Grand Prix Rejects

What if Formula 1 introduced mandatory pit-stop windows and a minimum pit-stop time (e.g. 30 seconds from entry to exit) to stop races being won in the pitlane and prevent pit incidents like Ricciardo's (not suggesting for a second that I'd support this)?

Whenever I see Jenson Button in a McLaren cap this year, I keep thinking he's wearing a Brawn cap, until I realize that it's grey and not a bright yellow.

I can make out, from left to right, Monteiro, Schnaider, Kolles, Albers, Winkelhock, ?, ?, and Sutil.



Who are those other two guys?

Ernesto Viso and Giorgio Mondini.

Do Midland top the 'amount of different drivers in their cars / race weekends' statistic? They certainly sported some Friday drivers.

giraurd wrote:Do Midland top the 'amount of different drivers in their cars / race weekends' statistic? They certainly sported some Friday drivers.

Albers and Monteiro as race drivers. Sutil did a few Friday sessions and I think Mondini did one. So that's four. Pretty sure BAR had four official test/Friday/reserve drivers one year. Sato and Davidsion were two who both did Friday's so along with the two race drivers, match Midland on four.

They drove the car in 2006
Bahrain, Australia, San Marino, Germany, Hungary: Albers, Monteiro, Winkelhock
Malaysia, Spain, Monaco, Great Britain, Canada, United States, Turkey, Italy: Albers, Monteiro, Mondini
Europe, France, Japan: Albers, Monteiro, Sutil
China: Albers, Monteiro, Premat
Brazil: Albers, Monteiro, Viso

What sort of leadership is that, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo?
So the team was having a tough race, and he leaves the circuit? To do what?
He couldn't wait forty minutes? Petulant, childish. Even disgraceful.
Would Enzo Ferrari do that? Ron Dennis? Colin Chapman? I know Luca is Chairman
and not a Team Principal, but that doesn't matter.
Would he have left if this was 2007 and Michael would have still been racing for Ferrari?
I'm trying to think back, hasn't di Montezemolo done this once before already?

A captain is supposed to be the last one off the ship.
Hasn't Luca ever heard of Edward John Smith for example, Captain of the RMS Titanic?
He wen't down with the ship like a hero, like a captain.

Luca followed the ship rats instead, followed them right out of Bahrain, leaving his crewmen behind.

Jocke1 wrote:What sort of leadership is that, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo?
So the team was having a tough race, and he leaves the circuit? To do what?
He couldn't wait forty minutes? Petulant, childish. Even disgraceful.
Would Enzo Ferrari do that? Ron Dennis? Colin Chapman? I know Luca is Chairman
and not a Team Principal, but that doesn't matter.
Would he have left if this was 2007 and Michael would have still been racing for Ferrari?

A captain is supposed to be the last one off the ship.
Hasn't Luca ever heard of Edward John Smith for example, Captain of the RMS Titanic?
He wen't down with the ship like a hero, like a captain.

Luca followed the ship rats instead, followed them right out of Bahrain, leaving his crewmen behind.

Is this some kind of Avant-garde poetry I don't understand?

Jocke1 wrote:What sort of leadership is that, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo?
So the team was having a tough race, and he leaves the circuit? To do what?
He couldn't wait forty minutes? Petulant, childish. Even disgraceful.
Would Enzo Ferrari do that? Ron Dennis? Colin Chapman? I know Luca is Chairman
and not a Team Principal, but that doesn't matter.
Would he have left if this was 2007 and Michael would have still been racing for Ferrari?
I'm trying to think back, hasn't di Montezemolo done this once before already?

A captain is supposed to be the last one off the ship.
Hasn't Luca ever heard of Edward John Smith for example, Captain of the RMS Titanic?
He wen't down with the ship like a hero, like a captain.

Luca followed the ship rats instead, followed them right out of Bahrain, leaving his crewmen behind.

Eifelland wrote:
Is this some kind of Avant-garde poetry I don't understand?

I'm just pondering, say Kimi or Fernando would have crashed and gotten badly injured,
and di Montezemolo having already left the Grand Prix mid-race, sitting in his plane somewhere
between Bahrain and Italy.
Oh, what a scandal.

Eifelland wrote:Is this some kind of Avant-garde poetry I don't understand?

What's an avant-garde? Is that some kind of Mercedes?

Jocke1 wrote:What sort of leadership is that, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo?
So the team was having a tough race, and he leaves the circuit? To do what?
He couldn't wait forty minutes? Petulant, childish. Even disgraceful.
Would Enzo Ferrari do that? Ron Dennis? Colin Chapman? I know Luca is Chairman
and not a Team Principal, but that doesn't matter.
Would he have left if this was 2007 and Michael would have still been racing for Ferrari?
I'm trying to think back, hasn't di Montezemolo done this once before already?

A captain is supposed to be the last one off the ship.
Hasn't Luca ever heard of Edward John Smith for example, Captain of the RMS Titanic?
He wen't down with the ship like a hero, like a captain.

Luca followed the ship rats instead, followed them right out of Bahrain, leaving his crewmen behind.

You're right that Enzo Ferrari would be unlikely to leave a race early even if his cars were doing badly - for all of his faults, he was a man who knew that the best way to lead a team was to show determination and commitment to the team, both through the good and the bad times (especially the latter).

It is not going to inspire the more junior members of the team if their own chairman walks out on them - if he acts as if the team is beyond hope, then who is going to lead and drive the team forward? On paper Ferrari should be doing a lot better - they are well resourced, have a strong technical team, have completed the upgrades to their wind tunnel without issues, have the major advantage of being able to tailor the engine package to their chassis (rather than the other way around for their customers) and yet they are clearly lagging behind in a lot of key areas.

Luca has changed technical and managerial staff, drivers and facilities and yet you wonder whether the real problems for Ferrari emanate from his office...

Eifelland wrote:
Is this some kind of Avant-garde poetry I don't understand?

Well, I drew the parallel to Titanic and it's captain, because already people have started
speaking of Ferrari as a sinking ship, at different places online.

mario wrote:You're right that Enzo Ferrari would be unlikely to leave a race early even if his cars were doing badly - for all of his faults, he was a man who knew that the best way to lead a team was to show determination and commitment to the team, both through the good and the bad times (especially the latter).

It is not going to inspire the more junior members of the team if their own chairman walks out on them - if he acts as if the team is beyond hope, then who is going to lead and drive the team forward? On paper Ferrari should be doing a lot better - they are well resourced, have a strong technical team, have completed the upgrades to their wind tunnel without issues, have the major advantage of being able to tailor the engine package to their chassis (rather than the other way around for their customers) and yet they are clearly lagging behind in a lot of key areas.

Luca has changed technical and managerial staff, drivers and facilities and yet you wonder whether the real problems for Ferrari emanate from his office...

Yes, I just wonder where it ends. If di Montezemolo can leave, can his drivers? Can Domenicali?
If Kimi suffers a puncture on lap 1 but the car is still driveable,
is it ok for Luca if Kimi just exits his car and flies home to Monaco or Finland? Just because
the situation appears hopeless.
You might argue, though, that Kimi pulled a similar stunt when he boarded the yacht
in Monaco '06. Granted he was unable to race anymore, but he failed to report back to the team.
But that was then. This is now.


I think it's good that di Montezemolo voices his opinion, he has every right.
But to leave the team like he did, even if he was only trying to make a point, was not professional.

At least Ferrari is the most competitive of the ferrari-engined teams. So they got that going for them.

I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

RonDenisDeletraz wrote:I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

He's 4th in the championship at the moment which I think goes to show he's working as hard as ever because he and Ferrari are not the 4th fastest driver/car package out there by a long shot.

watka wrote:He's 4th in the championship at the moment which I think goes to show he's working as hard as ever because he and Ferrari are not the 4th fastest driver/car package out there by a long shot.

Yeah, Ferrari is more like 5th best at the moment. Merc is clearly ahead, Red Bull, Force India and right now Williams is in front of them too, although RB's position isn't really stable at the moment as well as Williams'. If one of these teams fall back, I still think Lotus will rise eventually, and McLaren doesn't really seem like going back to the front anytime soon - we might actually get to see these two teams battle for 5th in the WCC.

Just thinking about the drivers who have moved teams this season, and how, at present, what seemed like bad moves have actually come good :

The good

Hulkenberg - Force India better than Sauber (could have gone either way)
Massa - Williams currently doing better than Ferrari (that might change but quite unexpected based on recent history)
Perez - Force India better than McLaren (unexpected-ish?)
Raikkonen - Ferrari better than Lotus (again, that might change, but I'd put them about level last year)
Ricciardo - Bed Bull better than Toro Rosso (not unexpected, this one!)

The bad

Maldonado - Lotus worse than Williams (that might change but quite unexpected based on recent history)
Sutil - Sauber worse than Force India (see Hulkenberg)

Was 2008 the wettest f1 season? (i.e. the most rain affected races)

WeirdKerr wrote:Was 2008 the wettest f1 season? (i.e. the most rain affected races)

2000 was pretty drizzly. To name them, Europe, Canada, Germany, Belgium, USA and Japan.
2008 had Monaco, Britain, Belgium, Italy and Brazil. Pretty close.

2004 and 2013 were certainly the driest, on the other hand!

RonDenisDeletraz wrote:I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

You have to wonder how long he will be willing to wait for Ferrari to give him a winner....

Cynon wrote:

RonDenisDeletraz wrote:I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

You have to wonder how long he will be willing to wait for Ferrari to give him a winner....

You have to wonder how long it will take Alonso to develop a winner himself, and not just 'wait until he is given one'.

Jocke1 wrote:

Cynon wrote:

RonDenisDeletraz wrote:I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

You have to wonder how long he will be willing to wait for Ferrari to give him a winner....

You have to wonder how long it will take Alonso to develop a winner himself, and not just 'wait until he is given one'.

That would rely on Ferrari in turn being able to produce upgrade packages that actually work as expected - Ferrari have been suffering from endemic correlation issues between their wind tunnel/CFD facilities and the measured performance on track.

Ferrari have often brought parts to the track, tested them in free practise sessions and then abandoned them when the on track performance doesn't tie in with the expected results - it's an issue they've had, to a greater or lesser degree, since 2010 I believe. The indication is that Alonso is pushing the team for upgrades - in 2012, for example, a Spanish journalist commented around the time of the US GP that Alonso had complained to him that Ferrari hadn't touched the rear bodywork since the Spanish GP - but Ferrari's technical department are not delivering on them.
They appear to have brought in a few new components for the Bahrain test sessions - a modified front wing and blown wheel nuts - but the latter is already potentially being scrapped and the former hasn't been tested extensively due to the damaged chassis.

mario wrote:
Ferrari have often brought parts to the track, tested them in free practise sessions and then abandoned them when the on track performance doesn't tie in with the expected results - it's an issue they've had, to a greater or lesser degree, since 2010 I believe. The indication is that Alonso is pushing the team for upgrades - in 2012, for example, a Spanish journalist commented around the time of the US GP that Alonso had complained to him that Ferrari hadn't touched the rear bodywork since the Spanish GP - but Ferrari's technical department are not delivering on them.
They appear to have brought in a few new components for the Bahrain test sessions - a modified front wing and blown wheel nuts - but the latter is already potentially being scrapped and the former hasn't been tested extensively due to the damaged chassis.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the bathplug would they accomplish? Brake cooling?

I wonder if it's possible to switch engine manufacturers mid-season? Obviously there would be severance money involved, but assuming a team had the money to terminate a contract, would they switch engines mid-season?

Aerospeed wrote:I wonder if it's possible to switch engine manufacturers mid-season? Obviously there would be severance money involved, but assuming a team had the money to terminate a contract, would they switch engines mid-season?

The last times I've heard of it happening are with Footwork, Coloni and Life. Given the expense of redesigning a car for the new engine, I doubt it would be feasible. I don't think it's allowed anyway.

andrew2209 wrote:

Aerospeed wrote:I wonder if it's possible to switch engine manufacturers mid-season? Obviously there would be severance money involved, but assuming a team had the money to terminate a contract, would they switch engines mid-season?

The last times I've heard of it happening are with Footwork, Coloni and Life. Given the expense of redesigning a car for the new engine, I doubt it would be feasible. I don't think it's allowed anyway.

Well, you can change engines - the Brawn was originally designed for the Honda engine, but they fit a Mercedes in there. I don't think there's any rules forbidding it, but certainly the team would be in breach of contract, in addition to the fact that you'd probably lose some ultimate performance from running an engine that your car wasn't originally designed to run. That, and I'd presume the legal storm surrounding the breaching of the engine contract is enough to deter anyone from trying it. You'd be better off saving up your money for next year.

Aerospeed wrote:I wonder if it's possible to switch engine manufacturers mid-season? Obviously there would be severance money involved, but assuming a team had the money to terminate a contract, would they switch engines mid-season?

I doubt it, because the car would obviously be based around the engines at the beginning of the year, so the car would not be built around the characteristics of the new motors so it could be unbalanced etc. and therefore very slow. Some people suggested that Lotus would be severely compromised if they changed engines before the start of this year, but they ended up renewing their deal with Renault. Not that it has improved fortunes much though!

good_Ralf wrote:I doubt it, because the car would obviously be based around the engines at the beginning of the year, so the car would not be built around the characteristics of the new motors so it could be unbalanced etc. and therefore very slow.

Ross Brawn would like to have a word with you.

You'd have to spend a lot of time redeveloping the rear end of the car, since the engine is required to be a stressed member of the chassis. Although Brawn did manage to get the Mercedes into the car, it was selected since it was the closest in size and shape to the outgoing Honda units. However, I recall there still had to be quite a fair bit of bodging to get the engine to fit with the chassis geometry at the rear.

Wallio wrote:

mario wrote:
Ferrari have often brought parts to the track, tested them in free practise sessions and then abandoned them when the on track performance doesn't tie in with the expected results - it's an issue they've had, to a greater or lesser degree, since 2010 I believe. The indication is that Alonso is pushing the team for upgrades - in 2012, for example, a Spanish journalist commented around the time of the US GP that Alonso had complained to him that Ferrari hadn't touched the rear bodywork since the Spanish GP - but Ferrari's technical department are not delivering on them.
They appear to have brought in a few new components for the Bahrain test sessions - a modified front wing and blown wheel nuts - but the latter is already potentially being scrapped and the former hasn't been tested extensively due to the damaged chassis.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the bathplug would they accomplish? Brake cooling?

Yes - Williams and Red Bull have been playing with this idea for some time, and it seems that the intention is to help draw air through the brake drums slightly more efficiently. It has also been suggested that there might be a slight aero gain too, as it might help them direct the flow of turbulent hot air from the brake ducts away from the car - however, Williams have indicated that they found that the aero gain was pretty negligible and easily offset by the mechanical modifications needed to the brake drums, plus some are wondering about the legality of that modification in the first place.

Salamander wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:I doubt it, because the car would obviously be based around the engines at the beginning of the year, so the car would not be built around the characteristics of the new motors so it could be unbalanced etc. and therefore very slow.

Ross Brawn would like to have a word with you.

Not really, since Ross Brawn did later point out that, although the Mercedes engine was a little more powerful and had a smoother power curve, the differences in the oil pump system (Mercedes had the oil pump and reservoir at the front of the engine whereas Honda had theirs beneath one of the cylinder banks if I remember well) did cause problems.

Because of those differences in design, Brawn had to put spacer bars at the front of the engine in order to fix it to the chassis, which shifted the weight bias further rearward than was ideal (the tyres Bridgestone produced worked best with a high forward weight bias - I believe that the last generation of tyres Bridgestone produced actually worked best with more than 50% of the static weight of the car on the front tyres).
It probably is possible to change suppliers during the season - the FIA has made it clear that they are increasing standardisation of things like cylinder spacings and common mounting points to increase the ease with which teams can switch suppliers - but it would still have a potentially noticeable impact on things like cooling, the air intake system (the air intakes of all Ferrari powered teams are quite distinctive compared to their rivals) and so on, so it would be quite challenging to do so with a car designed around a different engine package.

mario wrote:

Salamander wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:I doubt it, because the car would obviously be based around the engines at the beginning of the year, so the car would not be built around the characteristics of the new motors so it could be unbalanced etc. and therefore very slow.

Ross Brawn would like to have a word with you.

Not really, since Ross Brawn did later point out that, although the Mercedes engine was a little more powerful and had a smoother power curve, the differences in the oil pump system (Mercedes had the oil pump and reservoir at the front of the engine whereas Honda had theirs beneath one of the cylinder banks if I remember well) did cause problems.

Yeah, but the fact that they won both championships proves that it's not completely infeasible to perform well despite running a different engine than the one originally intended. I didn't say it wouldn't have it's drawbacks.

mario wrote:

Salamander wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:I doubt it, because the car would obviously be based around the engines at the beginning of the year, so the car would not be built around the characteristics of the new motors so it could be unbalanced etc. and therefore very slow.

Ross Brawn would like to have a word with you.

Not really, since Ross Brawn did later point out that, although the Mercedes engine was a little more powerful and had a smoother power curve, the differences in the oil pump system (Mercedes had the oil pump and reservoir at the front of the engine whereas Honda had theirs beneath one of the cylinder banks if I remember well) did cause problems.

Salamander wrote:Yeah, but the fact that they won both championships proves that it's not completely infeasible to perform well despite running a different engine than the one originally intended. I didn't say it wouldn't have it's drawbacks.

True, but then again Brawn did have the advantage that they were able to make the modifications before the season began as opposed to during the season, which was Aerospeed's original question. In that instance, one problem could be whether or not modifications were required to the gearbox structure (remember that Brawn also had to change the entire transmission system as well). As the gearbox housing tends to form part of the rear crash structure, a change in the gearbox casing might require rehomologation of the rear crash structure - a change that would potentially add to the expense and complexity of the redesign process.

mario wrote:True, but then again Brawn did have the advantage that they were able to make the modifications before the season began as opposed to during the season, which was Aerospeed's original question. In that instance, one problem could be whether or not modifications were required to the gearbox structure (remember that Brawn also had to change the entire transmission system as well). As the gearbox housing tends to form part of the rear crash structure, a change in the gearbox casing might require rehomologation of the rear crash structure - a change that would potentially add to the expense and complexity of the redesign process.

Yeah. In the end it's a lot less hassle to just work with what you've got and look for another engine supplier for future seasons if the situation's dire enough.

mario wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:

Cynon wrote:RonDenisDeletraz: I have faith that Alonso will be able to drag something out of the car at least occasionally

You have to wonder how long he will be willing to wait for Ferrari to give him a winner....

You have to wonder how long it will take Alonso to develop a winner himself, and not just 'wait until he is given one'.

That would rely on Ferrari in turn being able to produce upgrade packages that actually work as expected - Ferrari have been suffering from endemic correlation issues between their wind tunnel/CFD facilities and the measured performance on track.

Ferrari have often brought parts to the track, tested them in free practise sessions and then abandoned them when the on track performance doesn't tie in with the expected results - it's an issue they've had, to a greater or lesser degree, since 2010 I believe. The indication is that Alonso is pushing the team for upgrades - in 2012, for example, a Spanish journalist commented around the time of the US GP that Alonso had complained to him that Ferrari hadn't touched the rear bodywork since the Spanish GP - but Ferrari's technical department are not delivering on them.
They appear to have brought in a few new components for the Bahrain test sessions - a modified front wing and blown wheel nuts - but the latter is already potentially being scrapped and the former hasn't been tested extensively due to the damaged chassis.

I think Fernando is only going to try and beat Raikkonen... because if he beats Raikkonen, he still looks good even if the car is a crapwagon. Given Raikkonens reputation and how painfully crap Massa was in the past few years... Alonso can pat himself on the back and play up how bad the car is and still look good. One fluke win would be enough.

IF. and I mean IF Rosberg wins the title this year, will he suffer from the Button/Mansell/Hill-syndrome of "Oh he's a quick driver alright, but the only reason he won that title was because the car was simply miles ahead of everyone else"?

Because Merc this year is looking a LOT like 2009 Brawn's.

Well I wouldn't rate Rosberg within the top 5 or so drivers in F1, but to win the title he will have to beat Hamilton, who, like it or not, IS one of the top few drivers, in the same car.

Hill, Mansell and Button had somewhat less competitive teammates (though Villeneuve was fast he was inexperienced in F1, didn't know the tracks, etc).

I wonder if I can be called a true fan of the sport if I'm not able to watch all of the races. I'll hopefully be watching Bahrain this weekend, but I don't know yet that I have a sure way to watch the rest. I hope to. Until now I've been following the sport through this site, Saward's site, James Allen's site and twitter because that's what I can get away with at work. Am I a real fan or just a casual follower?

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote:I wonder if I can be called a true fan of the sport if I'm not able to watch all of the races. I'll hopefully be watching Bahrain this weekend, but I don't know yet that I have a sure way to watch the rest. I hope to. Until now I've been following the sport through this site, Saward's site, James Allen's site and twitter because that's what I can get away with at work. Am I a real fan or just a casual follower?

You know that the Bahrain GP was actually last weekend, so you'll be watching a rerun this coming weekend?