: Formula Renault 2.0 Alps.

It isn't much of a series..but the 2013 Formula 3 Brazil Open had just six entrants.

I think in the early 1990s British F2 had a race where only 4 or 5 entries appeared....

Having stumbled across the entire 2005 San Marino Grand Prix on youtube, I'm now starting to believe that in time, this race will go down as the greatest of Michael Schumacher's career. I mean, after 20 laps, he was almost 40 seconds behind Alonso, yet he managed to come back and be within a few tenths of winning the thing in that crapbox of a Ferrari F2005.

i wonder what an f1 car would be like if it had...

the main body of a ferrari f2004

the engine and ground effect undertray from a lola champcar


the rear wing from a dallara dw12 in speedway spec

and the front wing (minus nosecone) from a the current ferrari f1 car


also how quick would be vs the current f1 cars

If you just put those elements together without any real optimisation, it'd probably look like quite a mess given that most of those elements were designed to very different rule sets and therefore designed to interact with different parts of the car in a very different way.
That is assuming that you could even mesh together some of those elements in the first place - the Cosworth engine would have very different cooling and packaging demands compared to the F2004's V10 engine, for example, which would have a major effect on the design of the sidepods and the side crash structure, the routing of the exhausts and many other factors. It's not to say that it would be impossible, but it would probably require a not inconsiderable amount of modifications in order to make it work.

You'd then be compounding that with other problems, such as a compromised weight distribution (the Cosworth engine would probably be heavier and taller than the contemporary V10's, whilst the lower energy content of methanol would require a much larger fuel tank in order to cover a race distance), potentially compromised suspension layouts and the possibility of issues with variable aero balances of the car.
Overall, the car might end up being such a mismatched collection of parts that it could well end up being considerably slower than any of the parent cars that were used to construct it due to the compromises that would be needed in order to fit it all together.

mario wrote:That is assuming that you could even mesh together some of those elements in the first place - the Cosworth engine would have very different cooling and packaging demands compared to the F2004's V10 engine, for example, which would have a major effect on the design of the sidepods and the side crash structure, the routing of the exhausts and many other factors. It's not to say that it would be impossible, but it would probably require a not inconsiderable amount of modifications in order to make it work.

Actually, from memory the Cosworth XFE engine from CART/Champ Car was cooled mostly by the fuel itself, so the teams would be able to get away with reducing a lot of the cooling equipment needed to run the engine. On the flip side however, while it was based on the monsters that were smashing records at places like Fontana and Michigan at the turn of the millennium, by the time 2003 came around, the engines were a shadow of their former selves with all the modifications done to it in the name of reliability. Plus, I'd imagine the power delivery of the Cosworth would be significantly different from the equivilant V10s of the era, with the Cosworth focusing on peak power at the higher rev ranges for the ovals while the V10s would be designed to have a wider power band.

Wizzie wrote:Having stumbled across the entire 2005 San Marino Grand Prix on youtube, I'm now starting to believe that in time, this race will go down as the greatest of Michael Schumacher's career. I mean, after 20 laps, he was almost 40 seconds behind Alonso, yet he managed to come back and be within a few tenths of winning the thing in that crapbox of a Ferrari F2005.

Admittedly, that car was no where near up to the standard of other Ferrari's of the same vintage, but in certain circumstances it could rival the Renaults and McLarens on pure race pace, as Schumi demonstrated at Imola. Other tracks were the car suddenly became competitive were Monaco (where he set the fastest lap of the race despite having 20 laps worth of fuel on board), Canada where he gave the rocketship that was the MP4-20 a run for its money, and Hungary, where he qualified on pole by nearly a second, and only Kimi's strategy and pace on his third stint won him the race. So yeah, the Imola race could well have been one of those few races in '05 where the Ferrari was actually competitive.

But Ferrari was awfully unlucky in Monaco.
That is where Albers spun at the Mirabeau corner, effectively holding up several cars, including both Ferraris (I think it was Barrichello that hit Coulthard, which ended up in DC's retirement?). Speaking of which, I wonder where could have DC finished. Without the Albers incident, could he have finished fourth? I don't think the Williams cars could have been caught, they were fairly competitive that time around.
I think Ferrari would have scored a 2-3. (Which they did in Canada later on anyway)

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

Wizzie wrote:Having stumbled across the entire 2005 San Marino Grand Prix on youtube, I'm now starting to believe that in time, this race will go down as the greatest of Michael Schumacher's career. I mean, after 20 laps, he was almost 40 seconds behind Alonso, yet he managed to come back and be within a few tenths of winning the thing in that crapbox of a Ferrari F2005.

