Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **26 Oct 2014, 18:18**

CaptainGetz12 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2808012/F1-teams-written-contracts-supply-struggling-rivals-spare-car-reveals-Bernie-Ecclestone.html

I doubt know how credible this website is, but if this clause does exist, it could legitimize customer cars in order to keep the small teams afloat.

Though I'm unsure just how the "spare car" would work: Would the teams give Caterham and Marussia enough money to fund the teams to bring the cars to Austin, or are the teams gonna give them their older cars (which would be an interesting shake-up in the grid order...)

And if this does happen, does this mean that FOM is hinting that they would rather do customer cars than have 3-car teams in the near future?

I'll believe it when it's in Autosport. But I'm also unsure how such a 'spare car' system would function.

Posted: **26 Oct 2014, 20:02**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:
CaptainGetz12 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2808012/F1-teams-written-contracts-supply-struggling-rivals-spare-car-reveals-Bernie-Ecclestone.html

I doubt know how credible this website is, but if this clause does exist, it could legitimize customer cars in order to keep the small teams afloat.

Though I'm unsure just how the "spare car" would work: Would the teams give Caterham and Marussia enough money to fund the teams to bring the cars to Austin, or are the teams gonna give them their older cars (which would be an interesting shake-up in the grid order...)

And if this does happen, does this mean that FOM is hinting that they would rather do customer cars than have 3-car teams in the near future?

I'll believe it when it's in Autosport. But I'm also unsure how such a 'spare car' system would function.

We will have to wait for verification of its authenticity - either way, it does have a strong undertone of being a backdoor way of getting customer cars accepted by default. It also sounds like a potential recipe for legal fights and intellectual property issues if teams are accused of stealing information from rivals, not to mention it sounds rather vague as to when a team could invoke this clause, such that it sounds like it would be a real mess in practise...

Posted: **26 Oct 2014, 20:36**

Another random idea I pondered:
What if drivers could be penalised points for certain infringements or unscheduled power unit changes? All I can think of would be that The Reverend would end the season on minus points. :lol:

Posted: **26 Oct 2014, 20:46**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Another random idea I pondered:
What if drivers could be penalised points for certain infringements or unscheduled power unit changes? All I can think of would be that The Reverend would end the season on minus points.

Like I said in the chat: No, it would be too confusing. Grid penalties are enough (although I am concerned about how many drivers will be affected come Abu Dhabi).

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 01:05**

Another completely random thought: Imagine if F1 raced on a figure-8 circuit which did not have a bridge at the crossover, like at the Top Gear test track?

I already know it would never be allowed.

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 01:29**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Another completely random thought: Imagine if F1 raced on a figure-8 circuit which did not have a bridge at the crossover, like at the Top Gear test track?
I already know it would never be allowed.

Just...why?

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 01:37**

AustralianStig wrote:
Frogfoot9013 wrote:Another completely random thought: Imagine if F1 raced on a figure-8 circuit which did not have a bridge at the crossover, like at the Top Gear test track?
I already know it would never be allowed.

Just...why?

But why not?

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 02:30**

Mexicola wrote:
AustralianStig wrote:
Frogfoot9013 wrote:Another completely random thought: Imagine if F1 raced on a figure-8 circuit which did not have a bridge at the crossover, like at the Top Gear test track?
I already know it would never be allowed.

Just...why?

But why not?

Because F1 cars are too fragile for that, so the race will be over too soon, and there will be too many debris on track. Now doing the same thing with touring cars, that could work!

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 07:27**

I sometimes wonder just what the powers that be want for F1, why things have to be so difficult for those teams at the back. I agree there needs to be some sense of a team getting rewards for results, not just for turning up, but the odds seemed stacked against the little teams so greatly I often wonder why they bother. The old adage of to make a million dollars in F1 you need to spend two should be updated for the modern era up to about five.

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 07:28**

CaptainGetz12 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2808012/F1-teams-written-contracts-supply-struggling-rivals-spare-car-reveals-Bernie-Ecclestone.html

I doubt know how credible this website is, but if this clause does exist, it could legitimize customer cars in order to keep the small teams afloat by giving them their spare cars rather than having the teams developing their own.

And if this does happen, does this mean that FOM is hinting that they would rather do customer cars than have 3-car teams in the near future?

Marussia cannot afford to pay their employees, and cannot afford to fly to Austin
Ferrari lend Marussia the 2011 car, and tell them to put Pedro de la Rosa in it.
Marussia now have two Marussia cars and a Ferrari car. They still cannot afford to pay their employees, or fly to Austin.
???
All problems solved, Bernie goes home to swim in his money.

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 11:03**

I was reading an old review of the 2007 Season, and I think the main counter argument against customer cars is that it can damage the midfield teams and aspiring small teams. What incentive do Force India and Sauber have to spend millions designing their own car if Toro Rosso or Marussia can just buy an old Red Bull or Ferrari? Could you not end up with a grid filled with old cars with new liveries?

Maybe a middle of the road solution is aero kits, such as the IndyCar are trying to do. Alternatively, allow small teams to buy a very basic package from a larger team, and let them design the rest of the car.

Posted: **27 Oct 2014, 11:36**

CoopsII wrote:I sometimes wonder just what the powers that be want for F1, why things have to be so difficult for those teams at the back. I agree there needs to be some sense of a team getting rewards for results, not just for turning up, but the odds seemed stacked against the little teams so greatly I often wonder why they bother. The old adage of to make a million dollars in F1 you need to spend two should be updated for the modern era up to about five.

It doesn't have to be that way, but power from the top teams and those who gather the money are busy with their own winning/making money agendas. This while FIA passively watches things go awry for many. I am even starting to wonder if some theories going around the net saying that FIA wants the whole thing to go up in smoke before starting over this time without a certain 100 years comercial rights contract. I say F1 is in a worse position than ever. That EU meddling that led to FIA give up the rights was the worst thing it happened to F1.

Posted: **28 Oct 2014, 20:31**

In his final year now at ferrari, i cant help but think that Alonso must act to the ferrari guys like Gordon Ramsay :lol:

Posted: **28 Oct 2014, 22:06**

DanielPT wrote:
CoopsII wrote:I sometimes wonder just what the powers that be want for F1, why things have to be so difficult for those teams at the back. I agree there needs to be some sense of a team getting rewards for results, not just for turning up, but the odds seemed stacked against the little teams so greatly I often wonder why they bother. The old adage of to make a million dollars in F1 you need to spend two should be updated for the modern era up to about five.

It doesn't have to be that way, but power from the top teams and those who gather the money are busy with their own winning/making money agendas. This while FIA passively watches things go awry for many. I am even starting to wonder if some theories going around the net saying that FIA wants the whole thing to go up in smoke before starting over this time without a certain 100 years comercial rights contract. I say F1 is in a worse position than ever. That EU meddling that led to FIA give up the rights was the worst thing it happened to F1.

Then again, it might have helped if the commercial rights were actually publicly auctioned off by the FIA rather than privately sold off to Bernie for a relatively trivial sum in comparison to their true worth.

To be honest, I read it more as a case of Todt being so apathetic about actually running the FIA that he is happy to let F1, and quite a few other strands of motorsport, simply decay away. This is, after all, a man who turned up to the Monaco GP last year and left midway through the race for seemingly no reason other than being disinterested in the event and has been privately accused of only wanting the role of FIA president to satiate his personal vanity rather than actually wanting to do anything for the FIA.

It is, after all, not just F1 that is suffering - the WRC has decayed further, and yet the FIA took no action even when we saw some utterly farcical events (such as being unable to time the individual stages because the company operating the timing system was bankrupt). Even now the FIA is doing nothing when VW is openly criticising the rules, having complained that the series is 'stagnating' and hinting they will withdraw.

As for national racing series, the FIA's response seems to have simply been to throw more series out there when the existing ones are already struggling enough to attract enough entrants. Why was there no response from the FIA when the British Formula 3 series announced it was shutting down? Why the lack of support for GT racing series (series such as the Blancpain series are really run by national clubs with very little support from the FIA itself)?

