Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 06:56**

roblomas52 wrote:
mario wrote:
Wallio wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, F1 needs refueling again.

As I've said before, I do not think that refuelling is, strictly speaking, that necessary to the sport - refuelling only occurred in a minority of the races that have occurred in F1, even when it was perfectly legal to do so, and outside of F1 mid race refuelling stops are only really common in endurance racing (where they are a necessity) and, I believe, IndyCar racing.

Because Indy cars are flat out arround the ovals which means they are sucking more fuel out of the tanks to make them go flat out and Indy car races are longer than f1 as well

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Which makes me wonder what an IndyCar race would be like without refuelling... it'd be tougher on the drivers, for starters...

I suppose it'd depend on how high the fuel effect was, though - starting on a full race's worth of fuel would probably slow the cars down in the opening phase of the race a fair bit.

go_Rubens wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
go_Rubens wrote:F1 should have one type of engine and just stick with it. New engines only raise costs, not lower them.

That in and of itself isn't the problem. It's that the rules for the new engines are too free, which allows for development costs to spiral out of control.

Now, I understand. Thanks, mate!

The thing is, I'd argue that the engine regulations are still fairly tight compared to the regulations on aerodynamics and chassis development. Equally, it comes down, to a certain extent, to the issue that the FIA wanted the new engines to offer opportunities for transferring technology to road cars in order to attract manufacturers, which implies that there will have to permit some development work on the engines.
That said, Auto Motor und Sport is already talking about restrictions on engine development kicking in as soon as 2016, with the engine specification being entirely frozen by 2018. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 76535.html

Overall, I would imagine that there are only two outfits that would be pushing for engine development to take precedent over aerodynamics, which would be Mercedes and Ferrari. For most of the other competitors it is to their advantage to push for laxer regulations on aerodynamics than engines, especially for outfits like Red Bull that derive their competitive advantage from the high emphasis on aerodynamics (they have publicly complained that the new regulations give more power to the manufacturers). I do agree that there are legitimate concerns about costs when it comes to engines, but don't think that the cost argument is being made with truly altruistic intentions by all parties.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 10:10**

One thing about refuelling in F1 which was different to Indycars/CART is that American series had set size for fuel tank. In F1 teams could choose the tank size which suited them best. So if Williams, McLaren and Ferrari were all starting with tanks full of fuel, they would have different amounts of fuel.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 10:38**

I am all against stricter engine development and one engine make series. The thing that F1 and FIA must find a way to work (and there are many heads to think in such solution) is effective cost control. The day this becomes a one make or heavily standardized it is the day F1 loses its relevance. Yes, I watch F1 for the technology and the teams and not for the drivers.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 10:48**

DanielPT wrote:I am all against stricter engine development and one engine make series. The thing that F1 and FIA must find a way to work (and there are many heads to think in such solution) is effective cost control. The day this becomes a one make or heavily standardized it is the day F1 loses its relevance. Yes, I watch F1 for the technology and the teams and not for the drivers.

I agree with this opinion. Formula 1 already has lost a lot of its technological relevance. Take LMP1 as a comparison. They allow various different engines. Diesel, petrol, turbos, naturally aspirated, different hybrid systems. The only reason for a constructor to join F1 is publicity.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 11:15**

pi314159 wrote:
DanielPT wrote:I am all against stricter engine development and one engine make series. The thing that F1 and FIA must find a way to work (and there are many heads to think in such solution) is effective cost control. The day this becomes a one make or heavily standardized it is the day F1 loses its relevance. Yes, I watch F1 for the technology and the teams and not for the drivers.

I agree with this opinion. Formula 1 already has lost a lot of its technological relevance. Take LMP1 as a comparison. They allow various different engines. Diesel, petrol, turbos, naturally aspirated, different hybrid systems. The only reason for a constructor to join F1 is publicity.

