Grand Prix Rejects

pasta_maldonado wrote:James Allen/Martin Brundle was a good commentary lineup, Allen was almost as excitable as Murray whilst Brubdle was calm and collected.

However, my personal favourites were Murray/Brundle and Brundle/Coulthard

imagine a world where Legard/Palmer was the commentry team.....

WeirdKerr wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:James Allen/Martin Brundle was a good commentary lineup, Allen was almost as excitable as Murray whilst Brubdle was calm and collected.

However, my personal favourites were Murray/Brundle and Brundle/Coulthard

imagine a world where Legard/Palmer was the commentry team.....

I dread to think how abysmal that would be

I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

I wouldn't go that far. I would allow still allow pitstops but change the rules that make them mandatory, i.e., having to race 2 types of tyres. Obviously Pirelli would have to make a durable tyre as well. That way it would allow people wanting to go all the way through without pitting and others who would pit if they wanted to.

DanielPT wrote:

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

I wouldn't go that far. I would allow still allow pitstops but change the rules that make them mandatory, i.e., having to race 2 types of tyres. Obviously Pirelli would have to make a durable tyre as well. That way it would allow people wanting to go all the way through without pitting and others who would pit if they wanted to.

Exactly. I would prefer that the mandatory pitstop rule was rescinded so someone brave can try to go the entire race without stopping. That would require either a greater number of tyre specifications available to the teams or a greater variation in the specs, say a very soft would have be considerably more performant than a soft so that a team would gamble to run a set of very soft tyres for 6 laps to gain an advantage and then change to a medium. Both would require a greater commitment from Pirelli because the company would have to bring more tyres to a race.

Faustus wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

I wouldn't go that far. I would allow still allow pitstops but change the rules that make them mandatory, i.e., having to race 2 types of tyres. Obviously Pirelli would have to make a durable tyre as well. That way it would allow people wanting to go all the way through without pitting and others who would pit if they wanted to.

Exactly. I would prefer that the mandatory pitstop rule was rescinded so someone brave can try to go the entire race without stopping. That would require either a greater number of tyre specifications available to the teams or a greater variation in the specs, say a very soft would have be considerably more performant than a soft so that a team would gamble to run a set of very soft tyres for 6 laps to gain an advantage and then change to a medium. Both would require a greater commitment from Pirelli because the company would have to bring more tyres to a race.

That rule, and the "start the race on the tyre you qualified on" rule for the top 10, could probably be dropped now - they were effectively put in because they needed to artificially generate a strategic element after it became transparent that the Bridgestone tyres effectively negated any need for meaningful strategic decisions.

I suppose that the question that would then come up would be who would pick up the bill for the R&D, manufacturing and transportation costs if Pirelli were asked to provide a wider range of tyres? Pirelli, being one of the smaller tyre manufacturers, would probably not be willing to stomach too many additional costs, so the bill for such a move might, directly or indirectly, partially bite into the teams finances (either directly, if Pirelli started charging higher fees, or indirectly if Pirelli sought to get that money from FOM and cut into the TV rights money available to the teams). Would the teams be prepared to bite the bullet and accept those changes if it risked hurting their finances?

I miss the tyre war era.

I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

I hate the "E" naming and three stars on the "Lotus" cars. If you're going to insist on pretending to be Lotus, at the expense of a team that was already (doing a better job of) doing so, then either go the whole hog with the type number and everything, or call the team "Enstone" (or Toleman) and be done with it.

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

And this as well.

Jonny83 wrote:I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

This. The racing good in F1 untill DRS opens.... then overtaking becomes stupidly easy. I miss propper wheel to wheel battles.....

HonoraryNortherner wrote:

Jonny83 wrote:I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

This. The racing good in F1 untill DRS opens.... then overtaking becomes stupidly easy. I miss propper wheel to wheel battles.....

Agree. I dislike the system since its introduction. It's a stupid desperate move to create overtaking, which destroyed wheel-to-wheel racing. Except the Bahrain GP, I never had the feeling we would need more overtaking in 2010. DRS was pointless from the beginning, and even more since the introduction of the Pirelli Tyres. I want to watch a sport and no stupid artificial entertainment show.

HonoraryNortherner wrote:

Jonny83 wrote:I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

This. The racing good in F1 untill DRS opens.... then overtaking becomes stupidly easy. I miss propper wheel to wheel battles.....

I do feel the impact of DRS is over stated by the fans. I do not have the statistics to hand but I would guess the majority of DRS assisted passes occur between cars on vastly different tire conditions. My latest Autosport magazine shows that on most circuits less than 50% of the overtaking happens in the DRS zone and the circuits where it does go over 50% are usually the circuits that really need DRS anyway (Abu Dhabi!)

If you want to argue about artificial overtaking then Pirelli should get the brunt of it.

This isn't a dig at your opinions by the way, more myself taking the unpopular view that DRS is a good thing. It is a very marmite issue!

Shadaza wrote:This isn't a dig at your opinions by the way, more myself taking the unpopular view that DRS is a good thing. It is a very marmite issue!

I also don't really mind DRS. In fact I quite liked the new dimension it brings to racing, especially when mixed with KERS, i.e. whether the deploy all your KERS in one go to ensure you get within a DRS zone, or not? Also I loved watching quali sessions, particularly looking out for whether a certain driver had his DRS open in a particular corner. Like for example at Brazil 2012 IIRC Vettel was the only driver I can remember to have his DRS full open through Merguhlo (sp?) & it was fun watching other drivers trying the same thing especially Alonso who was very brave I seem to recall. I know this has now changed for this year, but still enjoy watching quali sessions from the last two years for this aspect (& other simliar DRS 'techinques').

Also think the setup challenges it brings like Mclaren at Monza in 2010 & the whole straightline speed with DRS open v shorter gear ratios with DRS closed etc are very interesting ones indeed. So for me these benefits outweigh any costs of DRS.

Shadaza wrote:

HonoraryNortherner wrote:

Jonny83 wrote:I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

This. The racing good in F1 untill DRS opens.... then overtaking becomes stupidly easy. I miss propper wheel to wheel battles.....

I do feel the impact of DRS is over stated by the fans. I do not have the statistics to hand but I would guess the majority of DRS assisted passes occur between cars on vastly different tire conditions. My latest Autosport magazine shows that on most circuits less than 50% of the overtaking happens in the DRS zone and the circuits where it does go over 50% are usually the circuits that really need DRS anyway (Abu Dhabi!)

If you want to argue about artificial overtaking then Pirelli should get the brunt of it.

This isn't a dig at your opinions by the way, more myself taking the unpopular view that DRS is a good thing. It is a very marmite issue!

Suppose DRS still splits opinions, I do remember there was lots of scorn poured on the idea when it was first mooted and first implemented, but not so now, whether that is more grudging acceptance rather than genuine approval I don't know, but maybe my opinion isn't as "unpopular" as I first thought

Another one though, it's classification as "unpopular" evidenced by European TV ratings allegedly being up since the change:

I don't like the Australian GP's new start time. At all. Maybe it's just me but I infinitely prefer late Saturday nights to early Sunday mornings (I have to get up early for work 5 days a week and don't wish to do so more than necessary), pushing the start time back a couple of hours completely ruined my stay-up-really-really-late Australian GP ritual now - to the point where I don't think I've ever been able to watch it live for the past few years, I have to record it and watch it in the afternoon when I get up

ibsey wrote:

Shadaza wrote:This isn't a dig at your opinions by the way, more myself taking the unpopular view that DRS is a good thing. It is a very marmite issue!

I also don't really mind DRS. In fact I quite liked the new dimension it brings to racing, especially when mixed with KERS, i.e. whether the deploy all your KERS in one go to ensure you get within a DRS zone, or not? Also I loved watching quali sessions, particularly looking out for whether a certain driver had his DRS open in a particular corner. Like for example at Brazil 2012 IIRC Vettel was the only driver I can remember to have his DRS full open through Merguhlo (sp?) & it was fun watching other drivers trying the same thing especially Alonso who was very brave I seem to recall. I know this has now changed for this year, but still enjoy watching quali sessions from the last two years for this aspect (& other simliar DRS 'techinques').

Also think the setup challenges it brings like Mclaren at Monza in 2010 & the whole straightline speed with DRS open v shorter gear ratios with DRS closed etc are very interesting ones indeed. So for me these benefits outweigh any costs of DRS.

Yeah, on the whole, I like DRS. I mean, its no match to decent wheel to wheel battles, but overtakes, whilst not everywhere, are a lot more commonplace now thanks to its inclusion, and I like overtakes However, I can also see why some people aren't as fond of it

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

ibsey wrote:

Shadaza wrote:This isn't a dig at your opinions by the way, more myself taking the unpopular view that DRS is a good thing. It is a very marmite issue!

I also don't really mind DRS. In fact I quite liked the new dimension it brings to racing, especially when mixed with KERS, i.e. whether the deploy all your KERS in one go to ensure you get within a DRS zone, or not? Also I loved watching quali sessions, particularly looking out for whether a certain driver had his DRS open in a particular corner. Like for example at Brazil 2012 IIRC Vettel was the only driver I can remember to have his DRS full open through Merguhlo (sp?) & it was fun watching other drivers trying the same thing especially Alonso who was very brave I seem to recall. I know this has now changed for this year, but still enjoy watching quali sessions from the last two years for this aspect (& other simliar DRS 'techinques').

Also think the setup challenges it brings like Mclaren at Monza in 2010 & the whole straightline speed with DRS open v shorter gear ratios with DRS closed etc are very interesting ones indeed. So for me these benefits outweigh any costs of DRS.

Yeah, on the whole, I like DRS. I mean, its no match to decent wheel to wheel battles, but overtakes, whilst not everywhere, are a lot more commonplace now thanks to its inclusion, and I like overtakes However, I can also see why some people aren't as fond of it

DRS is good for cars that make it hard to overtake. With the ones F1 has now, I'd rather have DRS than not. Of course, the best solution would be to have aerodynamics that allowed slipstreaming in the first place.

Jonny83 wrote:I miss the tyre war era.

I would rather watch a race with no overtaking at all than a DRS show.

I hate the "E" naming and three stars on the "Lotus" cars. If you're going to insist on pretending to be Lotus, at the expense of a team that was already (doing a better job of) doing so, then either go the whole hog with the type number and everything, or call the team "Enstone" (or Toleman) and be done with it.

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

And this as well.

At the moment, the problem is that F1 is struggling enough to get one tyre manufacturer, let alone multiple manufacturers who would be prepared to stomach the cost of a full blown tyre war.

Bridgestone, Goodyear and Michelin all refused point blank to sign a contract with FOM: Michelin did relax their stance a bit, but requested technical changes, like increasing the wheels from 13" to 18" (Michelin cited road relevance reasons, though most cynically believed because Michelin could repurpose its equipment for manufacturing Endurance Racing tyres, which are 18", much more cheaply) that it must have known the teams would reject point blank, which they did. Pirelli may have taken the contract on in the end, but reportedly FOM had to offer substantially better terms when it became apparent that there would be few viable rival bids, and Pirelli have publicly stated that they would rather avoid a tyre war if possible (perhaps hinting that they might withdraw if plans for multiple suppliers were announced).

Equally, there have been signs that the teams would probably be equally hostile to the idea of a tyre war - asides from the potential increase in costs, the midfield teams are also wary about being cut out of any future tyre war as the manufacturers focus towards the needs of a particular outfit - in the last tyre war, we ended up with Bridgestone allegedly favouring Ferrari and Michelin supposedly favouring Renault, to the detriment of most of the other teams. Part of the reason for introducing the control tyre was that, as one F1 insider was quoted as saying at the time, "We'll all be at the same disadvantage", since no one team could therefore exert pressure onto the tyre manufacturers to get a competitive advantage that way.
Were a tyre war to kick off again, it probably would result in a bit of short term variation but, in the longer term, it'd probably end up making the grid more rigidly hierarchical as the larger teams gained favoured status with the tyre manufacturers and used that to their advantage.

Equally, I suppose it could be pointed out that there have been a number of times in the history of the sport where, although tyre competition was permitted, there were no real tyre wars - in the 1970's and for a few years in the early to mid 1990's, for example, Goodyear effectively had a monopoly on F1 tyres, so spec tyres, even if more by accident than design, are not something totally alien to the sport.

This one picture is why I believe that there should be only 1 supplier:


Aside from a (unlikely) repeat of this, a team could lose out purely because they ended up with bad tyres. Although the same could be said for engines, tyres are a lot more tempermental.

The DRS debate is an mixed one, obviously!

I haven't followed F1 as closely as I used to since the beginning of 2011, for one reason and another. I feel that, and this is just personal opinion, that overtaking in F1 should be difficult, as it leads to good battles between drivers and adds a large dimension to race strategy and race craft, that if passing is easy disappears. Granted, if it is too difficult then a battle doesn't exist, as the following driver has zero chance, and with the current dependence on regulations and circuit design unassisted passing is very difficult. I have felt that being able to drive defensively is a huge part of being a Grand Prix driver.

As well as this, it does pain me that it is done in an artificial way. I'm all for measures which encourage overtaking, rather than make it a forgone conclusion sometimes. I think it helps the racing on tracks like Abu Dhabi, like Shadaza says, rather than making it too easy. But I feel it could be done in a better way, particularly at certain tracks.

I do like the fact that Pirelli have made tyres that wear properly, as I think it brings in a dimension that had been missed with tyre stratergy and conservation. I think sometimes they wear out too fast; I'd rather see a no-stop versus 1-stop race rather than a 2/3 stop race, as to me that defeats the object of banning refueling.

Just my two pence

The tyre debate is an interesting one and I do see the other side. I do feel Michelin was hung out to dry a bit after Indy '05, I always blamed that on the rules restricting the types of tyre brought to a race rather than the tyre war, as it hadn't happened in the previous four years, or during the Goodyear/Pirelli war, the Goodyear/Pirelli/Michelin/Avon war of the early 80's, the Goodyear/Firestone/Dunlop war of the late 60's/early 70's, or any other time.

Maybe Bridgestone and Michelin favoured Ferrari and Renault respectively, but in 1998 it was McLaren that were BS's leading team against the Goodyear-shod Ferraris (plus BS had a prior relationship with Mercedes in DTM and sportscars), and when Michelin entered it was Williams-BMW that were their leading team while Button and Fisichella were struggling with the nearly flat-10 Benettons, so I guess it could be suggested in a perverse way that Ferrari and Renault kind of "earned" this status coming from behind in the pecking order.

One thing I believe to this day, is that if there was no tyre war in the 2000s, Michael Schumacher would be a nine-time world champion, with seven consecutive titles.

The Goodyear monopoly didn't bother me, and the Dunlop monopoly wouldn't have bothered me either had I been alive then, but maybe this is just me being weird but for me there's a big difference between there being one willing supplier (who has usually run off inferior competition to get into that position), and one mandated supplier. It shook things up in '97 when Bridgestone came and challenged Goodyear, with giant killing performances from Panis, Hill, Barrichello and Trulli at various points through the year, while there was no FIA/CSI rule stopping Goodyear and Firestone challenging Dunlop in the late 60's either. I'd have no problem with Pirelli supplying the entire field right now if there was the possiblity within the rules of someone being allowed to come in and mix things up.

I like Magny-Cours.

darkapprentice77 wrote:I like Magny-Cours.

