Grand Prix Rejects

darkapprentice77 wrote:

pi314159 wrote:

Klon wrote:Perhaps I ought to talk about racing actually: if Caterham doesn't finally catch up to the midfield this year, they are going to end up as the biggest joke in recent F1 history.

No, they aren't. Look at Honda 2007/2008. And the biggest joke was pulling out of F1 just before they finally had a championship winning car.

To be fair Honda probably didn't know how good their car would be.

But would it have been as good with a Honda engine it rather than the Mercedes engine? Or wouldn't it have made much difference?

But would it have been as good with a Honda engine it rather than the Mercedes engine? Or wouldn't it have made much difference?

This could be a good question. Unluckily I'm not able to answer.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

pi314159 wrote:

Klon wrote:Perhaps I ought to talk about racing actually: if Caterham doesn't finally catch up to the midfield this year, they are going to end up as the biggest joke in recent F1 history.

No, they aren't. Look at Honda 2007/2008. And the biggest joke was pulling out of F1 just before they finally had a championship winning car.

To be fair Honda probably didn't know how good their car would be.

dr-baker wrote:But would it have been as good with a Honda engine it rather than the Mercedes engine? Or wouldn't it have made much difference?

It probably would have been an even better car if it had the original drivetrain package it was designed around - although the Honda engine did have some disadvantages over the Mercedes engine, as it was less powerful and with a narrower power band, it was slightly more fuel efficient (so they might have gained some of their performance back through lighter fuel loads).

I believe that the team also had a few problems with installing the Mercedes engine due to the design of the oil cooling system and oil pump, which was located in a different location compared to the Honda engine - a problem that was compounded by the fact that the BGP001 was originally designed to use Honda's flywheel KERS, which was supposed to have been installed between the front of the engine and the back of the cockpit. Having to hack the chassis up in order to install the new engine caused quite a few problems, most notably with the weight distribution of the car - so, overall, it probably would have been less compromised if they hadn't had to make quite as many changes.

Part of me wishes that F1 had 4 chassis manufacturers and 4 engine manufacturers, with no team having the same combination... just to see what chassis and what engine is better or to see if one car, like, say the Ferrari, was awful with its own engine but killer with a Mercedes engine.

Say, have Lotus, Ferrari, McLaren, and Red Bull chassis, with Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes and Cosworth engines...

Thus;

Lotus-Renault
Lotus-Ferrari
Lotus-Mercedes
Lotus-Cosworth
Ferrari-Renault
Ferrari-Ferrari
Ferrari-Mercedes
Ferrari-Cosworth
McLaren-Renault
McLaren-Ferrari
McLaren-Mercedes
McLaren-Cosworth
Red Bull-Renault
Red Bull-Ferrari
Red Bull-Mercedes
Red Bull-Cosworth

Therefore, the big outfits in F1 get to set the technical regulations as they've been wanting to do, engines get equal representation, more reject/young drivers have a shot at making it into F1, and not everyone has the same stuff. Not only that, but we have a better indication as to what is the winning element -- the car, engine, or combination of both. Not only that, we have the hilarious McLaren-Ferrari and Ferrari-Cosworth entries!!

@Cynon: It would be more funny, if all chassis suppliers are third-party developers. Like Lola, Dallara, Swift, Ferrari or McLaren (If they pull out/sell their F1 teams ). I mean, teams pulling of a "Penske" does more harm than good. Either such a team becomes too dominant, or it backfires spectacularily (Like Penske from 1995 on). Of course, we may end up with one manufacturer dominanting over the rest (Like Reynard at the end of the 90's). But that'd be a market process, so that's okay. Then drop the proposed 1.6l turbos, and either use the old Menard V6s, or CART V8s. Especially the former would be a pretty amusing sight. Especially since people might start hedging bets on the first car that blows up its engine.

Ferrarist wrote:@Cynon: It would be more funny, if all chassis suppliers are third-party developers. Like Lola, Dallara, Swift, Ferrari or McLaren (If they pull out/sell their F1 teams ). I mean, teams pulling of a "Penske" does more harm than good. Either such a team becomes too dominant, or it backfires spectacularily (Like Penske from 1995 on). Of course, we may end up with one manufacturer dominanting over the rest (Like Reynard at the end of the 90's). But that'd be a market process, so that's okay. Then drop the proposed 1.6l turbos, and either use the old Menard V6s, or CART V8s. Especially the former would be a pretty amusing sight. Especially since people might start hedging bets on the first car that blows up its engine.

The Penskes and the Menard Lola Buicks, two of the biggest backfiring hazards out there. The Menards had tons of power, almost the the point of rivaling Mercedesaurus Rex in power but even more fragile (only once did a Menard Buick from 1980 until Robby Gordon in the late 1990s even make it to lap 199 without being many laps down due to having to conserve the engine with Al Unser on the lead lap in 1992). If it wasn't Penske on the Pole in the 1980s thru 1994, it was a car with a stockblock Buick (usually a Team Menard) and a Lola chassis.

Ferrari makes third-party chassis? This is new

Ferrarist wrote:@Cynon: It would be more funny, if all chassis suppliers are third-party developers. Like Lola, Dallara, Swift, Ferrari or McLaren (If they pull out/sell their F1 teams ). I mean, teams pulling of a "Penske" does more harm than good. Either such a team becomes too dominant, or it backfires spectacularily (Like Penske from 1995 on). Of course, we may end up with one manufacturer dominanting over the rest (Like Reynard at the end of the 90's). But that'd be a market process, so that's okay. Then drop the proposed 1.6l turbos, and either use the old Menard V6s, or CART V8s. Especially the former would be a pretty amusing sight. Especially since people might start hedging bets on the first car that blows up its engine.

Well, I used actual F1 teams as constructors just for the sake of an example, but I agree, third party developers would be best. Dallara would almost certainly be one of them due to their involvement in... oh, EVERYTHING.

Onxy Wrecked wrote:The Penskes and the Menard Lola Buicks, two of the biggest backfiring hazards out there. The Menards had tons of power, almost the the point of rivaling Mercedesaurus Rex in power but even more fragile (only once did a Menard Buick from 1980 until Robby Gordon in the late 1990s even make it to lap 199 without being many laps down due to having to conserve the engine with Al Unser on the lead lap in 1992). If it wasn't Penske on the Pole in the 1980s thru 1994, it was a car with a stockblock Buick (usually a Team Menard) and a Lola chassis.

The Menards stopped running after 1996. Sadly. Despite the IRL's attempts to make them even more ridiculous, they still blew up like fireworks. Actually, they made the full 500 miles at Indy twice -- Big Al Unser in 1992 and Arie Luyendyk in 1995.

JeremyMcClean wrote:Ferrari makes third-party chassis? This is new

A1GP.

Cynon wrote:Part of me wishes that F1 had 4 chassis manufacturers and 4 engine manufacturers, with no team having the same combination... just to see what chassis and what engine is better or to see if one car, like, say the Ferrari, was awful with its own engine but killer with a Mercedes engine.

Say, have Lotus, Ferrari, McLaren, and Red Bull chassis, with Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes and Cosworth engines...

Thus;

Lotus-Renault
Lotus-Ferrari
Lotus-Mercedes
Lotus-Cosworth
Ferrari-Renault
Ferrari-Ferrari
Ferrari-Mercedes
Ferrari-Cosworth
McLaren-Renault
McLaren-Ferrari
McLaren-Mercedes
McLaren-Cosworth
Red Bull-Renault
Red Bull-Ferrari
Red Bull-Mercedes
Red Bull-Cosworth

I had a similar idea of running an alternative championship in the PMcC forum to the same rules - just to see what would happen. Obviously, though, this being F1 Rejects, the chassis I'd chosen for it were Caterham, Marussia and HRT (or, more specifically, FTM-Lotus, Virgin and Hispania - because I've got Row-Man Gross-Gene's livery templates for the T127, VR-01 and F111). It's not happened so far because I suspect it'd need rFactor to run it properly (as in, I suspect rFactor would simulate the aero deficiencies of the bodywork as well as the differing power of the engine) and I've never even tried to install it - plus, F1RMGP takes up far too much of my alternative championship time.

So I'll throw it out there. Does anyone want to give this a go? My version, or Cynon's, either will do...

dinizintheoven wrote:

Cynon wrote:Part of me wishes that F1 had 4 chassis manufacturers and 4 engine manufacturers, with no team having the same combination... just to see what chassis and what engine is better or to see if one car, like, say the Ferrari, was awful with its own engine but killer with a Mercedes engine.

Say, have Lotus, Ferrari, McLaren, and Red Bull chassis, with Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes and Cosworth engines...

Thus;

Lotus-Renault
Lotus-Ferrari
Lotus-Mercedes
Lotus-Cosworth
Ferrari-Renault
Ferrari-Ferrari
Ferrari-Mercedes
Ferrari-Cosworth
McLaren-Renault
McLaren-Ferrari
McLaren-Mercedes
McLaren-Cosworth
Red Bull-Renault
Red Bull-Ferrari
Red Bull-Mercedes
Red Bull-Cosworth

I had a similar idea of running an alternative championship in the PMcC forum to the same rules - just to see what would happen. Obviously, though, this being F1 Rejects, the chassis I'd chosen for it were Caterham, Marussia and HRT (or, more specifically, FTM-Lotus, Virgin and Hispania - because I've got Row-Man Gross-Gene's livery templates for the T127, VR-01 and F111). It's not happened so far because I suspect it'd need rFactor to run it properly (as in, I suspect rFactor would simulate the aero deficiencies of the bodywork as well as the differing power of the engine) and I've never even tried to install it - plus, F1RMGP takes up far too much of my alternative championship time.

So I'll throw it out there. Does anyone want to give this a go? My version, or Cynon's, either will do...

Okay, NO. On F1 REJECTS you do not EVER EVER EVER consider Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and Lotus cars above Caterham, Virgin, and HRT cars.

Cynon wrote:Part of me wishes that F1 had 4 chassis manufacturers and 4 engine manufacturers, with no team having the same combination... just to see what chassis and what engine is better or to see if one car, like, say the Ferrari, was awful with its own engine but killer with a Mercedes engine.

Say, have Lotus, Ferrari, McLaren, and Red Bull chassis, with Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes and Cosworth engines...

Thus;

Lotus-Renault
Lotus-Ferrari
Lotus-Mercedes
Lotus-Cosworth
Ferrari-Renault
Ferrari-Ferrari
Ferrari-Mercedes
Ferrari-Cosworth
McLaren-Renault
McLaren-Ferrari
McLaren-Mercedes
McLaren-Cosworth
Red Bull-Renault
Red Bull-Ferrari
Red Bull-Mercedes
Red Bull-Cosworth

Therefore, the big outfits in F1 get to set the technical regulations as they've been wanting to do, engines get equal representation, more reject/young drivers have a shot at making it into F1, and not everyone has the same stuff. Not only that, but we have a better indication as to what is the winning element -- the car, engine, or combination of both. Not only that, we have the hilarious McLaren-Ferrari and Ferrari-Cosworth entries!!

To add to this, perhaps also we could have drivers having to rotate between teams...so for one race Vettel would be in a Lotus-Renault. Then at the next one he would rotate down your list to the Lotus-Ferrari & so on. That way all the drivers would get a fairer crack at the WDC, as they all would have one race in each chassis/engine combo. In this situation, I reckon the drivers championship would be epic.

Also I would love to see a American engine & chassis supplier in F1.

Cynon wrote:Okay, NO. On F1 REJECTS you do not EVER EVER EVER consider Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and Lotus cars above Caterham, Virgin, and HRT cars.

I knew someone would say that.

Unless, of course, we're talking about such wonderful machinery as the Ferrari 312T5, McLaren MP4/18, and Lotus 101 (or should that be the Toleman TG181?), all of them with their own tale of hideous failure to tell...

dinizintheoven wrote:

Cynon wrote:Okay, NO. On F1 REJECTS you do not EVER EVER EVER consider Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and Lotus cars above Caterham, Virgin, and HRT cars.

I knew someone would say that.

Unless, of course, we're talking about such wonderful machinery as the Ferrari 312T5, McLaren MP4/18, and Lotus 101 (or should that be the Toleman TG181?), all of them with their own tale of hideous failure to tell...

Those would be acceptable crapwagons, but I think even those fail to meet the standard of Hilarious Racing Trash.

Wizzie! Please stop saying 'everyone in the known universe'! It's got very tiresome very quickly!

Warren Hughes wrote:Wizzie! Please stop saying 'everyone in the known universe'! It's got very tiresome very quickly!

Wizzie is F1 Reject's in house hyperbole merchant though.

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:

Warren Hughes wrote:Wizzie! Please stop saying 'everyone in the known universe'! It's got very tiresome very quickly!

Wizzie is F1 Reject's in house hyperbole merchant though.

The Australian Jeremy Clarkson

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:

Warren Hughes wrote:Wizzie! Please stop saying 'everyone in the known universe'! It's got very tiresome very quickly!

Wizzie is F1 Reject's in house hyperbole merchant though.

The Australian Jeremy Clarkson

Except I'm 10 times more annoying and nowhere near as funny... Except when MRT continually keep screwing up

Wizzie wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:Wizzie is F1 Reject's in house hyperbole merchant though.

The Australian Jeremy Clarkson

Except I'm 10 times more annoying and nowhere near as funny... Except when MRT continually keep screwing up

I highly doubt that it is physically possible to be 10 times more annoying and nowhere near as funny as Jeremy Clarkson.

This is making me think of who would be a good character comparison for all the members here. Phoenix in his first year here would remind me of Japanese video game creators of the 80s due to his dubious grip of the English language when he first came. Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Joey Zyla wrote:

eurobrun wrote:This is making me think of who would be a good character comparison for all the members here. Phoenix in his first year here would remind me of Japanese video game creators of the 80s due to his dubious grip of the English language when he first came. Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Don't know who Pamphlet is, but I'm guessing that means he's a fat, homophobic, racist moron.

Close. He mostly trolls people for the sake of trolling people.

eurobrun wrote:Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Pamphlet's not that bad. DonTirri, on the other hand...

Joey Zyla wrote:I HATE VETTEL!

So does 95% of this forum, including me

eurobrun wrote:This is making me think of who would be a good character comparison for all the members here. Phoenix in his first year here would remind me of Japanese video game creators of the 80s due to his dubious grip of the English language when he first came. Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Interesting thought, I wonder who everyone else would be.

redbulljack14 wrote:

eurobrun wrote:This is making me think of who would be a good character comparison for all the members here. Phoenix in his first year here would remind me of Japanese video game creators of the 80s due to his dubious grip of the English language when he first came. Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Interesting thought, I wonder who everyone else would be.

Continuing with the Top gear theme, mario would be James May. Knows everything, in minute detail, about anything even remotely technical

darkapprentice77 wrote:

Joey Zyla wrote:I HATE VETTEL!

So does 95% of this forum, including me

Dude (darkapprentice77), you are exaggerating the population number of forum members against Vettel. I don't want to talk it further because it would cause a proponents vs opponents flame war.

FMecha wrote:

darkapprentice77 wrote:

Joey Zyla wrote:I HATE VETTEL!

So does 95% of this forum, including me

Dude (darkapprentice77), you are exaggerating the population number of forum members against Vettel. I don't want to talk it further because it would cause a proponents vs opponents flame war.

Flame war? F1Rejects? Hell nah!

In all seriousness, most of us here are mature enough to have a debate about our personal reasons for liking/disliking Vettel (DonTirri, Pamphlet, I'm looking at you here).

Personally, I happen to dislike Vettel. I'm nt saying hate, as hate is a strong word, and the word hate has caused some arguments on here before (CoopsII incident). Anyway, my reasons for doing so? -
1) He is arrogant.
2) He is a 'golden boy' who can do no wrong in the eyes of the team and the general motorsport press 3) He is already being touted as a Greatest of all time, far too early in my opinion.
3) He is so lucky. I have never seen lady luck work against Vettel in the long wrong, which for me is frustrating.
4) His dominance is boring
5) the finger can be snapped off and shoved up his arrogant arse for all I care.
6)He is immature. For instance, his whinigning at Karthikeyan and Hamilton this year
7) He is yet to prove his worth in a bad car. Yes, this year's Red Bull was not dominant. But, whenever he won, it was the fastest car athat specific weekend. You may draw comparisons to Senna, to which I say Toleman and Lotus. Lotus's car wasn't good enough to win in the hands of an ordinary driver, yet Senna could do so much with it/them.

Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

What about the shitbox Ferrari F310 in 1996?

East Londoner wrote:

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

What about the shitbox Ferrari F310 in 1996?

Ferrari finished second in CC that year, and Schumacher had only 5 DNFs, so it ain't a s**tbox IMO.

redbulljack14 wrote:

eurobrun wrote:This is making me think of who would be a good character comparison for all the members here. Phoenix in his first year here would remind me of Japanese video game creators of the 80s due to his dubious grip of the English language when he first came. Pamphlet would be Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, no explanation needed

Interesting thought, I wonder who everyone else would be.

I'd like to think I'm a bit like Salvo Montalbano. I mean in terms of character, I'm not bald...

FMecha wrote:

East Londoner wrote:

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

What about the shitbox Ferrari F310 in 1996?

Ferrari finished second in CC that year, and Schumacher had only 5 DNFs, so it ain't a s**tbox IMO.

That was only due to Gerhard Berger's rotten luck. Eddie Irvine, who was still a relatively capable driver, scored a single podium, 11 points and 10 retirements, 8 of them consecutive. So I'd count that Ferrari as not a bad car per se, but definitely not a car that could be up front and regularly fighting for wins. By all means, Benetton should have been second that year.

FMecha wrote:

East Londoner wrote:

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

What about the shitbox Ferrari F310 in 1996?

Ferrari finished second in CC that year, and Schumacher had only 5 DNFs, so it ain't a s**tbox IMO.

Yeah, 2nd in the WCC - entirely on the back of Schumacher's awesome season. That car had no right to win any race that year.

FMecha wrote:

East Londoner wrote:

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

What about the shitbox Ferrari F310 in 1996?

Ferrari finished second in CC that year, and Schumacher had only 5 DNFs, so it ain't a s**tbox IMO.

Yeah, but Schumi managed to drag 3 wins out of it, which is nothing short of world class, considering: a) Williams' utterly dominant car that season, and b) the Benetton was so much better than the Fezza

^Point 3 - you know what is Vettel's first team? BMW Sauber, a "proper team" by your standards.

Oh somebody tells that he dislikes Vettel on our forum, how original...

This wrote:Oh somebody tells that he dislikes Vettel on our forum, how original...

Well he's been on this forum less than a week so cut him a little slack for his 'Vettel whinge'. The regular forumites aren't the only people in the world to dislike Vettel. Others will follow...

I think Vettel is a good driver who I would probably quite like if I got to know him.

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

Probably been argued before, but he was faster than de Cesaris on his debut. Considering de Cesaris looked good for ap odium, where would Schumacher have finished?

andrew2209 wrote:

FMecha wrote:Pasta, about point 7, Schumacher (which is also subject to hate here), as far as I recall, did not prove anything in a bad car.

Probably been argued before, but he was faster than de Cesaris on his debut. Considering de Cesaris looked good for ap odium, where would Schumacher have finished?

True, but it would be a bit of a stretch to call the '91 Jordan a "bad car"...

F*ck the world.

This message is from Jason Hamilton