Grand Prix Rejects

tBone wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

I'll support you.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

tBone wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

I'll support you.

I don't think that's unpopular. At least not on GPR. Altough the beauty of these cars isn't so much in the livery, but more in the shape, i think.

This wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

tBone wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

I'll support you.

I don't think that's unpopular. At least not on GPR. Altough the beauty of these cars isn't so much in the livery, but more in the shape, i think.

Mmm..unpopular with me though; the absence of yellow meant they couldn't live up to the heritage, and were just less distinctive. And silver was a bit 'McLaren'.....at least the M198 seemed to have a few more sponsors and by then my preference for Minardi livery was largely influenced by my desire for them to have some decent sponsorship..

GerhardTalger wrote:Even Heinz-Harald looked a contender on lap 27 at the Nurburgring... too bad he dropped out. For one unpopular opinion (at least here) I feel more disbelief in HHF losing his championship chances there than Luca losing his 4th place later on in that race.

https://youtu.be/m2kXYfJ72ZE?t=47

watka wrote:

GerhardTalger wrote:Even Heinz-Harald looked a contender on lap 27 at the Nurburgring... too bad he dropped out. For one unpopular opinion (at least here) I feel more disbelief in HHF losing his championship chances there than Luca losing his 4th place later on in that race.

https://youtu.be/m2kXYfJ72ZE?t=47

not available in your country lol

I know that ad, so I'm pretty sure I know what part you're referencing, but others won't have seen it.

GerhardTalger wrote:For one unpopular opinion (at least here) I feel more disbelief in HHF losing his championship chances there than Luca losing his 4th place later on in that race.

Not unpopular, simply boring.

The 2005 qualifying system was just as good as the current knockout one, with the exception of during 2009 of course.

By that, I mean the one used from Nurburgring onwards where order was based on where you finished in the previous race, obviously not the aggregate one.

yannicksamlad wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

Funnily enough, they were my least favourite Minardi liveries (M198 in particular), but I think that's just me, a far more unpopular opinion would be me admitting that the 1994 Kronenbourg Larrousse livery wasn't bad (*takes cover under his desk where he should be working, but is instead procrastinating on GP Rejects*).

FullMetalJack wrote:The 2005 qualifying system was just as good as the current knockout one, with the exception of during 2009 of course.

By that, I mean the one used from Nurburgring onwards where order was based on where you finished in the previous race, obviously not the aggregate one.

I would agree with that, and the potential for rain in parts of the session would mix up the grid (although that would divide opinion), IIRC the Minardi's and Jordan's were top in France 03, unfortunately it was only the first qualification session, probably why 05 was better.

Francis23 wrote:

yannicksamlad wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

Funnily enough, they were my least favourite Minardi liveries (M198 in particular), but I think that's just me, a far more unpopular opinion would be me admitting that the 1994 Kronenbourg Larrousse livery wasn't bad (*takes cover under his desk where he should be working, but is instead procrastinating on GP Rejects*).

Oh, that Kronenbourg Livery was actually good and fit cleverly into the shape of that car! I guess many people dislike assymetric liveries.

This wrote:

Francis23 wrote:

yannicksamlad wrote:About Minardi liveries, here's an unpopular one, I think. The M198 and M199 had the best liveries Minardi has ever had, in my opinion.

Funnily enough, they were my least favourite Minardi liveries (M198 in particular), but I think that's just me, a far more unpopular opinion would be me admitting that the 1994 Kronenbourg Larrousse livery wasn't bad (*takes cover under his desk where he should be working, but is instead procrastinating on GP Rejects*).

Oh, that Kronenbourg Livery was actually good and fit cleverly into the shape of that car! I guess many people dislike assymetric liveries.

Thank god, thought I would have been alone with that one

CoopsII wrote:

GerhardTalger wrote:For one unpopular opinion (at least here) I feel more disbelief in HHF losing his championship chances there than Luca losing his 4th place later on in that race.

Not unpopular, simply boring.

Maybe I wouldn't think that way if it wasn't my favourite driver back in the day. Or if he actually contested for a podium, or even a win. For a single Minardi win, I'll gladly trade in all the good progress, podiums and wins by Jordan that year. And more.

GerhardTalger wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

GerhardTalger wrote:For one unpopular opinion (at least here) I feel more disbelief in HHF losing his championship chances there than Luca losing his 4th place later on in that race.

Not unpopular, simply boring.

Maybe I wouldn't think that way if it wasn't my favourite driver back in the day. Or if he actually contested for a podium, or even a win. For a single Minardi win, I'll gladly trade in all the good progress, podiums and wins by Jordan that year. And more.

The information in this thread suggests a podium could well have been on the cards

GerhardTalger wrote:- 1994 was an unwatchable season overall, worse than the Ferrari domination year of 2004.

I would agree with you, but the review is pretty good, mainly because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw6YkgSJZkU

Simtek wrote:

Biscione wrote:

Francis23 wrote:Here's one for you, I rather liked the BAR 01 and Minardi M02 liveries

While you're on your own with the BAR zip livery...

*nervously sticks hand up as someone who kind of liked it*

Yea add me as another who liked the Zipper, although really tams should be able to run different liveries. I also think the 2007-2008 cars look worlds better than the current lot. Every "bit" stuck on them had one purpose, speed.

Wallio wrote:Yea add me as another who liked the Zipper, although really tams should be able to run different liveries. I also think the 2007-2008 cars look worlds better than the current lot. Every "bit" stuck on them had one purpose, speed.

Three unpopular opinions in one post without putting them a list! Have we had that before?

Well to be fair, I did quote, and two of them were me agreeing with others


And really different liveries is unpopular? That is a bit surprising to me, but fair enough.

Wallio wrote:Well to be fair, I did quote, and two of them were me agreeing with others


And really different liveries is unpopular? That is a bit surprising to me, but fair enough.

Only one way to find out, get everyone on the entire forum to vote!

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

Wallio wrote:Well to be fair, I did quote, and two of them were me agreeing with others


And really different liveries is unpopular? That is a bit surprising to me, but fair enough.

Only one way to find out, get everyone on the entire forum to vote!

I vote in favour of different liveries. It's not something that I think would become very commonplace on the grid, but the BARs undoubtedly looked better in separate colour-schemes

Just imagine the confusion at Monaco when all the drivers decide to run with one-off liveries for that race

Simtek wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

Wallio wrote:Well to be fair, I did quote, and two of them were me agreeing with others


And really different liveries is unpopular? That is a bit surprising to me, but fair enough.

Only one way to find out, get everyone on the entire forum to vote!

I vote in favour of different liveries. It's not something that I think would become very commonplace on the grid, but the BARs undoubtedly looked better in separate colour-schemes

If only, the 555 livery was gorgeous

I'm just thinking, one of the Red Bull cars could have the 'Red Bull can' livery whilst the other could be purple and have more focus on the 'Infiniti' side of their team. Or better still one can be dark blue (for normal Red Bull) and one could be light blue (for sugar free), oh if only Coca Cola sponsored an F1 team!

Unpopular opinion #782:

Sergio Perez is grossly overrated.

Warren Hughes wrote:Unpopular opinion #782:

Sergio Perez is grossly overrated.

I think he was grossly overrated, but over the last couple years the estimation seems to have come down to the level of a decent-but-not-great driver who has the odd moment of brilliance.

Salamander wrote:

Warren Hughes wrote:Unpopular opinion #782:

Sergio Perez is grossly overrated.

I think he was grossly overrated, but over the last couple years the estimation seems to have come down to the level of a decent-but-not-great driver who has the odd moment of brilliance.

At the same time though, I think we were robbed of seeing him get a shot in a decent car in 2013. That was supposed to be his proving year and we learned little from it.

The McLaren MP4-30 is actually a good car that is currently being let down by its engine.

DanielPT wrote:The McLaren MP4-30 is actually a good car that is currently being let down by its engine.

This isn't an unpopular opinion, merely one that that those that aren't dedicated fans aren't aware to be true. It seems to be a widely held opinion at this point. I see you trying to be controversial, and it isn't working

Biscione wrote:

DanielPT wrote:The McLaren MP4-30 is actually a good car that is currently being let down by its engine.

This isn't an unpopular opinion, merely one that that those that aren't dedicated fans aren't aware to be true. It seems to be a widely held opinion at this point. I see you trying to be controversial, and it isn't working

I've seen many times written that this McLaren is a 'crapbox' or 'shitbox' or something like that, that I really felt it was an unpopular opinion. My mistake.

DanielPT wrote:The McLaren MP4-30 is actually a good car that is currently being let down by its engine.

We have no evidence of that either way though. It won't be until Monaco and Hungary that we will know better. The car could very well be a shitbox

I do find it funny how a popular team (McLaren) are given the benefit of the doubt chassis wise, whereas a hated team (Red Bull) aren't. Sure Newey leaving hurts immensely, but the Renault it can be argued is WORSE than the Honda, since its two years old already, and like with McLaren, we won't know about the chassis until Monaco.

Wallio wrote:I do find it funny how a popular team (McLaren) are given the benefit of the doubt chassis wise, whereas a hated team (Red Bull) aren't. Sure Newey leaving hurts immensely, but the Renault it can be argued is WORSE than the Honda, since its two years old already, and like with McLaren, we won't know about the chassis until Monaco.

The Renault teams might be worse off than McLaren as Honda probably has more potential to catch up, but at the moment, the Honda is still the worst performing engine. And Red Bull are not given the benefit of doubt because they have their own junior team, Toro Rosso, competing at a similar level. Maybe we're unfair, and Toro Rosso have produced an awesome chassis for this year, but the more likely explanation is that the Red Bull chassis isn't that great.

pi314159 wrote:

Wallio wrote:I do find it funny how a popular team (McLaren) are given the benefit of the doubt chassis wise, whereas a hated team (Red Bull) aren't. Sure Newey leaving hurts immensely, but the Renault it can be argued is WORSE than the Honda, since its two years old already, and like with McLaren, we won't know about the chassis until Monaco.

The Renault teams might be worse off than McLaren as Honda probably has more potential to catch up, but at the moment, the Honda is still the worst performing engine. And Red Bull are not given the benefit of doubt because they have their own junior team, Toro Rosso, competing at a similar level. Maybe we're unfair, and Toro Rosso have produced an awesome chassis for this year, but the more likely explanation is that the Red Bull chassis isn't that great.

I suppose that the assumption comes in part because the MP4/30 is significantly slower through the speed traps than most of the other cars, but manages to make its way back up into the midfield pack. If that is the case, then logically they must be recovering at least some of their deficit in the corners, hence the assumption that the chassis must be reasonably good to compensate for their relatively poor engine.

Equally, there is also the fact that McLaren now have Prodromou driving forward their development - given Prodromou was cited as a key figure given his position as Chief Aerodynamicist at Red Bull, not to mention the fact that he was personally head hunted by Newey for that role, is probably another reason why it is believed that the MP4/30 has a fairly decent chassis.

I find Jonathan Legard far less annoying to listen to than Crofty. Maybe Legard's dull voice and style fits my mood at the moment .

good_Ralf wrote:I find Jonathan Legard far less annoying to listen to than Crofty. Maybe Legard's dull voice and style fits my mood at the moment .

At least you could laugh at Legard, and/or play Legard Bingo. Croft just irritates me.

In the way that Murray Walker could make most races interesting just by his delivery, Legard was similar in the wrong way his super-enthusiastic delivery of the exact same lines week-in week-out was just cringe-worthy but you could distract yourself by the hilarity of his incompetence.

I think the peak (nadir) of Legard's commentating was Korea in 2010, when neither he nor Brundle could get any of the cars right. They would miss overtakes, think Button was Hamilton, get confused as to why everyone was in the wrong position, and manage to throw in the word "problem" and "crucial" about 2,000 times. That race was almost like some kind of attempt at self-parody.

Here's one for you, there is a reasonable chance, in my opinion, that the last two races of the 2007 season were fixed.

Everyone knows about 'spygate', well under normal conditions a team would be chucked straight out of the championship, especially as it seems a much worse offence than say, Tyrrell in 84 or BAR in 05. However if the FIA were to ban McLaren for the rest of the season, Ferrari, and Raikkonen, would stroll to the title easily which would not be good for viewing audiences especially since at the time we just came out of the 'Schumi Ferrari era'. So instead they only get rid of constructors points (less prize money) and slap a huge fine on them, which when you think about it is just a 'double fine'; this ensures that TV audiences remain very large, due to both the title fight and Hamilton's potential to make history.

However whichever way you look at it it would be farcical for McLaren to win the WDC with that car, and the outcry would be enormous. So, come China and Hamilton is left out way too late, dangerously late in fact, the tyres were down to the canvas on a track with one of F1's longest straights, which serves as a good excuse for him to slide into the gravel and out of the race (it's worth noting that the 2nd half of Hamilton's season was a lot more inconsistent than the 1st).

Then comes Brazil, now forgive me if I'm wrong but both McLaren and Ferrari had incredible reliability that year right? So why does their only gearbox failure that season happen in the most crucial race and then magically fixes itself? And on a side note why did Alonso finish a minute behind when both Ferrari and McLaren were neck and neck all year? Anyway, Raikkonen wins the championship, and the outcome is the best possible for everyone given the politics that year:
-The non-cheating team won
-We were treated to a brilliant title fight
-People were optimistic for Hamilton the following year
All three saved F1's bacon that year

Oh and that fuel irregularities thing? Inconclusive evidence? Ok then.

Alonso will follow Hill and Villeneuve footsteps instead of winning another title.

Dj_bereta wrote:Alonso will follow Hill and Villeneuve footsteps instead of winning another title.

That makes no sense. Both Hill and Villeneuve only won the one title whilst Alonso already has two. Hill cashed in with a backmarker team before finishing his career with some respectability in the mid-field while Villeneuve became part of a brand new team before mooching about in a selection of moderately successful teams.

Unless you meant that Alonso wouldn't win another title in which case maybe comparing him to someone like Hakkinen would be more accurate.

Strategy-wise, Mercedes did as good a job as was possible at Monaco.

I see people accusing them of playing too much of the "theoretical laptop game", if you will. Nonsense. This is how you win races. If your data is telling you that you have a window for a free pitstop, to get some fresh rubber on the car and still return to the front of the pack, why would you ignore that and stay out on old rubber? That's a waste of an advantage. If the data had been correct and Hamilton had stayed out, they would have looked stupid for not locking down the victory and instead leaving it to chance on worn tyres (and we all know how Hamilton eats through his tyres faster than many of his peers).

What else are they supposed to do? Second guess every last bit of information they are fed? Yes, the data was wrong on this occasion, but if you becomes distrustful of everything you can't see with your own eyes, you will start to make terrible strategic decisions. The strategist's job is to interpret all the information they have at their disposal and make the best decision based on the scenario presented to them. They did that.

Biscione wrote:I see people accusing them of playing too much of the "theoretical laptop game", if you will. Nonsense. This is how you win races. If your data is telling you that you have a window for a free pitstop, to get some fresh rubber on the car and still return to the front of the pack, why would you ignore that and stay out on old rubber? That's a waste of an advantage. If the data had been correct and Hamilton had stayed out, they would have looked stupid for not locking down the victory and instead leaving it to chance on worn tyres (and we all know how Hamilton eats through his tyres faster than many of his peers).

Apparently that pit-stop lasted more as it should and Hamilton also lost more time than expected after catching the safety car. These are formula 1 teams, they are the pinnacle in motorsport terms and should react on the fly to an ever changing environment. Nevertheless, even if the data was okay and no such time was lost, a pit-stop is always a gamble. There is always a chance of a stuck jack, a misfitted tyre, stalling, releasing lights malfunction or running into traffic at the exit among others. Granted, when you know you won't reach the end of the race in good racing conditions you pit, but this was not the case as Rosberg and Vettel weren't scheduled to pit and they surely knew about this because one of them drives in the same team! Why risk having a botched pit stop and lose the lead when they can safely go to the end? It is not as if a rookie was driving the car either!

Also, that thing about Hamilton eating his tyres more than most of his rivals is a myth. Hamilton has shown on plenty of occasions that he can save the tyres and can make them last as much if not longer than Rosberg, for instance.

Let's face it, there is not a popular and an unpopular opinion about this. This was clearly a tactical blunder from Hamilton's side of the Mercedes garage and a very rejectful decision to make. You can have your personal view about who it is to blame but nothing can take away from the fact that it was a poor job that cost Mercedes an easy 1-2.

CoopsII wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Alonso will follow Hill and Villeneuve footsteps instead of winning another title.

That makes no sense. Both Hill and Villeneuve only won the one title whilst Alonso already has two. Hill cashed in with a backmarker team before finishing his career with some respectability in the mid-field while Villeneuve became part of a brand new team before mooching about in a selection of moderately successful teams.

Unless you meant that Alonso wouldn't win another title in which case maybe comparing him to someone like Hakkinen would be more accurate.

I'm not comparing Alonso with Hill or Villeneuve, I'm saying Alonso will finish his career like Hill/Villeneuve, in a middlefield car, without a new title.

Hakkinen ended his career in a front runner car. It's a different case.

Dj_bereta wrote:I'm not comparing Alonso with Hill or Villeneuve,

Sorry, "Alonso will follow Hill and Villeneuve footsteps" sounded like a comparison.

Let's go through this one point at a time;

DanielPT wrote:These are formula 1 teams, they are the pinnacle in motorsport terms and should react on the fly to an ever changing environment.

Exactly. This is why they pitted at that moment. A very small window of opportunity opened up at that particular moment.

DanielPT wrote:Nevertheless, even if the data was okay and no such time was lost, a pit-stop is always a gamble. There is always a chance of a stuck jack, a misfitted tyre, stalling, releasing lights malfunction or running into traffic at the exit among others.

These risks are very low. You cannot run a racing team where decisions are predicated on your pit crew being bad at their job. You must also consider some of these risks were non-existent when Hamilton made his pit-stop. Being in first by a long way meant he came in for his stop to an empty pitlane. There was no risk of an unsafe release, being held up by other cars coming in and out of their boxes. The rest of the factors mentioned have such a low probability of occurring, they do not offset the advantages of pitting in the slightest. If they did, teams wouldn't even try to run an extra stop to be on fresher tyres at any race during the season.

DanielPT wrote:Granted, when you know you won't reach the end of the race in good racing conditions you pit, but this was not the case

Hamilton disagrees with you. He asked for new tyres. According to him, it was most certainly the case.

DanielPT wrote:Rosberg and Vettel weren't scheduled to pit and they surely knew about this because one of them drives in the same team! Why risk having a botched pit stop and lose the lead when they can safely go to the end?

Of course they new this. You seem to be suggesting Mercedes made such a fundamental mistake that even a ten year old would understand they had messed up. Rosberg and Vettel's decision on whether to pit or not had absolutely nothing to do with the call for Hamilton. Their driver felt uncomfortable staying on his worn tires, and according to the information that Mercedes had at their disposal at that particular moment, they had a large enough window in which to pit Hamilton. If the information had been absolutely correct (and without hindsight, there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't be), it would have been a strategical mistake not to pit him.

DanielPT wrote:Also, that thing about Hamilton eating his tyres more than most of his rivals is a myth. Hamilton has shown on plenty of occasions that he can save the tyres and can make them last as much if not longer than Rosberg, for instance.

I will admit this was bordering on hearsay and isn't a solid argument. But it doesn't change the fact Hamilton requested a fresh set of tyres from his team over the radio.

DanielPT wrote:This was clearly a tactical blunder from Hamilton's side of the Mercedes garage and a very rejectful decision to make. You can have your personal view about who it is to blame but nothing can take away from the fact that it was a poor job that cost Mercedes an easy 1-2.

My view is not personal. I have no personal feelings for or against Mercedes or any of its employees in this situation. The problem is people trying to find a specific person to blame, when there is not one. Or at least, it is irrelevant who is at fault. To call it a "tactical blunder" is incorrect, and ignorant of the situation leading up to the incident.

The following figures are to portray an example, they are not necessarily accurate timings for the incident in question. But, let's say, if your data is telling you there is a 28 second gap between your lead car and your second car, and even assuming your pitstop is 50% slower than average (so, 4.5s instead of 3.0s), and you only require 25.5 seconds to complete the entire stop including entry and exit - can you explain a rationale for denying the driver his request for fresh tyres, when the information in front of you is suggesting he can have the fresh rubber he is asking for without conceding the lead?

The root cause of the entire incident was not a poor tactical choice. It was incorrect data being fed to the prat perch, which caused an incorrect decision to be taken. The only thing the team needs to understand is why that data wasn't coming through properly, and fix that. The human side is fine. The tactician did his job properly. Electing to keep Hamilton out would have amounted to dereliction of duty.