Admittedly, that car was no where near up to the standard of other Ferrari's of the same vintage, but in certain circumstances it could rival the Renaults and McLarens on pure race pace, as Schumi demonstrated at Imola. Other tracks were the car suddenly became competitive were Monaco (where he set the fastest lap of the race despite having 20 laps worth of fuel on board), Canada where he gave the rocketship that was the MP4-20 a run for its money, and Hungary, where he qualified on pole by nearly a second, and only Kimi's strategy and pace on his third stint won him the race. So yeah, the Imola race could well have been one of those few races in '05 where the Ferrari was actually competitive.

I haven’t watched the 2005 San Marino GP for a few years now, but IIRC part of the reason why the Ferrari of M Schumi when so quickly during the mid part of that race, had something to do with the Bridgestone tyres. Wikipedia states;
The poor relative performance of the team's Bridgestone tyres was also cited as a reason for Ferrari's lack of performance in 2005. The Bridgestone tyres failed to give sufficient grip in qualifying and were not as durable as their Michelin rivals during races. However, the tyres provided for the San Marino Grand Prix were more competitive…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderia_Ferrari#2000s

Also I could be wrong on this, but I vaguely recall in the ITV commentary Brundle or Allen said something like those new Bridgestone tyres that Ferrari ran at Imola 2005, were designed to work especially well either after a few laps had been put on them during a race or when the Ferrari still had some fuel on board (which probably explains why M Schumi was able to set the fastest lap at Monaco 2005 despite having 20 laps worth of fuel on board). I can’t quite remember exactly which one it was they said (it might even have been both). But I do remember thinking that whichever one it was they said, helped explain (in part at least) why M Schumi suddenly when a lot quicker per lap than anyone else in that race. And IIRC still matched race pace, even after he had taken fuel on board, following his final pitstop.

I am not trying to argue it wasn’t a great drive by M Schumi. As quite clearly it was, no doubt about it. But I do feel the tyres were also a factor that contributed towards the stunning pace of the F2005 during the mid part of the 2005 San Marino GP.

2005 was the year with the one set of tyre for quali & race rule so, perhaps Bridgestone (at least their 2005 Imola spec tyres) had focusing their efforts on the latter stages of a race, rather than out & out quali speed. Also since Barrichello retired after 18 laps in that race. Can we compare Rubens performance to M Schumi’s performance to say how much of it was down to the Bridgestone tyres suddenly switching on under race conditions. And how much of it was down to M Schumi driving out of his skin that day? (I honestly don’t know the answer to this question & unfortunately don’t really have the time to look into it at the moment).

Also worth remembering that M Schumi made a mistake during his Q2 lap, IIRC locking up massively into the 1st Rivazza. And had been 3rd after Q1, only 0.4 tenths off Kimi. So it does seem that the F2005 (which was still pretty new for that race) had some inherent speed in the car wasn’t able to show it in the early laps of Imola 2005 since he had been held up behind Trulli. Also worth remembering that Ferrari typically go better in races than they do in quali. Not only is this the case today, but I’ve recently been watching the 1999 Hungarian GP, where ITV did a feature on how Ferrari had historically gone much faster in race conditions than their rivals like Williams in 1997 or Mclaren in 1998 & 1999. So one would also expect that to have also been the case in 2005 (although again I can’t be sure on this without double checking certain things on this).

Now for some more unpopular opinions:

Great Britain hasn't had a worthy champion since Jackie Stewart.
no, seriously. Let's look at the British champions since Sir Jackie and the years they won the title.

James Hunt 1976: Yes, Hunt was a good driver. But let's face it, If Lauda didn't have his Nurburgring crash, he wouldn'tve had won the title. After all, it took a messy rain-race and Lauda's early retirement for him to win it in the first place.
Nigel Mansell 1992: What can be said about the 92 Williams that hasn't been said before? Anybody could've won the title on that particular car. Yes, Mansell was good, but he wasn't a championship-grade driver.
Damon Hill 1996: Again, the car and the weakness of the opposition contributed a LOT to Hill's title. I mean, he ALMOST got beat by Jacques Effin Villeneuve in the canucks debut season driving the same car. Again, a good driver, but not really Championship Grade.
Lewis Hamilton 2008: When your closest opposition is Felipe Massa, can you say you were really challenged for the title? And even then, the title was open until the last corner of the last lap of the last race.
Jenson Button 2009: He lucked into a worldbeater of a car and took the title. Nuff said.


