Grand Prix Rejects

go_Rubens wrote:Ferrari had the best car in 1999. They were just unluckier.

I particular, I think Schumacher was unluckier, as Irvine retired from only one race at Imola, which in turn underlined Ferrari's reliability that year.
Schumacher had a puncture in Australia, mechanical issues in France and that crash at Silverstone.
He was also claimed by the WOC in Montreal, but that was his fault. I have no idea how to judge the causes of Salo's misfortunes in his half-season.

CoopsII wrote:Seb Vettel earned his victory yesterday.

Well measured race and good win.


I think that the stewards did well to penalise Force India and Red Bull following their unsafe pit release and not penalise the drivers involved, especially considering Di Resta did not collide with JEV or ruin his race and Webber's time lost in the pits hindered his race to the extent that a driver penalty would be stupid.

johnnyCarwash wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Seb Vettel earned his victory yesterday.

Well measured race and good win.


I think that the stewards did well to penalise Force India and Red Bull following their unsafe pit release and not penalise the drivers involved, especially considering Di Resta did not collide with JEV or ruin his race and Webber's time lost in the pits hindered his race to the extent that a driver penalty would be stupid.

So for once, the stewards didn't make farcial decisions

Well, the stewards did a good job at the Nurburgring in that respect, but failed nearly everywhere else.

go_Rubens wrote:Unpopular Opinion time:
Ferrari had the best car in 1999. They were just unluckier.

I wouldnt describe that as unpopular I think you might be right. Im sure 'What If MSC Didnt Crash At Silverstone 99?' has been done already but I think had he not he would've beaten Hakkinen. I know Irvine did his best but Im sure that season gave him a few sleepless nights afterwards, I mean he was MSCs team mate at Ferrari and he had a genuine shot at the title...

Re-fueling should be re-introduced to Formula One.

This would add the 'excitement' the organisers want without adding a whole other fake dimension. All it would require is to make the tyres a little more durable, but not Bridgestone-level durability of course.

pasta_maldonado wrote:Re-fueling should be re-introduced to Formula One.

This would add the 'excitement' the organisers want without adding a whole other fake dimension. All it would require is to make the tyres a little more durable, but not Bridgestone-level durability of course.

I find the era when there was no refuelling between qualifying and race very interesting, as sometimes, the grid would get a bit mixed. If you were chasing someone and were due to pit a lap or two later, you would be on the same light fuel load for another lap, which you could use to gain an advantage by going faster on your in-lap with a clear track, hopefully and then getting ahead, or leapfrogging the driver. This happened very commonly. I read somewhere that Mosley quoted how a Grand Prix with the order shuffled by fuel-stops could be likened to a game of chess. So your opinion to me is not unpopular at all and I would love to see refuelling return for a few reasons.
One would be working out fuel-adjusted grids, which you could do in 2009. Who knows, if the turbos need more fuel, fuel stops could return.

good_Ralf wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:Re-fueling should be re-introduced to Formula One.

This would add the 'excitement' the organisers want without adding a whole other fake dimension. All it would require is to make the tyres a little more durable, but not Bridgestone-level durability of course.

I find the era when there was no refuelling between qualifying and race very interesting, as sometimes, the grid would get a bit mixed. If you were chasing someone and were due to pit a lap or two later, you would be on the same light fuel load for another lap, which you could use to gain an advantage by going faster on your in-lap with a clear track, hopefully and then getting ahead, or leapfrogging the driver. This happened very commonly. I read somewhere that Mosley quoted how a Grand Prix with the order shuffled by fuel-stops could be likened to a game of chess. So your opinion to me is not unpopular at all and I would love to see refuelling return for a few reasons.
One would be working out fuel-adjusted grids, which you could do in 2009. Who knows, if the turbos need more fuel, fuel stops could return.

Or it will turn into a Clint Bowyer fuel mileage race (Bowyer has won half of his races in the Sprint Cup on such gambles with him saving fuel).

good_Ralf wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:Re-fueling should be re-introduced to Formula One.