Posted: **28 Oct 2014, 23:26**

Minardi Man wrote:In his final year now at ferrari, i cant help but think that Alonso must act to the ferrari guys like Gordon Ramsay

Criticizing Ferrari's catering? Probably based on a recipe from Enzo Ferrari's mother. Yeah, if suicide is his thing...

Posted: **29 Oct 2014, 20:03**

Anyone else waiting for Briatore to announce the new alternative racing series to F1? With Alonso signed for one of the teams

Posted: **30 Oct 2014, 10:05**

Rob Dylan wrote:Anyone else waiting for Briatore to announce the new alternative racing series to F1? With Alonso signed for one of the teams

He's currently cackling in his underground cave base as all his plans come together.

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Mr Todt I expect you to authorise my racing series and give me generous TV rights and royalties from all incomes generated thusly. Also, I want you to recognise Formula Flavio as a copyrighted name"

Posted: **30 Oct 2014, 10:37**

CoopsII wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:Anyone else waiting for Briatore to announce the new alternative racing series to F1? With Alonso signed for one of the teams

He's currently cackling in his underground cave base as all his plans come together.

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Mr Todt I expect you to authorise my racing series and give me generous TV rights and royalties from all incomes generated thusly. Also, I want you to recognise Formula Flavio as a copyrighted name"

I always pictured Briatore more like Emilio Largo in Thunderball. He would be perfect wearing an eye-patch.

Posted: **01 Nov 2014, 18:42**

Would teams be allowed to order one of their drivers to deliberately crash if Flav was running a parallel championship?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 13:24**

For future reference, I need a racing car that was for all intents and purposes decent but struggled due to being too heavy. Thanks in advance.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:09**

A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:15**

Klon wrote:For future reference, I need a racing car that was for all intents and purposes decent but struggled due to being too heavy. Thanks in advance.

Any car that was ever driven by Geoff Donnelly.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:22**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

If that rule was applied in Russia, Massa, Maldonado, Kobayashi and Chilton would fail to make the grid, unless they were inside the 104% window in any of the practice sessions.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:24**

good_Ralf wrote:
Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

If that rule was applied in Russia, Massa, Maldonado, Kobayashi and Chilton would fail to make the grid, unless they were inside the 104% window in any of the practice sessions.

As an extension to the 104% Rule, what if it was in use during the 1980s and 1990s as well alongside the 26-car limit per race?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:29**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

Here's a related ponder - who cares?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:34**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

That makes absolutely no sense. Please, do some research on the history of F1 qualifying before coming up with further brainfarts.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 14:40**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

How about making an alternate championship in the Black Stig forum and find out?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 15:20**

Klon wrote:For future reference, I need a racing car that was for all intents and purposes decent but struggled due to being too heavy. Thanks in advance.

You could probably include some of the early Renault ground effect cars, such as the RS10 or RE20, which were competitive enough to take victories but, asides from being unreliable, were also overweight due to the increased weight of the turbo engines (clocking in between 610-620kg at a time when the minimum weight limit was around 575-580kg).

Some of the early Ligier's, such as the JS7, were also a little overweight due to the fact that the team put a higher emphasis on torsional rigidity than outfits like Lotus, where weight reduction was the mantra of the day - however, the philosophy was also why Ligier proved to be one of the more competitive outfits in the early ground effect days, since their chassis was capable of withstanding loads that designs from rival teams could not cope with.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 16:40**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

Why not the 99% rule? Those not within 99% of the pole time get fed to the wolves or something.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 18:02**

takagi_for_the_win wrote:
Frogfoot9013 wrote:A very random idea I pondered a while ago:
What if the 107% Rule was changed to 104% Rule instead?

Why not the 99% rule? Those not within 99% of the pole time get fed to the wolves or something.

Are you saying that everyone on the grid at present bar Rosberg should be fed to the wolves?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 22:16**

Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 22:25**

James1978 wrote:Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

And Vettel will be the first since Christian Klien to go from Red Bull to another F1 team... Once you're on the Red Bull programme, your career seems tied into it.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 22:26**

James1978 wrote:Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

The only other driver who is vaguely comparable would be Klein - he drove for the works Red Bull team rather than Toro Rosso (given that Toro Rosso came into existence after he had been signed by the works Red Bull team), but he is one of the few ex-Red Bull drivers who had at least some role within F1 after leaving the team, albeit downgraded to a test driver role for Honda.

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 22:32**

mario wrote:
James1978 wrote:Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

The only other driver who is vaguely comparable would be Klein - he drove for the works Red Bull team rather than Toro Rosso (given that Toro Rosso came into existence after he had been signed by the works Red Bull team), but he is one of the few ex-Red Bull drivers who had at least some role within F1 after leaving the team, albeit downgraded to a test driver role for Honda.

His HRT race stint was after his Red Bull race stint, wasn't it?

Posted: **02 Nov 2014, 23:03**

dr-baker wrote:
mario wrote:
James1978 wrote:Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

The only other driver who is vaguely comparable would be Klein - he drove for the works Red Bull team rather than Toro Rosso (given that Toro Rosso came into existence after he had been signed by the works Red Bull team), but he is one of the few ex-Red Bull drivers who had at least some role within F1 after leaving the team, albeit downgraded to a test driver role for Honda.

His HRT race stint was after his Red Bull race stint, wasn't it?

There was, of course, the stint at HRT to add to the list as well - still, it's a relatively sparse career record in all. As you've rightly pointed out earlier, Vettel is somewhat unique within their program given that he was the first to be promoted from Toro Rosso to Red Bull, and then the first to leave the team to resume his career elsewhere within F1 on his own terms (Liuzzi did have a career afterwards, but he didn't willingly leave the team).

Posted: **03 Nov 2014, 13:24**

dr-baker wrote:
James1978 wrote:Here's one question I have - is Tonio Liuzzi the only driver to have driven for another team outside the Red Bull conglomerate after being a Toro Rosso driver (albeit with a gap)? IIRC every other Toro Rosso driver has either been promoted to the works team, or gone out of F1 altogether!

And Vettel will be the first since Christian Klien to go from Red Bull to another F1 team... Once you're on the Red Bull programme, your career seems tied into it.

Who says Vettel has got a drive next year? Autosport or it didn't happen (clearly playing devil's advocate here).

I'll probably be pelted with flaming papayas for pointing it out but Hamilton's lead in the championship is now 24 points, i.e. due to double points this is the maximum lead he could possibly have at this stage without having the opportunity to win the championship in Brazil.

Posted: **03 Nov 2014, 16:18**

Does anyone think that the FIA will implement a Chase for the Cup style format in F1 in the future to 'improve the show'?

Posted: **03 Nov 2014, 16:26**

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Does anyone think that the FIA will implement a Chase for the Cup style format in F1 in the future to 'improve the show'?

Don't give them any ideas.

But no, with the reaction to double points I should hope they wouldn't implement such an idiotic system.

Posted: **03 Nov 2014, 16:31**

Simtek wrote:
Frogfoot9013 wrote:Does anyone think that the FIA will implement a Chase for the Cup style format in F1 in the future to 'improve the show'?

Don't give them any ideas.

But no, with the reaction to double points I should hope they wouldn't implement such an idiotic system.

Hopefully they don't, although considering they don't seem to be going back on the standing restarts idea, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Posted: **08 Nov 2014, 20:55**

Looking back at some of the threads from this time last year, it appeared the general consensus was that 2013 was a fairly rubbish season and we couldn't wait for 2014. We had one bloke, of questionable popularity, dominating the sport to an extent not seen for a decade, we had Pirelli tyres that made it impossible to turn up halfway through the race and work out who was where on race pace etc... We all thought the huge reshuffle would be the answer to our prayers and make the sport better. 12 months on, we've lost Marussia and Caterham, Sauber and Enstone are on fairly thin ice, no matter who wins the drivers championship it'll be hugely unpopular and we've this farcical Double Points Abu Dhabi Funtime Bonanza to look forward to, plus a raft of more gimmicks to be introduced for next year.

God I love F1.

Grand Prix Rejects

Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox