Grand Prix Rejects

go_Rubens wrote:I wish 1 car F1 teams were still allowed.

But the Perry McCarthy shenanigans would never have happened!

Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

DanielPT wrote:Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

At the moment, he's much better. It's early, though, and he seemed to fluctuate a bit in 2013. But yeah, unless something changes with him or Rosberg, we're in for a WINSLOL season.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

At the moment, he's much better. It's early, though, and he seemed to fluctuate a bit in 2013. But yeah, unless something changes with him or Rosberg, we're in for a WINSLOL season.

I'm starting to think Red Bull will be back in the hunt by Monaco. If so, then we could get a 2 way battle, which F1 has needed for a while. I'd like to see a championship where the drivers title as well as constructors title were decided in the last race.

Susie Wolff formerly Stoddart would do just as good a job as Hamilton and Rosberg are doing at the moment, if given the chance.

Jocke1 wrote:Susie Wolff formerly Stoddart would do just as good a job as Hamilton and Rosberg are doing at the moment, if given the chance.

I would love to see that! If only it could be proven. Susie, why don't you go and marry one of the guys who runs the team? Oh wait...

go_Rubens wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

At the moment, he's much better. It's early, though, and he seemed to fluctuate a bit in 2013. But yeah, unless something changes with him or Rosberg, we're in for a WINSLOL season.

I'm starting to think Red Bull will be back in the hunt by Monaco. If so, then we could get a 2 way battle, which F1 has needed for a while. I'd like to see a championship where the drivers title as well as constructors title were decided in the last race.

I agree, Red Bull's development pace has always been astounding whereas the Mercedes team have often struggled to understand what parts of the car are good and bad and develop them. Last time they were in a championship battle was as Brawn and they trailed off heavily towards the end of that season.

watka wrote:I agree, Red Bull's development pace has always been astounding whereas the Mercedes team have often struggled to understand what parts of the car are good and bad and develop them. Last time they were in a championship battle was as Brawn and they trailed off heavily towards the end of that season.

But they still won...

Actors doing the podium interviews is better than ex-drivers doing them.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

At the moment, he's much better. It's early, though, and he seemed to fluctuate a bit in 2013. But yeah, unless something changes with him or Rosberg, we're in for a WINSLOL season.

"Unless something changes", eh?

Nicole Scherzinger wrote:LEWIS! I SAW YOU LOOKING AT THE PODIUM GIRLS IN MALAYSIA! YOU'RE DUMPED! AGAIN! UNTIL THE NEXT TIME!

Lewis Hamilton wrote:Waaaa, I'm in pain, I can't stand the agony, etc etc etc...

Britney Spears wrote:Oops, you did it again. Well, the next few races are mine, then.

Some time later...

Murray Walker wrote:And look at that! Colossally... it's Rosberg! He takes the chequered flag at Silverstone, to WIN WIN WIN his seventh race in a row! And I've got to stop, because my trousers are on fire and I need an extinguisher!

Martin Brundle wrote:What has happened to Lewis Hamilton since that dominant win in Malaysia? Anyway, cheers for filling in for us, Murray, after Crofty caught that dreadful case of gout in his jaw in Austria. Who knew eating so many schnitzels could do that?

Murray Walker wrote:*hissssssss* *sitting in a bath of cold water* Actually, I knew, it happened to me that first time James Allen had to take over the commentary. Anyway, if I shut up for a minute, and I know it's unlikely, I think we might be able to hear something downstairs... I can see in my earphones an angry-looking woman in a very expensive dress marching into the Mercedes pits!

*sounds of crashing, banging and screaming*

Martin Brundle wrote:...I've just heard Lee McKenzie is in the pits with Lewis Hamilton. It's a good job we pinched her from the BBC when we did, isn't it?

Lee McKenzie wrote:So, Lewis, that looked like a nasty crash you had there, can you talk us through it?

Lewis Hamilton wrote:What is there to say... she hit me! Right in the face with her engagement ring, the one *grates teeth* 50 Cent *grates teeth* just gave her, I didn't even do anything wrong...

Lee McKenzie wrote:No, I mean when you crashed out of the race, right in front of all your fans...

Nicole Scherzinger wrote:GET AWAY FROM MY EX, YOU BITCH!

Lewis Hamilton wrote:What that frick, Nicole...

Lee McKenzie wrote:*reverting to type* Dinnae talk pish or I'll chib...

*static*

A disembodied voice wrote:We apologise for the loss of the coverage of the British Grand Prix analysis...

dinizintheoven wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Evidence from the two first races this season led me to form the opinion that only mechanical issues will prevent Hamilton from slaughtering Rosberg this season. Hamilton is in full swing, revelling in having clearly the best car this season (a first in his career). I think the Mercedes team orders issue are really a non issue.

At the moment, he's much better. It's early, though, and he seemed to fluctuate a bit in 2013. But yeah, unless something changes with him or Rosberg, we're in for a WINSLOL season.

"Unless something changes", eh?

Nicole Scherzinger wrote:LEWIS! I SAW YOU LOOKING AT THE PODIUM GIRLS IN MALAYSIA! YOU'RE DUMPED! AGAIN! UNTIL THE NEXT TIME!

Lewis Hamilton wrote:Waaaa, I'm in pain, I can't stand the agony, etc etc etc...

Britney Spears wrote:Oops, you did it again. Well, the next few races are mine, then.

Some time later...

Murray Walker wrote:And look at that! Colossally... it's Rosberg! He takes the chequered flag at Silverstone, to WIN WIN WIN his seventh race in a row! And I've got to stop, because my trousers are on fire and I need an extinguisher!

Martin Brundle wrote:What has happened to Lewis Hamilton since that dominant win in Malaysia? Anyway, cheers for filling in for us, Murray, after Crofty caught that dreadful case of gout in his jaw in Austria. Who knew eating so many schnitzels could do that?

Murray Walker wrote:*hissssssss* *sitting in a bath of cold water* Actually, I knew, it happened to me that first time James Allen had to take over the commentary. Anyway, if I shut up for a minute, and I know it's unlikely, I think we might be able to hear something downstairs... I can see in my earphones an angry-looking woman in a very expensive dress marching into the Mercedes pits!

*sounds of crashing, banging and screaming*

Martin Brundle wrote:...I've just heard Lee McKenzie is in the pits with Lewis Hamilton. It's a good job we pinched her from the BBC when we did, isn't it?

Lee McKenzie wrote:So, Lewis, that looked like a nasty crash you had there, can you talk us through it?

Lewis Hamilton wrote:What is there to say... she hit me! Right in the face with her engagement ring, the one *grates teeth* 50 Cent *grates teeth* just gave her, I didn't even do anything wrong...

Lee McKenzie wrote:No, I mean when you crashed out of the race, right in front of all your fans...

Nicole Scherzinger wrote:GET AWAY FROM MY EX, YOU BITCH!

Lewis Hamilton wrote:What that frick, Nicole...

Lee McKenzie wrote:*reverting to type* Dinnae talk pish or I'll chib...

*static*

A disembodied voice wrote:We apologise for the loss of the coverage of the British Grand Prix analysis...

That was a fantastic post. The first one where I couldn't stop myself laughing. But hey It's possible considering how his form has gone in previous seasons when this kind of issue shows up

When Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher left Ferrari it sparked the decline which we are now seeing fully manifested.

Also, despite being one of the very best, Alonso is failing to improve Ferrari the way Schumacher did and would in his prime.

I think there are too many unpopular F1 opinions held on this forum. This thread has sprawled out to 83 pages. Stop being bloody hipsters people.

CoopsII wrote:When Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher left Ferrari it sparked the decline which we are now seeing fully manifested.

Also, despite being one of the very best, Alonso is failing to improve Ferrari the way Schumacher did and would in his prime.

I was thinking this exact same thing after the race.

I feel that a struggling team needs both a strong head of the operation, and a excellent driver to rally
behind and be able to extract results others couldn't. If you compare the years, 1996 could almost be seen as similar to 2012 - a Herculean effort thwarted by superior machinery, but I feel that a clear focus is lacking from those at the top. I seem to remember at some of the Grand Prix last year Gary Anderson was discussing how Ferrari were wasting their FP time testing small aero parts one at a time, rather than trying to test an assess more critical parts/issues. However if they're going to fix their issues it'll have to be soon, both their drivers are class acts but neither of them are getting any younger, and failing to get on top of these new regulations could have a severe knock on effect if the other teams continue to develop well.

