Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **31 Oct 2013, 14:32**

Regarding Nelson Piquet Snr. He does strike me as someone who is not able to extract the 'special' qualities associated with a 3 times WDC, day in day out regardless of the team / his teammate situation or even machinery he has underneath him. I would welcome being proved wrong on this front, but the perception about Piquet that remains with me is when he's in a poor situation / car, he rarely looks like a triple WDC. As he seemed to show in 1985 & his Lotus days & to some extend in the majority of his Benetton days.

For me, that's the difference between him and some other WDC's who won their championships in the best car of the time.

For instance, I am struggling to think of many great races by him, where he put in a 'truly against the odds' drive using his qualities alone (i.e. where he didn't have an car / tyre advantage of some kind & didn't just benefit from other drivers retirements/problems). People may say Brazil 1982 or Hungary 1986. But Brazil 1982 IMO he was still one of the (if not the) best car that day. His teammate was Patrese who wasn't exactly the toughest teammate to overcome.

Hungary 1986 again in the best car... but Piquet won that race, by being less than honest with Mansell's side of the Williams garage, when it came to setting up the car. And IIRC Mansell's mechanics had to rely on Piquet's (dishonest) setup advise since Piquet had done the majority of the testing on the new active suspension. Not the 'correct' way to finish ahead of your teammate IMO.

Posted: **31 Oct 2013, 16:51**

Haven't really got time to do a full response since posting from work...& I can't help but think about F1 instead of my job :lol:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:First of all is the obvious one- its all very well having the best machinery but you have to have the ability to make your advantage count.

Whilst that is true. You have to admit that it helps having the likes of Ricardo Zunino, Héctor Rebaque, Patrese. in the other car. Even when Mansell was his teammate in 1986 / 1987 IIRC Mansell (a single WDC) suffered worse reliability then Piquet yet arguably should have won both those titles ahead of Piquet.

EDIT; Also during 1986/87 Piquet had a Number 1 contract which allowed him the use of the spare T car which he (Piquet) used to experiment with. Mansell didn't have that luxury!

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Also, how did he get into the position of having the best machinery? If you look at his 1986 and 1987, yes it was clear that the Williams was far superior, but Piquet was picked to drive the superior cars. Teams are always looking to get the best drivers available, and a team like Williams wouldn't have paid the salary of a double world champion if they had felt he was an average driver.

Firstly around mid 1985 (when teams were making choices about their drivers for the following season), it wasn't clear that the Williams seat was going to be the class of the field in 1986 & 1987. Especially as McLaren had dominated 1984 & looked set to win the 1985 WDC.

EDIT; in fact reading this...

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/hi ... s-brabham/

... it seems Piquet real motivation for leaving Brabham for Williams was money. Had he not done so we would only be talking about a double WDC with far less GP victories.

Also historically Williams have made some poor decisions when it came to drivers. Sacking Mansell & Hill as they won their WDC to name just a couple. Also throw into the mix that Piquet, which ever way you cut it, had been extremely fortunate to by that stage be a double WDC. And that automatically opens up new doors in itself. For instance, Williams would have benefited from increased marketing opportunities, in employing a double WDC like Piquet instead of a younger (unknown) driver. Which probably influenced not only their decision but also the salary they / their sponsor / Honda could afford to pay him.

In the same way that BAR would have had increased marketing opportunities in employing JV. Hence IIRC he was the 2/3rd highest paid driver around 1999 / 2000. And can one really argue JV was the 2 / 3 rd best driver at that time?

mario wrote:I suppose that, in the case of Piquet Sr., part of the reason for the animosity towards him is probably because many feel that he only earned those titles because he cheated. 1981 saw the use of pneumatic suspension on the car to circumvent the regulations on ride height - though within a few races most of the top teams were doing the same thing - and a sense that he only really won because Williams threw the title away, not because of his efforts.

Also I believe the switch to Goodyear tyres contributed to Williams losing the 1981 title. Particular at the wet Canadian GP where the Goodyears were nowhere.

Read this recently...

Misty-eyed, I think back to Hockenheim in 1981, to the aftermath of the German Grand Prix. Alan Jones had had a bad day, and as I walked to the car park with him and Frank Williams he gave vent to his feelings, not least about Goodyear, who had recently made a mid-season return to F1 after a few months away, and in his opinion were falling short. “Please don’t say anything about Goodyear, Nige,” Frank murmured, but Alan would have nothing of it. “No!” he yelled, hurling his briefcase – from some distance away – into their car’s open boot. “Bloody write it! If you do, something might get done about it…”

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/th ... ial-media/

BTW if you want to read a more detailed argument about Piquet, then I posted one a couple of years ago here...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1257&start=760 (post dated; 06 Mar 2012, 13:28)

Posted: **31 Oct 2013, 18:56**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:I'm pondering if it is time for unlocking the Abu Dhabi GP Thread? I've come up with;...yes.