Yes, Great Britain has had a lot of good drivers since Jackie, drivers who can win and be quick. But none of the Brits since him have been Championship Grade. None of them have been the kind who challenge consistently for the championship or who can fight on regardless of their machinery on a consistent level. It is very telling that after Jackie there has been 8 drivers who have won more than 1 championship (9 if you count Emmo) and none of them have been brits. And if you look at the post-title years of the British champions after Jackie, it is very telling aswell.

Hunt: Managed 5th with 3 wins on his defending year, and didn't have a single win afterwards.
Mansell: Threw his toys out of the pram and left for Indycar. Managed a single win in the entirety of his remaining F1 career before becoming a joke in the paddock.
Hill: Managed a single win the rest of his career. Nuff said.
Hamilton: Has been quick and won races, but hasn't been on the fight for the title since his championship win. Has earned the reputation of being a whiner and a reckless driver. Granted, still has years left on his career, but with the likes of Alonso, Vettel, Räikkönen and whatnot on the field... It is unlikely he can repeat his win.
Button: Joined Macca after his titlewin, was consistently beaten by Lewis outside of 2011 when he was the best of the rest on a year when nobody could touch Vettel. Has some flashes of brilliance but doesn't have the consistency to repeat his title.

I know this will probably be taken very pointedly by many, but that is the way I see things.

DonTirri wrote:Now for some more unpopular opinions:

Great Britain hasn't had a worthy champion since Jackie Stewart.
no, seriously. Let's look at the British champions since Sir Jackie and the years they won the title.

Nigel Mansell 1992: What can be said about the 92 Williams that hasn't been said before? Anybody could've won the title on that particular car. Yes, Mansell was good, but he wasn't a championship-grade driver.

Still beat Patrese by a heck of a margin though, didn't he? Anybody could have won the title in that particular car? But Patrese didn't. Nowhere near. Mansell had it sewn up by Hungary. In mid-August. Over Patrese. And you criticise Hill for not winning the title sooner...

DonTirri wrote:James Hunt 1976: Yes, Hunt was a good driver. But let's face it, If Lauda didn't have his Nurburgring crash, he wouldn'tve had won the title. After all, it took a messy rain-race and Lauda's early retirement for him to win it in the first place.

Hunt: Managed 5th with 3 wins on his defending year, and didn't have a single win afterwards.

This is true, but Hunt's talent was worthy of a title, IMO. Unfortunately, the McLaren M26 was not all that great a car and heralded McLaren's loss in form until Ron Dennis came along, and so Hunt's star waned before he could secure another title. Still though, he could've won the last 4 races on the trot in 1977, which given the M26 he had, was no small feat. The Hunt-M26 combo was actually the second quickest in F1, after the Andretti-Lotus 78 combo (which was a much superior car).

Lewis Hamilton 2008: When your closest opposition is Felipe Massa, can you say you were really challenged for the title?

Well, given that Massa overcame Kimi Raikkonen to become Hamilton's main challenger, yes. Yes you can. Until Hungary 2009, Massa was a force to be reckoned with. He wasn't the best driver on the grid by any means, don't get me wrong, but he was more than capable of holding his own.

Hamilton: Has been quick and won races, but hasn't been on the fight for the title since his championship win.

Uh, 2010? Yeah, he was an outsider, but he was as much in the fight as Raikkonen was in 2007. And in 2012 he would've won the title if McLaren didn't keep finding new ways to throw both titles down the gutter.

Jenson Button 2009: He lucked into a worldbeater of a car and took the title. Nuff said.

The Brawn was only the best car in the field for the first 7 races at most. After that, Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren all caught up and passed Brawn.

dr-baker wrote:

DonTirri wrote:Now for some more unpopular opinions:

Great Britain hasn't had a worthy champion since Jackie Stewart.
no, seriously. Let's look at the British champions since Sir Jackie and the years they won the title.

Nigel Mansell 1992: What can be said about the 92 Williams that hasn't been said before? Anybody could've won the title on that particular car. Yes, Mansell was good, but he wasn't a championship-grade driver.

Still beat Patrese by a heck of a margin though, didn't he? Anybody could have won the title in that particular car? But Patrese didn't. Nowhere near. Mansell had it sewn up by Hungary. In mid-August. Over Patrese. And you criticise Hill for not winning the title sooner...

Of course Patrese couldn't have won the title! He was the most obvious number 2 of all time until Barrichello joined Ferrari! And if you need team support over Riccardo freaking Patrese...

Whilst the relative merits of some of those drivers could be debated, on the other hand the context in which those drivers competed in should also be borne in mind.

In the case of James Hunt, for example, it is worth bearing in mind that McLaren were still relying on the M23 until mid 1977 - a car that could trace its design back until 1973 and which Hunt himself likened to a museum piece. Hell, even back in 1974, whilst Fittipaldi was relatively impressed by the performance of the car at high speed tracks, he acknowledged that it was quite poor at bumpy tracks and was not massively superior to the Lotus 72
When you consider the rate of development of the 312T2 - Ferrari had a full scale testing program and managed to bring in track specific updates, something which was virtually unheard of at the time, whereas McLaren didn't even have a test driver to test the car at the time - it is perhaps not entirely surprising that the 312T2 was a superior car to the M23 and M26 Hunt had at his disposal. Similarly, Lotus had, in the 78 and 79, a car that was technically quite far ahead of its rivals in terms of aerodynamics, whilst Ligier and Williams would, in turn, lead the way with chassis design in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Coppuck, by contrast, was still designing relatively conservative cars that were out of date - the M28, the successor to the M26, was a real disaster and, had the tobacco company Philip Morris not intervened, would probably have destroyed the team.

As for some of the later combinations, well, in the case of Mansell the technological advancements of the car are undeniable (even if Newey did later admit that the car was harder to drive than some thought because of some of the quirks of the active suspension system); as for Damon Hill, well, perhaps in some ways the manner in which he won his title was somewhat appropriate (more through hard graft than pure talent) given that some felt that was also the same for his father.
As for Hamilton and 2008, as others have pointed out that wasn't the only occasion when Hamilton was in the title fight - he still had a mathematical chance of winning the title in 2010 in the final race, so your comment is a little wide of the mark there. As for Button, well, whilst he was fortunate enough to be in a good car at the right time, he also managed to take advantage of it in a way that Vettel didn't - it could be pointed out that, had he not crashed into Kubica in the opening round in Australia, he might well have picked up 3rd place in that race, whilst had he not crashed out of the Monaco GP when looking set for 4th at the very least he'd have been even closer still.

Sounds like you're a bit sore that Britain have had the success that they've had over the years DonTirri!

You could quite easily turn the tables and say that really, Finland has only had one deserving champion, and that being Hakkinen.

Rosberg was lucky that just one win was enough in 1982 in a season which had Villeneuve killed, Piquet off-colour and the Renaults as unreliable as ever.

And then Raikkonen, who only won in 2007 because Hamilton and Alonso self-destructed at McLaren. Either of them could have won the title, but instead Kimi got lucky and won instead.

To be honest, you can very easily discredit the achievement of any champion if it suits your thesis, while it's just as simple to overstate it. Renders any discussion such as this an endless redundant roundabout.

shinji wrote:To be honest, you can very easily discredit the achievement of any champion if it suits your thesis, while it's just as simple to overstate it. Renders any discussion such as this an endless redundant roundabout.

Exactly. That was my point.

AndreaModa wrote: Rosberg was lucky that just one win was enough in 1982 in a season which had Villeneuve killed, Piquet off-colour and the Renaults as unreliable as ever.

And then Raikkonen, who only won in 2007 because Hamilton and Alonso self-destructed at McLaren. Either of them could have won the title, but instead Kimi got lucky and won instead.

1. Nobody who watches the 1982 season can/should forget Didier Pironi.

2. Raikkonen got lucky in 2007? Without the reliability failures in Barcelona, Nurburgring and Monza, he would have strolled to the title. In contrast, Hamilton's only reliability glitch was a misfiring gearbox at Brazil, and the origin of that too is disputed.

wsrgo wrote:\
2. Raikkonen got lucky in 2007? Without the reliability failures in Barcelona, Nurburgring and Monza, he would have strolled to the title. In contrast, Hamilton's only reliability glitch was a misfiring gearbox at Brazil, and the origin of that too is disputed.

Hamilton blew an almost two race lead over Raikkonen in the final two races. That's virtually unheard of anywhere in motorsport.

wsrgo wrote:

AndreaModa wrote: Rosberg was lucky that just one win was enough in 1982 in a season which had Villeneuve killed, Piquet off-colour and the Renaults as unreliable as ever.

And then Raikkonen, who only won in 2007 because Hamilton and Alonso self-destructed at McLaren. Either of them could have won the title, but instead Kimi got lucky and won instead.

1. Nobody who watches the 1982 season can/should forget Didier Pironi.

2. Raikkonen got lucky in 2007? Without the reliability failures in Barcelona, Nurburgring and Monza, he would have strolled to the title. In contrast, Hamilton's only reliability glitch was a misfiring gearbox at Brazil, and the origin of that too is disputed.

Dude, relax, it was a joke. As Shinji points out above, you can take pretty much any season and say the person that won the championship "lucked into it" by being selective with your argument. That was my point about DonTirri saying Britain hasn't had a deserving champion since Stewart.

AndreaModa wrote:

wsrgo wrote:

AndreaModa wrote: Rosberg was lucky that just one win was enough in 1982 in a season which had Villeneuve killed, Piquet off-colour and the Renaults as unreliable as ever.

And then Raikkonen, who only won in 2007 because Hamilton and Alonso self-destructed at McLaren. Either of them could have won the title, but instead Kimi got lucky and won instead.

1. Nobody who watches the 1982 season can/should forget Didier Pironi.

2. Raikkonen got lucky in 2007? Without the reliability failures in Barcelona, Nurburgring and Monza, he would have strolled to the title. In contrast, Hamilton's only reliability glitch was a misfiring gearbox at Brazil, and the origin of that too is disputed.

Dude, relax, it was a joke. As Shinji points out above, you can take pretty much any season and say the person that won the championship "lucked into it" by being selective with your argument. That was my point about DonTirri saying Britain hasn't had a deserving champion since Stewart.

Aah, sorry, should have read all the comments..

No worries mate, it's all good!

Here's something I've been pondering recently, I've been wondering what F1 would look like today if Briatore, Dennis and Motezemolo were all still in the frontline of F1 politics? They all disappeared at roughly the same time around 2008/9 and in their wake we've had the relatively mild Whitmarsh, Boullier and Domenicalli. Would F1 be in a better or worse place with the fiery characters that we all loved/hated?

AndreaModa wrote:No worries mate, it's all good!

Here's something I've been pondering recently, I've been wondering what F1 would look like today if Briatore, Dennis and Motezemolo were all still in the frontline of F1 politics? They all disappeared at roughly the same time around 2008/9 and in their wake we've had the relatively mild Whitmarsh, Boullier and Domenicalli. Would F1 be in a better or worse place with the fiery characters that we all loved/hated?

I think it would be worse. Personally, I feel that the head honchos of today know that F1 is teetering on the brink of commercial viability and thus they're working towards making F1 an easier place financially. If we still had the "old guard" I feel that they'd be set in their old ways to an extent and wouldn't be as open to the changes that are being made today.

With Flav, Ron and Luca we wouldn't be going towards V6s in 2014.

Ataxia wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:No worries mate, it's all good!

Here's something I've been pondering recently, I've been wondering what F1 would look like today if Briatore, Dennis and Motezemolo were all still in the frontline of F1 politics? They all disappeared at roughly the same time around 2008/9 and in their wake we've had the relatively mild Whitmarsh, Boullier and Domenicalli. Would F1 be in a better or worse place with the fiery characters that we all loved/hated?

I think it would be worse. Personally, I feel that the head honchos of today know that F1 is teetering on the brink of commercial viability and thus they're working towards making F1 an easier place financially. If we still had the "old guard" I feel that they'd be set in their old ways to an extent and wouldn't be as open to the changes that are being made today.

With Flav, Ron and Luca we wouldn't be going towards V6s in 2014.

I'd also have to agree that, on balance, the sport would probably be in a worse position given that all three of those figures would probably be at loggerheads on a regular basis (especially given Flavio's close ties with Bernie in the past).
OK, Domenicali was hard enough to persuade over the decision to switch to turbo engines - Ferrari still dug their heels in for some time over that matter - but Montezemolo, whilst pushing for more road relevance, probably would have been even more against the turbo engines proposed for 2014. Flavio, meanwhile, revelled in the glamour of the sport and the ostentatious show of wealth - the prospect of him agreeing to budget caps would have been unlikely, especially if Bernie was willing to give him a slightly better cut of the TV rights money in return for acting as a disruptive force within FOTA.