But that's what it's always been about - publicity. Right from the very beginning, car makers have entered races to prove their cars, their technology, their engineering is superior to the rest, and from that generate publicity and thus car sales. That is precisely what is happening in LMP1 at the moment with Audi and Toyota - both have different versions and both are trying to prove they are the best. The problem with F1 is, whilst Mercedes for example is still trying to prove their engines are the best, the fact that the formula is so tight and the different engines are so similar means it's largely irrelevant.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 12:02**

AndreaModa wrote:
But that's what it's always been about - publicity. Right from the very beginning, car makers have entered races to prove their cars, their technology, their engineering is superior to the rest, and from that generate publicity and thus car sales. That is precisely what is happening in LMP1 at the moment with Audi and Toyota - both have different versions and both are trying to prove they are the best. The problem with F1 is, whilst Mercedes for example is still trying to prove their engines are the best, the fact that the formula is so tight and the different engines are so similar means it's largely irrelevant.

It still is not irrelevant. Despite the formula being tight you still have perception of who has a better engine with Mercedes being a bit ahead of the others. And beating Ferrari and Renault still counts for something. It is true that engine is nowadays pretty much out of the picture and F1 is still going on technologically. But that is only thanks to the teams circumventing the rules most of the time. The sad truth is that the technological edge is not there any more. There are now two things that still make F1 being the pinnacle. The fastest cars around the circuit on earth and a multitude of manufacturers.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 15:58**

So, what's your opinion of the time when the Cosworth DFV ruled the F1 engine market with an iron fist?

Honestly, the most important thing about Formula 1 (for me) is that it determines the best driver and racing team in the world. Everything else is secondary to that. I don't get the big fuss about road relevancy - if the racing's good, then that's all that really matters. If I cared about actual road cars, I certainly wouldn't watch F1 for information on that. One of the things teams have been complaining about is high engine costs, and I think F1 is approaching a stage where they either have to take drastic cost cutting measures, or risk two-thirds of the grid dropping out because they don't have the money to continue. I'm not wholly opposed to engine development, I just think it should be regulated so the manufacturers don't wind up in a development war and driving up costs too much, too fast. Engines account for a significant chunk of team costs, and if we want to drive them down we need to look at a way to make engines cheaper.

Actually, now that I think about it, we don't need strict regulations forever. If the FIA liberalised the engine rules, say, every couple years to allow development on a couple new parts, that would still see development continue, but in a controlled manner, so costs don't spiral out of control. How does that sound?

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 16:25**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:So, what's your opinion of the time when the Cosworth DFV ruled the F1 engine market with an iron fist?

Iron fist? What fault is it that, having a much freer formula, it happens to exist an engine that is so good and cheap it completely obliterates almost all competition? It is not FIA and certainly not Cosworth's fault. If it happens to be the best, so be it. But it was possible for others to build different engines to compete with Cosworth and that it is what it counts for me.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Honestly, the most important thing about Formula 1 (for me) is that it determines the best driver and racing team in the world. Everything else is secondary to that. I don't get the big fuss about road relevancy - if the racing's good, then that's all that really matters. If I cared about actual road cars, I certainly wouldn't watch F1 for information on that. One of the things teams have been complaining about is high engine costs, and I think F1 is approaching a stage where they either have to take drastic cost cutting measures, or risk two-thirds of the grid dropping out because they don't have the money to continue. I'm not wholly opposed to engine development, I just think it should be regulated so the manufacturers don't wind up in a development war and driving up costs too much, too fast. Engines account for a significant chunk of team costs, and if we want to drive them down we need to look at a way to make engines cheaper.

Actually, now that I think about it, we don't need strict regulations forever. If the FIA liberalised the engine rules, say, every couple years to allow development on a couple new parts, that would still see development continue, but in a controlled manner, so costs don't spiral out of control. How does that sound?

I couldn't care less about road relevance. It doesn't bothers me that FIA chooses this to appeal to manufacturers. For me the cars could be completely alien to anything else as long as a) they are drivable, b) safe and c) human input is still important.
What is important for me is that costs don't get too high and, at the same time, having enough technical leeway so that teams can still build different cars and pit them against each others. Your idea certainly appeals to me like anything else which allows costs and technical leeway to walk side by side. I know it is not easy to do it whence this being one of the biggest challenges FIA is facing.

Also, what makes you think that F1 "determines the best driver and racing team"? Didn't Loeb beat the crap out of F1 drivers for several years in RoC with the same conditions for everyone? For what I care about, the best driver in the world could be rallying and the best racing team could be doing LMP1 (team Joest). From what I saw in recent history, F1 drivers tend to fail in other forms of Motorsport (Kubica exempted). Still, you follow F1.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 16:37**

DanielPT wrote:Also, what makes you think that F1 "determines the best driver and racing team"? Didn't Loeb beat the crap out of F1 drivers for several years in RoC with the same conditions for everyone? For what I care about, the best driver in the world could be rallying and the best racing team could be doing LMP1 (team Joest). From what I saw in recent history, F1 drivers tend to fail in other forms of Motorsport (Kubica exempted). Still, you follow F1.

Sebastien Loeb? You mean the same Sebastien Loeb who was 2.2 seconds off the pace in a GP2 test? And 8 tenths behind Michael Herck?

From where I'm sitting, I don't see any other series with a depth of driver and team competitiveness that matches that of F1.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 17:29**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
DanielPT wrote:Also, what makes you think that F1 "determines the best driver and racing team"? Didn't Loeb beat the crap out of F1 drivers for several years in RoC with the same conditions for everyone? For what I care about, the best driver in the world could be rallying and the best racing team could be doing LMP1 (team Joest). From what I saw in recent history, F1 drivers tend to fail in other forms of Motorsport (Kubica exempted). Still, you follow F1.

Sebastien Loeb? You mean the same Sebastien Loeb who was 2.2 seconds off the pace in a GP2 test? And 8 tenths behind Michael Herck?

From where I'm sitting, I don't see any other series with a depth of driver and team competitiveness that matches that of F1.

I refereed to the 'same conditions for everyone'. Being 2.2 seconds off the pace of regular drivers in an one off test is not that bad from what I can tell!

Yes, you have a depth of drivers somewhat unique for a single seater. But having some of the biggest budgets in the Motorsport world it is easy to prize people out of other jobs. What makes you say what you say about team competitiveness is the fact that, unlike other series, they actually build the whole car and than race it. That makes F1 unique, IMHO, and that is why no other series can match that. If you take this, say by putting standard cars in a cost reduction environment (I am not saying costumer cars should stay banned forever, mind you), you lose this unique part of what is F1 and this team competitiveness edge will fade away.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 17:40**

DanielPT wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
DanielPT wrote:Also, what makes you think that F1 "determines the best driver and racing team"? Didn't Loeb beat the crap out of F1 drivers for several years in RoC with the same conditions for everyone? For what I care about, the best driver in the world could be rallying and the best racing team could be doing LMP1 (team Joest). From what I saw in recent history, F1 drivers tend to fail in other forms of Motorsport (Kubica exempted). Still, you follow F1.

Sebastien Loeb? You mean the same Sebastien Loeb who was 2.2 seconds off the pace in a GP2 test? And 8 tenths behind Michael Herck?

From where I'm sitting, I don't see any other series with a depth of driver and team competitiveness that matches that of F1.

I refereed to the 'same conditions for everyone'. Being 2.2 seconds off the pace of regular drivers in an one off test is not that bad from what I can tell!

Yes, you have a depth of drivers somewhat unique for a single seater. But having some of the biggest budgets in the Motorsport world it is easy to prize people out of other jobs. What makes you say what you say about team competitiveness is the fact that, unlike other series, they actually build the whole car and than race it. That makes F1 unique, IMHO, and that is why no other series can match that. If you take this, say by putting standard cars in a cost reduction environment (I am not saying costumer cars should stay banned forever, mind you), you lose this unique part of what is F1 and this team competitiveness edge will fade away.

Except I never said anything about restricting the actual cars. I was only talking about restricting the engines. I think the restrictions on car development are fine as they are - maybe just restrict the front wing to cut down on downforce, and hopefully eliminate the need for DRS, but apart from that it's fine.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 18:02**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Except I never said anything about restricting the actual cars. I was only talking about restricting the engines. I think the restrictions on car development are fine as they are - maybe just restrict the front wing to cut down on downforce, and hopefully eliminate the need for DRS, but apart from that it's fine.

I will give you that one. Putting standard engines would not change much the way F1 is. I just fear that it could be a step leading to a full one make series. Well, we pretty much had a standard engine for a few years now and that is essentially why only manufacturers left and none joined. It is not because we had a crushingly competitive engine that renders all others useless but because there is absolutely no point in coming in and build an engine which is like the others that exist while spending millions in this futile exercise without guarantee of some sort of positive comeback. Formula 1, for me, is an arms race without weapons and that is incredible to watch. Once again, spending is what must be controlled and not the technical regulations.

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 20:34**

DanielPT wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Except I never said anything about restricting the actual cars. I was only talking about restricting the engines. I think the restrictions on car development are fine as they are - maybe just restrict the front wing to cut down on downforce, and hopefully eliminate the need for DRS, but apart from that it's fine.

I will give you that one. Putting standard engines would not change much the way F1 is. I just fear that it could be a step leading to a full one make series. Well, we pretty much had a standard engine for a few years now and that is essentially why only manufacturers left and none joined. It is not because we had a crushingly competitive engine that renders all others useless but because there is absolutely no point in coming in and build an engine which is like the others that exist while spending millions in this futile exercise without guarantee of some sort of positive comeback. Formula 1, for me, is an arms race without weapons and that is incredible to watch. Once again, spending is what must be controlled and not the technical regulations.

And that's why Indy cars are so shite because the teams can't make a part as simple as a break pedal. Yes a bathpluging BRAKE PEDAL :evil:

Also I believe the early 80's were great because you had the manufactures with there turbo car and the British "garagist's" with there superior handeling but with the DFV which was 12 years old when Keke Rosberg won the title for Williams in 1982

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 21:31**

roblomas52 wrote:And that's why Indy cars are so shite because the teams can't make a part as simple as a break pedal. Yes a bathpluging BRAKE PEDAL

Whaaaaaat? Of course IndyCars have brakes... what the hell are you on about? Are you sure you're not thinking of ARCA? I mean, they have brakes too, but most drivers there seem to forget about them...

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 21:49**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
roblomas52 wrote:And that's why Indy cars are so shite because the teams can't make a part as simple as a break pedal. Yes a bathpluging BRAKE PEDAL

Whaaaaaat? Of course IndyCars have brakes... what the hell are you on about? Are you sure you're not thinking of ARCA? I mean, they have brakes too, but most drivers there seem to forget about them...

Yes I know that but the point here is that they are too spec I mean brake pedals are really easy to make for those teams yet Dallara give the pedals to them and I thinks that that is wrong

Posted: **05 Jun 2013, 22:05**

roblomas52 wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
roblomas52 wrote:And that's why Indy cars are so shite because the teams can't make a part as simple as a break pedal. Yes a bathpluging BRAKE PEDAL

Whaaaaaat? Of course IndyCars have brakes... what the hell are you on about? Are you sure you're not thinking of ARCA? I mean, they have brakes too, but most drivers there seem to forget about them...

Yes I know that but the point here is that they are too spec I mean brake pedals are really easy to make for those teams yet Dallara give the pedals to them and I thinks that that is wrong

Who are you to say what's right and wrong? IndyCar is not Formula 1, you can't apply the same principles to it. In the history of IndyCars, I think only Penske developed their own cars, most every other team in IndyCar history bought cars from suppliers like Dallara, Lola, Reynard, March, etc. Yeah it sucks that there's no competition for Dallara, but the clear focus in IndyCars is on providing a good show. Which they have done pretty consistently this year.

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

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Who are you to say what's right and wrong? IndyCar is not Formula 1, you can't apply the same principles to it. In the history of IndyCars, I think only Penske developed their own cars, most every other team in IndyCar history bought cars from suppliers like Dallara, Lola, Reynard, March, etc. Yeah it sucks that there's no competition for Dallara, but the clear focus in IndyCars is on providing a good show. Which they have done pretty consistently this year.

THIS!!! Who is roblomas52 to say what's right and what's wrong?! I agree with BCS in the fact that IndyCar is focusing on providing a good show, which they have done very well and consistently this year. Especially at Indianapolis in terms of a good show (even with rejects)!

Plus, Indy is not F1, as BCS pointed out.

I'm not sure if Penske are the only ones to build their own chassis, but they did do it. Maybe one or two other teams did it, but I'm just too plain lazy to bother researching the topic.

And to throw an unpopular opinion in this post, Juan Pablo Montoya should have won the championship in 2003. He was just too unlucky and ragged.

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 02:50**

go_Rubens wrote:And to throw an unpopular opinion in this post, Juan Pablo Montoya should have won the championship in 2003. He was just too unlucky and ragged.