East Londoner wrote:I think there are too many unpopular F1 opinions held on this forum. This thread has sprawled out to 83 pages. Stop being bloody hipsters people.

Boo! Hiss! Stop trying to be "normcore"!

Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

That isn't exactly unpopular, I'm still not really a Grosjean fan yet I know he did a brilliant job in the 2nd half of 2013.

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

I said on this very thread in January that Grosjean would never win a Grand Prix, even though I believe in him. Now that's more unpopular, but not totally I must admit.

good_Ralf wrote:

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

I said on this very thread in January that Grosjean would never win a Grand Prix, even though I believe in him. Now that's more unpopular, but not totally I must admit.

Now, I reckon that Grosjean deserves to win, based on recent performance, but whether he will win or not is another matter, and this year, it looks unlikely...

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

Gerhard Berger deserved to win more races in 1988, it's just Senna and Prost unfairly won all those races due to having the best car.

As much as everyone would like Grosjean to have won those races, the Red Bull was far superior, and Vettel used it to his advantage. Do you think Vettel should have not driven to the best of his abilities to let poor Grosjean win a race?

I'm sorry, 'X only won because of being in the best car' arguments are rather silly. Jacques Villeneuve proved in 1997 how having the best car doesn't guarantee success - that Williams was so good, that Schumacher shouldn't have even been anywhere near him come Jerez.

pasta_maldonado wrote:I'm sorry, 'X only won because of being in the best car' arguments are rather silly. Jacques Villeneuve proved in 1997 how having the best car doesn't guarantee success - that Williams was so good, that Schumacher shouldn't have even been anywhere near him come Jerez.

In the best car, throughout the history of F1, there is usually more than one car being entered, and thus, more than one driver driving the best car, ergo there is usually at least one driver that needs to be beaten...

pasta_maldonado wrote:

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

Gerhard Berger deserved to win more races in 1988, it's just Senna and Prost unfairly won all those races due to having the best car.

As much as everyone would like Grosjean to have won those races, the Red Bull was far superior, and Vettel used it to his advantage. Do you think Vettel should have not driven to the best of his abilities to let poor Grosjean win a race?

I'm sorry, 'X only won because of being in the best car' arguments are rather silly. Jacques Villeneuve proved in 1997 how having the best car doesn't guarantee success - that Williams was so good, that Schumacher shouldn't have even been anywhere near him come Jerez.

Still won it though.

SgtPepper wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:

andrew wrote:Gosjean deserved to win at least 2 races last year, Vettel only won due to having the best car

Gerhard Berger deserved to win more races in 1988, it's just Senna and Prost unfairly won all those races due to having the best car.

As much as everyone would like Grosjean to have won those races, the Red Bull was far superior, and Vettel used it to his advantage. Do you think Vettel should have not driven to the best of his abilities to let poor Grosjean win a race?

I'm sorry, 'X only won because of being in the best car' arguments are rather silly. Jacques Villeneuve proved in 1997 how having the best car doesn't guarantee success - that Williams was so good, that Schumacher shouldn't have even been anywhere near him come Jerez.

Still won it though.

Indeed he did, but he did not use the full potential of the car.

pasta_maldonado wrote:

SgtPepper wrote:Still won it though.

Indeed he did, but he did not use the full potential of the car.

Absolutely. But surely the fact he won it gives some credence to the 'X only won because of being in the best car' arguments? However, there are of course limits to this line of reasoning, and it varies greatly from driver to driver, weekend to weekend.

dr-baker wrote:

umatbru [aka nonameyet] wrote:The FIA And Williams are cowards for not investigating the schumacher/hill incident. If they don't do anything about it, then they are just as guilty as Schumacher is.

Senna's death is not an excuse to let schumacher get away with this travesty.

Whoever said Senna's death had anything to do with letting Schumacher get away with it?