Is there news about it?

To be a bit more serious, by the time I posted that ^, the attendees for the thursday and friday press conferences had just been released by the FIA. And yes, that was news-worthy to me, but I couldn't post it for the thread still being closed.
Personally, I think it is silly to have the thread locked, just because there are one or two or three days 'too early'. What does it matter if people post in there?
Some argue that there will only be off-topicness, and that point is a vaild one, but it's not hurting anyone. Just scroll

Posted: **31 Oct 2013, 19:19**

Jocke1 wrote:To be a bit more serious, by the time I posted that ^, the attendees for the thursday and friday press conferences had just been released by the FIA. And yes, that was news-worthy to me, but I couldn't post it for the thread still being closed.
Personally, I think it is silly to have the thread locked, just because there are one or two or three days 'too early'. What does it matter if people post in there?
Some argue that there will only be off-topicness, and that point is a vaild one, but it's not hurting anyone. Just scroll

I second this. Anyway, now it isn't too early to have the thread locked as there are just 3 days left until lights out.

EDIT: I've just realized the thread has been unlocked so we can get rolling!

Posted: **31 Oct 2013, 20:00**

Just had a few further thoughts in regards to Piquet Snr…

1982 Brazil – his car was DSQ after it was found to be underweight. So maybe it wasn't that great a drive by him after all?

good_Ralf wrote:
watka wrote:One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

East Londoner wrote:The same could be said for 1984, as Piquet took more poles than anyone else that season (9 overall), but could only convert two of them into victories, such was the unreliability of his car. He'd have been right up in the championship battle otherwise.

So with more luck and nerve...

Brazil - Boom 1! - 4th
South Africa - Boom 2! - 1st to 2nd
Belgium - Boom 3! - 3rd
San Marino - Boom 4! - 2nd
France - Boom 5! - 6th
Monaco - Electric failure - 6th
Canada - 1st
Detroit - 1st
Dallas - Throttle - 4th
Britain - Problem - 2nd
Germany - Gearbox - 1st
Austria - 2nd
Netherlands - Boom 6! - 1st
Italy - Radiator - 1st
Europe - 3rd
Portugal - 6th

Raw Points - 86 to 89
Wins: 5 or 6
WDC: 1st

So if the Brabham was reliable in 1982 and 1984, Piquet could have been a quintuple world champion! With more titles than Senna or Prost as well!

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Does anyone actually know Nelson never scored a 3 in a row victory streak?

Yep. Read it in the F1 edition of the Guinness Book of Records. Interesting stat.

1982 – Completely agree with PT8475 response. Also remembering Prost Renault also tended to go pop quite often that year too. Haven’t looked at the stats by had both Piquet and Prost cars been reliably would Nelson still have taken that years WDC?

1984 – I think the reason why Piquet took more poles than anyone else that year was because IIRC the TAG engine powering the Mclaren was well known to have less quail boost in comparison to the BMW Brabham. IIRC Mclaren TAG big strength was its power / fuel efficiency ratio in the races. Whereas the BMW engines had to be turned down much more than the TAG's to achieve a similar level of fuel efficiency.

Also Prost & Lauda were similarly well known for sacrificing their quail performance in order to concentrate on the race.

Also I've got a feeling Brabham BMW were still using their 'turbo' fuel for 1st half of that season? And given mid race refuelling was banned for 1984. This may have hurt their fuel efficiency yet further. All of these factors mean that towards the end of the races where Piquet retired. He may well have struggled in comparison to the Mclaren TAG's. So even in a reliable car that year, one has to wonder if he would still have have been in the championship battle?

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 14:05**

Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 14:34**

Jocke1 wrote:Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

It was a little silly, just since it's celebrating a points record....

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 14:41**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

It was a little silly, just since it's celebrating a points record....

With 25 points given out for a win compared to just 10 in the past it is much easier to break the record. And as someone mentioned in the ROTR thread, Alonso scored no points in the race in which he wore the special helmet. Vettel is likely to beat his own record in a few years anyway.

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 14:47**

Jocke1 wrote:Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

I don't think it was disrespectful at all- I mean, if you had just broken the all-time points record, would you commemorate it? However, I think it wasn't the most imaginative or classy design.

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 15:08**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

I don't think it was disrespectful at all- I mean, if you had just broken the all-time points record, would you commemorate it? However, I think it wasn't the most imaginative or classy design.

Dunno, I liked it much more than his Asturias blue..

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 15:09**

wsrgo wrote:
takagi_for_the_win wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:Am I the only one thinking Alonso's "1571 helmet" was a little silly, and a little disrespectful?

I don't think it was disrespectful at all- I mean, if you had just broken the all-time points record, would you commemorate it? However, I think it wasn't the most imaginative or classy design.

Dunno, I liked it much more than his Asturias blue..

Personal opinion. In all honesty, I love his normal helmet design

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 17:07**

Posted: **01 Nov 2013, 17:28**

Oh... I remember that post... so, uh, my new response is just "no".

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 11:49**

This is probably a stupid question but:

Why aren't Lotus paying Raikkonen?

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 11:53**

Dark77 wrote:This is probably a stupid question but:

Why aren't Lotus paying Raikkonen?

Because they are totally and utterly skint?

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 12:20**

Quite simply Jocke1, the reason for changing to the 25 points for a win method is to encourage drivers to fight for a win or a podium rather than just settling for the positions they are in. Having 25 points for a win and 18 points for 2nd is a far more significant gap than 10 and 8 points, therefore the driver in 2nd should theoretically be more motivated to claw back 7 points than just 2.

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 14:49**

I wonder how people would react if Ferrari didn't score points tomorrow, because then the arch-rivals will be tied for the all-time lead instead of one being better than the other. How would people react to this (if it did happen)?

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 14:51**

go_Rubens wrote:I wonder how people would react if Ferrari didn't score points tomorrow, because then the arch-rivals will be tied for the all-time lead instead of one being better than the other. How would people react to this (if it did happen)?

Anyone want to wager how many cars Massa might be holding up tomorrow?

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 14:53**

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:
go_Rubens wrote:I wonder how people would react if Ferrari didn't score points tomorrow, because then the arch-rivals will be tied for the all-time lead instead of one being better than the other. How would people react to this (if it did happen)?

Anyone want to wager how many cars Massa might be holding up tomorrow?

Well, that won't impress Checo.

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 14:58**

go_Rubens wrote:I wonder how people would react if Ferrari didn't score points tomorrow,
How would people react to this (if it did happen)?

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 15:19**

watka wrote:Quite simply Jocke1, the reason for changing to the 25 points for a win method is to encourage drivers to fight for a win or a podium rather than just settling for the positions they are in. Having 25 points for a win and 18 points for 2nd is a far more significant gap than 10 and 8 points, therefore the driver in 2nd should theoretically be more motivated to claw back 7 points than just 2.

I get that. But in doing so they threw 60 years! worth of history out the window down on the street, and then sweeped them together into a big pile and pissed on them, and finally threw a molotov cocktail on them, burned them until mere ashes remained.
Has it been worth it these last four years? Have drivers been gunning for the podium in a different way? In my book, no.
Like DC said, all the historical data are lost. Because you can't compare drivers anymore. 9 points for a win or 10 points for a win, you were still able to compare different eras with that. But 25? Not so.

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 15:23**

Sometimes I just divide by 2.5. Since the beginning of 2010 Vettel has scored around 500 points under that method and took around 150-160 in 2011.

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 15:28**

good_Ralf wrote:Sometimes I just divide by 2.5. Since the beginning of 2010 Vettel has scored around 500 points under that method and took around 150-160 in 2011.

There's still the problem of every season having a different number of races. It's not fair that e.g. Fangio only gets nine chances to win in a season whilst e.g. Alonso gets nineteen.

Posted: **02 Nov 2013, 15:34**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
good_Ralf wrote:Sometimes I just divide by 2.5. Since the beginning of 2010 Vettel has scored around 500 points under that method and took around 150-160 in 2011.

There's still the problem of every season having a different number of races. It's not fair that e.g. Fangio only gets nine chances to win in a season whilst e.g. Alonso gets nineteen.

Points per finish, then? In 2012 Alonso scored an average of 15.4 points for each of his 18 finishes, which is the equivalent of 3rd place. In 1951, Fangio scored something like an average of 6 points for each of his finishes (not counting his FLs), which back then was what you got for 2nd place.

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 12:41**

How come BBC has it's own thread, and not Sky?

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 13:19**

Why did Lotus take off their three stars for their Constructors Championships and replace it with sponsors known as "Burn"? :lol:

I mean, they're asking for the ultimate downfall...

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 19:05**

Could someone please tell me what's Infinitely Improbable about Vettel, the reigning 4-time world champion, winning a race?

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 19:27**

Jocke1 wrote:How come BBC has it's own thread, and not Sky?

Because no one cares enough about Sky to start one.

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 20:15**

Lotus have been screwing with creditors for years. Since the day Genii Capital took over the team from Renault, they have left bills unpaid for years - literally. I know for a fact they have a £100,000 bill outstanding from 2009. That's now four years ago. They keep dodging their financial responsibilities. They promised Raikkonen money they didn't have, presumably hedging that the upturn in form the team would gain as a result would lead to more TV/prize money and also more money from new sponsors. Which they must have overestimated the effect of when giving Raikkonen the salary promises they did.

I dunno, most of that is just me speculating. But why they'd give Raikkonen a $15M (?) salary when they already had outstanding debts and without the extra investment already in place to pay for it, I can't understand beyond plain and simple financial mismanagement and/or hopes far too high.

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 21:07**

Jocke1 wrote:How come BBC has it's own thread, and not Sky?

It's mainly as a consequence of the debate over the BBC cutting back their coverage of F1 and the deal that they offered Sky, which has since evolved into a more general discussion of media coverage of the sport (albeit still mainly focussed on the BBC and Sky).

Stramala wrote:Lotus have been screwing with creditors for years. Since the day Genii Capital took over the team from Renault, they have left bills unpaid for years - literally. I know for a fact they have a £100,000 bill outstanding from 2009. That's now four years ago. They keep dodging their financial responsibilities. They promised Raikkonen money they didn't have, presumably hedging that the upturn in form the team would gain as a result would lead to more TV/prize money and also more money from new sponsors. Which they must have overestimated the effect of when giving Raikkonen the salary promises they did.

I dunno, most of that is just me speculating. But why they'd give Raikkonen a $15M (?) salary when they already had outstanding debts and without the extra investment already in place to pay for it, I can't understand beyond plain and simple financial mismanagement and/or hopes far too high.

I was under the impression that the base salary that Kimi gets is not especially high, but it is the performance related bonus that Kimi receives that is causing the largest cashflow issues. One element of their cashflow issues could be down to Kimi exceeding pre-season expectations, and therefore earning more per point than they might have otherwise bargained for.
There perhaps was also an element of the team believing that they could secure some sponsorship deals that ended up collapsing and reducing their anticipated income - they put a considerable amount of effort earlier this year into courting Honeywell, a major American conglomerate, only for talks to collapse. Some of the other deals they have secured, such as the Burn energy drink, are also thought to be a bit smaller in magnitude than originally hoped for, so their income has perhaps been squeezed a bit too.

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 21:14**

I think Team and driver politics have blighted this year in particular letting Red Bull run away with it
Ferrari- Yes the car is now a piece of garbage but the driver conflicts between Alonso and the team haven't helped and have taken focus away from the car- Massa is driving much better than Alonso now and really Alonso and the team need to re-focus
Mercedes- I wish the team would just announce their team principal in January instead of just messing around with leaks- the car and drivers (hamilton in particular) has gone downhill pretty drastically.
Lotus- Money worries and a driver who clearly does not want to drive anymore is a team's worst nightmare- It might just be better all round if Lotus bring in someone else for the last two races because it isn't helping

and what have Red Bulls internal and External matters been-
Promoting 1 driver to their team- and losing Mark Webber the number 2 driver.

See what I mean

Posted: **03 Nov 2013, 23:00**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Could someone please tell me what's Infinitely Improbable about Vettel, the reigning 4-time world champion, winning a race?

My sentiments exactly, surely the Reverend being less than 3 seconds away from the points is more improbable.

Posted: **04 Nov 2013, 07:03**

Jocke1 wrote:How come BBC has it's own thread, and not Sky?

Because BBC is better

Posted: **05 Nov 2013, 23:22**

If 1952 was now, would people be complaining about ASCARIWINSLOL on the internet?

Posted: **05 Nov 2013, 23:49**

watka wrote:If 1952 was now, would people be complaining about ASCARIWINSLOL on the internet?

No, because there would be no Internet.

Posted: **05 Nov 2013, 23:59**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
watka wrote:If 1952 was now, would people be complaining about ASCARIWINSLOL on the internet?

No, because there would be no Internet.

Or Pro Wrestling and John Cena to inspire the said meme,

Posted: **06 Nov 2013, 00:39**

Aerospeed wrote:Or Pro Wrestling and John Cena to inspire the said meme,

Actually Pro Wrestling in the currently known form as worked fights is around at least since World War I, and perhaps TheszWinsLol would have been applicable given as he was already three years in his first NWA World Championship reign in 1952.

Posted: **06 Nov 2013, 01:12**

Klon wrote:
Aerospeed wrote:Or Pro Wrestling and John Cena to inspire the said meme,

Actually Pro Wrestling in the currently known form as worked fights is around at least since World War I, and perhaps TheszWinsLol would have been applicable given as he was already three years in his first NWA World Championship reign in 1952.

Where would the "lol" come from?

Posted: **06 Nov 2013, 01:15**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Where would the "lol" come from?

LOL was quite commonly used to mean "Lots of Love" back in the day, so that could work...

Posted: **06 Nov 2013, 03:17**

Does anyone around here know where to watch reruns of recent F1 races online?

Grand Prix Rejects

Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox