Grand Prix Rejects

Waris wrote:

mario wrote:

watka wrote:With Verstappen moving from F3 straight into F1 and the subsequent superlicence changes, does this mean we could see drivers making the step from karting straight into GP2 to make up for the changes?

Maybe - at the very least, the changes have well and truly killed off any chance of a revival of the domestic Formula 3 series given how lowly they rank.

Given that you can in theory qualify for a superlicence by winning the European F3 championship, I don't think it'll kill that series off entirely. I can see the number of drivers in that series declining in the longer term though, with more drivers willing to take a chance by jumping up into GP2 or the proposed F2 series - especially the latter, which has the most generous points system.

Remember that Kvjat moved straight from GP3 into F1. I foresee a merger between GP3 and F3 happening soon, then it might become a strong category again.

True, although the new superlicence regulations now mean that it would be impossible for somebody to do that given that the champion would only earn 30 of the 40 points he'd need for a licence. The European Formula 3 champion, though, can still rack up 40 points and go straight from his series into F1, so it gives a slight edge to that series over GP3.

I'd agree that it would make more sense for some rationalisation of the junior series and for some of them to merge to form one stronger joint series, though I suspect that the FIA's points system seems to be set out in a way that is aiming more at simply eliminating some series by making them very unattractive (e.g. downgrading the national F3 series).

There's nothing new under the sun - and as if to prove it, Simtek now has the same sig that somebody (Waris?) had in about 2009

Warren Hughes wrote:There's nothing new under the sun - and as if to prove it, Simtek now has the same sig that somebody (Waris?) had in about 2009

True that. Originality is dead.

Klon wrote:

Warren Hughes wrote:There's nothing new under the sun - and as if to prove it, Simtek now has the same sig that somebody (Waris?) had in about 2009

True that. Originality is dead.

Shite. I thought I was being clever

EDIT: My new sig is going to change as appropriate for whichever reject's birthday it is, starting with Vic Wilson. Don't tell me somebody's done that already.

Simtek wrote:

Klon wrote:

Warren Hughes wrote:There's nothing new under the sun - and as if to prove it, Simtek now has the same sig that somebody (Waris?) had in about 2009

True that. Originality is dead.

Shite. I thought I was being clever

EDIT: My new sig is going to change as appropriate for whichever reject's birthday it is, starting with Vic Wilson. Don't tell me somebody's done that already.

Kinda?

dr-baker wrote:[quote="Simtek]Shite. I thought I was being clever

EDIT: My new sig is going to change as appropriate for whichever reject's birthday it is, starting with Vic Wilson. Don't tell me somebody's done that already.[/quote]
Kinda?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Well, I give up. Although this is still a good enough idea to stick with for at least a little while. Expect a new, totally amazing, 100% original signature that has never even been conceived in the mind of any individual in the history of mankind under this post sometime in the future

Simtek wrote:

dr-baker wrote:[quote="Simtek]Shite. I thought I was being clever

EDIT: My new sig is going to change as appropriate for whichever reject's birthday it is, starting with Vic Wilson. Don't tell me somebody's done that already.[/quote]
Kinda?[/quote][/quote]
Well, I give up. Although this is still a good enough idea to stick with for at least a little while. Expect a new, totally amazing, 100% original signature that has never even been conceived in the mind of any individual in the history of mankind under this post sometime in the future [/quote]

Although, to give you credit, that was a thread I linked to, not somebody's signature!

Schumi, Kimi, and Vettel all won their first race for Ferrari at age 27. Turned out pretty good in the first two cases.....

Wallio wrote:Schumi, Kimi, and Vettel all won their first race for Ferrari at age 27. Turned out pretty good in the first two cases.....

And 27 was Gilles Villeneuve's number

FMecha wrote:

Wallio wrote:Schumi, Kimi, and Vettel all won their first race for Ferrari at age 27. Turned out pretty good in the first two cases.....

And 27 was Gilles Villeneuve's number

Many thanks for your excellent contribution, Captain Obvious.

Biscione wrote:

FMecha wrote:

Wallio wrote:Schumi, Kimi, and Vettel all won their first race for Ferrari at age 27. Turned out pretty good in the first two cases.....

And 27 was Gilles Villeneuve's number

Many thanks for your excellent contribution, Captain Obvious.

Biscione is being sarcastic.

I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this Autosport forum thread is accurate. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

East Londoner wrote:I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this [url=<a class="linkification-ext" href="http://forums.autosport.com/topic/26728-mikas-1999-mclaren-at-london-science-museum/" title="Linkification: http://forums.autosport.com/topic/26728 ... ce-museum/">http://forums.autosport.com/topic/26728-mikas-1999-mclaren-at-london-science-museum/</a>]Autosport forum thread is accurate[/url]. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

Wow, next time I'm down in London I'm going to have to visit that place. Making a mental note of it in my head.

East Londoner wrote:I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this Autosport forum thread is accurate. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

I missed that I think when I was there.

Going to the Red Bull Hangar in Salzburg was tight.

East Londoner wrote:I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this Autosport forum thread is accurate. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

Eh, teams are fantastically uptight about that. We are having a new engine built for our race car by Andy Jenson, who currently holds the small-block V8 world record (for 1/4 mile time) his dyno books nearly a year in advance. On Monday we went doen to see the progress on our block, make a payment, and drop off parts etc, and were told that at 2:30 a team was coming in for its dyno session. Despite the fact that the dyno'd car is in a totally different series, races a different combo, runs out of state and all that jazz, we were told in no uncertain terms we had to be OFF THE PREMISES ENTIRELY before they arrived or our engine contract was cancelled. And that's not for a top flight series like F1. Although as you said, how in the heck do you enforce it?

I'm not actually sure that they are policing the rule too well at all!

Aguaman wrote:

East Londoner wrote:I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this Autosport forum thread is accurate. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

I missed that I think when I was there.

Going to the Red Bull Hangar in Salzburg was tight.

What do they have of interest at the Red Bull Hangar?

watka wrote:

Aguaman wrote:

East Londoner wrote:I visited the Science Museum in London today, the first time in almost 5 years. One of the most famous exhibits there is the wrecked chassis of the McLaren MP4/14 that Mika Hakkinen drove at the 1999 German Grand Prix, where a tyre failure sent him into a massive shunt. There are notices around the display which basically state photographing this exhibit is not allowed, although it is widely flouted. Whilst I could understand photography being frowned upon when the car was first moved into the museum, it is now been at the museum for the best part of 14 years, if this Autosport forum thread is accurate. Surely by now any secrets or special parts in the design of the late-1990s McLaren are either known or completely obsolete, given the major F1 spec changes that have occured since 1999, which makes it odd that the Science Museum (or McLaren for that matter) still attempt to stop this exhibit being photographed (in a very, very lackadasical way, it should be said. )

I missed that I think when I was there.

Going to the Red Bull Hangar in Salzburg was tight.

What do they have of interest at the Red Bull Hangar?

Red Bull F1 Cars, Toro Rosso F1 cars, Sauber F1 cars pre-BMW, NASCAR, an IndyCar and a lot of bikes and planes. It is free.

I was in the red bull hanger last September after I dropped the hire car(BMW 116d) I had for a few days at the the airport.... was very interesting being there having seen it virtually on Gran Turismo 5 photo mode

The four F1 drivers you believe to be the most talented all move to the same series at once. None of the teams or other drivers follow them, nor do any top GP2 drivers seem to care. Which series is more prestigious?

As someone who's a proponent of driving talent being more important than the actual machinery, probably the series they move to. Especially if it's IndyCar or Formula E.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The four F1 drivers you believe to be the most talented all move to the same series at once. None of the teams or other drivers follow them, nor do any top GP2 drivers seem to care. Which series is more prestigious?

The ones that are on the receiving end of that Top 4. That event is the critical tipping point. If Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Ricciardo all move to the new series in question at once, it means F1 is finished. It won't be a question of money - just look at how much Hamilton already earns at Mercedes. So if they all move at once it either means the quality of F1 has declined markedly, or the quality of the newcomer series is so high. Either way, at that point Formula 1 is plunged into an irreversible decline.

Biscione wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The four F1 drivers you believe to be the most talented all move to the same series at once. None of the teams or other drivers follow them, nor do any top GP2 drivers seem to care. Which series is more prestigious?

The ones that are on the receiving end of that Top 4. That event is the critical tipping point. If Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Ricciardo all move to the new series in question at once, it means F1 is finished. It won't be a question of money - just look at how much Hamilton already earns at Mercedes. So if they all move at once it either means the quality of F1 has declined markedly, or the quality of the newcomer series is so high. Either way, at that point Formula 1 is plunged into an irreversible decline.

Well, until Bernie finally implements his 'bring back the show with V8s' plan - listening to V8s on my iPad headphones would be sure to soften the blow of not seeing Alonso, Hamilton, Ricciardo or Vettel in F1...

Though now I think about it, I would still watch to see the Rosberg-Bottas title fight

(Not sure where to post this)

This afternoon/evening, does anyone else receive 500 Internal Server Errors/phpBB General Errors?

FMecha wrote:(Not sure where to post this)

This afternoon/evening, does anyone else receive 500 Internal Server Errors/phpBB General Errors?

There was, it's fixed and we have nothing to worry abut now

Biscione wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The four F1 drivers you believe to be the most talented all move to the same series at once. None of the teams or other drivers follow them, nor do any top GP2 drivers seem to care. Which series is more prestigious?

The ones that are on the receiving end of that Top 4. That event is the critical tipping point. If Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Ricciardo all move to the new series in question at once, it means F1 is finished. It won't be a question of money - just look at how much Hamilton already earns at Mercedes. So if they all move at once it either means the quality of F1 has declined markedly, or the quality of the newcomer series is so high. Either way, at that point Formula 1 is plunged into an irreversible decline.

I'd agree that it would take something extremely drastic for multiple top level drivers to defect to another series simultaneously, because those drivers currently have pretty secure futures and are at teams where they are all happy right now.

With that in mind, the only way that I could see all of those drivers leaving simultaneously was if there was a major implosion of the sport that forced several key manufacturers out. That would probably be one of the few events that could cause the popularity and prestige of the sport to fall far enough to make it unattractive for those drivers - not to mention leaving few teams which could actually afford to pay them.

Currently conducting some personal research, regarding the history of F1. I was wondering from 1991 - 1996, the amount of entrants plummeted from 34 (1991), 32(1992), 26(1993), 28(1994), 26(1995) 22 (1996). What was the real cause of this decline? Was it just the Global recession, electronic gizmos such as Active Suspension and the consequence of Imola 94 shooting costs up that meant it became harder? What actions did the FIA and FOCA conduct that aided this (e.g. did the 1992 and 97/98 concorde agreements prevent more teams getting money) or to try and prevent the decline in numbers. What are the thoughts regarding grid numbers and there decline?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118655

Now, do I bother to skive off a day on a final grade-deciding placement to go see this?

(of course the answer's no, but if only...)

dr-baker wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118655

Now, do I bother to skive off a day on a final grade-deciding placement to go see this?

(of course the answer's no, but if only...)

I'm assuming that's the Lotus filming day at Brands. To which I say get the hell down there! I would if I could! People get ill - pull a sickie!

AndreaModa wrote:

dr-baker wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118655

Now, do I bother to skive off a day on a final grade-deciding placement to go see this?

(of course the answer's no, but if only...)

I'm assuming that's the Lotus filming day at Brands. To which I say get the hell down there! I would if I could! People get ill - pull a sickie!

I would but... This is my final placement, I've failed placements before and I simply must pass this one to get my professional qualification. If only it were before last Monday (20th) when I began my placement...

I'm pondering F1 and what I want it to be, and what it should be, and what it can be.

I'm lukewarm on F1 atm. I don't like artificially fast wearing tires, I don't like KERS, I don't like half a grid of pay-drivers.

It should be the best drivers, in the best possible racecars, the best tires, and the best engines, with the only restrictions and rules in the name of safety.

But it can't be that. That's just not proved to be economically viable, not enough organisations have the money to pour into building the best racecars possible and paying people millions of (insert currency here) to drive them. And even if it was economically viable, we might end up with the mid-late 2000s, with super close grids and aerodynamics where drivers couldn't overtake each other without non-safety based rules & restrictions. The era of the Trulli train, and Alonso losing a WDC because he couldn't follow Petrov closely enough to pass him. That's not going to work either.

It needs to be a better spectacle than that. And as many teams as possible need to be able to afford it. Not looking for a 40 car grid or anything, but if someone drops out, there has to be someone there to pick up the pieces, rather than slow, gradual bleedout of teams that was only briefly stemmed in 2010.

What can the FIA do?

Budget cap might help it if it was possible to enforce it. One chassis series? There'd be riots.

idk... maybe I'm just being a cynical asshat...

Enforcer wrote:I'm pondering F1 and what I want it to be, and what it should be, and what it can be.

I'm lukewarm on F1 atm. I don't like artificially fast wearing tires, I don't like KERS, I don't like half a grid of pay-drivers.

It should be the best drivers, in the best possible racecars, the best tires, and the best engines, with the only restrictions and rules in the name of safety.

But it can't be that. That's just not proved to be economically viable, not enough organisations have the money to pour into building the best racecars possible and paying people millions of (insert currency here) to drive them. And even if it was economically viable, we might end up with the mid-late 2000s, with super close grids and aerodynamics where drivers couldn't overtake each other without non-safety based rules & restrictions. The era of the Trulli train, and Alonso losing a WDC because he couldn't follow Petrov closely enough to pass him. That's not going to work either.

It needs to be a better spectacle than that. And as many teams as possible need to be able to afford it. Not looking for a 40 car grid or anything, but if someone drops out, there has to be someone there to pick up the pieces, rather than slow, gradual bleedout of teams that was only briefly stemmed in 2010.

What can the FIA do?

Budget cap might help it if it was possible to enforce it. One chassis series? There'd be riots.

idk... maybe I'm just being a cynical asshat...

+1. Good post.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582
Hmmmmm, what's the agenda here?

gnrpoison wrote:Currently conducting some personal research, regarding the history of F1. I was wondering from 1991 - 1996, the amount of entrants plummeted from 34 (1991), 32(1992), 26(1993), 28(1994), 26(1995) 22 (1996). What was the real cause of this decline? Was it just the Global recession, electronic gizmos such as Active Suspension and the consequence of Imola 94 shooting costs up that meant it became harder? What actions did the FIA and FOCA conduct that aided this (e.g. did the 1992 and 97/98 concorde agreements prevent more teams getting money) or to try and prevent the decline in numbers. What are the thoughts regarding grid numbers and there decline?

A lot of it had to do not only with the gizmos but banning them. You see, the hyper tech cars of 1993 had their beginnings in 1987 and 1988, with Lotus playing with a "passive" active suspension, some teams trying out ABS and TCS, then later Ferrari bringing out the semi-auto box. Lesser teams could compete at first, but By 1993 the cars had developed to only this. The FIA then bans them because of "cost-cutting". So teams are forced to throw away a car based on 6-8 years of R & D and start from scratch. Despite what the FIA (or any series will tell you) this INCREASES costs in the short run. That hurt just as much as the recession. Plus the rules for 1994 made the cars death-traps, which made companies not want to invest in a "blood-sport".

Spectoremg wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582
Hmmmmm, what's the agenda here?

Ecclestone felt he was a bit of a lone ranger fighting the fight against the sound of the engines and the processional races, so he text the first guy in his phone contacts list - Allen, Patrick - to back him up.

shinji wrote:

Spectoremg wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582
Hmmmmm, what's the agenda here?

Ecclestone felt he was a bit of a lone ranger fighting the fight against the sound of the engines and the processional races, so he text the first guy in his phone contacts list - Allen, Patrick - to back him up.

shinji wrote:

Spectoremg wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582
Hmmmmm, what's the agenda here?

Ecclestone felt he was a bit of a lone ranger fighting the fight against the sound of the engines and the processional races, so he text the first guy in his phone contacts list - Allen, Patrick - to back him up.

And isn't Bernie a member of the BRDC himself?

Spectoremg wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582
Hmmmmm, what's the agenda here?

He's after a discount.

An unpopular opinion but I felt that having no fuel stops is more boring than the re-fueling era. I mean sure we had stuff like Trulli trains but cars were driven quicker. That being said the tires were different. I don't get the love of non-fueling but I didn't watch F1 pre 1994, so eh.

Aguaman wrote:An unpopular opinion but I felt that having no fuel stops is more boring than the re-fueling era. I mean sure we had stuff like Trulli trains but cars were driven quicker. That being said the tires were different. I don't get the love of non-fueling but I didn't watch F1 pre 1994, so eh.

In the end, I am of the opinion that doesn't make a lick of difference. If we had the same conditions (DRS, Pirleli and all) and refueling would be allowed, the number of passes would be pretty much equal to the current value.