A tribute to the heroic failures of Grand Prix racing
https://ftp.gprejects.com/forum/
Salamander wrote:
Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.
good_Ralf wrote:Salamander wrote:
Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.
mario wrote:I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).
However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.
good_Ralf wrote:Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.
Aerospeed [JerMcC] wrote:Holy jumping, 13 hours of video???
Klon wrote:Never underestimate the power of hate.
watka wrote:Did Senna have anything to do with designing the Senna S at Interlagos?
CoopsII wrote:mario wrote:I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).
However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.
Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.
Wouldnt it?
mario wrote:CoopsII wrote:mario wrote:I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).
However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.
Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.
Wouldnt it?
His position would have obliged him to provide impartial feedback on the proposed revisions for the circuit, and he would have also faced scrutiny from the 20 other drivers who drove for the other teams at the time (if we take Rubens out of the equation as Schumacher's team mate).
Furthermore, the GPDA can only really act in an advisory manner; the FIA would have had the final say on the revisions to the circuit via their control over circuit licences, so any comments by Schumacher as head of the GPDA would not have been binding. Schumacher would probably, therefore, have been called in to look at variants that were already likely to obtain approval from the FIA, which would have reduced any opportunities he might have had to intervene in the design of the circuit anyway even if he might have wanted to shape said circuit to favour him.
mario wrote:CoopsII wrote:mario wrote:I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).
However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.
Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.
Wouldnt it?
His position would have obliged him to provide impartial feedback on the proposed revisions for the circuit, and he would have also faced scrutiny from the 20 other drivers who drove for the other teams at the time (if we take Rubens out of the equation as Schumacher's team mate).
Furthermore, the GPDA can only really act in an advisory manner; the FIA would have had the final say on the revisions to the circuit via their control over circuit licences, so any comments by Schumacher as head of the GPDA would not have been binding. Schumacher would probably, therefore, have been called in to look at variants that were already likely to obtain approval from the FIA, which would have reduced any opportunities he might have had to intervene in the design of the circuit anyway even if he might have wanted to shape said circuit to favour him.
CoopsII wrote:But didnt some drivers of the GPDA suggest that the alterations made did suit the Ferrari/Bridgstone combo as, to some cycnics, the F in FIA in those days stood for Ferrari?
That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.eurobrun wrote:Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.
Dark77 wrote:That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.eurobrun wrote:Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.
Exactly. And people still don't seem to realise that it gives you absolutely no points.UgncreativeUsergname wrote:It's the award for being last in qualifying. It's pointless to put it in because it's not actually a category and worth zero points.Dark77 wrote:That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.eurobrun wrote:Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.
mario wrote: Oh, I do not doubt that some might have suggested that the modifications were made to suit Ferrari, though frankly Ferrari would hardly have needed the assistance given how they blew everybody away in 2002.
Were that the case, though, I would have expected any such benefit to be short lived - after all, the handling characteristics of both Ferrari's cars and Bridgestone's tyres would not stay the same from year to year, and it is unlikely that Ferrari would design their car solely around that particular complex. I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to suggest that was indeed the case, though would be interested if there was something that could indicate whether or not that was the case (e.g. the sector times showing Ferrari had a major advantage in that sector) - after all, Williams still seemed to have an edge over Ferrari in qualifying trim (they locked out the front row in qualifying), so it can't have hurt their rivals all that much.
Salamander wrote:
Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.
Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.SgtPepper wrote:In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill
Dark77 wrote:Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.SgtPepper wrote:In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill
Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.
good_Ralf wrote:Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.
You're very much correct, but on the other hand, when he was leading in Canada, I thought, given how badly the circuit wreaks havoc with Pirelli tyres, he would be passed for the win at some point but he just kept on pulling away and in the end he dominated.
Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Dark77 wrote:Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.SgtPepper wrote:In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill
Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.
good_Ralf wrote:No wonder F1 Rejects titled the track the Hungasnoring.
Salamander wrote:good_Ralf wrote:No wonder F1 Rejects titled the track the Hungasnoring.
... when did this happen? I don't remember ever hearing that term here.
giraurd wrote:The eternal complainers who can't stand seeing their favorite driver not winning are ruining F1 at the moment..
..made the mistake of opening Autosport forums for the first time in months, and the first topic I see is a topic 'Is F1 boring this season?'....full of YES IT IS rants. Personally, I almost felt excited about the race tomorrow, but reading the thread put me back to 'meh' mode, as I kinda agreed to some of the points.
I bet if I didn't browse any F1 forums I'd think F1 is better than ever....
Salamander wrote:giraurd wrote:The eternal complainers who can't stand seeing their favorite driver not winning are ruining F1 at the moment..
..made the mistake of opening Autosport forums for the first time in months, and the first topic I see is a topic 'Is F1 boring this season?'....full of YES IT IS rants. Personally, I almost felt excited about the race tomorrow, but reading the thread put me back to 'meh' mode, as I kinda agreed to some of the points.
I bet if I didn't browse any F1 forums I'd think F1 is better than ever....
This is why this is the only F1 forum I frequent.
dr-baker wrote:This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.
Shizuka wrote:dr-baker wrote:This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.
Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.
AdrianSutil wrote:Shizuka wrote:dr-baker wrote:This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.
Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.
Me too. I wont even browse the Autosport forum because I know I'll get a rage.
watka wrote:Toro Rosso rant coming up...
I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?
Nuppiz wrote:AdrianSutil wrote:Shizuka wrote:Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.
Me too. I wont even browse the Autosport forum because I know I'll get a rage.
Add me to that list. Although I'm here more and more because of PMMF than actual F1 talk.
AdrianSutil wrote:watka wrote:Toro Rosso rant coming up...
I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?
You just answered your own question. Good qualifying counts for shite if you then can't race properly and rely on idiot team-strategists. A better driver would've set the car up to be more balanced for both quali and the race and then try to challenge the team over strategies. It does seem that ToroRosso tell their drivers when to pit and what to do, rather than letting their race drivers just... Race.
Now granted, you could say something like "Well, that's not the drivers fault" and you'd be right. But which people in every team are blamed first for a poor performance if something is not blatantly obvious beforehand (ie bad pitstop, being taken out by someone)? The drivers.
Don't get me wrong, I've come to like Ricciardo since I harshly slated him after his debut back in 2011 and I actually want him in the RedBull next year, but poor performances like that are going to get you negative feedback. He finished what? 12th? And that was after Rosberg, Di Resta and Sutil retired. If it wasn't for Force India having a bad day (who also got a lot of criticism, so Ricciardo is not alone) and Rosberg's retirement, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Hardly worthy or any sort of praise is it?!
The spotlight is well and truly on him in the pitlane, journalists offices and RedBull minds and it's up to him to prove it.
watka wrote:AdrianSutil wrote:watka wrote:Toro Rosso rant coming up...
I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?
You just answered your own question. Good qualifying counts for shite if you then can't race properly and rely on idiot team-strategists. A better driver would've set the car up to be more balanced for both quali and the race and then try to challenge the team over strategies. It does seem that ToroRosso tell their drivers when to pit and what to do, rather than letting their race drivers just... Race.
Now granted, you could say something like "Well, that's not the drivers fault" and you'd be right. But which people in every team are blamed first for a poor performance if something is not blatantly obvious beforehand (ie bad pitstop, being taken out by someone)? The drivers.
Don't get me wrong, I've come to like Ricciardo since I harshly slated him after his debut back in 2011 and I actually want him in the RedBull next year, but poor performances like that are going to get you negative feedback. He finished what? 12th? And that was after Rosberg, Di Resta and Sutil retired. If it wasn't for Force India having a bad day (who also got a lot of criticism, so Ricciardo is not alone) and Rosberg's retirement, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Hardly worthy or any sort of praise is it?!
The spotlight is well and truly on him in the pitlane, journalists offices and RedBull minds and it's up to him to prove it.
So did you expect him to finish better than 12th from 8th on the grid? Tbh, I can't remember where the FIs were to comment on whether he'd have beaten them or not, but yes Rosberg would have beat him.
the Masked Lapwing wrote:Di Resta's tyres fell off the cliff before he retired and was losing time relative to Ricciardo (and holding up Vergne quite badly), so there was no way he was going to beat him. Sutil went out too early to tell, but I think we was somewhere near Vergne at the time.
Aerospeed [JerMcC] wrote:good_Ralf wrote:Salamander wrote:Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.
Holy jumping, 13 hours of video???
AdrianSutil wrote:The car is clearly good enough yet ToroRosso got beaten by MALDONADO!!
Ferrim wrote: But then, here and there, the guy inserts ludicrous claims that I find completely at odds with the rest of his work. It doesn't seem the work of a fool or of someone who doesn't actively follow F1, except for those bits.
SgtPepper wrote:Ferrim wrote: But then, here and there, the guy inserts ludicrous claims that I find completely at odds with the rest of his work. It doesn't seem the work of a fool or of someone who doesn't actively follow F1, except for those bits.
I'm still working my way through them. Do you have any examples that stood out in particular?