Grand Prix Rejects

East Londoner wrote:Evidently Mr Sutil didn't watch F1 before 2004, when it was more than likely that half the field would be parked at the side of the track by the time the chequered flag fell. And yet, I haven't seen any criticism of unreliability during that era...

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/28532/9105788/exclusive-adrian-sutil-excited-about-fresh-start-with-sauber

Fixed.

FullMetalJack wrote:

East Londoner wrote:

Adrian Sutil wrote:"We don't want to see races where all the cars are failing and having problems everywhere. At the end of the day Formula 1 is a show and the pinnacle of motorsport and the top range of racing - it stands out for engineering power - and if that doesn't go well and all you see is cars breaking down, then that is not the image you want to see for Formula 1."

Evidently Mr Sutil didn't watch F1 in the mid-to-late 1990s, when it was more than likely that half the field would be parked at the side of the track by the time the chequered flag fell. And yet, I haven't seen any criticism of unreliability during that era...

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/28532/9105788/exclusive-adrian-sutil-excited-about-fresh-start-with-sauber

I'd love to see a bit of unreliability, it's been 6 years since we saw a race with proper attrition.

Australia '08 was a real cracker of a race, not only attrition, but a DSQ. Chaos ensued, plus good drivers like Räikkönen screwing up the whole race. Both Ferraris blow up engines, 9 retirements related to accidents, and lots of other good stuff. Demolition derby the safe F1 way.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

East Londoner wrote:Evidently Mr Sutil didn't watch F1 before 2004, when it was more than likely that half the field would be parked at the side of the track by the time the chequered flag fell. And yet, I haven't seen any criticism of unreliability during that era...

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/28532/9105788/exclusive-adrian-sutil-excited-about-fresh-start-with-sauber

Fixed.

Well, 2003 was a better year for reliability to years past as well, wasn't it?

I've always liked to link the increase in reliability with the top 8 scoring points (finishing races became more important than before), but probably they are mostly unrelated.

Yeah there should always be one race where you have half the field gone, cause they generally make great races, Australia 08, Australia 02 and Monaco 96. As well as proberly plenty more I cant think of.

Basetornado wrote:Yeah there should always be one race where you have half the field gone, cause they generally make great races, Australia 08, Australia 02 and Monaco 96. As well as proberly plenty more I cant think of.

Belgium 98 called...

AdrianSutil wrote:

Basetornado wrote:Yeah there should always be one race where you have half the field gone, cause they generally make great races, Australia 08, Australia 02 and Monaco 96. As well as proberly plenty more I cant think of.

Belgium 98 called...

Brazil 2003 on line 2.....

Our Twitter friend Taki Inoue has just shared this image.

It remains to be seen if the McLaren does turn out like that. That nose is something else entirely. Can't we just have the early 1990s low noses back, or the 2009 Brawn nose, and stick with that?

East Londoner wrote:

Adrian Sutil wrote:"We don't want to see races where all the cars are failing and having problems everywhere. At the end of the day Formula 1 is a show and the pinnacle of motorsport and the top range of racing - it stands out for engineering power - and if that doesn't go well and all you see is cars breaking down, then that is not the image you want to see for Formula 1."

Evidently Mr Sutil didn't watch F1 in the mid-to-late 1990s, when it was more than likely that half the field would be parked at the side of the track by the time the chequered flag fell. And yet, I haven't seen any criticism of unreliability during that era...

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/28532/9105788/exclusive-adrian-sutil-excited-about-fresh-start-with-sauber

One more reason to dislike Sutil (not that there weren't enough already) as he is plainly wrong!

East Londoner wrote:Our Twitter friend Taki Inoue has just shared this image.

It remains to be seen if the McLaren does turn out like that. That nose is something else entirely. Can't we just have the early 1990s low noses back, or the 2009 Brawn nose, and stick with that?

The indication is that the FIA preferred to have something closer to the BGP001 nose section as it believes that, were the driver to strike a car in front of him, that it considerably reduces the chances of the car riding up over the rear wheel and being launched into the air. The teams, however, prefer to have higher noses for performance reasons - so, in the end, what we have is an ugly compromise between the two extremes.

East Londoner wrote:Our Twitter friend Taki Inoue has just shared this image.

It remains to be seen if the McLaren does turn out like that. That nose is something else entirely. Can't we just have the early 1990s low noses back, or the 2009 Brawn nose, and stick with that?

I don't think we'll see noses like the one in the image. The teams will try to get as much air under the car as possible. This design doesn't let more air under the car than the BGP001. So the "anteater"-Design will be more likely.

That actually looks better than the designs these guys are claiming will be the 2014 cars.

Aerospeed wrote:That actually looks better than the designs these guys are claiming will be the 2014 cars.

Its as if the noses have went full circle back to the pre-1990 Tyrrells!

Aerospeed wrote:That actually looks better than the designs these guys are claiming will be the 2014 cars.

That's a disgrace considering what they were claiming the cars would look like late last year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl39E64jXOU

That one from last year looks so much better. Although it's been a long while since F1 cars looked downright disgusting, so a change would be a good thing if we wanted to shout out REJECTFUL. There's a bright side after all!

Force India are allegedly using a "stepped chassis design". Certainly an interesting take on things...

Ataxia wrote:Force India are allegedly using a "stepped chassis design". Certainly an interesting take on things...

So long as the car looks good, then I'm cool with it.

Wallio wrote:

AdrianSutil wrote:

Basetornado wrote:Yeah there should always be one race where you have half the field gone, cause they generally make great races, Australia 08, Australia 02 and Monaco 96. As well as proberly plenty more I cant think of.

Belgium 98 called...

Brazil 2003 on line 2.....

Haha how could I forget the race where ny favorite driver won his first race.

roblomas52 wrote:

Ataxia wrote:Force India are allegedly using a "stepped chassis design". Certainly an interesting take on things...

So long as the car looks good, then I'm cool with it.

Even if it doesn't, I still am. Mid-wings were kind of ugly, but they still had their immense novelty value.

You know, even if we have the "thing-shaped" noses, low noses, and the stepped noses, like the one in the preview of a McLaren posted above, it will at least show that there are multiple ways to take on a regulation change that someone didn't see or think beforehand. It also shows that with these different solutions, cars can be recognizable now based on looks outside the livery. Plus, some of these previews remind me of the good, bad, or ugly of some of the older F1 designs, which will improve my looks on the chassis if it looks like an older car.

Aerospeed wrote:That actually looks better than the designs these guys are claiming will be the 2014 cars.

There's going to be so many broken nosecones and punctures if those wings show up!

Hi all,

I'm in a position to confirm that I will be attending the Jerez tests in January 28th. As it will be the first day of the new engines and cars, it will probably be interesting, although it's likely that we won't see too much running in the morning.

This would belong in a pre-season testing thread, but as there is none open and I think it's too early to start one, I guess it will be okay here.

I'll miss this thread when it's finally retired. There's been some highs and some lows but all in all its been an interesting ride.

Ferrim wrote:Hi all,

I'm in a position to confirm that I will be attending the Jerez tests in January 28th. As it will be the first day of the new engines and cars, it will probably be interesting, although it's likely that we won't see too much running in the morning.

This would belong in a pre-season testing thread, but as there is none open and I think it's too early to start one, I guess it will be okay here.

Plus if the new new tyres are shite, youll be the first to know.

Hahaha so true!

Ferrim wrote:Hi all,

I'm in a position to confirm that I will be attending the Jerez tests in January 28th. As it will be the first day of the new engines and cars, it will probably be interesting, although it's likely that we won't see too much running in the morning.

This would belong in a pre-season testing thread, but as there is none open and I think it's too early to start one, I guess it will be okay here.

If its wet, then you are in for some big prangs.

Nah. If it rains, we will see the SC turning around the track for eight hours.

Basetornado wrote:

Ferrim wrote:Hi all,

I'm in a position to confirm that I will be attending the Jerez tests in January 28th. As it will be the first day of the new engines and cars, it will probably be interesting, although it's likely that we won't see too much running in the morning.

This would belong in a pre-season testing thread, but as there is none open and I think it's too early to start one, I guess it will be okay here.

Plus if the new new tyres are shite, youll be the first to know.

I wouldn't necessarily say so - remember, Bridgestone suffered from terrible graining issues in 2009 when they introduced their slicks in the first test session due to abnormally cold conditions, leading to some critical remarks from the teams and drivers at the time. However, when they went to the next test session (Valencia IIRC), they showed that in fact those issues were something of a one off. By contrast, Pirelli's tyres seemed relatively robust in 2011 at the first test session, but it was the next session in warmer conditions that showed that those tyres were relatively sensitive to thermal degradation issues that had been masked in the previous test.

Enough of that though - it sounds as if you're going to be in for something of a treat on the 28th if the weather holds, and it'll be interesting to hear your thoughts on how the drivers adapt to the new cars.

Two more cents.

Formula 1- Noticias: a facebook site in spanish credited for stating the already obvious (and usually well after F1rejects) cites finnish Turun Sanomat newspaper reporting Kamui Kobayashi went to Caterham HQ recently (just that, recently), having (for once) good shaped financial backing, and being strong contender for a drive with them in 2014. Kovalainen almost discarded since has no funding at all. Other runner-ups are Charles Pic, Giedo Van der Garde and Marcus Ericsson.

Kamui lovers: War paint and banners! Now!

they link here: http://www.f1aldia.com/21902/kovalainen ... rham-2014/ (but not turun Sanomat, BTW)

... with the excepction that F1aldia.com states that Kovalainen is still on the run for grabbing a place there.

Daniel Ricciardo has confirmed on Twitter he will race with No 3.

Numbers, people!

Maldonado gets no.13?! Then he is the first person to run under that number since Divina Galica in 1976.

Note that the FIA entry list has Marussia and Lotus as 'Subject to confirmation'. Also, although he has no number, Chilton is listed with Marussia, which I think qualifies as a confirmed driver.

It seems that Hulkenberg chose #27... hmm... I think I know where his ambitions lie...

Sutil got 99 problems, but Eric Lux ain't one of them.

Only three driver with abnormally-high numbers. I understand the BO77AS one but can someone explain Hamilton's choice of 44 and Sutil's with 99?

AdrianSutil wrote:Only three driver with abnormally-high numbers. I understand the BO77AS one but can someone explain Hamilton's choice of 44 and Sutil's with 99?

44 was Hamilton's number in karting: see here. I wonder if he still has his lucky conker.

Obviously, Sutil has heard of our Car Numbers Alternative Championship and wanted to maximize his chances.

Can Ligier make a comeback and buy out Toro Rosso?

Also I wish Kimi had stayed at Lotus, then Lotus would have had the numbers they would have been supposed to have anyway.

Maldonado in #13 .....

Really???!

Sorry, couldn't avoid to fix the obvious gap #NotBadForANumberTwoDriver!

Backmarker wrote:

AdrianSutil wrote:Only three driver with abnormally-high numbers. I understand the BO77AS one but can someone explain Hamilton's choice of 44 and Sutil's with 99?

44 was Hamilton's number in karting: see here. I wonder if he still has his lucky conker.

There is another possible explanation, involving a BTCC crash magnet.