Patrick Head of the Williams team stated to F1 Racing magazine that in 1994 "Williams were already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play", but didn't protest Schumacher's title because the team was still dealing with the death of Ayrton Senna; this was after Schumacher's punishment for blocking the circuit during qualifying for the 2006 Monaco Grand Prix. -Wikipedia

again, Senna's death is not an excuse not to protest this incident.

Sonic 06 wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

umatbru [aka nonameyet] wrote:The FIA And Williams are cowards for not investigating the schumacher/hill incident. If they don't do anything about it, then they are just as guilty as Schumacher is.

Senna's death is not an excuse to let schumacher get away with this travesty.

Whoever said Senna's death had anything to do with letting Schumacher get away with it?

Patrick Head of the Williams team stated to F1 Racing magazine that in 1994 "Williams were already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play", but didn't protest Schumacher's title because the team was still dealing with the death of Ayrton Senna; this was after Schumacher's punishment for blocking the circuit during qualifying for the 2006 Monaco Grand Prix. -Wikipedia

again, Senna's death is not an excuse not to protest this incident.

Why? Why bring this up again?

You've been banned before for making senseless and disrespectful posts, and you've been given the chance to come back to the forum to mend your ways. If anything, you've returned and you've been even worse than the last time.

Williams had to deal with a manslaughter case, a team of mourning staff and various other repercussions pertaining to the death of Senna. It would be futile to start legal proceedings against Schumacher's title when Williams themselves were already embroiled in a long and arduous manslaughter case.

For god's sake, man, have some decency.

SgtPepper wrote:

CoopsII wrote:When Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher left Ferrari it sparked the decline which we are now seeing fully manifested.

Also, despite being one of the very best, Alonso is failing to improve Ferrari the way Schumacher did and would in his prime.

I was thinking this exact same thing after the race.

I feel that a struggling team needs both a strong head of the operation, and a excellent driver to rally
behind and be able to extract results others couldn't. If you compare the years, 1996 could almost be seen as similar to 2012 - a Herculean effort thwarted by superior machinery, but I feel that a clear focus is lacking from those at the top. I seem to remember at some of the Grand Prix last year Gary Anderson was discussing how Ferrari were wasting their FP time testing small aero parts one at a time, rather than trying to test an assess more critical parts/issues. However if they're going to fix their issues it'll have to be soon, both their drivers are class acts but neither of them are getting any younger, and failing to get on top of these new regulations could have a severe knock on effect if the other teams continue to develop well.

IIRC, what Anderson was suggesting was that Ferrari were wasting time testing ineffective upgrades that could have been spent on trying to fine tune the set up of the car instead - even if the car is poor, it would be better to maximise the performance of a slightly slower can than to upgrade a car but be unable to use that extra performance. Instead, Ferrari ended up in the worst of both worlds when the upgrades failed and the set up was unoptimized, overall costing them time.

That, I think, speaks to Ferrari's true woes - it is that although there seem to be a reasonable stream of upgrades to the cars in recent years, there have been persistent issues with correlation and unexpected performance that means that they are not that efficient at actually producing effective upgrades. If you look at Red Bull or McLaren, in 2012 and 2013 they were bringing in upgrades at a slightly slower rate but those upgraded parts worked as expected.

There have been a few who have been wondering if there is something systematically wrong in the organisational structure of Ferrari in recent years. It's worth noting that Aldo Costa was working for Ferrari until he moved to Mercedes in 2012 - Mercedes spent the 2012 season reorganising their management structure, and 2013 and 2014 has since seen them steadily improve in performance under his direction.

It isn't as Ferrari are short of talent though - they have Allison, a very highly respected Technical Director, respected figures like Fry and Tombazis designing the car and have even been calling on the expertise of Rory Byrne on a part time basis in the past few years (whom, up until 2011, was a more successful designer than Adrian Newey). Their budget should also be reasonably healthy enough - even if their advantage is somewhat nullified when you consider that most of their rivals don't have to pay for engine development - but still Ferrari are unable to marshal those resources in an effective manner.

Now, part of the issue does seem to be the fact that, with the more stringent testing restrictions these days, Ferrari have persistently lagged behind with their technological tools - Massa indicated in the past that their car simulation tools were the weakest of the major teams, their wind tunnel has been a persistent source of problems and they are lagging behind in CFD development too. di Montezemolo is fighting hard to have the testing rules relaxed given that is where Ferrari would have an advantage, but you have to wonder whether those efforts would be better focussed on overhauling Ferrari's own technical facilities.

There is little that a driver can do if his team is not backing him up effectively - we saw in Bahrain that both Force India drivers could drive past both Ferrari's at will pretty much wherever they wanted. Alonso and Kimi can do some things, but they can't make the engine more powerful or the bodywork of the car more aerodynamically efficient on their own...

The world-feed for the Malaysian GP produced by the local TV station before FOM took over in 2004 was actually good.

good_Ralf wrote:The world-feed for the Malaysian GP produced by the local TV station before FOM took over in 2004 was actually good.

Not unpopular at all!

Mine, apparently

Sure, Ferrari may be difficult to drive and may also have found its fair share of trouble. Nevertheless, what we are learning from that intra-team battle is what some were already expecting: Kimi, Fernando is faster than you. All that's left are excuses...

DanielPT wrote:Sure, Ferrari may be difficult to drive and may also have found its fair share of trouble. Nevertheless, what we are learning from that intra-team battle is what some were already expecting: Kimi, Fernando is faster than you. All that's left are excuses...

In my eyes, the huge gap between these two is either;

1. Kimi is demotivated/back issues/simply getting a little past it.
2. The car was developed with Alonso in mind and doesn't suit Kimi's style in the slightest, and car development isn't exactly his forte.
3. Alonso is once again showing how much of a class act he is, this time weighed proving himself against a great driver rather than car.

Either way, Kimi's lack of pace has been a real shock. I know it's only four races in so far, but I really didn't expect the gulf to be quite so wide between the two. I thought Alonso would get the best of him, but not by quite such a margin. Would love to see Kimi find his feet, particularly if he retires at the end of this year.

On another note, I've been thinking that if the Mercs remain as all-conquering as they currently are, I would love to see Alonso in it against Hamilton. Now that would warrant the Prost/Senna tag!

W12 wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:The world-feed for the Malaysian GP produced by the local TV station before FOM took over in 2004 was actually good.

Not unpopular at all!

The 2001 coverage was particularly memorable!

- Senna was right to deliberately knock off Prost in Suzuka '90
- Schumacher as well, was right to turn in on the corner in Adelaide '94, Hill was just going for a gap there wasn't. (Schumacher was clearly at fault in '97 though)
- The 3-race ban of Eddie Irvine was a complete joke
- Alesi was a decent driver who was just too erratic to be good. His only good seasons have been '90 and '95.
- The Adelaide '95 race was extremely boring
- The '96 championship battle was dull but it provided us many good races, although Brazil was boring.
- Jos Verstappen was right to choose for a test drive with Benneton
- Alex Zanardi was wrong to not choose for the Benneton team.
- Andrea Montermini deserved a seat in a midfield team, or at least a Minardi in the mid-90's
- Coulthard was quicker than Hakkinen in race trim, but binned it too much and Hakkinen was a beast in qualifying.
- Hill didn't deserve a seat at Williams and should have retired after he became WDC
- Heidfeld wouldn't have won a race even if he had gone to McLaren in 2002 (Thus, McLaren were right to sign Raikkonen)
- Sarrazin deserved the 2000 Prost seat over 2 guys who only won 1 race in over 400 starts.
- Takuma Sato was a poor mans S. Nakajima
- Kobayashi is a poor mans Sato
- The Austrian team-order of Ferrari was the right thing to do
- Ferrari did not deserve 3rd in the 2005 WCC
- De La Rosa deserved to win in Hungary '06
- Winkelhock leading was just a joke, the guy was just good-for-nothing
- The closing of the pit lane with SC situations was a good thing
- Alonso deserved to win the inaugural Singapore GP
- The Renault in 2009 was a crapbox that almost destroyed Grosjeans career
- Ferrari was again right with the Hockenheim team order
- Seb Vettel is a piece of **** for his actions at Turkey and Hungary '10
- If Ferrari wouldn't have followed Webber in Abu Dhabi, Webber would have been crowned champion
- 2011 was more boring than 2002 and 2004 together
- Maldonado has more raw speed than Jenson Button

The universally-lauded permanent driver numbers (hence this thread):

Hate them. bathplugging hate them.

I liked the old semi-permanent team thing they had, I remember first watching the sport as a kid in the early 90s thinking "why have Grouillard and de Cesaris got #3 and #4 when they're rubbish?", next thing I know I'm reading about the exploits of Stewart and Cevert... "ahhh it makes sense now". Also hearing the commentary about Alesi and his new number and thinking "who's Villeneuve?" - and then finding out.

What they introduced in 1996 was a bit less fun but at least the numbers still had meaning - albeit only stretching back one season instead of decades, and it was fun seeing/working out who would be wearing what number when the new season rolled around.

And now? "#BO77AS" ...*vomits*.

They should have just mandated making the damn things more visible on the cars and left well alone (or gone back to pre-96 system)

Jonny83 wrote:The universally-lauded permanent driver numbers

um

no

These permanent numbers is making a bit of a mockery of my Car Numbers Alternative Championship, unless Williams and/or Suaber can sort themselves out pronto. Otherwise I'm indifferent to it.

GerhardTalger wrote:- Senna was right to deliberately knock off Prost in Suzuka '90
- Schumacher as well, was right to turn in on the corner in Adelaide '94, Hill was just going for a gap there wasn't. (Schumacher was clearly at fault in '97 though)

You've got to be joking, right?

GerhardTalger wrote:- Hill didn't deserve a seat at Williams and should have retired after he became WDC

Disagree, if only because I'm a big fan of Damon. He was still good in 97 and 98.

GerhardTalger wrote:- Sarrazin deserved the 2000 Prost seat over 2 guys who only won 1 race in over 400 starts.

No, no, no. Better to have a one-off outing in a half-decent Minardi than have your career almost ruined by that crapbox Prost IMO.

GerhardTalger wrote:- Winkelhock leading was just a joke, the guy was just good-for-nothing

That opinion may be valid on other, more rubbish forums (such as Autosport), but it certainly isn't here! That was a glorious moment for us Reject fans, not a joke at all. And that proves why our website and forum are the best.

GerhardTalger wrote:- If Ferrari wouldn't have followed Webber in Abu Dhabi, Webber would have been crowned champion

Eh?

GerhardTalger wrote:- Senna was right to deliberately knock off Prost in Suzuka '90
- Schumacher as well, was right to turn in on the corner in Adelaide '94, Hill was just going for a gap there wasn't. (Schumacher was clearly at fault in '97 though)
- The 3-race ban of Eddie Irvine was a complete joke
- Alesi was a decent driver who was just too erratic to be good. His only good seasons have been '90 and '95.
- The Adelaide '95 race was extremely boring
- The '96 championship battle was dull but it provided us many good races, although Brazil was boring.
- Jos Verstappen was right to choose for a test drive with Benneton
- Alex Zanardi was wrong to not choose for the Benneton team.
- Andrea Montermini deserved a seat in a midfield team, or at least a Minardi in the mid-90's
- Coulthard was quicker than Hakkinen in race trim, but binned it too much and Hakkinen was a beast in qualifying.
- Hill didn't deserve a seat at Williams and should have retired after he became WDC
- Heidfeld wouldn't have won a race even if he had gone to McLaren in 2002 (Thus, McLaren were right to sign Raikkonen)
- Sarrazin deserved the 2000 Prost seat over 2 guys who only won 1 race in over 400 starts.
- Takuma Sato was a poor mans S. Nakajima
- Kobayashi is a poor mans Sato
- The Austrian team-order of Ferrari was the right thing to do
- Ferrari did not deserve 3rd in the 2005 WCC
- De La Rosa deserved to win in Hungary '06
- Winkelhock leading was just a joke, the guy was just good-for-nothing
- The closing of the pit lane with SC situations was a good thing
- Alonso deserved to win the inaugural Singapore GP
- The Renault in 2009 was a crapbox that almost destroyed Grosjeans career
- Ferrari was again right with the Hockenheim team order
- Seb Vettel is a piece of **** for his actions at Turkey and Hungary '10
- If Ferrari wouldn't have followed Webber in Abu Dhabi, Webber would have been crowned champion
- 2011 was more boring than 2002 and 2004 together
- Maldonado has more raw speed than Jenson Button

