Grand Prix Rejects

AdrianSutil wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

mario wrote:That could be just as bad, and perhaps worse - remember those milk adverts that Webber did?

Been a while since I heard them. I would say don't quit your day job Mark, but we know how that's been this season.

Ouch!! Put your claws away

I admit that was harsh, I'm usually singing his praises.

http://www.itv.com/formula1/news/2011/10/ross-brawn-q3-no-shows-not-all-bad-1965/

Er Ross, what about the thousands of spectators who pay through the nose to watch quali, and then only see 6 or 7 cars in whats supposed to be the main event of Saturday? Idiot!

East Londoner wrote:http://www.itv.com/formula1/news/2011/10/ross-brawn-q3-no-shows-not-all-bad-1965/

Er Ross, what about the thousands of spectators who pay through the nose to watch quali, and then only see 6 or 7 cars in whats supposed to be the main event of Saturday? Idiot!

I think that this is a clear example of the Ecclestone initiated policy which has recently become the general F1 policy (FIA appears to be an exception in a few points): Bathplug the fans.

For a brief period World Rally Championship was better than F1.

2000-2003.

Although to be fair, in 2002 Gronholm did destory everyone much like Schumacher the same year - minus the cheating of course.

kostas22 wrote:For a brief period World Rally Championship was better than F1.

2000-2003.

Although to be fair, in 2002 Gronholm did destory everyone much like Schumacher the same year - minus the cheating of course.

2000 and 2003 were great seasons in F1, I don't know how good WRC was back then though. The only WRC game i ever had was the 2004 one.

redbulljack14 wrote:

kostas22 wrote:For a brief period World Rally Championship was better than F1.

2000-2003.

Although to be fair, in 2002 Gronholm did destory everyone much like Schumacher the same year - minus the cheating of course.

2000 and 2003 were great seasons in F1, I don't know how good WRC was back then though. The only WRC game i ever had was the 2004 one.

The 2001 season makes any championship battle in any sport since the beginning of time look tame. Makinen's early dominance gave the declining Mitsubishi team false hope of a return to the glory days, followed by McRae's stunning mid-season comeback after failing to score a single point in the first four rounds, Marcus Gronholm trying desperately to regain his dignity after scoring 4 points in the first 8 rounds, Richard Burns always coming close but never getting the glory at rally after rally, and a young hotshot named Sebastien Loeb announcing himself to the world at Sanremo...

And the finale, the heartbreak (or joy, depending on which camp you're in) of it all...

The entire season is on YouTube to watch. I suggest you have a look someday, it was one hell of a rollercoaster when it happened.

I'm too young to have watched 'Football Italia', so I don't get the worship that that show got. I'm also too young for C4's coverage of the NFL. But their coverage of the WRC, beginning in 2001, was brilliant and I didn't miss a rally from 2001 to 2004. Now, however, I couldn't tell you who was even leading the championship. I assume it's Loeb. It's just tucked away on (I believe) ITV4.

The BBC could do worse than replace F1 with fully-fledged WRC coverage.

kostas22 wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

kostas22 wrote:For a brief period World Rally Championship was better than F1.

2000-2003.

Although to be fair, in 2002 Gronholm did destory everyone much like Schumacher the same year - minus the cheating of course.

2000 and 2003 were great seasons in F1, I don't know how good WRC was back then though. The only WRC game i ever had was the 2004 one.

The 2001 season makes any championship battle in any sport since the beginning of time look tame. Makinen's early dominance gave the declining Mitsubishi team false hope of a return to the glory days, followed by McRae's stunning mid-season comeback after failing to score a single point in the first four rounds, Marcus Gronholm trying desperately to regain his dignity after scoring 4 points in the first 8 rounds, Richard Burns always coming close but never getting the glory at rally after rally, and a young hotshot named Sebastien Loeb announcing himself to the world at Sanremo...

And the finale, the heartbreak (or joy, depending on which camp you're in) of it all...

