Grand Prix Rejects

DanielPT wrote:Since we are at it, Schumacher could have won at least another one, since 1999 was to be his year if not for that broken leg. 1997 was very contentious but had he not decided for that idiotic manoeuvre then we don't know what could have happened. Who knows if Villeneuve would have pushed his car into breaking down.

Now going with Jim Clark, well, besides his three titles he should have won 1962 had he not retired from the lead in the final race. He should have also won 1964 if his engine had not given up in the penultimate lap, causing him to retire from the lead yet again. Finally, 1968 would have been yet another Jim Clark year had he survived it (he won the first race) since Graham Hill, his team-mate, went on to win the championship. That should have been at least 6 for Jim.

East Londoner wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Since we are at it, Schumacher could have won at least another one, since 1999 was to be his year if not for that broken leg. 1997 was very contentious but had he not decided for that idiotic manoeuvre then we don't know what could have happened. Who knows if Villeneuve would have pushed his car into breaking down.

Now going with Jim Clark, well, besides his three titles he should have won 1962 had he not retired from the lead in the final race. He should have also won 1964 if his engine had not given up in the penultimate lap, causing him to retire from the lead yet again. Finally, 1968 would have been yet another Jim Clark year had he survived it (he won the first race) since Graham Hill, his team-mate, went on to win the championship. That should have been at least 6 for Jim.

If only that was true.

Is there any truth to the rumour that Schumacher had a radiator problem during Jerez 97, which would have seen him retire from the race even if he hadn't driven into Villeneuve?

East Londoner wrote:I dare say Prost could have won in 1982 as well, if that Renault had been slightly more reliable and Rene Arnoux had agreed to let Prost through for the win at Paul Ricard that year. He was only 10 points adrift of Rosberg in the final standings that year.

So, we're potentially looking at a 9-time world champion.

East Londoner wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Since we are at it, Schumacher could have won at least another one, since 1999 was to be his year if not for that broken leg. 1997 was very contentious but had he not decided for that idiotic manoeuvre then we don't know what could have happened. Who knows if Villeneuve would have pushed his car into breaking down.

Now going with Jim Clark, well, besides his three titles he should have won 1962 had he not retired from the lead in the final race. He should have also won 1964 if his engine had not given up in the penultimate lap, causing him to retire from the lead yet again. Finally, 1968 would have been yet another Jim Clark year had he survived it (he won the first race) since Graham Hill, his team-mate, went on to win the championship. That should have been at least 6 for Jim.

If only that was true.

Is there any truth to the rumour that Schumacher had a radiator problem during Jerez 97, which would have seen him retire from the race even if he hadn't driven into Villeneuve?

Wallio wrote:F1 should do away with the drivers title. The WCC is where the money is anyway, and F1 should really harp on how it really is the only series left where everyone build separate cars in house (save for the WEC I suppose, although they have customer cars).

Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it. The prestige of F1 will still draw in the best drivers in the world.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

Wallio wrote:F1 should do away with the drivers title. The WCC is where the money is anyway, and F1 should really harp on how it really is the only series left where everyone build separate cars in house (save for the WEC I suppose, although they have customer cars).

Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it. The prestige of F1 will still draw in the best drivers in the world.

I agree, it would mostly get rid of team orders aswell.

Also Button was better than Alonso in 2011.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

Wallio wrote:F1 should do away with the drivers title. The WCC is where the money is anyway, and F1 should really harp on how it really is the only series left where everyone build separate cars in house (save for the WEC I suppose, although they have customer cars).

Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it. The prestige of F1 will still draw in the best drivers in the world.

I agree, it would mostly get rid of team orders aswell.

Also Button was better than Alonso in 2011.

Wallio wrote:Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:No, Button was a close second at times. Alonso would've smoked anyone else in equal machinery in 2011, just like he would've done last year or 2010 or pretty much any other year you care to mention since 2005.

Klon wrote:

Wallio wrote:Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it.

Yeah, the guy who won the championships in those last three years - he must be a total goof and holds no candle to the great Alonso. Oh wait, that guy is a great racing driver and perhaps the best qualifier in the history of our sport which means he is not a goof at all and more than equal to Alonso? Oh my, that will make Wallio's statement look rather silly, now wouldn't it?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:No, Button was a close second at times. Alonso would've smoked anyone else in equal machinery in 2011, just like he would've done last year or 2010 or pretty much any other year you care to mention since 2005.

Nonsense. The implication that the 2010 and 2011 Ferraris were bad is asinine. The 2010 car was never anything but on par with Red Bull and McLaren and 2011, well in 2011 RBR were on a slightly higher level nut the Ferrari was not utterly non-competitive. Hell, even 2012 was not the Alonso miracle job it was advertised as. Ever since the Mugello tests, the Ferraris were never anything below the third-best cars and while a championship challenge with the third-best car is undoubtably a job well done it is not a unique miracle (in the ponderbox I had some names collected) so assuming he would have "smoked" the competition is daring to say the very least. Vettel would have always been tough to beat.

Wallio wrote:

Klon wrote:

Wallio wrote:Honestly does it matter? Who's the best driver on the grid the past three years? Alonso without question (and if you question this, please seek help). How many titles did he win? 0 of course. Does that mean he isn't the best driver? Certainly not. So just dump it.

Yeah, the guy who won the championships in those last three years - he must be a total goof and holds no candle to the great Alonso. Oh wait, that guy is a great racing driver and perhaps the best qualifier in the history of our sport which means he is not a goof at all and more than equal to Alonso? Oh my, that will make Wallio's statement look rather silly, now wouldn't it?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:No, Button was a close second at times. Alonso would've smoked anyone else in equal machinery in 2011, just like he would've done last year or 2010 or pretty much any other year you care to mention since 2005.

Nonsense. The implication that the 2010 and 2011 Ferraris were bad is asinine. The 2010 car was never anything but on par with Red Bull and McLaren and 2011, well in 2011 RBR were on a slightly higher level nut the Ferrari was not utterly non-competitive. Hell, even 2012 was not the Alonso miracle job it was advertised as. Ever since the Mugello tests, the Ferraris were never anything below the third-best cars and while a championship challenge with the third-best car is undoubtably a job well done it is not a unique miracle (in the ponderbox I had some names collected) so assuming he would have "smoked" the competition is daring to say the very least. Vettel would have always been tough to beat.

Ummm you realize I'm the biggest (sometimes I think only) Vettel fan here right? I never said he was a goof, he has mad skills, But face facts Alonso has just been god-like these past few years. He really has brought the ".6ths" And the 2010-2011 Ferraris weren't that bad? Really? In what series? ALMS, right? Because they were cleary the #3 car AT BEST those years, and many races were #4 behind Lotus as well. If you think the Ferrari was "on par with Red Bull" as you say, especially in 2011, I really must question you're knowledge of cars and racing, especially since the drivers THEMSELVES ranked Alonso as the best last year, due to nearly winning it all in that heap. And also by your logic, if the Ferrari was "on par" and if Fernado wasn't that great, what was Massa? A drooling hunk of flesh? You probably thought the F60 was "on par" too.........

So while I realize its unpopular, I see nothing wrong with F1 ditching the WDC. The constructors is the only one the teams care about (Ferrari, Red Bull, and Macca have all said this, and in his books Steve Matchett mentions Bennetton was the same way in the 90s), its where the money is, it would cut down on silly team orders, and it still would attract the best drivers on earth (the way Indy and Le Mans still do). Of course I still want teams to run 3 cars (with only the top two scoring) but thats another unpopular opinion.

Wallio wrote:And the 2010-2011 Ferraris weren't that bad? Really? In what series? ALMS, right? Because they were cleary the #3 car AT BEST those years, and many races were #4 behind Lotus as well.

... especially since the drivers THEMSELVES ranked Alonso as the best last year, due to nearly winning it all in that heap.

And also by your logic, if the Ferrari was "on par" and if Fernado wasn't that great, what was Massa? A drooling hunk of flesh? You probably thought the F60 was "on par" too.........

it would cut down on silly team orders, and it still would attract the best drivers on earth (the way Indy and Le Mans still do).

Klon wrote:

Wallio wrote:And the 2010-2011 Ferraris weren't that bad? Really? In what series? ALMS, right? Because they were cleary the #3 car AT BEST those years, and many races were #4 behind Lotus as well.

"AT BEST"? I don't think so. Just look at the results at the last six races of 2010: three wins for Alonso and Vettel each with Alonso having FLAP at each of his wins and pole at two of them. By the time of the season finale, the F10 was pretty much ahead of the MP4-25 and, to use my own words from before, "on par" with the RB6.

... especially since the drivers THEMSELVES ranked Alonso as the best last year, due to nearly winning it all in that heap.

The same drivers who voted Ayrton Senna the greatest driver of all time a few years before that? That alone tells the whole story about how legitimate their opinions are.

And also by your logic, if the Ferrari was "on par" and if Fernado wasn't that great, what was Massa? A drooling hunk of flesh? You probably thought the F60 was "on par" too.........

You will be hard pressed to find people claiming that Massa had anything resembling a great year in either 2010, 2011 or 2012 (until the season finale). Even then, however, you can still see Massa as a proof of my claims: he was driving on level with Alonso in the final races of 2012 and finished pretty much always near to or in the top 5, which should tell you that by then the Ferrari has become more than competitive. 2010 he was able to take two podiums as well despite being off Alonso's pace which again shows that the car must have been at least on level with the other teams in the top three.

it would cut down on silly team orders, and it still would attract the best drivers on earth (the way Indy and Le Mans still do).

I don't see how that would remove team orders, if only WCC points would matter we would only lose a few team orders at the season finale in order to aid a driver but other than that they would pretty much stay how they are or even increase.

Wallio wrote:I'm honestly curious how you figure this? If drivers aren't scoreing points theres no need to switch them. If Marussia is running 9th and 10th, thats 3 points. If they switch Jules and Max, its still 3 points. Simple addition. Why would they even bother? So please explain that one too me.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Wallio wrote:I'm honestly curious how you figure this? If drivers aren't scoreing points theres no need to switch them. If Marussia is running 9th and 10th, thats 3 points. If they switch Jules and Max, its still 3 points. Simple addition. Why would they even bother? So please explain that one to me.

I can field that one - they'd still use team orders to stop them from overtaking. Because that would risk a collision, and thus the loss of those 3 points. Because it's the nature of drivers to want to beat each other, and removing the WDC will not change that.

Wallio wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Wallio wrote:I'm honestly curious how you figure this? If drivers aren't scoreing points theres no need to switch them. If Marussia is running 9th and 10th, thats 3 points. If they switch Jules and Max, its still 3 points. Simple addition. Why would they even bother? So please explain that one to me.

I can field that one - they'd still use team orders to stop them from overtaking. Because that would risk a collision, and thus the loss of those 3 points. Because it's the nature of drivers to want to beat each other, and removing the WDC will not change that.

Makes sense. There's logic to that argument, but if the drivers aren't racing each other for pits, I wonder how strong their will would be? Clearly nowadays theres no doubt that "hold station" orders are quite useful for saving points. And I agree that if one teammate x was quite a bit faster than teammate y and had a decent chance of catching driver z I could see team orers in play. But if we go back to my Marussia example, if they're 25secs behind the 8th place driver, I can't imagine the team would need to issue orders. If the drivers aren't racing for indivdual points, they wouldn't race each other would they? Are they that dense? As a part-time "weekend warrior" racer myself, I hope we aren't! But I do agree it wouldn't eliminate team orders 100%, but it would greatly reduce them. I should have said "it will all but eliminate team orders".

giraurd wrote:ok here's one seriously unpopular I would assume:

First time ever I dared to listen to a Jacques Villeneuve song. And, in all honesty - it's not that bad. Actually, I would not turn the radio off if it occasionally played Jacq, but be happy to listen.

Now why do people say I have no musical ear?

This wrote:

giraurd wrote:ok here's one seriously unpopular I would assume:

First time ever I dared to listen to a Jacques Villeneuve song. And, in all honesty - it's not that bad. Actually, I would not turn the radio off if it occasionally played Jacq, but be happy to listen.

Now why do people say I have no musical ear?

But that's mainly because of the crap on the radio these days, which will make Jacques Villeneuve look like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. There are lots of things that are worse. But i defenitely wouldn't pay to see a Jacques Villeneuve concert (unless if it's an F1 rejects forum reunion)

Hound55 wrote:Not F1, but here it goes.

I really dislike oval races in Indycar. Not because I think the are too easy, but because it all seems stupidly dangerous. They are too fast, too fragile, and too prone to getting airborne for me to feel comfortable watching. Wheldon's crash at Las Vegas really reaffirmed my distaste for open wheelers on ovals. Honestly, I really wish Indianapolis weren't so important so that there wouldn't be races there anymore.

I'm really soft when it comes to amplifying the danger factor in motorsport. I felt incredibly nervous watching the Daytona 500 after watching Kyle Larson rip an enormous hole in the fence just the day prior. Call me a wuss, but I just don't feel comfortable with there being more danger than there needs to be.

I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

This wrote:

giraurd wrote:ok here's one seriously unpopular I would assume:

First time ever I dared to listen to a Jacques Villeneuve song. And, in all honesty - it's not that bad. Actually, I would not turn the radio off if it occasionally played Jacq, but be happy to listen.

Now why do people say I have no musical ear?

But that's mainly because of the crap on the radio these days, which will make Jacques Villeneuve look like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. There are lots of things that are worse. But i defenitely wouldn't pay to see a Jacques Villeneuve concert (unless if it's an F1 rejects forum reunion)

Hound55 wrote:I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

CoopsII wrote: Alonso and others would've lost their lives in F1 alone.

eurobrun wrote:

CoopsII wrote: Alonso and others would've lost their lives in F1 alone.

When would Alonso been in danger of losing his life if not for modern safety. Don't really remember him having any massive crashes

CoopsII wrote:

Hound55 wrote:I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

Yeah me too and its frustrating when unintelligent watchers accuse of modern racing of being 'too safe'. As if we want a world where the likes of Hakkinen, Wendlinger, Button, Villenueve, both Schumachers, Alonso and others would've lost their lives in F1 alone. And they're just a handful of drivers I can remember having big accidents in the last twenty years.

CoopsII wrote:Yeah me too and its frustrating when unintelligent watchers accuse of modern racing of being 'too safe'. As if we want a world where the likes of Hakkinen, Wendlinger, Button, Villenueve, both Schumachers, Alonso and others would've lost their lives in F1 alone. And they're just a handful of drivers I can remember having big accidents in the last twenty years.

dinizintheoven wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Yeah me too and its frustrating when unintelligent watchers accuse of modern racing of being 'too safe'. As if we want a world where the likes of Hakkinen, Wendlinger, Button, Villenueve, both Schumachers, Alonso and others would've lost their lives in F1 alone. And they're just a handful of drivers I can remember having big accidents in the last twenty years.

Robert Kubica (for the crash in Canada in 2007 that handed Sebastian Vettel his F1 debut) is the other one who should be very obvious. Others I can think of would be Andrea Montermini (Spain 1994), Sergio Pérez (Monaco 2011, at the same place as Jenson Button), Pedro Diniz (Nürburgring 1999, upside down), anyone else who went off the road at the top of Eau Rouge, which is what I am assuming you're referring to with Jacques Villeneuve (so that means Ricardo Zonta and Luciano Burti at least), and the mess that was the opening lap of Spa in 1998 is probably best not mentioned under such conditions.
Any more for any more?

Backmarker wrote:I think they should get rid of the blue flags. If you're quick enough to catch a slow car, you should be quick enough to pass it.

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Backmarker wrote:I think they should get rid of the blue flags. If you're quick enough to catch a slow car, you should be quick enough to pass it.

Not necessarily. Could hard 2001, anybody?

Shadaza wrote:Not to mention the couple of times a car has been inches from taking off another drivers head.

Schumacher nearly got decapitated by Liuzzi, Abu Dhabi 2010.
Coulthard nearly killed Wurz, Melbourne 2007.

Hound55 wrote:Not F1, but here it goes.

I really dislike oval races in Indycar. Not because I think the are too easy, but because it all seems stupidly dangerous. They are too fast, too fragile, and too prone to getting airborne for me to feel comfortable watching. Wheldon's crash at Las Vegas really reaffirmed my distaste for open wheelers on ovals. Honestly, I really wish Indianapolis weren't so important so that there wouldn't be races there anymore.

I'm really soft when it comes to amplifying the danger factor in motorsport. I felt incredibly nervous watching the Daytona 500 after watching Kyle Larson rip an enormous hole in the fence just the day prior. Call me a wuss, but I just don't feel comfortable with there being more danger than there needs to be.

I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

Hound55 wrote:Not F1, but here it goes.

I really dislike oval races in Indycar. Not because I think the are too easy, but because it all seems stupidly dangerous. They are too fast, too fragile, and too prone to getting airborne for me to feel comfortable watching. Wheldon's crash at Las Vegas really reaffirmed my distaste for open wheelers on ovals. Honestly, I really wish Indianapolis weren't so important so that there wouldn't be races there anymore.

I'm really soft when it comes to amplifying the danger factor in motorsport. I felt incredibly nervous watching the Daytona 500 after watching Kyle Larson rip an enormous hole in the fence just the day prior. Call me a wuss, but I just don't feel comfortable with there being more danger than there needs to be.

I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

The Indianapolis oval is very flat at 9 degrees of banking. Las Vegas has 18-20 degrees. The dangers of IndyCar increase with the banking in the corners. Higher banking means more pack racing and more airborne cars.