Rantbox

[CarlosFerreira]

The way Vettel sprints say like that at the front when he grabs pole.... How can he do that? I don't buy it's driver skill alone. It must be something to do with turning the wick up on the engine, or something like that. Why doesnt't anyone try and match him? It's frustrating - the other tams KNOW that he will do that, yet the still play the tortoise game like Hamilton has today, which as of writing (42 laps gone) hasn't worked. Why doesn't anyone ver try and match Vettel instead of letting him have a 27 second lead after 10 laps?

Because he is the best driver, in the best car, in perfect conditions.

F1 is a game of change. Everything changes, and there's much excitement throughout. In the end, Vettel wins. Simple.

[lgaquino]

hehe i'm pretty sure everybody else is trying to beat everybody else!

It's frustrating if you're cheering for anybody else in particular.. For a vettel fan is ..conforting and nervous at the same time. Fair game.

[Ataxia]

I really need to stop coming here on race days. Sometimes, many of the reactions by some of our members makes me a little angry; all the drivers deserve at least some respect. I feel this place is getting worse in its content, as people just seem to slate drivers baselessly. If somebody's had a bad race, ok, that's fine to say that. But it's not fair to slate them just because of an off-day. Grosjean got it last weekend, now van der Garde seems to be getting absolutely murdered.

I know I'm moaning a lot recently, and I know I'm not a moderator (so I don't have the pulling power), but I'm still another member and I don't much like having to trawl through crap posts that add absolutely nothing other than to inflate post-counts. I like interesting content and fact-finding, and I think that's why I joined here some time back. I'd like something like this back.

Again, I'm sorry to moan...and I'm aware my mood might be clouded by my own problems. But this is supposed to be a community, and I don't want to have to be annoyed by posts that don't actually contribute much to a discussion.

Thanks.

[Salamander]

I really need to stop coming here on race days. Sometimes, many of the reactions by some of our members makes me a little angry; all the drivers deserve at least some respect. I feel this place is getting worse in its content, as people just seem to slate drivers baselessly. If somebody's had a bad race, ok, that's fine to say that. But it's not fair to slate them just because of an off-day. Grosjean got it last weekend, now van der Garde seems to be getting absolutely murdered.

I know I'm moaning a lot recently, and I know I'm not a moderator (so I don't have the pulling power), but I'm still another member and I don't much like having to trawl through crap posts that add absolutely nothing other than to inflate post-counts. I like interesting content and fact-finding, and I think that's why I joined here some time back. I'd like something like this back.

Again, I'm sorry to moan...and I'm aware my mood might be clouded by my own problems. But this is supposed to be a community, and I don't want to have to be annoyed by posts that don't actually contribute much to a discussion.

Thanks.

I'm guessing this is directed at me, given that I've probably been the most vocal about van der Garde, and if so, then I apologise. I just personally found his actions in the race, particularly with Webber, utterly inexcusable for any professional racing driver.

[kevinbotz]

I really need to stop coming here on race days. Sometimes, many of the reactions by some of our members makes me a little angry; all the drivers deserve at least some respect. I feel this place is getting worse in its content, as people just seem to slate drivers baselessly. If somebody's had a bad race, ok, that's fine to say that. But it's not fair to slate them just because of an off-day. Grosjean got it last weekend, now van der Garde seems to be getting absolutely murdered.

I know I'm moaning a lot recently, and I know I'm not a moderator (so I don't have the pulling power), but I'm still another member and I don't much like having to trawl through crap posts that add absolutely nothing other than to inflate post-counts. I like interesting content and fact-finding, and I think that's why I joined here some time back. I'd like something like this back.

Again, I'm sorry to moan...and I'm aware my mood might be clouded by my own problems. But this is supposed to be a community, and I don't want to have to be annoyed by posts that don't actually contribute much to a discussion.

Thanks.

For me, at least, I definitely appreciate more senior members like yourself and AndreaModa reminding everybody about respect and temperance, especially as it's helped me to remind myself to temper my own opinions following a race. As I've posted earlier in this thread, I came here specifically to avoid the widespread opprobrium found on other F1 sites and forums.

I know that I'm not in any position to judge others, having posted unwarranted judgments of drivers and teams myself, but every incident has a mitigating circumstance. In the case of VDG, he's a rookie driver, and as such, he's going to make rookie mistakes. Attempting to make the apex after giving Webber room was definitely one of them, but I'm not sure it was a crime of such magnitude as to warrant such unilateral condemnation. Every driver in Formula One are under unimaginable amounts of pressure, with the rookie backmarkers even more so. These guys' survival in the sport are contingent upon not only their mercurial sponsors, but also their ability to deliver conspicuous results in very underwhelming machinery. I honestly couldn't imagine the amount of pressure some of these guys are under.

Am I defending VDG's performance this weekend? No. Turning in on a front-runner while being lapped is completely unacceptable. But there are mitigating circumstances, of which the first and foremost is the simple fact that it was a human mistake committed by a human being under an enormous amount of pressure. In considering that, for me at least, his collision no longer seems as inexcusable.

[Salamander]

I know that I'm not in any position to judge others, having posted unwarranted judgments of drivers and teams myself, but every incident has a mitigating circumstance. In the case of VDG, he's a rookie driver, and as such, he's going to make rookie mistakes. Attempting to make the apex after giving Webber room was definitely one of them, but I'm not sure it was a crime of such magnitude as to warrant such unilateral condemnation. Every driver in Formula One are under unimaginable amounts of pressure, with the rookie backmarkers even more so. These guys' survival in the sport are contingent upon not only their mercurial sponsors, but also their ability to deliver conspicuous results in very underwhelming machinery. I honestly couldn't imagine the amount of pressure some of these guys are under.

Yeah, I understand all that, it was just such a pointless thing to do. He gave Webber the space, all he had to do was hold his line. I don't understand why he suddenly decided to take the apex when Webber was already alongside him - that was only ever going to end the way it did.

[kevinbotz]

I know that I'm not in any position to judge others, having posted unwarranted judgments of drivers and teams myself, but every incident has a mitigating circumstance. In the case of VDG, he's a rookie driver, and as such, he's going to make rookie mistakes. Attempting to make the apex after giving Webber room was definitely one of them, but I'm not sure it was a crime of such magnitude as to warrant such unilateral condemnation. Every driver in Formula One are under unimaginable amounts of pressure, with the rookie backmarkers even more so. These guys' survival in the sport are contingent upon not only their mercurial sponsors, but also their ability to deliver conspicuous results in very underwhelming machinery. I honestly couldn't imagine the amount of pressure some of these guys are under.

Yeah, I understand all that, it was just such a pointless thing to do. He gave Webber the space, all he had to do was hold his line. I don't understand why he suddenly decided to take the apex when Webber was already alongside him - that was only ever going to end the way it did.

I don't think he himself understands exactly why he did it either. I think he knows that what he did was unacceptable, and that if he continues to do as he did, he's going see himself exit very rapidly from the sport.

[Ataxia]

I really need to stop coming here on race days. Sometimes, many of the reactions by some of our members makes me a little angry; all the drivers deserve at least some respect. I feel this place is getting worse in its content, as people just seem to slate drivers baselessly. If somebody's had a bad race, ok, that's fine to say that. But it's not fair to slate them just because of an off-day. Grosjean got it last weekend, now van der Garde seems to be getting absolutely murdered.

I know I'm moaning a lot recently, and I know I'm not a moderator (so I don't have the pulling power), but I'm still another member and I don't much like having to trawl through crap posts that add absolutely nothing other than to inflate post-counts. I like interesting content and fact-finding, and I think that's why I joined here some time back. I'd like something like this back.

Again, I'm sorry to moan...and I'm aware my mood might be clouded by my own problems. But this is supposed to be a community, and I don't want to have to be annoyed by posts that don't actually contribute much to a discussion.

Thanks.

I'm guessing this is directed at me, given that I've probably been the most vocal about van der Garde, and if so, then I apologise. I just personally found his actions in the race, particularly with Webber, utterly inexcusable for any professional racing driver.

It wasn't directed entirely at you...maybe your epithet of "rock ape" was a bit uncalled for but usually you're more measured than that so I guess you get some leeway with that. I'm more annoyed at some of the younger members, who are less tactful in their criticisms. Of course, when emotions are hot then people are less restrained in expressing their annoyance at something. So although I understand why people might get a bit funny about something, it doesn't totally make it a legitimate reason to be insulting to individuals...especially when they have a greater aptitude at their profession than we do.

[Alextrax52]

That probably aimed at me isn't it because of my dislike for Di Resta.

[tommykl]

Something that really annoys me is when people refer to the "only a certain amount of results are counted" rule as idiotic and specific to the late 80's (I believe I read somewhere that one person was implying that it was one of Balestre's ideas).

1) The rule was there from the start of the World Championship. It wasn't new. It was previously repealed in the early 80's for a few years, but other than that was always a factor in the title race. Graham Hill lost the title in 1964 due to that same rule.

2) The rule was there in an era where unreliability was the norm, and was meant to reduce the handicap that it brought to the race results, making high results more important than consistent small points, and supposedly making the racing better, because being content with, say, fourth place wouldn't quite cut it. Nowadays, with almost bulletproof reliability, the rule does seem a bit stupid, since it would now reward inconsistency, which is considered much more important than back then. However, as much as I think that system was a good solution at the time, I can't even begin to imagine what the person who thought that splitting the season into two halves was a good idea was thinking, as that it simply dumb.

[Wallio]

Something that really annoys me is when people refer to the "only a certain amount of results are counted" rule as idiotic and specific to the late 80's (I believe I read somewhere that one person was implying that it was one of Balestre's ideas).

1) The rule was there from the start of the World Championship. It wasn't new. It was previously repealed in the early 80's for a few years, but other than that was always a factor in the title race. Graham Hill lost the title in 1964 due to that same rule.

2) The rule was there in an era where unreliability was the norm, and was meant to reduce the handicap that it brought to the race results, making high results more important than consistent small points, and supposedly making the racing better, because being content with, say, fourth place wouldn't quite cut it. Nowadays, with almost bulletproof reliability, the rule does seem a bit stupid, since it would now reward inconsistency, which is considered much more important than back then. However, as much as I think that system was a good solution at the time, I can't even begin to imagine what the person who thought that splitting the season into two halves was a good idea was thinking, as that it simply dumb.

It still was idiotic. I think the most glaring thing against that rule was right after Senna took the title over Prost (despite Prost beating Senna handily in points) it was quietly dropped. A sort oh "ah crap, we've really bathplugged up now". If the FIA had kept it after that, then I could live it with, but when the sanctioning body scraps it as a dumb rule, its hard to call it anything else.

[eichy]

Mobil 1 needs to stop making adverts like these, they make zero sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-4_0TWeXQ

[Alextrax52]

Mobil 1 needs to stop making adverts like these, they make zero sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-4_0TWeXQ

Honestly These adverts put the Go Compare Man to shame

[tommykl]

Something that really annoys me is when people refer to the "only a certain amount of results are counted" rule as idiotic and specific to the late 80's (I believe I read somewhere that one person was implying that it was one of Balestre's ideas).

1) The rule was there from the start of the World Championship. It wasn't new. It was previously repealed in the early 80's for a few years, but other than that was always a factor in the title race. Graham Hill lost the title in 1964 due to that same rule.

2) The rule was there in an era where unreliability was the norm, and was meant to reduce the handicap that it brought to the race results, making high results more important than consistent small points, and supposedly making the racing better, because being content with, say, fourth place wouldn't quite cut it. Nowadays, with almost bulletproof reliability, the rule does seem a bit stupid, since it would now reward inconsistency, which is considered much more important than back then. However, as much as I think that system was a good solution at the time, I can't even begin to imagine what the person who thought that splitting the season into two halves was a good idea was thinking, as that it simply dumb.

It still was idiotic. I think the most glaring thing against that rule was right after Senna took the title over Prost (despite Prost beating Senna handily in points) it was quietly dropped. A sort oh "ah crap, we've really bathplugged up now". If the FIA had kept it after that, then I could live it with, but when the sanctioning body scraps it as a dumb rule, its hard to call it anything else.

The thing is, Senna won over Prost that way in 1988, and the rule was only dropped for 1991 (at the same time, they began awarding 10 points to the winner). The rule made sense until then, and this was the first time that such a situation had ever happened. I think that 1988 was when reliability amongst the leading teams was becoming widespread, and the rule became obsolete. I'm saying that before 1988, the rule made sense, but when the championship contenders started to finish very often, they realized that making eventual retirements unimportant was unnecessary.

[Wallio]

Something that really annoys me is when people refer to the "only a certain amount of results are counted" rule as idiotic and specific to the late 80's (I believe I read somewhere that one person was implying that it was one of Balestre's ideas).

1) The rule was there from the start of the World Championship. It wasn't new. It was previously repealed in the early 80's for a few years, but other than that was always a factor in the title race. Graham Hill lost the title in 1964 due to that same rule.

2) The rule was there in an era where unreliability was the norm, and was meant to reduce the handicap that it brought to the race results, making high results more important than consistent small points, and supposedly making the racing better, because being content with, say, fourth place wouldn't quite cut it. Nowadays, with almost bulletproof reliability, the rule does seem a bit stupid, since it would now reward inconsistency, which is considered much more important than back then. However, as much as I think that system was a good solution at the time, I can't even begin to imagine what the person who thought that splitting the season into two halves was a good idea was thinking, as that it simply dumb.

It still was idiotic. I think the most glaring thing against that rule was right after Senna took the title over Prost (despite Prost beating Senna handily in points) it was quietly dropped. A sort oh "ah crap, we've really bathplugged up now". If the FIA had kept it after that, then I could live it with, but when the sanctioning body scraps it as a dumb rule, its hard to call it anything else.

The thing is, Senna won over Prost that way in 1988, and the rule was only dropped for 1991 (at the same time, they began awarding 10 points to the winner). The rule made sense until then, and this was the first time that such a situation had ever happened. I think that 1988 was when reliability amongst the leading teams was becoming widespread, and the rule became obsolete. I'm saying that before 1988, the rule made sense, but when the championship contenders started to finish very often, they realized that making eventual retirements unimportant was unnecessary.

Ah, damn my memory. I could've swore it came in in 1989 with the 3.5L regs. That's why I always thought it was so damning, like the NHL quietly dropping the "in-the-crease" rule after the NO GOAL fiasco.

[DemocalypseNow]

Because of the supposed not-so-interesting nature of the story, I only just discovered this today.

But what I have to ask is...WHY. WHY THAT NAME?! WE ONLY JUST ESCAPED THE FREAKING LOTUS SITUATION, AND THEN YOU START THIS AGAIN???

Great, so for next season, we could end up with Infiniti Red Bull Racing & Infinity Lotus GP. Fan-effing-tastic.

[Ataxia]

Because of the supposed not-so-interesting nature of the story, I only just discovered this today.

But what I have to ask is...WHY. WHY THAT NAME?! WE ONLY JUST ESCAPED THE FREAKING LOTUS SITUATION, AND THEN YOU START THIS AGAIN???

Great, so for next season, we could end up with Infiniti Red Bull Racing & Infinity Lotus GP. Fan-effing-tastic.

No, they won't rename the team. It's not called Genii Lotus F1, and they hold 65%. Why give the name to the minority owners?

[mario]

Because of the supposed not-so-interesting nature of the story, I only just discovered this today.

But what I have to ask is...WHY. WHY THAT NAME?! WE ONLY JUST ESCAPED THE FREAKING LOTUS SITUATION, AND THEN YOU START THIS AGAIN???

Great, so for next season, we could end up with Infiniti Red Bull Racing & Infinity Lotus GP. Fan-effing-tastic.

No, they won't rename the team. It's not called Genii Lotus F1, and they hold 65%. Why give the name to the minority owners?

They could, in theory, agree on a title sponsorship deal as well as taking a stake in the team, although that does not seem to be on the cards right now.

[Sublime_FA11C]

But Renault and Nissan have been married for over 10 years now, why is it so shocking that they are pushing the Infiniti brand through their top F1 connections?

It's no less weird than having Renault supply engines to RB and it's own outfit honestly.

[go_Rubens]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

[tommykl]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

You do know that Infiniti is part of Renault, right?

[wsrgo]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

You do know that Infiniti is part of Renault, right?

I have a slight suspicion that Nissan is involved in all that somewhere..

[Salamander]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

You do know that Infiniti is part of Renault, right?

... not quite. While Renault and Nissan have a partnership, they aren't the same company.

[Sublime_FA11C]

They're as close as they can be without actually merging. They co-operate since 1999. Infiniti is Nissan's luxury/performance brand similar to Honda's Acura or Toyota's Lexus.

And they probably decided not to brand engines as Infiniti is because the Renault brand is both more important globally and more acceptable to the F1 audience.

[mario]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

You do know that Infiniti is part of Renault, right?

... not quite. While Renault and Nissan have a partnership, they aren't the same company.

The confusion seems to come from the fact that, whilst Renault has the largest stake in Nissan, it does not have a controlling interest in them (though, as they currently hold about 43-44% of the publicly traded shares in Nissan, they are not far off from that point). Nissan, in turn, owns about 15% of Renault.

Infiniti is a subsidiary of Nissan and, as far as I am aware, fully under their control, although I guess you could argue that Renault's major stake in their parent company almost makes Infiniti an effective subsidiary of Renault.
[Yes, strictly speaking Nissan and Infiniti, are independent organisations, but Renault, through their voting rights and the fact that Ghosn, the Chief Operating Officer of Renault, is also the COO of Nissan, do have a fair amount of leverage with Nissan, and therefore, indirectly, on Infiniti.]

[Gerudo Dragon]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

[CoopsII]

Im bored of people knocking Red Bull and Vettel. That recently-locked thread aimed purely at collecting negativity summed it up for me, well done for locking it Mario (if that, indeed, is your real name).

If you're that unhappy with the current status quo in F1 then frig off and watch something else maybe this isnt the motosport series for you.

[dr-baker]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

That is pretty much the definition of a walk-over, isn't it? Thank goodness that Scott Malvern has prevented a 100% domination in that table...

If you're that unhappy with the current status quo in F1 then frig off and watch something else maybe this isnt the motosport series for you.

True, that. There is always IndyCars and BTCC... Just don't try WRC!

[Alextrax52]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

Ginetta Juniors is just as bad. That's turned into WOODHEADWINSLOL fest

[Salamander]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

Ginetta Juniors is just as bad. That's turned into WOODHEADWINSLOL fest

Yeah, but they have the antics of Ollie Chadwick to make up for that.

[UncreativeUsername37]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

Ginetta Juniors is just as bad. That's turned into WOODHEADWINSLOL fest

Most Formula Ford seasons are dominated by one person. It's nothing to freak out about if one more does.

[go_Rubens]

British Formula Ford is a joke. Not only have they added wings (which the lack of is what made FF unique), it's turned into a CAMMISHWINSLOL fest :/

Ginetta Juniors is just as bad. That's turned into WOODHEADWINSLOL fest

Most Formula Ford seasons are dominated by one person. It's nothing to freak out about if one more does.

No kidding...

[Gerudo Dragon]

Most Formula Ford seasons are dominated by one person. It's nothing to freak out about if one more does.

Maybe, but not to the extent where the one person wins every single race.

[Salamander]

Most Formula Ford seasons are dominated by one person. It's nothing to freak out about if one more does.

Maybe, but not to the extent where the one person wins every single race.

Yeah, that's fairly ridiculous. What's the quality of racing been like? If it's as decent as Ginetta Juniors, I'd let them off.

[go_Rubens]

I could never get over the name "Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault." I mean, there is a better way to do it by just renaming the engines as Infiniti engines and I'd be fine with that. But Infiniti Red Bull Racing Renault makes no sense, even if Infiniti is just a sponsor to Red Bull. It's like Rebellion Racing in the WEC where they have Lotus sponsorship when using Toyota engines and there is no sign of TOYOTA on the car.

You do know that Infiniti is part of Renault, right?

Yeah, I do. But it makes no sense to me. Why not only have Renault on it when RENAULT is the engine supplier?

[Gerudo Dragon]

Am I the only one who's sick of people complaining of Senna being deified in the mainstream when we do the exact same thing here with Prost?

[Shizuka]

Why not badge the Renaults differently per team? If Carlos Ghosn wants to promote as much of Renault as possible, he could force every team to have a different brand on it. Red Bull would be Infiniti, Lotus would be Nissan, Toro Rosso would be Dacia. It would make some sense, wouldn't it?

[mario]

Why not badge the Renaults differently per team? If Carlos Ghosn wants to promote as much of Renault as possible, he could force every team to have a different brand on it. Red Bull would be Infiniti, Lotus would be Nissan, Toro Rosso would be Dacia. It would make some sense, wouldn't it?

There is an indication in Auto Motor und Sport that Renault Sport were pushing to have different engine specifications from 2014 onwards which would have also had different sponsor names associated with them (not quite to the degree you have, but there would have been a custom engine for Red Bull, with development of the hybrid system funded by, and branded after, Infiniti).
However, Mercedes lobbied - successfully - against Renault's proposal, since Mercedes are against the idea of custom engine development programs for favoured teams, even though, as a manufacturer, it would be partially in their own interest. The FIA has therefore ruled that the manufacturers can only homologate a single power unit from 2014 to 2020, which means that customers will continue to get the same specification engine and energy recovery systems as the manufacturer teams.

[Klon]

Am I the only one who's sick of people complaining of Senna being deified in the mainstream when we do the exact same thing here with Prost?

Deifing is only wrong if the person doesn't deserve it.
No, seriously, some of us (me being out front) overdo it a bit. Then again, you could see it as a "fighting fire with fire" deal.

[go_Rubens]

Most Formula Ford seasons are dominated by one person. It's nothing to freak out about if one more does.

Maybe, but not to the extent where the one person wins every single race.

Yeah, that's fairly ridiculous. What's the quality of racing been like? If it's as decent as Ginetta Juniors, I'd let them off.

I have the same opinion for MotoGP and Moto3, which see the same three podium finishers the whole time, or, at least it seems that way.