1.- Do you really think so with a cold head? Ayrton Senna could have injured himself, Alain Prost or the marshalls because of some petty revenge. Many people think Senna did the right thing because they're instilled with passion for the guy and hatred for injustice, and who can blame them for that? But what Senna did was ultimately an act of cowardy.
2.- If I was Damon Hill there, I would have been circunspect about trying to pass Michael Schumacher at that moment. He rushed things and, I have to admit, I see nothing overtly wrong about what Schumi did there.
3.- Eddie Irvine was a loose cannon back then, and the FIA probably thought they needed to make an example of him. What he did in Brazil 1994 was totally reprehensible, and many people have lambasted Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean for similar things these days,
4.- I think all those years driving underwhelming Ferraris consumed Jean Alesi, but I wouldn't say he was inconsistent. That owed a lot to the cars he drove, really.
5.- That depends on what you understand by "boring". There wasn't a lot of action on-track, admittedly, and the main emotion in the race was provided by the retirements.
6.- I haven't watched all races in 1996, so I couldn't tell. But there have been worse years.
7.- I'm not aware of what other offers did Jos Verstappen have (I believe McLaren was also interested), but Benetton was probably not the best place for a rookie.
8.- When did Alex Zanardi have a Benetton chance?
9.- Maybe yes.
10.- Excuse me? Mika Häkkinen had the better of David Coulthard very often in race trim, and nothing exemplifies it better than the fact it was the Finn always heading McLaren's assaults.
11.- Objectively, you can say Hill shouldn't have got the Williams drive in 1993, but the team ran out of options. In the end, Damon totally turned heads by being able to be a bona-fide top driver, although never on Schumacher's level.
12.- You never know about that. The total tally of wins by the teams Nick Heidfeld raced in while he was driving for them was 1.
13.- Judging by how well he did in his sole outing for Minardi in Brazil 1999, he could have been competitive, but Jean Alesi and Nick Heidfeld were worthy drivers.
14.- Satoru Nakajima was mediocre throughout his career. Takuma Sato at least had a modicum of talent.
15.- Oh, God. Kamui Kobayashi was far more consistent than Sato throughout his career.
16.- Yes... if Schumacher had been faster than Rubens Barrichello, which he wasn't.
17.- They would have been behind Toyota in the Constructors Championship if the US GP hadn't been raced, but it's not their fault Michelin screwed up with their tyres.
18.- Jenson Button was plain faster. And let's not talk about what would have happened if some Renault mechanic did his job properly.
19.- It was a feel-good moment, what's there not to love?
20.- I'm indifferent towards this matter.
21.- Hard to say. Fernando Alonso had great pace that night, but Nelson Piquet Jr.'s crash certainly helped.
22.- Well, yeah, hard to argue about that.
23.- That time they were. Felipe Massa was too far behind in the Drivers Championship and Alonso was faster than him, indeed.
24.- His actions there were childish, but they don't warrant calling him "a piece of...".
25.- What? Alonso was faster than Mark Webber and if Ferrari hadn't decided to cover him he would have got the points he needed to become World Champion.
26.- Not really. 2011 had some genuinely exciting races.
27.- When he's in the mood, yes, absolutely.

GerhardTalger wrote: - Sarrazin deserved the 2000 Prost seat over 2 guys who only won 1 race in over 400 starts.

384 starts.

Prost made the right choice.
At the end of '99 Heidfeld was way more decorated than Sarrazin.
By that time Nick had been crowned Formula Ford 1600 champion, Formula Ford 1800 champion, Formula 3 Monaco Grand Prix winner, Formula 3 champion and Formula 3000 champion, while Stephane's highlights were Formula Renault champion.