The entire season is on YouTube to watch. I suggest you have a look someday, it was one hell of a rollercoaster when it happened.

And I have not forgiven Mitsubishi for debuting the WRC car in the end of the season... I have, since that year, been convinced that Makinen would've won the title if Mitsubishi had run the GR.A car for the whole season.

kostas22 wrote:The 2001 season makes any championship battle in any sport since the beginning of time look tame. Makinen's early dominance gave the declining Mitsubishi team false hope of a return to the glory days, followed by McRae's stunning mid-season comeback after failing to score a single point in the first four rounds, Marcus Gronholm trying desperately to regain his dignity after scoring 4 points in the first 8 rounds, Richard Burns always coming close but never getting the glory at rally after rally, and a young hotshot named Sebastien Loeb announcing himself to the world at Sanremo...

Frankly, I say Makinen could have taken the crown if Mitsubishi didn't introduce the Lancer Evo WRC.

Myrvold wrote:
And I have not forgiven Mitsubishi for debuting the WRC car in the end of the season... I have, since that year, been convinced that Makinen would've won the title if Mitsubishi had run the GR.A car for the whole season.

Indeed! How did they fluff up so badly with the Evo VII I'll never know. Mäkkinen then went to Subaru and slowly faded to black

I would love to keep up with WRC, but sadly, Speed doesn't show it, at all. My cable provider doesn't provide Speed 2, which I assume it would show on, and there aren't any other cable providers in Jamaica considering this isn't a very large first world country.

JeanDenisAlcatraz wrote:I'm too young to have watched 'Football Italia', so I don't get the worship that that show got. I'm also too young for C4's coverage of the NFL. But their coverage of the WRC, beginning in 2001, was brilliant and I didn't miss a rally from 2001 to 2004. Now, however, I couldn't tell you who was even leading the championship. I assume it's Loeb. It's just tucked away on (I believe) ITV4.

The BBC could do worse than replace F1 with fully-fledged WRC coverage.

It's on ESPN nowadays. The coverage is so-so, they just broadcast the pre-packaged highlights produced by North One TV once whatever live Serie A/Bundesliga game is finished at about 10pm.

And yes, as part of my proposed 'BBC Sport' channel idea, they should really bring in WRC. Considering how few channels want it right now, it should be pretty cheap, just before Mini become competitive and VW show up, which will hopefully improve the standard of racing - and, of course, time is ticking against Loeb, he will have to retire within the next 5 years surely.

As for Football Italia, James Richardson brought a level of sophistication to footie coverage which had not been seen before nor has been seen since. His paper reviews for The Guardian are still done in the same style he used while presenting Gazzetta Football Italia. Heck, he's so talented as a sports presenter he could probably have a respectable go at F1. AND he also presented the NFL coverage you mentioned.

Why can't it be a requirement for F1 cars to have the car number visible on the nose? When I mean on the nose, I don't mean on the bargeboards or on the front bathplugging wing.

Cynon wrote:Why can't it be a requirement for F1 cars to have the car number visible on the nose? When I mean on the nose, I don't mean on the bargeboards or on the front bathplugging wing.

I thought all the cars had then this year. Do you struggle to tell the difference between two drivers in the same team?

AdrianSutil wrote:

Cynon wrote:Why can't it be a requirement for F1 cars to have the car number visible on the nose? When I mean on the nose, I don't mean on the bargeboards or on the front bathplugging wing.

I thought all the cars had then this year. Do you struggle to tell the difference between two drivers in the same team?

No, it's just a pet peeve of mine. I hate having to identify drivers by the color of the T-camera or by the few drivers whose helmet designs I recognize.

kostas22 wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

kostas22 wrote:For a brief period World Rally Championship was better than F1.

2000-2003.

Although to be fair, in 2002 Gronholm did destory everyone much like Schumacher the same year - minus the cheating of course.

2000 and 2003 were great seasons in F1, I don't know how good WRC was back then though. The only WRC game i ever had was the 2004 one.

The 2001 season makes any championship battle in any sport since the beginning of time look tame. Makinen's early dominance gave the declining Mitsubishi team false hope of a return to the glory days, followed by McRae's stunning mid-season comeback after failing to score a single point in the first four rounds, Marcus Gronholm trying desperately to regain his dignity after scoring 4 points in the first 8 rounds, Richard Burns always coming close but never getting the glory at rally after rally, and a young hotshot named Sebastien Loeb announcing himself to the world at Sanremo...

And the finale, the heartbreak (or joy, depending on which camp you're in) of it all...

The entire season is on YouTube to watch. I suggest you have a look someday, it was one hell of a rollercoaster when it happened.

1998 was also a great season. It was just an amazing battle between Sainz, and Makkinen fighting for their third drivers championship. Sainz scoring consistently throughout the season, while Makkinen bounced back after a bad first half. Getting a hat trick of wins in the dying rallies in the process. Then came the unbelievable finale in England. I won't spoil it for those who don't know, but it's just something you have to see to believe.

Cynon wrote:Why can't it be a requirement for F1 cars to have the car number visible on the nose? When I mean on the nose, I don't mean on the bargeboards or on the front bathplugging wing.

I would rather see a big, clear number on the rear-wing endplate, so the numbers were visible from the side. Or else on the sidepod like Williams or engine cover like the HRT.

dr-baker wrote:

Cynon wrote:Why can't it be a requirement for F1 cars to have the car number visible on the nose? When I mean on the nose, I don't mean on the bargeboards or on the front bathplugging wing.

I would rather see a big, clear number on the rear-wing endplate, so the numbers were visible from the side. Or else on the sidepod like Williams or engine cover like the HRT.

I would rather see both -- big numers on rear wing endplates and on the nose.

Bernie really needs to stop thinking of new places to hold grand prixs. We already have 25 or so possible locations already!

2 rants for today.

1- Oh will you just shut up Montezemolo? I know Ferrari is the longest serving team in F1 and it is important for F1 revenues but I have a newsflash for you: no one is indispensable in this world. No one! So, if you want out, then what I have to say to F1 about you is just this.

2- Kyle Bush should be banned from all forms of motorsport from this weekend forward for a large period of time. He is a very dangerous guy to himself and other drivers. He need to calm down and think about his actions, specially when they came after a dark month in motorsport.

DanielPT wrote:2 rants for today.

1- Oh will you just shut up Montezemolo? I know Ferrari is the longest serving team in F1 and it is important for F1 revenues but I have a newsflash for you: no one is indispensable in this world. No one! So, if you want out, then what I have to say to F1 about you is just this.

2- Kyle Bush should be banned from all forms of motorsport from this weekend forward for a large period of time. He is a very dangerous guy to himself and other drivers. He need to calm down and think about his actions, specially when they came after a dark month in motorsport.

I assume that your comments over Montezemolo refer to the comments in this article - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95966 - in which it appears that Di Montezemolo, again, is threatening to pull Ferrari out of F1 (though I do agree with his comments about the current formula being too heavily dominated by aerodynamics, given that the current engine freeze and other technical restrictions leave aerodynamics as the only avenue of development these days). Against that, Ferrari have been pretty quick to play down those remarks, suggesting that somebody has misinterpreted Luca's comments - make of that what you will. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95990

And as for Kyle Bush, whilst the current penalty he has been given is pretty lenient given the stupidity of his actions, it is worth noting that the governing body of NASCAR haven't closed the matter. As things stand, they are, I believe, considering the possibility of taking further action against him, and I do think that, given the malicious intent behind his move, he should be penalised more heavily to deter other drivers from doing the same thing.

mario wrote:And as for Kyle Bush, whilst the current penalty he has been given is pretty lenient given the stupidity of his actions, it is worth noting that the governing body of NASCAR haven't closed the matter. As things stand, they are, I believe, considering the possibility of taking further action against him, and I do think that, given the malicious intent behind his move, he should be penalised more heavily to deter other drivers from doing the same thing.

Last night in Texas, during the race, I heard the commentators speaking of the possibility that he might get fired by Joe Gibbs. Don't know if it will come into fruition though...


And yes, those were the Montezemolo comments I was referring to. I growing weary of him...

Watching the incident, I think Kyle Busch should be banned from all forms of motorsport. He's not a racing driver anymore. He's a hazard to every driver on the track, including himself. It's not that he wrecked a championship contender, it's that he overreacted to the slightest of brushes with the wall, when Hornaday's damage was already worse.

As I'm not really in sync with NASCAR, what was this incident all about and what happened?

East Londoner wrote:As I'm not really in sync with NASCAR, what was this incident all about and what happened?

This.

DanielPT wrote:

East Londoner wrote:As I'm not really in sync with NASCAR, what was this incident all about and what happened?

This.

Bathplug. They've only gone and rated it 18+, and I never use my account anymore

East Londoner wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

East Londoner wrote:As I'm not really in sync with NASCAR, what was this incident all about and what happened?

This.

Bathplug. They've only gone and rated it 18+, and I never use my account anymore

How about this one?

What a moron! I have to agree, considering what has happened in the past month, he should be banned for an indeterminate period of time. That was unbelievable!

DanielPT wrote:This.

What the bathplug has that guy been smokin'? That incident makes Senna's attempt at killing Prost in 1990 look like a harmless contact.

Forget Deletraz, what is Busch doing?

Making Hamilton look like Heidfeld

Klon wrote:

DanielPT wrote:This.

What the bathplug has that guy been smokin'? That incident makes Senna's attempt at killing Prost in 1990 look like a harmless contact.

NASCAR has a system in place called; "Have at it boys", by allowing drivers to settle their problems with each other on the track to avoid officialdom intervention. Basically, it's a legalized version of letting people drive like clowns and getting away with it. I've been a NASCAR fan since late 1993 and I don't like "have at it boys" because it's a stupid gimmick that needs to get out. It makes for good promotional material, but that's it.

Kyle Busch's stunt was pretty bad, but I was pretty surprised NASCAR parked their golden boy (who I'm sure will wear this incident like a badge of honor), especially after Carl Edwards took Brad Keselowski out of 7th while Edwards was 156 laps down.

NASCAR doesn't like to park drivers because the sponsors have more power in NASCAR than they do in every other form of motorsport put together. If you have a lot of big sponsors with you, NASCAR will tend to leave you alone. If you don't have a big sponsor backing you, you may find that your engine is magically oversized (after it fails on you in a non-points race) or that your front nose is not an approved part because the manufacturer gave you a piece with an incorrect decal outline.

Meaning, quite literally, three quarters of the field is comprised of pay drivers.

Cynon wrote:

Klon wrote:

DanielPT wrote:This.

What the bathplug has that guy been smokin'? That incident makes Senna's attempt at killing Prost in 1990 look like a harmless contact.

NASCAR has a system in place called; "Have at it boys", by allowing drivers to settle their problems with each other on the track to avoid officialdom intervention. Basically, it's a legalized version of letting people drive like clowns and getting away with it. I've been a NASCAR fan since late 1993 and I don't like "have at it boys" because it's a stupid gimmick that needs to get out. It makes for good promotional material, but that's it.

Kyle Busch's stunt was pretty bad, but I was pretty surprised NASCAR parked their golden boy (who I'm sure will wear this incident like a badge of honor), especially after Carl Edwards took Brad Keselowski out of 7th while Edwards was 156 laps down.

NASCAR doesn't like to park drivers because the sponsors have more power in NASCAR than they do in every other form of motorsport put together. If you have a lot of big sponsors with you, NASCAR will tend to leave you alone. If you don't have a big sponsor backing you, you may find that your engine is magically oversized (after it fails on you in a non-points race) or that your front nose is not an approved part because the manufacturer gave you a piece with an incorrect decal outline.

Meaning, quite literally, three quarters of the field is comprised of pay drivers.

So, NASCAR is commercialized due to sponsors?

(Edited due to post change in the quote)

FMecha wrote::shock:

So, NASCAR is commercialized due to sponsors?

Yes.

The only drivers I can think of that aren't paydrivers are;
Matt Kenseth
David Gilliland
J.J. Yeley
Mike Bliss
Marcos Ambrose
A.J. Allmendinger
Robby Gordon (are you a pay driver if you are the driver, owner of the team, AND owner of the sponsor? Even if you replace yourself in the car for a few races to see how other drivers can do in the same car?)
Brian Vickers
Regan Smith (the sponsor owns the team)
Jeff Gordon
Bobby Labonte*
Michael McDowell (Champ Car Reject)

* Not really a pay driver, but is only still in the series because he has a provisional starting place because he is a past series champion.

By the basic definition of pay driver, yes, most everyone in NASCAR is a pay driver because most teams (except, in an interesting twist, the teams at the back of the grid) won't take a driver unless they either have a sponsor, can get a sponsor pretty quickly, or are really really good. Jack Roush will run cars without sponsors on them and fork out the cash by himself if he thinks they're good enough.

^ Unfortunately, I have changed my question when you edited your post...

I may piss off a few NASCAR fans here, but this "have at it boys" attitude is completely and utterly disgusting. It's all well
and good penalising drivers for dangerous crashes, but lettng them think they can do it in the first place is downright dangerous. I may have missed the whole In's-and-out's of the 'rule' but the last two videos, especially Keselowski (sp?), just goes to show it's still a dangerous racing series. Imagine if that happened between two F1 drivers, or any form of open-wheelers? There would be the mother of all crashes. Safety in motorsport will only stretch so far.

Cynon wrote:

Klon wrote:

DanielPT wrote:This.

What the bathplug has that guy been smokin'? That incident makes Senna's attempt at killing Prost in 1990 look like a harmless contact.

NASCAR has a system in place called; "Have at it boys", by allowing drivers to settle their problems with each other on the track to avoid officialdom intervention. Basically, it's a legalized version of letting people drive like clowns and getting away with it. I've been a NASCAR fan since late 1993 and I don't like "have at it boys" because it's a stupid gimmick that needs to get out. It makes for good promotional material, but that's it.

That rule came to my knowledge during the race last weekend (which, by the way, I stopped watching after the first fake caution came into force about 80 laps or so into the race), and boy, it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It disregards completely the safety of the drivers, the safety of both circuit and teams staff and the safety of the crowd (that incident between Edwards and Keselowski could have been far worse) and for nothing really, since as F1/WRC/MotoGP/whatever proves, you can still have great rivalries without that crap rule (can a rule that pre-empts officialdom be a rule?). I know it is another world (it is not a penalty galore like F1 which I don't like since it is based on safety grounds and they are over-pushing it) and that tin tops are a bit safer, but hey, it wasn't that long ago that all NASCAR world was grieving Dale Earnhardt.

Cynon wrote:NASCAR doesn't like to park drivers because the sponsors have more power in NASCAR than they do in every other form of motorsport put together. If you have a lot of big sponsors with you, NASCAR will tend to leave you alone. If you don't have a big sponsor backing you, you may find that your engine is magically oversized (after it fails on you in a non-points race) or that your front nose is not an approved part because the manufacturer gave you a piece with an incorrect decal outline.

To summarise, NASCAR officialdom is a joke. If your testimony doesn't proves it completely, then this does...

It pisses me off since I was enjoying this year's cup chase.

I'll say the one reason why we can have great rivalries and sometimes amazing racing in MotoGP/WRC/F1 without consequences like we see in NASCAR is because they are run by the FIA/FIM and as such are above the requests and demands of sponsors. I'm not disputing the can of worms over which side of the Atlantic is better, I'm just pointing out that NASCAR and other forms of motorsport in the US could go a long way to helping themselves by correctly aligning themselves with the international motorsport governing bodies.

AdrianSutil wrote:I may piss off a few NASCAR fans here, but this "have at it boys" attitude is completely and utterly disgusting. It's all well
and good penalising drivers for dangerous crashes, but lettng them think they can do it in the first place is downright dangerous. I may have missed the whole In's-and-out's of the 'rule' but the last two videos, especially Keselowski (sp?), just goes to show it's still a dangerous racing series. Imagine if that happened between two F1 drivers, or any form of open-wheelers? There would be the mother of all crashes. Safety in motorsport will only stretch so far.

NASCAR has the safest cars in all of racing, period. The only injury coming from a crash in NASCAR was a freak accident where Brad Keselowski's brakes failed during a test at Road Atlanta. He was racing the next weekend, and he won quite easily. There has been a lot of very amateurish driving in NASCAR this year, and for that to be the only injury is quite amazing.

AndreaModa wrote:I'll say the one reason why we can have great rivalries and sometimes amazing racing in MotoGP/WRC/F1 without consequences like we see in NASCAR is because they are run by the FIA/FIM and as such are above the requests and demands of sponsors. I'm not disputing the can of worms over which side of the Atlantic is better, I'm just pointing out that NASCAR and other forms of motorsport in the US could go a long way to helping themselves by correctly aligning themselves with the international motorsport governing bodies.

What does NASCAR have to gain by aligning itself with the FIA? If it aligns itself with the FIA, it will not be the top dog in the eyes of the FIA, which is certainly what it would want. NASCAR itself sanctions a hell of a lot more races in the US than most people on the forum know about, not just its three major touring series, but weekly races at little tracks all across America. NASCAR by extension owns a lot of its own tracks as well.

DanielPT wrote:That rule came to my knowledge during the race last weekend (which, by the way, I stopped watching after the first fake caution came into force about 80 laps or so into the race), and boy, it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It disregards completely the safety of the drivers, the safety of both circuit and teams staff and the safety of the crowd (that incident between Edwards and Keselowski could have been far worse) and for nothing really, since as F1/WRC/MotoGP/whatever proves, you can still have great rivalries without that crap rule (can a rule that pre-empts officialdom be a rule?). I know it is another world (it is not a penalty galore like F1 which I don't like since it is based on safety grounds and they are over-pushing it) and that tin tops are a bit safer, but hey, it wasn't that long ago that all NASCAR world was grieving Dale Earnhardt.

NASCAR is well aware that their cars are basically racing tanks. You have a greater chance of being hurt on a tricycle than in a NASCAR car.

Cynon wrote:

AdrianSutil wrote:I may piss off a few NASCAR fans here, but this "have at it boys" attitude is completely and utterly disgusting. It's all well
and good penalising drivers for dangerous crashes, but lettng them think they can do it in the first place is downright dangerous. I may have missed the whole In's-and-out's of the 'rule' but the last two videos, especially Keselowski (sp?), just goes to show it's still a dangerous racing series. Imagine if that happened between two F1 drivers, or any form of open-wheelers? There would be the mother of all crashes. Safety in motorsport will only stretch so far.

NASCAR has the safest cars in all of racing, period. The only injury coming from a crash in NASCAR was a freak accident where Brad Keselowski's brakes failed during a test at Road Atlanta. He was racing the next weekend, and he won quite easily. There has been a lot of very amateurish driving in NASCAR this year, and for that to be the only injury is quite amazing.

But please don't forget that, taking a longer-term view backwards, NASCAR has had a driver death much more recently than F1 has - Dale Earnhart Snr, Daytona 2001, against Ayrton Senna, Imola 1994. Both of these series have taken massive strides in safety since, but the modern drivers in both disciplines need to remember not to become complacent.

Cynon:

NASCAR is well aware that their cars are basically racing tanks. You have a greater chance of being hurt on a tricycle than in a NASCAR car.

So that's makes it ok to deliberatly crash into someone else? Ok thanks for clearing that up...