Grand Prix Rejects

Jocke1 wrote:Watch this and ponder (only 1 minute in length):

Published 5 jan 2014
No one should pay for a mistake with their life. When we drive, we share the road with others, so the speed we choose to travel at needs to leave room for any potential error.

http://youtu.be/bvLaTupw-hk

The most important thing to remember in traffic is that you yourself are not a danger but everyone else is! With that in mind I feel that the most important thing is not the speed (it is the 2nd most important) but rather the distances between vehicles and "situational awareness" (especially in countryside traffic). I always try to read the traffic ahead and keep a safe distance to every car (front, sides, behind).

Also, never gamble on anything! I only do overtakes and these kinds of drive out of triangle junctions if I am 100 % certain that I will not cause any danger to any party at that moment. This ad is the perfect example of both parties doing wrong, the driver on the main road should've eased of a bit once he saw a sign that a junction was coming (paying special attention to that) and the guy wanting to come into the main lane should have waited since he hesitated about the other vehicles speed on the main road!

Benetton wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:
http://youtu.be/bvLaTupw-hk

This ad is the perfect example of both parties doing wrong, the driver on the main road should've eased of a bit once he saw a sign that a junction was coming (paying special attention to that) and the guy wanting to come into the main lane should have waited since he hesitated about the other vehicles speed on the main road!

When I watched it, that is exactly what I thought. Nobody's perfect. You should be able to learn from mistakes every time you do anything, and try to apply what you learn to future situations...

Something that I've pondering: Why did Ivan Capelli not drive the final two races for Leyton House in 1991? Was it a question of finances? Did Leyton House need the sponsorship money (Remus Sportauspuff?) from Karl Wendlinger?

If Capelli already had a contract for 1992 with Ferrari, why wasn't he chosen to replace Prost in Australia? Was Capelli still under contract with Leyton House in some way? Also, Pierluigi Martini claims that it was he and not Capelli who had a contract with Ferrari for 1992. Until he was traded along with the Ferrari engines to Scuderia Italia in return for Capelli. I don't know the level of truth in this though. But then why wasn't Martini chosen to replace Prost?

Was it just easier for Ferrari to call on Gianni Morbidelli? He was after all under some form of test contract for Ferrari, if I remember correctly. Maybe he had the "reserve driver" role back in a time when that actually meant something?

On an entirely different note, last week I had a sneaking suspicion, and today I finally did the maths and found out... What? That since a couple of weeks back I am older than Ayrton Senna was when he died. And realizing how time has passed made me infinitely sad.

Along the same lines, this season will be Jenson's Button's 5th season at McLaren, and his 15th in F1. How time flies.

Here's an interesting piece from Martin Whitmarsh, who says that F1 shouldn't panic when there's dominance. I remember saying something along the lines about a month ago. I stand by those comments, the only thing that's driving down F1's market value right now is the numerous comments driving down the market value F1.

Aerospeed wrote:Here's an interesting piece from Martin Whitmarsh, who says that F1 shouldn't panic when there's dominance. I remember saying something along the lines about a month ago. I stand by those comments, the only thing that's driving down F1's market value right now is the numerous comments driving down the market value F1.

Couldn't you argue he's just covering his arse in case the 2014 Mclaren turns out to be crushingly dominant, as the Red Bull cars have been since 2009?

SgtPepper wrote:Couldn't you argue he's just covering his arse in case the 2014 Mclaren turns out to be crushingly dominant, as the Red Bull cars have been since 2009?

Well, it is Martin Whitmarsh, so you will probably need to read that applying twisted logic. He looks to be saying that the McLaren will be shockingly awful and that coupled with the supposed bad Ferrari engine and the usual tyre shredding Mercedes will mean Red Bull could still field a tractor and win everything. Again.

DanielPT wrote:

SgtPepper wrote:Couldn't you argue he's just covering his arse in case the 2014 Mclaren turns out to be crushingly dominant, as the Red Bull cars have been since 2009?

Well, it is Martin Whitmarsh, so you will probably need to read that applying twisted logic. He looks to be saying that the McLaren will be shockingly awful and that coupled with the supposed bad Ferrari engine and the usual tyre shredding Mercedes will mean Red Bull could still field a tractor and win everything. Again.

Well, I am not one who would assume of something so early on, but since the Ferrari engine is predicted to be bad, the Mercedes the best, and Mercedes the favorites to topple Red Bull and win for the first time since the 50s, I don't think Red Bull are going to win with an easier fight. I wasn't expecting much from McLaren this year to begin with, based on logical reasoning that they'd be focused more on 2015 in the long term, so it's possible the McLaren will be used to get up to snuff with the new regs, and not have the best car out there. Ferrari claim that they and Mercedes, the factory teams, will have a big advantage on the rest in terms of development of their cars, so I wouldn't say that, even with the twisted logic applied, that Red Bull will walk it all again and take the cake for themselves. I predict that only until we get to rounds 3 to 5 will we have any conclusive data regarding the performance of the new cars.

Christian Horner reckons half the grid might retire at the Australian Grand Prix. I for one welcome the return of high attrition races, allowing Minardi to score points.

Backmarker wrote:Christian Horner reckons half the grid might retire at the Australian Grand Prix. I for one welcome the return of high attrition races, allowing Minardi to score points.

I read the title a few minutes ago. It looks to be written in a warning tone. I, though, cannot see any bad news in this. I will say more: IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!

go_rubens wrote:Well, I am not one who would assume of something so early on, but since the Ferrari engine is predicted to be bad, the Mercedes the best, and Mercedes the favorites to topple Red Bull and win for the first time since the 50s, I don't think Red Bull are going to win with an easier fight. I wasn't expecting much from McLaren this year to begin with, based on logical reasoning that they'd be focused more on 2015 in the long term, so it's possible the McLaren will be used to get up to snuff with the new regs, and not have the best car out there. Ferrari claim that they and Mercedes, the factory teams, will have a big advantage on the rest in terms of development of their cars, so I wouldn't say that, even with the twisted logic applied, that Red Bull will walk it all again and take the cake for themselves. I predict that only until we get to rounds 3 to 5 will we have any conclusive data regarding the performance of the new cars.

I wasn't being really serious when I wrote that. But if one takes into account resources, form from last year, technical staff, drivers, rumours and momentum, it doesn't look that good for Ferrari and McLaren. Not to mention the absolute question mark that is Lotus. I fear for Grosjean...

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

Clearly Autosport have never been on F1Rejects.com

tristan1117 wrote:

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

Expect Chilton to win in no time

tristan1117 wrote:

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

Sincerely, I expected more from a magazine called Autosport. A great wise man once said: "to finish first, you must first finish". Clearly no one knows that quote at Autosport and they even failed to remember that reliability is a legitimate part of racing and part of Formula 1 history.

It slightly scares me how fast F1 seems to have forgotten unreliability, and how many people seem to be angered or worried at the possibility of many cars retiring because of technical issues. For me, at least five mechanical-induced retirements per race should be usual.

I also don't expect backmarkers finishing first. This has never happened, because the leading teams have more money and can spend it, while the minnows just have to keep with what they have. I would expect Marussia, Caterham and one team from the middle of the pack to have the most failures.

Anyone wonder why I don't read Autosport anymore? They have gotten far too political.

tristan1117 wrote:

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

More crying about any kind of risk making F1 "too random"? Unreliability, passing, and risk are what make motorsport INTERESTING. Scenarios like backmarkers winning due to being the only ones left are good for the sport. Maybe the "top teams" shouldn't be dumb and let their cars explode like they have Bomberman as a riding mechanic.

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

Because teams that make reliable cars dont deserve to win?

I do kind of see the point with the arguments on reliability, if there are major reliability problems. It's slightly unfair on the drivers who could drive perfect races, only for something to fail of their car, robbing them of the points they'd score. It would also frustrate the teams if the components that fail aren't produced by the team, such as the engines.

Mind you, we all know who finished every race last season.

No, it's not unfair. Reliability should always be a real factor on how good a car is, last 8 years or so it's not been.

Not like there are too many differentiators left in the cars.

Cynon wrote:

tristan1117 wrote:

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

More crying about any kind of risk making F1 "too random"? Unreliability, passing, and risk are what make motorsport INTERESTING. Scenarios like backmarkers winning due to being the only ones left are good for the sport. Maybe the "top teams" shouldn't be dumb and let their cars explode like they have Bomberman as a riding mechanic.

As many others have pointed out, reliability was traditionally one aspect that was rather important in the past - we've seen entire championships, not just races, turn on the reliability of the participants.

If the public want to see cars that are pushing technological boundaries harder than in the past, then that will inevitably come with an increased risk of mechanical failure. Moreover, as others have pointed out, although some top teams could in theory be hit hard by mechanical problems, it is more likely that it will be the smaller teams, with fewer resources to refine and develop their cars, who will suffer from worse reliability than the larger teams.

andrew2209 wrote:I do kind of see the point with the arguments on reliability, if there are major reliability problems. It's slightly unfair on the drivers who could drive perfect races, only for something to fail of their car, robbing them of the points they'd score. It would also frustrate the teams if the components that fail aren't produced by the team, such as the engines.

Unreliability was key in many titles, out of the top of my mind I can think of Senna 1991 and Alonso 2005. Many other titles were at least partially affected by unreliability issues: it nearly costed Vettel the 2010 and 2012 titles, same for Häkkinen in 1998 and (to a lesser extent) 1999. You could argue it costed Mika 2000 -Indy failure- but then, that year Schumacher actually suffered more failures than him IIRC. And of course, as recently as 2006 Schumi lost the championship because of mechanic problems during the last two races of the season, more than offsetting Alonso's failure at Monza. Also Montoya in 2003, race ending failures from the lead in Austria and Suzuka, had the former not happened he would have lost the title in the last one because of it. Same in 2003 for Räikkönen retiring from the lead at the Nurburgring, while Ferrari stayed reliable all year long.

Ferrim wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:I do kind of see the point with the arguments on reliability, if there are major reliability problems. It's slightly unfair on the drivers who could drive perfect races, only for something to fail of their car, robbing them of the points they'd score. It would also frustrate the teams if the components that fail aren't produced by the team, such as the engines.

Unreliability was key in many titles, out of the top of my mind I can think of Senna 1991 and Alonso 2005. Many other titles were at least partially affected by unreliability issues: it nearly costed Vettel the 2010 and 2012 titles, same for Häkkinen in 1998 and (to a lesser extent) 1999. You could argue it costed Mika 2000 -Indy failure- but then, that year Schumacher actually suffered more failures than him IIRC. And of course, as recently as 2006 Schumi lost the championship because of mechanic problems during the last two races of the season, more than offsetting Alonso's failure at Monza. Also Montoya in 2003, race ending failures from the lead in Austria and Suzuka, had the former not happened he would have lost the title in the last one because of it. Same in 2003 for Räikkönen retiring from the lead at the Nurburgring, while Ferrari stayed reliable all year long.

Actually, even recently we've had it. The title was Hamilton's to lose in 2007 when he had problems at Brazil and Vettel almost had something similar in 2012.

To this day, it's still mind-boggling that Hamilton managed to blow a 17 point lead with just two races and 20 points to drive for.

I occasionally have the belief that Hamilton was a more complete driver in his debut season. He drove very maturely for a rookie, and apart from the spat with Alonso in Hungary and the final two races, kept his nose clean for the most part. He also seemed to be a more cheerful driver, rather than the solemn, self-depreciating side that he's shown more recently. Perhaps in 2007 the expectations for him were lower, which allowed him to shine with less pressure on his shoulders and enjoy his job, whereas since then the expectations have grown, as have the critical voices, and the rise of Vettel as top gun.

East Londoner wrote:To this day, it's still mind-boggling that Hamilton managed to blow a 17 point lead with just two races and 20 points to drive for.

I occasionally have the belief that Hamilton was a more complete driver in his debut season. He drove very maturely for a rookie, and apart from the spat with Alonso in Hungary and the final two races, kept his nose clean for the most part He also seemed to be a more cheerful driver, rather than the solemn, self-depreciating side that he's shown more recently. Perhaps in 2007 the expectations for him were lower, which allowed him to shine with less pressure on his shoulders and enjoy his job, whereas since then the expectations have grown, as have the critical voices, and the rise of Vettel as top gun.

It is worth mentioning that he hasn't had a consistently quick and reliable car since 2008. It is considered by some that he isn't fully adapted to the characteristics of the now controversial Pirelli tyres. He was largely mistake free in 2009, 2010 and 2012, but in 2008, 2013 and especially 2011 he got into trouble a lot. I also don't why he hasn't shown the same level of consistency as the 1st-half season of his career (and he has had 14 of those now) but if he is given a car which can constantly find its way onto the front row or 2 in qualifying in his hands and Pirelli make a tyre/or Mercedes can create a car with minimal tyre wear, he'll be back to dominating more events, although it would be boring if it led to a Vettel/Button-esque winning streak.

East Londoner wrote:To this day, it's still mind-boggling that Hamilton managed to blow a 17 point lead with just two races and 20 points to drive for.

Not only that, had Timo Glock been slightly faster, Hamilton may still not be a world champion.

andrew2209 wrote:

East Londoner wrote:To this day, it's still mind-boggling that Hamilton managed to blow a 17 point lead with just two races and 20 points to drive for.

Not only that, had Timo Glock been slightly faster, Hamilton may still not be a world champion.

But wasn't Glock on the wrong tyres or something? He said he was trying very hard anyway and he would likely have lost P5 to Hamilton on the pit straight. Don't forget that Hamilton scored more points than anyone else after Germany in 2009, he was a strong contender in 2010 (and he would have been champion without the collisions in Italy and Singapore, not to mention the wheel rim failure in Spain) and he should have had been much closer to challenging in 2012 without McLaren screwing up all the time like they always do.

tristan1117 wrote:

Autosport wrote:FEARS FOR 2014

1. TOO RANDOM

While the potential return of regular reliability woes could make races more exciting, there is a danger that it could go too far.

While the odd shock winner from the back of the grid would be exciting, it could damage the image of the sport if random victors become too regular and races turned into farces where backmarkers are taking the chequered flag first simply because they are the only ones left standing.

I think this situation sounds great.

How many races in the last 30 years or so ended in a farce where a backmarker won? The closest I can think of are Alboreto in Detroit in '83, Panis in Monaco '96 and Fisi in Brazil '03. And even then it wasn't like any of them was confined to the back two or three rows for the season (although Jordan would be in '04 & '05). And how much tech that needed a lot of in-race testing came into F1 over that period?

Do Autosport not know why the points scoring positions were extended?

good_Ralf wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:

East Londoner wrote:To this day, it's still mind-boggling that Hamilton managed to blow a 17 point lead with just two races and 20 points to drive for.

Not only that, had Timo Glock been slightly faster, Hamilton may still not be a world champion.

But wasn't Glock on the wrong tyres or something? He said he was trying very hard anyway and he would likely have lost P5 to Hamilton on the pit straight. Don't forget that Hamilton scored more points than anyone else after Germany in 2009, he was a strong contender in 2010 (and he would have been champion without the collisions in Italy and Singapore, not to mention the wheel rim failure in Spain) and he should have had been much closer to challenging in 2012 without McLaren screwing up all the time like they always do.

Yes, the only reason why Glock had managed to get ahead of Hamilton was because Toyota were gambling that they could get away without making a pit stop for intermediate tyres and had left both drivers out on slicks. It did still work for them in some ways, because Glock did manage to jump Kovalainen by not pitting and therefore gained one place.

mario wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:Not only that, had Timo Glock been slightly faster, Hamilton may still not be a world champion.

But wasn't Glock on the wrong tyres or something? He said he was trying very hard anyway and he would likely have lost P5 to Hamilton on the pit straight. Don't forget that Hamilton scored more points than anyone else after Germany in 2009, he was a strong contender in 2010 (and he would have been champion without the collisions in Italy and Singapore, not to mention the wheel rim failure in Spain) and he should have had been much closer to challenging in 2012 without McLaren screwing up all the time like they always do.

Yes, the only reason why Glock had managed to get ahead of Hamilton was because Toyota were gambling that they could get away without making a pit stop for intermediate tyres and had left both drivers out on slicks. It did still work for them in some ways, because Glock did manage to jump Kovalainen by not pitting and therefore gained one place.

Let's just change it to "had the rain being slightly lighter in the final couple of laps".

What Norwegian is closest to F1?
If a Team Principal said today, "get me the best Norwegian out there", who would be signed?

Jocke1 wrote:What Norwegian is closest to F1?
If a Team Principal said today, "get me the best Norwegian out there", who would be signed?

Only Pal Varhaug (aka 2011 Dave Walker) has come close but other than that I don't know

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:What Norwegian is closest to F1?
If a Team Principal said today, "get me the best Norwegian out there", who would be signed?

Only Pal Varhaug (aka 2011 Dave Walker) has come close but other than that I don't know

Petter Solberg drove an F1 car (a Ferrari F2005) once. He has a great personality and can't be much slower than Varhaug...

Jocke1 wrote:What Norwegian is closest to F1?
If a Team Principal said today, "get me the best Norwegian out there", who would be signed?

The only Norwegian single-seater driver I've heard of in recent times is Pål Varhaug. He's the 2008 Italian FRenault champion and 2012 AutoGP runner-up, and also won the first ever GP3 race in 2010... and failed to score a single point after that during the whole season.

After some digging I also found out about Henrik Furuseth, 2012 U.S. F2000 National Class champion. But looks like he's going to stay in America.

Meatwad wrote:

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:What Norwegian is closest to F1?
If a Team Principal said today, "get me the best Norwegian out there", who would be signed?

Only Pal Varhaug (aka 2011 Dave Walker) has come close but other than that I don't know

Petter Solberg drove an F1 car (a Ferrari F2005) once. He has a great personality and can't be much slower than Varhaug...

Everyone loved Solberg (I'm no exception) and he was super fast too. He'd be perfect to take over from Webber if I wanted him to. Such a shame he got taken down by Subaru's lack of pace in 06-07

One more, Anders Krohn is the third Norwegian single-seaterdriver, he's raced in Indy Lights with mediocre success a couple of years ago.

...I'd still take Solberg to the said principal, tbh.

Tommy Rustad!

Oh, wait... maybe not.

What if double points make things less exciting? Like Driver A, 8 points ahead of the leading-in-race Driver B, is locked in an epic battle for second?

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:What if double points make things less exciting? Like Driver A, 8 points ahead of the leading-in-race Driver B, is locked in an epic battle for second?

My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the Monaco GP, supposedly F1's biggest race.

Cynon wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:What if double points make things less exciting? Like Driver A, 8 points ahead of the leading-in-race Driver B, is locked in an epic battle for second?

My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the Monaco GP, supposedly F1's biggest race.

My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the entire rest of the calendar.