This would add the 'excitement' the organisers want without adding a whole other fake dimension. All it would require is to make the tyres a little more durable, but not Bridgestone-level durability of course.

I find the era when there was no refuelling between qualifying and race very interesting, as sometimes, the grid would get a bit mixed. If you were chasing someone and were due to pit a lap or two later, you would be on the same light fuel load for another lap, which you could use to gain an advantage by going faster on your in-lap with a clear track, hopefully and then getting ahead, or leapfrogging the driver. This happened very commonly. I read somewhere that Mosley quoted how a Grand Prix with the order shuffled by fuel-stops could be likened to a game of chess. So your opinion to me is not unpopular at all and I would love to see refuelling return for a few reasons.
One would be working out fuel-adjusted grids, which you could do in 2009. Who knows, if the turbos need more fuel, fuel stops could return.

I understand the tactical appeal of refuelling, but I've always preferred drivers to be racing wheel to wheel, rather than purely done on strategy. This is actually the main reason I loathe DRS as it removes much of the strategic importance of tyre choice - drivers on harder tyres just can't defend against those on the softs on most tracks, particularly the ludicrously wide Tilke-dromes.

Not much unpopular, but, the 03-04 qualify system was the best of F1 history.

Dj_bereta wrote:Not much unpopular, but, the 03-04 qualify system was the best of F1 history.

It had its upsides, like seeing a whole lap of every driver, smaller teams would get TV exposure too.

FullMetalJack wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Not much unpopular, but, the 03-04 qualify system was the best of F1 history.

It had its upsides, like seeing a whole lap of every driver, smaller teams would get TV exposure too.

As I said before, Q3 should be converted into a one-lap shootout to make qualifying more exciting to watch. If a driver in Q3 binned it, they would start tenth.

Dj_bereta wrote:Not much unpopular, but, the 03-04 qualify system was the best of F1 history.

I still prefer the current version, but turning Q3 into a one-lap shootout sounds good to me.

Pirelli would get significantly less criticism if DRS didn't exist. We would end up getting proper battles between drivers on different tire compounds/older tyres at the end of the race, rather than the situation we have now where the car on less desirable tyres simply gets DRS-ed. And it would shut up the Pirelli haters/purists.

Conversely, DRS would work better if Pirelli tyres didn't exist....

East Londoner wrote:Pirelli would get significantly less criticism if DRS didn't exist. We would end up getting proper battles between drivers on different tire compounds/older tyres at the end of the race, rather than the situation we have now where the car on less desirable tyres simply gets DRS-ed. And it would shut up the Pirelli haters/purists.

Conversely, DRS would work better if Pirelli tyres didn't exist....

I agree with that. I think if Pirelli had been there in 2010, then DRS would have never been introduced. And I think many races would be more interesting without DRS. I disagree with your second point though. If we had still the Bridgestones, DRS would sort the cars within a few laps, and it would stay the same until the end of the race, because the tyres aren't degrading.

There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

pasta_maldonado wrote:There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

I think that would reduce the need for the mozzarella cheese style Pirelli tyres and I think would allow for harder tyres.

Jonathan Legard definitely had an awful commentating voice and his lines and reactions to incidents were often cheesy or disastrous. But I think he's not as stupid as others would suggest. He seems to know a lot about things in Formula 1 e.g. the history and many aspects. It's just that he sounded so depressing it made him one of the most unpopular commentators ever.

pasta_maldonado wrote:There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

So they can use DRS at any point on the track? But have a 'race time-limit'? Sounds like the worlds biggest crash about to happen. Someone will lose it going through Eau Rouge, 130R or the Monaco tunnel and they'll be an outcry over safety concerns.

AdrianSutil wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

So they can use DRS at any point on the track? But have a 'race time-limit'? Sounds like the worlds biggest crash about to happen. Someone will lose it going through Eau Rouge, 130R or the Monaco tunnel and they'll be an outcry over safety concerns.

Remember Perez's crash in qualifying in Monaco in 2011?

AdrianSutil wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

So they can use DRS at any point on the track? But have a 'race time-limit'? Sounds like the worlds biggest crash about to happen. Someone will lose it going through Eau Rouge, 130R or the Monaco tunnel and they'll be an outcry over safety concerns.

130R with DRS
Eau Rouge with DRS

I know this is XBOX/PlayStation but still...

Maybe this should've gone in the other unpopular thread now that he's not in F1 but...

I like Karthikeyan.

darkapprentice77 wrote:I like Karthikeyan.

Well, I agree on that one: I mean it's not like he had much of a chance, since he was the number two driver in the worst team on the grid. There is only so much you can do in that situation. Also, you have to admire how he brought the banter to Sebastian Vettel after Malaysia last year.

AdrianSutil wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:There shouldn't be DRS zones: drivers instead get a certain amount of wing time they can use over the whole race. It'd be interesting to see, as tactical decisions would have to be made when defending, and overtaking would all be about who has the balls to open the DRS first.

So they can use DRS at any point on the track? But have a 'race time-limit'? Sounds like the worlds biggest crash about to happen. Someone will lose it going through Eau Rouge, 130R or the Monaco tunnel and they'll be an outcry over safety concerns.

Well, it's not like they couldn't say: "You may use DRS anywhere but here". I think last year, when DRS in qualifying was free they still had a rule (or at least a gentlemen's agreement) to not use DRS in the Monaco tunnel.

good_Ralf wrote:Jonathan Legard definitely had an awful commentating voice and his lines and reactions to incidents were often cheesy or disastrous. But I think he's not as stupid as others would suggest. He seems to know a lot about things in Formula 1 e.g. the history and many aspects. It's just that he sounded so depressing it made him one of the most unpopular commentators ever.

And I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine it when the internet in 2007-2008 resounded to the sounds of "JAMES ALLEN IS THE WORST COMMENTATOR IN THE WORLD! GET JONATHAN LEGARD TO DO IT INSTEAD!"

It seems that Legard's major crime is not that he says "crucial, over the hill, round the bend" too much, and Allen's major problem is not that he tried to be too excited and couldn't hide his favouritism when Jenson Button finally won a race. The true source of the problem is that neither of them are Murray Walker.

See also: Ed Tudor-Pole, whose worst crime was not to be Richard O'Brien.

dinizintheoven wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:Jonathan Legard definitely had an awful commentating voice and his lines and reactions to incidents were often cheesy or disastrous. But I think he's not as stupid as others would suggest. He seems to know a lot about things in Formula 1 e.g. the history and many aspects. It's just that he sounded so depressing it made him one of the most unpopular commentators ever.

And I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine it when the internet in 2007-2008 resounded to the sounds of "JAMES ALLEN IS THE WORST COMMENTATOR IN THE WORLD! GET JONATHAN LEGARD TO DO IT INSTEAD!"

While I do recall James Allen was the subject of much criticism, especially when it came to his, ah, overenthusiasm regarding Lewis Hamilton, I'm pretty sure it was Ben Edwards and/or David Croft most people wanted to replace him. Legard's appointment was completely out of left field.

I could attempt to confirm what I thought, but it'd mean scouring large amounts of the Final Gear forums' F1 pages, and that's a lot of effort...

Salamander wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:Jonathan Legard definitely had an awful commentating voice and his lines and reactions to incidents were often cheesy or disastrous. But I think he's not as stupid as others would suggest. He seems to know a lot about things in Formula 1 e.g. the history and many aspects. It's just that he sounded so depressing it made him one of the most unpopular commentators ever.

And I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine it when the internet in 2007-2008 resounded to the sounds of "JAMES ALLEN IS THE WORST COMMENTATOR IN THE WORLD! GET JONATHAN LEGARD TO DO IT INSTEAD!"

While I do recall James Allen was the subject of much criticism, especially when it came to his, ah, overenthusiasm regarding Lewis Hamilton, I'm pretty sure it was Ben Edwards and/or David Croft most people wanted to replace him. Legard's appointment was completely out of left field.

When Legard commentated I never really noticed him much so I missed my Chance in complaining. However going back over past highlights packages i have to admit he was crap. He never gave information or analysis and always interrupted Martin Brundle who always has something good to say. Seriously read what Pistonheads thought about him especially after his Korea 2010 performance (Starts on page 56 of the topic). At least he knew what to expect of Bunsen Jetton whenever the Car is not 100% to his liking.

As for JA him, The BBC and Lewisteria are the main reasons why i only have mutual respect instead of downright fanboyism over British Sport Stars. The Hype around Lewis was immense in 2007/2008 and for all the doubts about Vettel's status why does no one say "I'd love to see what Hamilton could do in a poor car" At least Vettel had to come through Toro Rosso to get to Red Bull Hamilton was parachuted into Mclaren straight away and apart from the first half of 2009 Lewis hasn't driven in a poor car. BTW it would great if you could find some quotes about Lewisteria for me I'd appreciate it.

Salamander wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:Jonathan Legard definitely had an awful commentating voice and his lines and reactions to incidents were often cheesy or disastrous. But I think he's not as stupid as others would suggest. He seems to know a lot about things in Formula 1 e.g. the history and many aspects. It's just that he sounded so depressing it made him one of the most unpopular commentators ever.

And I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine it when the internet in 2007-2008 resounded to the sounds of "JAMES ALLEN IS THE WORST COMMENTATOR IN THE WORLD! GET JONATHAN LEGARD TO DO IT INSTEAD!"

While I do recall James Allen was the subject of much criticism, especially when it came to his, ah, overenthusiasm regarding Lewis Hamilton, I'm pretty sure it was Ben Edwards and/or David Croft most people wanted to replace him. Legard's appointment was completely out of left field.

It is a shame in a way that he did let that get the better of him - it does seem that, when he has the chance to read over and reflect on what he says, such as in his written articles, he can bring up some interesting points and comes across as a more neutral figure, but, in the rapid fire, emotive situation of live commentating, he struggled to find the same tone.

dinizintheoven wrote:It seems that Legard's major crime is not that he says "crucial, over the hill, round the bend" too much, and Allen's major problem is not that he tried to be too excited and couldn't hide his favouritism when Jenson Button finally won a race. The true source of the problem is that neither of them are Murray Walker.

See also: Ed Tudor-Pole, whose worst crime was not to be Richard O'Brien.

Equally, Dexter Fletcher was not Dominik Diamond, nor would he ever be.

Formula One drivers are way too young nowadays!

First of all, it's slightly awkward to see Sebastian Vettel winning his 4th world title by the age of 26. But that's not really due to young age, but due to joining the best team on the grid at such a young age. But it's not really Sebastian Vettel, who's the a part of the problem.
I'd like to talk about the Jaime Alguesuaris: Talented guys, but their F1 careers are pretty much over. Even if Alguesuari is just 23 years old! If I recall correctly, Damon Hill joined F1 at a relatively late age. He still went on having a successful F1 career.
Of course, it can't be the solution to let the young guys do 100+ GP2/FR3.5 races like Luca Filippi. Although the FIA should mandate a minimum of 22 GP2/FR3.5 weekends (!), before one can join F1 full-time. That's roughly two seasons, which should hopefully remove the pressure from some guys to get into F1 as soon as possible. In fact, I'd also rather see FIA mandating a two-season minimum in Formula Three, in order to stretch the ladder to F1 quite a bit. Therefore, the young guys can learn to drive cars with lots of HP properly and not in a rushed way.
Some folks have given Mercedes some ridicule for putting guys like Robert Wickens, Daniel Juncadella or Christian Vietoris into their DTM cars. But in my opinion, that's the right thing to do. The pressure to enter F1 is lessened and the drivers get paid! See Paul di Resta: He slowly but steadily made his way into F1, while doing DTM at the same time.
What I'm trying to say is: There are lots of series where young drivers can compete for victories before they can make the jump to F1. Why should they make the jump at the age of 20/21, when they could also do so at the age of 27/28? Formula One is the pinnacle of auto racing, so a "youth craze" shouldn't really happen there.

Ferrarist wrote:Formula One drivers are way too young nowadays!

First of all, it's slightly awkward to see Sebastian Vettel winning his 4th world title by the age of 26. But that's not really due to young age, but due to joining the best team on the grid at such a young age. But it's not really Sebastian Vettel, who's the a part of the problem.
I'd like to talk about the Jaime Alguesuaris: Talented guys, but their F1 careers are pretty much over. Even if Alguesuari is just 23 years old! If I recall correctly, Damon Hill joined F1 at a relatively late age. He still went on having a successful F1 career.
Of course, it can't be the solution to let the young guys do 100+ GP2/FR3.5 races like Luca Filippi. Although the FIA should mandate a minimum of 22 GP2/FR3.5 weekends (!), before one can join F1 full-time. That's roughly two seasons, which should hopefully remove the pressure from some guys to get into F1 as soon as possible. In fact, I'd also rather see FIA mandating a two-season minimum in Formula Three, in order to stretch the ladder to F1 quite a bit. Therefore, the young guys can learn to drive cars with lots of HP properly and not in a rushed way.
Some folks have given Mercedes some ridicule for putting guys like Robert Wickens, Daniel Juncadella or Christian Vietoris into their DTM cars. But in my opinion, that's the right thing to do. The pressure to enter F1 is lessened and the drivers get paid! See Paul di Resta: He slowly but steadily made his way into F1, while doing DTM at the same time.
What I'm trying to say is: There are lots of series where young drivers can compete for victories before they can make the jump to F1. Why should they make the jump at the age of 20/21, when they could also do so at the age of 27/28? Formula One is the pinnacle of auto racing, so a "youth craze" shouldn't really happen there.

That is actually a very good point with the recent news over Stroitkin arriving at Saubet

Ferrarist wrote:Formula One drivers are way too young nowadays!

First of all, it's slightly awkward to see Sebastian Vettel winning his 4th world title by the age of 26. But that's not really due to young age, but due to joining the best team on the grid at such a young age. But it's not really Sebastian Vettel, who's the a part of the problem.
I'd like to talk about the Jaime Alguesuaris: Talented guys, but their F1 careers are pretty much over. Even if Alguesuari is just 23 years old! If I recall correctly, Damon Hill joined F1 at a relatively late age. He still went on having a successful F1 career.
Of course, it can't be the solution to let the young guys do 100+ GP2/FR3.5 races like Luca Filippi. Although the FIA should mandate a minimum of 22 GP2/FR3.5 weekends (!), before one can join F1 full-time. That's roughly two seasons, which should hopefully remove the pressure from some guys to get into F1 as soon as possible. In fact, I'd also rather see FIA mandating a two-season minimum in Formula Three, in order to stretch the ladder to F1 quite a bit. Therefore, the young guys can learn to drive cars with lots of HP properly and not in a rushed way.
Some folks have given Mercedes some ridicule for putting guys like Robert Wickens, Daniel Juncadella or Christian Vietoris into their DTM cars. But in my opinion, that's the right thing to do. The pressure to enter F1 is lessened and the drivers get paid! See Paul di Resta: He slowly but steadily made his way into F1, while doing DTM at the same time.
What I'm trying to say is: There are lots of series where young drivers can compete for victories before they can make the jump to F1. Why should they make the jump at the age of 20/21, when they could also do so at the age of 27/28? Formula One is the pinnacle of auto racing, so a "youth craze" shouldn't really happen there.

There's a simple reason: young drivers don't complain as much as experienced drivers, and are a lot easier to work with. Also they learn faster, and in the current era of constant rule changing, the ability to learn quick is more important than experience. Also considering that driver influence in technical development is a lot less, a drivers experience is not longer very relevant. Only in battling on track and strategy, experience can still make a difference.

it could be argued, that the drivers who haven't been too much in GP2 usually happen to drive far more maturely in F1 than those newbies who have 'gained experience' through the mayhems in that level...

giraurd wrote:it could be argued, that the drivers who haven't been too much in GP2 usually happen to drive far more maturely in F1 than those newbies who have 'gained experience' through the mayhems in that level...

True. There's been rarely anyone who behaves like Cecotto or Canamasas in any formula other than GP2. How Cecotto has got a YDT seat other others i do not know

This wrote:There's a simple reason: young drivers don't complain as much as experienced drivers, and are a lot easier to work with. Also they learn faster, and in the current era of constant rule changing, the ability to learn quick is more important than experience. Also considering that driver influence in technical development is a lot less, a drivers experience is not longer very relevant. Only in battling on track and strategy, experience can still make a difference.

This may apply to midfield teams like Sauber, Williams or Force India (Although they went for Sutil, a man of experience, in 2013). But I doubt that Ferrari, Red Bull or McLaren would ever take the gamble of hiring someone right from GP2.
But I agree with you that the "Generation Vettel" is rather is to work with. Most of these drivers just do as they're told, and I guess that's the type of drivers most team owners are looking for. I mean, just look at Toto Wolff's comments regarding Kimi Raikkonen.

Ferrarist wrote:

This wrote:There's a simple reason: young drivers don't complain as much as experienced drivers, and are a lot easier to work with. Also they learn faster, and in the current era of constant rule changing, the ability to learn quick is more important than experience. Also considering that driver influence in technical development is a lot less, a drivers experience is not longer very relevant. Only in battling on track and strategy, experience can still make a difference.

This may apply to midfield teams like Sauber, Williams or Force India (Although they went for Sutil, a man of experience, in 2013). But I doubt that Ferrari, Red Bull or McLaren would ever take the gamble of hiring someone right from GP2.
But I agree with you that the "Generation Vettel" is rather is to work with. Most of these drivers just do as they're told, and I guess that's the type of drivers most team owners are looking for. I mean, just look at Toto Wolff's comments regarding Kimi Raikkonen.

I think since the beginning Toro Rosso has wanted cooperative drivers which is why Scott Speed was a struggle.

This wrote:There's a simple reason: young drivers don't complain as much as experienced drivers, and are a lot easier to work with. Also they learn faster, and in the current era of constant rule changing, the ability to learn quick is more important than experience. Also considering that driver influence in technical development is a lot less, a drivers experience is not longer very relevant. Only in battling on track and strategy, experience can still make a difference.

I'd agree that, generally, driver feedback is of reduced benefit these days due to improvements in data logging, although it can still have its uses. Back in 2010 and 2011, Cosworth made it clear that they valued the feedback from Barrichello far more highly than anybody else because of his experience with the Mercedes engine, against which they benchmarked themselves, and his feedback on how they could modify the power curve of the engine to make it more driveable and help gain lap time elsewhere around the circuit.

Experience can sometimes cut both ways and sometimes the teams have preferred to work with more experienced drivers when major changes in regulations have come about - 2009 saw most teams field relatively experienced drivers rather than taking a risk on a young hotshot because most teams wanted an experienced driver to help with set up work, since there was a risk that less experienced drivers could go down the wrong set up path. After all, a younger driver may be easier to work with in some senses, but there is also a risk that a rookie driver might be unwilling to go against his mechanics and engineers (they can be more informed but are not infallible, and the driver may have a better feel for how a track is evolving rather than his pit wall). That is the theory, at least, although it hasn't always worked out like that...

There will be no new teams in the future. Instead, more current F1 teams will collapse.

FMecha wrote:There will be no new teams in the future. Instead, more current F1 teams will collapse.

And we can have third cars in every team! Then there will be just one team which forms the entirety of the F1 grid.

good_Ralf wrote:

FMecha wrote:There will be no new teams in the future. Instead, more current F1 teams will collapse.

And we can have third cars in every team! Then there will be just one team which forms the entirety of the F1 grid.

All of these cars will be Red Bull-sponsored McLaren-Ferraris. (+ Mercedes will supply all safety vehicles, but that's not really something new)

Murry Walker is the greatest f1 commentator ever