It's fun to drive in racing games, but F1 races were usually quite dull there.

Probably some of the best racing is between Caterham and Marussia.

Syzygy wrote:Probably some of the best racing is between Caterham and Marussia.

This is F1 Rejects, sir, so this is way too popular here.

FMecha wrote:

Syzygy wrote:Probably some of the best racing is between Caterham and Marussia.

This is F1 Rejects, sir, so this is way too popular here.

Not to mention that Jules Bianchi is driving the Marussia to the point the car actually looks good. He's running near Pastor Maldonado and Valtteri Bottas in the Williams cars for crying out loud.

Onxy Wrecked wrote:Not to mention that Jules Bianchi is driving the Marussia to the point the car actually looks good. He's running near Pastor Maldonado and Valtteri Bottas in the Williams cars for crying out loud.

Bianchi beats Bottas in the standings at the end of the season. Calling it now.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

Onxy Wrecked wrote:Not to mention that Jules Bianchi is driving the Marussia to the point the car actually looks good. He's running near Pastor Maldonado and Valtteri Bottas in the Williams cars for crying out loud.

Bianchi beats Bottas in the standings at the end of the season. Calling it now.

I call an AVATAR CHALLENGE!

If that is true by the end of a Grand Prix, I will put one of the Reiko Nagase pictures from my current REECCS livery for 30 days since that happens, assuming you mean the official standings. If not, you do that. Deal?

FMecha wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

Onxy Wrecked wrote:Not to mention that Jules Bianchi is driving the Marussia to the point the car actually looks good. He's running near Pastor Maldonado and Valtteri Bottas in the Williams cars for crying out loud.

Bianchi beats Bottas in the standings at the end of the season. Calling it now.

I call an AVATAR CHALLENGE!

If that is true by the end of a Grand Prix, I will put one of the Reiko Nagase pictures from my current REECCS livery for 30 days since that happens If not, you do that. Deal?

But then it's not an avatar challenge...

The point is the loser gets an embarrassing avatar. For example, if Eurobrun (I'm just using you as an example mate, there's nothing malicious in this) bet that, say, Bottas wouldn't score a point this season and this turned out to be wrong, he should end up having something like a picture of Bottas smearing himself with Lurpak whilst wearing an Adrian Quaife-Hobbs mask around his private area. THAT's the equivalent of badness for an individual it's got to be.

For example, I've never have been and never will be a fan of Nelson Piquet. If I made a bet and lost, I'd expect I'd be given something like Nelson Piquet dressed as Braveheart flicking the Vs at me (don't like Braveheart either)...or something.

THAT'S an avatar challenge, mah boy.

Speaking of avatar challenges, why was no one interested in betting against my prediction that Marussia outqualifies Caterham? Because everyone knew that the Caterham is rubbish, or because of a lack of drivers I hate?

pi314159 wrote:Speaking of avatar challenges, why was no one interested in betting against my prediction that Marussia outqualifies Caterham? Because everyone knew that the Caterham is rubbish, or because of a lack of drivers I hate?

I knew Caterham was rubbish. Plus the fact that they have van der Garde, whilst Marussia has Jules Bianchi.

FMecha wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

Onxy Wrecked wrote:Not to mention that Jules Bianchi is driving the Marussia to the point the car actually looks good. He's running near Pastor Maldonado and Valtteri Bottas in the Williams cars for crying out loud.

Bianchi beats Bottas in the standings at the end of the season. Calling it now.

I call an AVATAR CHALLENGE!

If that is true by the end of a Grand Prix, I will put one of the Reiko Nagase pictures from my current REECCS livery for 30 days since that happens, assuming you mean the official standings. If not, you do that. Deal?

I didn't think anyone would take that seriously... also, like Ataxia said, get an actual embarrassing avatar.

^Fine, that means any avatar of your choice if that condition I mention did not happen.

redbulljack14 wrote:

pi314159 wrote:Speaking of avatar challenges, why was no one interested in betting against my prediction that Marussia outqualifies Caterham? Because everyone knew that the Caterham is rubbish, or because of a lack of drivers I hate?

I knew Caterham was rubbish. Plus the fact that they have van der Garde, whilst Marussia has Jules Bianchi.

Seconded. If the season keeps unfolding like this they are prime contenders to renew their most prized award: ROTY.

FMecha wrote:^Fine, that means any avatar of your choice if that condition I mention did not happen.

I don't actually think that Bianchi will finish ahead of Bottas, though. How about if Bianchi scores a point, I win? And who's someone you hate so I can come up with a good avatar?

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

Along those lines it occurred to me on Sunday that the pit-stops are incredibly dull since refuelling stopped. No tension, no excitement, no element of danger. Dull, dull, dull.

CoopsII wrote:

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

Along those lines it occurred to me on Sunday that the pit-stops are incredibly dull since refuelling stopped. No tension, no excitement, no element of danger. Dull, dull, dull.

Yeah, because cars catching fire is so entertaining. Since when were pitstops supposed to be exciting?

CoopsII wrote:

Faustus wrote:I don't want more pitstops. The racing shouldn't be reliant on pitstops for excitement.

Along those lines it occurred to me on Sunday that the pit-stops are incredibly dull since refuelling stopped. No tension, no excitement, no element of danger. Dull, dull, dull.

Unless the stop's for a McLaren driver.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Since when were pitstops supposed to be exciting?

Why do you think they have them at all? Because the tire manufacturers are unable to produce rubber that would last a race distance? Wake up. Equally, refuelling was reintroduced specifically to make things more exciting at pit-stops because of the added risk (and strategy).

Pirelli should only make compounds that last a sh*t, then allow cars to go faster in the pitlane to increase strategy flexibility.

CoopsII wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Since when were pitstops supposed to be exciting?

Why do you think they have them at all? Because the tire manufacturers are unable to produce rubber that would last a race distance? Wake up. Equally, refuelling was reintroduced specifically to make things more exciting at pit-stops because of the added risk (and strategy).

And that means the actual pitstops themselves are supposed to be exciting. Riiiiiight.

They're there because it's faster than having one set of tyres you nurse through the whole race, so the teams are going to do it regardless of whether or not they can actually do that. And also becausethey allow for different pit strategies, thus adding an extra element to the on-track action. So yeah, they're exciting in the sense they spice that up. But the actual tyre changing and refuelling bit? Of course it's not exciting! It's changing tyres and refuelling the car! How is that ever supposed to be exciting!?

BlindCaveSalamander wrote: But the actual tyre changing and refuelling bit? Of course it's not exciting! It's changing tyres and refuelling the car! How is that ever supposed to be exciting!?

I am going along UgncreativeUsergname line here and say that last year every time a McLaren stopped to change its tyres, there was excitement from the anticipation of seeing which new way they managed to find in order to botch the pitstop. After that, well... You can always and wait to see if a rookie tries to u-turn into his pitstop place...

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Since when were pitstops supposed to be exciting?

Why do you think they have them at all? Because the tire manufacturers are unable to produce rubber that would last a race distance? Wake up. Equally, refuelling was reintroduced specifically to make things more exciting at pit-stops because of the added risk (and strategy).

And that means the actual pitstops themselves are supposed to be exciting. Riiiiiight.

They're there because it's faster than having one set of tyres you nurse through the whole race, so the teams are going to do it regardless of whether or not they can actually do that. And also becausethey allow for different pit strategies, thus adding an extra element to the on-track action. So yeah, they're exciting in the sense they spice that up. But the actual tyre changing and refuelling bit? Of course it's not exciting! It's changing tyres and refuelling the car! How is that ever supposed to be exciting!?

For me, the excitement about the pits top when refuelling was allowed was watching the fuel go in as the seconds climbed up, and seeing how the order changed during the round of pits tops.

Now, pits tops are boring, and they feel too forced