I'd argue that being too ragged is exactly why he didn't deserve the title, but that's just me. I'm hardly Montoya's biggest fan, after all.

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 06:27**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
go_Rubens wrote:And to throw an unpopular opinion in this post, Juan Pablo Montoya should have won the championship in 2003. He was just too unlucky and ragged.

I'd argue that being too ragged is exactly why he didn't deserve the title, but that's just me. I'm hardly Montoya's biggest fan, after all.

I watched him in CART before he went to F1 and he was either wreckers or checkers. That type of driving style is still hindering Juan Pablo even in NASCAR where the cars are more durable as his car seems to find it's way into crashes too often and the team has to spend time patching the car up. I guess the tendencies never changed whether it was CART, F1, or NASCAR.

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 09:12**

go_Rubens wrote:And to throw an unpopular opinion in this post, Juan Pablo Montoya should have won the championship in 2003. He was just too unlucky and ragged.

He actually wasn't that ragged in 2003, one of the reasons he was in title contention until the penultimate round (which of course is when he made that ragged move on Boobens

). But yeah, if you analyse his performances in 2003, he was one of the more solid drivers; a hell of a lot better than his teammate, for starters

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 10:34**

Here's a possibly unpopular opinion: Williams need a complete shake-up if they're ever going to return to the front on a more regular basis. This means a more consistent and hungry driver lineup, a completely new ethos in the design house and a brand new paint-job.

Why? If the team is more brand-aware (kinda like Lotus) then they perhaps won't have to rely on PDVSA's money so much if they can pull in a few sponsors due to their new partnership with Mercedes. Currently, their paintjob doesn't stand out at all to me; a dull, lifeless dark blue isn't particularly inspiring. Something brighter would definitely fit the bill (a light blue, perhaps?).

Once the marketing side is well and truly sorted, this means that Williams can then pick up drivers with less cash but more marketability (Charles Pic/Felipe Nasr, perhaps?).

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 11:01**

Ataxia wrote:Currently, their paintjob doesn't stand out at all to me; a dull, lifeless dark blue isn't particularly inspiring. Something brighter would definitely fit the bill (a light blue, perhaps?).

I think their paint needs to change completely. Silver (since Mercedes is joining the team) and maybe a light red or a weird British Racing Green (seems odd, I know.). Something more inspiring than a dark blue, because that is pretty dull.

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 14:46**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:But yeah, if you analyse his performances in 2003, he was one of the more solid drivers; a hell of a lot better than his teammate, for starters

Not really. Until Silverstone, Ralf was more than on par with Montoya being actually by the far the most consistent driver in the field. Only in the final races did Montoya actually get away.

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 14:53**

Japan 2003 was easily the most pathetic drive of Ralf Schumacher's career as he spent all weekend tooling around in the back half of the field and very nearly took out his brother in a foolish attempt at passing him late on. Had Villeneuve not sulked off out of BAR i have no doubt Ralf would have cakewalked his way to ROTR. Also Monaco 2007 was laughable as Ralf was in last place on pure pace for 20 odd laps and here he did win ROTR

Also i think Montoya would have won the title had Ferrari and Bridgestone not been a bunch of petulant crybabies whining about the Michelin tires. The bare stats between Montoya and Ralf in 2003 aren't that bad.

Wins: 2-2 (2 wins each)
Podiums: A whopping 9-3 victory to JPM
Poles: 3-1 Ralf (Surprising considered Montoya was on pole 7 times in 2002)
Fastest Laps: 3-1 JPM
Points: 82-58 to JPM
Championship Positions: 3rd-5th to JPM

Posted: **06 Jun 2013, 18:55**

Ataxia wrote:Here's a possibly unpopular opinion: Williams need a complete shake-up if they're ever going to return to the front on a more regular basis. This means a more consistent and hungry driver lineup, a completely new ethos in the design house and a brand new paint-job.

Why? If the team is more brand-aware (kinda like Lotus) then they perhaps won't have to rely on PDVSA's money so much if they can pull in a few sponsors due to their new partnership with Mercedes. Currently, their paintjob doesn't stand out at all to me; a dull, lifeless dark blue isn't particularly inspiring. Something brighter would definitely fit the bill (a light blue, perhaps?).

Once the marketing side is well and truly sorted, this means that Williams can then pick up drivers with less cash but more marketability (Charles Pic/Felipe Nasr, perhaps?).

Maldonado has, in some ways, improved since last year but is still a bit too erratic at times, whilst Bottas has perhaps been pushed into F1 slightly earlier than he should have been, so there is perhaps room for improvement with their drivers as things stand.

However, even if you had a strong driver, like Kimi (we know he was at one time linked to Williams) driving for them now, the fact that they seem to be struggling to develop this car indicates much deeper problems. They have already resorted to using the ramp exhaust from the FW34 on this years car, and were running the FW34's front wing during the practise sessions at Monaco amongst talk of calibration issues with their current front wing. They seemed to spend quite a bit of time running with the old front wing in the off season because of calibration issues, so by the sounds of things that problem is still not entirely solved right now.

I think that the changes need to go deeper than just their driver line up - their design team and facilities sound as if they are perhaps not as strong as they need to be and, dare I say it, one has to wonder whether their senior management is entirely up to the task too.

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 21:16**

I would like to see Marco Andretti in F1 one day.

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 21:53**

darkapprentice77 wrote:I would like to see Marco Andretti in F1 one day.

He'd make his dad look like a roaring success.

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 21:58**

darkapprentice77 wrote:I would like to see Marco Andretti in F1 one day.

And then, with 3 races remaining of the season, he'd get replaced with Hugo Hakkinen.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 05:11**

DanielPT wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:So, what's your opinion of the time when the Cosworth DFV ruled the F1 engine market with an iron fist?

Iron fist? What fault is it that, having a much freer formula, it happens to exist an engine that is so good and cheap it completely obliterates almost all competition? It is not FIA and certainly not Cosworth's fault. If it happens to be the best, so be it. But it was possible for others to build different engines to compete with Cosworth and that it is what it counts for me.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Honestly, the most important thing about Formula 1 (for me) is that it determines the best driver and racing team in the world. Everything else is secondary to that. I don't get the big fuss about road relevancy - if the racing's good, then that's all that really matters. If I cared about actual road cars, I certainly wouldn't watch F1 for information on that. One of the things teams have been complaining about is high engine costs, and I think F1 is approaching a stage where they either have to take drastic cost cutting measures, or risk two-thirds of the grid dropping out because they don't have the money to continue. I'm not wholly opposed to engine development, I just think it should be regulated so the manufacturers don't wind up in a development war and driving up costs too much, too fast. Engines account for a significant chunk of team costs, and if we want to drive them down we need to look at a way to make engines cheaper.

Actually, now that I think about it, we don't need strict regulations forever. If the FIA liberalised the engine rules, say, every couple years to allow development on a couple new parts, that would still see development continue, but in a controlled manner, so costs don't spiral out of control. How does that sound?

I couldn't care less about road relevance. It doesn't bothers me that FIA chooses this to appeal to manufacturers. For me the cars could be completely alien to anything else as long as a) they are drivable, b) safe and c) human input is still important.
What is important for me is that costs don't get too high and, at the same time, having enough technical leeway so that teams can still build different cars and pit them against each others. Your idea certainly appeals to me like anything else which allows costs and technical leeway to walk side by side. I know it is not easy to do it whence this being one of the biggest challenges FIA is facing.

Also, what makes you think that F1 "determines the best driver and racing team"? Didn't Loeb beat the crap out of F1 drivers for several years in RoC with the same conditions for everyone? For what I care about, the best driver in the world could be rallying and the best racing team could be doing LMP1 (team Joest). From what I saw in recent history, F1 drivers tend to fail in other forms of Motorsport (Kubica exempted). Still, you follow F1.

Mark Martin also did that in IROC as an oval racer in NASCAR during the 1990s and early 2000s. Odd considering that Martin never won a NASCAR championship in the top series of NASCAR, though. When the cars are made equal, certain drivers seem to rise to the top (Loeb and Martin come to mind). F1 is an enjoyable race none the less. The things about F1 is that the races are long enough for strategy to show up and not so long like a NASCAR event that there may be drivers just trying to make it to the finish trying to preserve their engines from engine failure where attrition plays as much a role in the championship as skill.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 09:57**

Johnny Herbert. Or Johnny Pervert ?

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 12:06**

Jocke1 wrote:Johnny Herbert. Or Johnny Pervert ?

I will not be sleeping tonight now

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 17:26**

Fernando Alonso is overrated.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 18:34**

TheBigJ wrote:Fernando Alonso is overrated.

Yeah, that's an unpopular opinion, alright.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 19:45**

Lewis Hamilton will retire from F1 racing at the end of 2013.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 19:58**

Heres an opinion of mine that I don't think will go down terribly well

Robert Kubica should give up on the idea of getting back to F1

I mean, I miss him and I think its a giant shame that his career has been curtailed, but I think he should just move on. I mean, first of all, he has to overcome the physical difficulties of driving in such cramped conditions. I mean, we all saw how Schumacher struggled to adapt, what makes anyone think Bobby K will be any different? Also, I remember him being the plucky underdog, always driving beyond the capabilities of his car. If he returned, I highly doubt he'd be able to do that, and his glittering reputation would be damaged, which I don't want to see. Ever.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 20:22**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Heres an opinion of mine that I don't think will go down terribly well

Robert Kubica should give up on the idea of getting back to F1

I mean, I miss him and I think its a giant shame that his career has been curtailed, but I think he should just move on. I mean, first of all, he has to overcome the physical difficulties of driving in such cramped conditions. I mean, we all saw how Schumacher struggled to adapt, what makes anyone think Bobby K will be any different? Also, I remember him being the plucky underdog, always driving beyond the capabilities of his car. If he returned, I highly doubt he'd be able to do that, and his glittering reputation would be damaged, which I don't want to see. Ever.

Except for the fact it doesn't look like he's lost any of his speed. Every single rally he's been in so far he's either been in contention for the win, or flat out dominated. At least, until the almost inevitable crash or car failure...

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 23:17**

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
takagi_for_the_win wrote:Heres an opinion of mine that I don't think will go down terribly well

Robert Kubica should give up on the idea of getting back to F1

I mean, I miss him and I think its a giant shame that his career has been curtailed, but I think he should just move on. I mean, first of all, he has to overcome the physical difficulties of driving in such cramped conditions. I mean, we all saw how Schumacher struggled to adapt, what makes anyone think Bobby K will be any different? Also, I remember him being the plucky underdog, always driving beyond the capabilities of his car. If he returned, I highly doubt he'd be able to do that, and his glittering reputation would be damaged, which I don't want to see. Ever.

Except for the fact it doesn't look like he's lost any of his speed. Every single rally he's been in so far he's either been in contention for the win, or flat out dominated. At least, until the almost inevitable crash or car failure...

You raise a good point, but I'm sceptical he'd be able to cut it in F1 if he returned

Posted: **09 Jun 2013, 04:17**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
takagi_for_the_win wrote:Heres an opinion of mine that I don't think will go down terribly well

Robert Kubica should give up on the idea of getting back to F1

I mean, I miss him and I think its a giant shame that his career has been curtailed, but I think he should just move on. I mean, first of all, he has to overcome the physical difficulties of driving in such cramped conditions. I mean, we all saw how Schumacher struggled to adapt, what makes anyone think Bobby K will be any different? Also, I remember him being the plucky underdog, always driving beyond the capabilities of his car. If he returned, I highly doubt he'd be able to do that, and his glittering reputation would be damaged, which I don't want to see. Ever.

Except for the fact it doesn't look like he's lost any of his speed. Every single rally he's been in so far he's either been in contention for the win, or flat out dominated. At least, until the almost inevitable crash or car failure...

You raise a good point, but I'm sceptical he'd be able to cut it in F1 if he returned

Its still comparing apples to oranges, and as much as I like Kubica, I don't think he ever will make it back. I think BCS may be right in a few years, but for right now I'll hope for the best.

I, at the very least, hope he stays around F1, maybe as a consultant or for car demos. Just to be there, saying hi and shaking hands, talking about the days long past and the rallying he now loves. (That may have been the most popular opinion voiced in this thread, but I felt the desire to say it)

Posted: **09 Jun 2013, 06:42**

Am I the only person here who thinks that Kubica should be in that Ferrari now?

Posted: **09 Jun 2013, 07:03**

roblomas52 wrote:Am I the only person here who thinks that Kubica should be in that Ferrari now?

Grand Prix Rejects

Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions