Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 17:47**

AndreaModa wrote:
Wallio wrote:
Spectoremg wrote:I only know the Hulk won Le Man because he's in F1, I couldn't tell you who his co-drivers were without looking it up.
Ask me who the current WEC champs are?

Irrelevant. I know Audi has dominated Le Mans they have only lost 3 times since 2002 I believe, once each to Bentley, Peugeot, and now Porsche (although the EXP Speed 8 was an Audi in drag.....)

But I can name but three of there drivers total: McNish, Pirro, and Christenson. That's it.

Andre Lotterer is displeased with you.

Guilty as charged. I plumb forgot (although I must also admit I missed the background of the whole Lotterer meme here).

To be fair though, how many can you (or others) name? Without wiki-ing it.

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 18:02**

Wallio wrote:To be fair though, how many can you (or others) name? Without wiki-ing it.

His teammates Benoit Tréluyer and Marcel Fassler. Earl Bamber and Nick Tandy were the Hulk's teammates this year. Also Frank Biela, Loic Duval and Timo Bernhard. Gené, Wurz and David Brabham from when Peugeot won it. And that's straight off the top of my head.

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 18:14**

Interesting, and I must say impressive.

I do think this goes back to a classic debate I often have with my racing friends: "Do you root for teams (or manufacturers) or drivers? Unlike most Americans I root for the team first, then the driver a far distant second.

F1 (In order):
Red Bull
Manor
Ferrari

Indycar (In Order):
Penske
Ganassi
Andretti

NASCAR (In Order):
Penske
Hendrick
Stewart-Haas

NHRA (In Order):
DSR
Jim Dunn Motorsports

Sports Cars (In Order):
Corvette Racing
Risi

Global Rallycross:
Andretti

I could go on. To me its the teams and manufacturers that make it for me. The driver gets largely forgotten. Like for example, I know there was a good 30 year period in F1 where every Champion was from the "Big 4". and I could probably name (most of) the WCCs. But the drivers? I'd need help, especially in the 80s.

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 19:52**

Simtek wrote:
Wallio wrote:To be fair though, how many can you (or others) name? Without wiki-ing it.

His teammates Benoit Tréluyer and Marcel Fassler. Earl Bamber and Nick Tandy were the Hulk's teammates this year. Also Frank Biela, Loic Duval and Timo Bernhard. Gené, Wurz and David Brabham from when Peugeot won it. And that's straight off the top of my head.

Impressive :roll:

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 20:52**

Wallio wrote:Indycar (In Order):
Penske
Ganassi
Andretti.

That's rather bold to admit on GPRejects. *appreciative applause*

Posted: **03 Sep 2015, 23:04**

giraurd wrote:
Wallio wrote:Indycar (In Order):
Penske
Ganassi
Andretti.

That's rather bold to admit on GPRejects. *appreciative applause*

I generally root for Penske whereever he runs. I just like him and his history. It made it interesting when he ran the Porsche in ALMS, as I generally dislike that marque, but seeing them mix it up with the Audis was fun.

Posted: **05 Sep 2015, 13:20**

Simtek wrote:
Wallio wrote:To be fair though, how many can you (or others) name? Without wiki-ing it.

His teammates Benoit Tréluyer and Marcel Fassler. Earl Bamber and Nick Tandy were the Hulk's teammates this year. Also Frank Biela, Loic Duval and Timo Bernhard. Gené, Wurz and David Brabham from when Peugeot won it. And that's straight off the top of my head.

Well yeah quite unusual to see you remember more teams than driver.

For me, every driver who drives and have driven for Ferrari I will support them. Even Eddie Irvine

Posted: **19 Oct 2015, 07:32**

With the impending US GP coming up I thought I'd point out that I miss the races at Indianapolis. It's a shame we don't still go there, even though Austin is great, F1 being at Indianapolis seemed, um, right.

Posted: **19 Oct 2015, 12:04**

That opinion's definitely not unpopular with me! The infield circuit was cool, and I like how they mixed that banked final turn with a regular track - some variety I think the current calendar could desperately use - and I can recall some damn good races happening there ('03 and '06 spring to mind).

Posted: **20 Oct 2015, 19:56**

CoopsII wrote:With the impending US GP coming up I thought I'd point out that I miss the races at Indianapolis. It's a shame we don't still go there, even though Austin is great, F1 being at Indianapolis seemed, um, right.

The infield circuit has always struck me as a messy and clumsy compromise enforced by the fact that they could not have any variation in the elevation of the corners, taking away one potential aspect to make a corner more challenging or interesting. Furthermore, due to the constraints imposed by having to work within the boundaries of an existing track, you couldn't really have many long sweeping bends or an extended fast complex of corners - instead, the main options boiled down to tight slow speed corners.

Posted: **20 Oct 2015, 20:27**

Rob Dylan wrote:That opinion's definitely not unpopular with me! The infield circuit was cool, and I like how they mixed that banked final turn with a regular track - some variety I think the current calendar could desperately use - and I can recall some damn good races happening there ('03 and '06 spring to mind).

And one "event" which could easily be the most rejectful thing ever

Posted: **20 Oct 2015, 22:06**

WeirdKerr wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:That opinion's definitely not unpopular with me! The infield circuit was cool, and I like how they mixed that banked final turn with a regular track - some variety I think the current calendar could desperately use - and I can recall some damn good races happening there ('03 and '06 spring to mind).

And one "event" which could easily be the most rejectful thing ever

Yeah, Coulthard's race in '03 was tragically bad :deletraz:

Posted: **20 Oct 2015, 23:05**

Rob Dylan wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:That opinion's definitely not unpopular with me! The infield circuit was cool, and I like how they mixed that banked final turn with a regular track - some variety I think the current calendar could desperately use - and I can recall some damn good races happening there ('03 and '06 spring to mind).

And one "event" which could easily be the most rejectful thing ever

Yeah, Coulthard's race in '03 was tragically bad

Not as tragic as poor Monty's GP.

I agree, Indianapolis is arguably the single-seater-racing capital of the US, much like Silverstone is the single-seater-racing capital of Great Britain. COTA has thrown up 3 decent races out of 3 so far, but it won't give me the same feeling that the Brickyard did.

Posted: **20 Oct 2015, 23:14**

Part of me agrees re. Indianapolis, another part of me felt weird seeing a race there that wasn't the Indy 500. Although of course that horse had long since bolted with the NASCAR race there.

Posted: **21 Oct 2015, 14:10**

CoopsII wrote:With the impending US GP coming up I thought I'd point out that I miss the races at Indianapolis. It's a shame we don't still go there, even though Austin is great, F1 being at Indianapolis seemed, um, right.

We got some very good racing there, 2003 and 2004 in particular were great. 2004 providing us with one legendary moment.

I think it helped that they seemed completely suited to the ultra high-speed cars of that time, I honestly can't envision today's cars speeding through the banking.

Posted: **21 Oct 2015, 15:49**

Frankly I don't miss Indy at all. IndyCar's Indy GP layout is better anyway. And Austin is great for F1, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 01:26**

Salamander wrote:Frankly I don't miss Indy at all. IndyCar's Indy GP layout is better anyway. And Austin is great for F1, as far as I'm concerned.

+1 Indy should be for the Indy 500 and nothing else personally. And I quite like the Austin track.

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 14:27**

CoopsII wrote:With the impending US GP coming up I thought I'd point out that I miss the races at Indianapolis. It's a shame we don't still go there, even though Austin is great, F1 being at Indianapolis seemed, um, right.

I'll agree with this, as long as long as that "three-hairpin-in-a-row" BS at the end is taken out.

Overall though, when it came to the Indy GPs, I liked it for a few reasons:

1.) Indy is the RACING capital of the US (not just single seaters), NHRA's biggest race is there, and ESPN has said before, that the first Brickyard 400 was the race that made NASCAR look more like a legitimate series and less like the pre-1994 Southern regional hobby it was.

2.) The lack of elevation was boring, but it also made it a bit more of a challenge IMO. This is just going by my experience in sims, but each corner looks the same, so its difficult to accurately judge entry speed, at least to me anyway.

3.) As I have said many times before, it was considered an "ultra-low downforce" circuit, like Monza, and F1 desperately needs more of those. When Indy and the old Hockenheim were still around, teams had to design low drag packages. Now they don't.

Austin is a great track no question, and deserves a GP. But if Bernie gets his way and adds a second US race, I personally think it should be in Indy.

Posted: **23 Oct 2015, 04:39**

Salamander wrote:Frankly I don't miss Indy at all. IndyCar's Indy GP layout is better anyway. And Austin is great for F1, as far as I'm concerned.

Not by missing the south banking, Austin is just good at the esses, the rest is carbon copy of Tilke's (and FIA's) shitty heritage. Also to mention the ocean of asphalt

Posted: **23 Oct 2015, 05:15**

LolLola wrote:
Salamander wrote:Frankly I don't miss Indy at all. IndyCar's Indy GP layout is better anyway. And Austin is great for F1, as far as I'm concerned.

Not by missing the south banking, Austin is just good at the esses, the rest is carbon copy of Tilke's (and FIA's) shitty heritage. Also to mention the ocean of asphalt

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, uh, your opinion, man.

Posted: **23 Oct 2015, 06:24**

Salamander wrote:
LolLola wrote:
Salamander wrote:Frankly I don't miss Indy at all. IndyCar's Indy GP layout is better anyway. And Austin is great for F1, as far as I'm concerned.

Not by missing the south banking, Austin is just good at the esses, the rest is carbon copy of Tilke's (and FIA's) shitty heritage. Also to mention the ocean of asphalt

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, uh, your opinion, man.

So you do

Posted: **01 Nov 2015, 09:29**

The new Mexico City track layout is far better than the old Monza-clone layout that it used to be.

Posted: **01 Nov 2015, 16:49**

ummm...."Monza-clone"? Does two long straights, and nothing else even remotely reminiscent of Monza, constitute a "Monza-clone"?

Posted: **01 Nov 2015, 17:45**

giraurd wrote:ummm...."Monza-clone"? Does two long straights, and nothing else even remotely reminiscent of Monza, constitute a "Monza-clone"?

Don't forget the Parabolica-knockoff connecting those straights.

Posted: **01 Nov 2015, 17:47**

giraurd wrote:ummm...."Monza-clone"? Does two long straights, and nothing else even remotely reminiscent of Monza, constitute a "Monza-clone"?

Long straights, chicanes, and Peraltada and Parabolica were/are fairly similar. It's not really a clone, obviously, but as close as you're going to get.

Posted: **01 Nov 2015, 18:20**

Yeah - but Parabolica is more stop-start than the long Peraltada, and Mexico City's old profile also had the never ending esses. That made it so much more an aero grip track than a power track that I don't think those two tracks are even in the same ballpark. It was more of a Silverstone "clone" if you ask me.

Posted: **02 Nov 2015, 00:26**

I liked the old track, because it offered up something a bit different, and went alongside Monza and the old Hockenheim as decent power tracks, which we're sorely lacking these days to balance out the rest.

That said, I also like the new track. At first sight I was very sceptical of the stadium layout, but after seeing it in action, it's a masterstroke. I'd be surprised if we don't see something similar (maybe not on that scale) at a track redevelopment or new build in the future. It's just a shame the track through that section is a bit mickey mouse. Overall though, a massively valuable addition to the calendar. I was thinking during the race, "why has F1 been away from Mexico for so long?!"

Posted: **03 Nov 2015, 14:54**

AndreaModa wrote:I liked the old track, because it offered up something a bit different, and went alongside Monza and the old Hockenheim as decent power tracks, which we're sorely lacking these days to balance out the rest.

That said, I also like the new track. At first sight I was very sceptical of the stadium layout, but after seeing it in action, it's a masterstroke. I'd be surprised if we don't see something similar (maybe not on that scale) at a track redevelopment or new build in the future. It's just a shame the track through that section is a bit mickey mouse. Overall though, a massively valuable addition to the calendar. I was thinking during the race, "why has F1 been away from Mexico for so long?!"

I agree with you. The stadium bit looked awful in Champ Car, and looked awful last year, but with the fans inside it was fairly awesome.

Shame about the Peraltada... maybe they should recreate it on a different section of the track?

Posted: **10 Nov 2015, 07:41**

Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

Posted: **10 Nov 2015, 12:14**

CoopsII wrote:Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

Not unpopular with me.

Posted: **10 Nov 2015, 19:30**

CoopsII wrote:Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

I don't even have Monza in my list of legendary tracks. Monaco, Spa, and Suzuka are the only ones as far as I'm concerned.

Posted: **10 Nov 2015, 20:09**

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
CoopsII wrote:Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

I don't even have Monza in my list of legendary tracks. Monaco, Spa, and Suzuka are the only ones as far as I'm concerned.

Yup. Monaco, Spa and Suzuka as the legendary ones.

Silverstone, Monza, Montreal and Interlagos in the tier below. I'd add Melbourne too, but that may be up for debate.

Posted: **11 Nov 2015, 07:46**

FullMetalJack wrote: I'd add Melbourne too, but that may be up for debate.

It's difficult for Melbourne because, despite us going there for twenty years, it hasn't had it's fair share of Big Moments compared to Adelaide due to it being at one end of the calendar and Adelaide being at the other. No title showdowns in March, is there? However, I think it has given us some great races so it's definitely up there for me.

Posted: **11 Nov 2015, 16:00**

CoopsII wrote:
FullMetalJack wrote: I'd add Melbourne too, but that may be up for debate.

It's difficult for Melbourne because, despite us going there for twenty years, it hasn't had it's fair share of Big Moments compared to Adelaide due to it being at one end of the calendar and Adelaide being at the other. No title showdowns in March, is there? However, I think it has given us some great races so it's definitely up there for me.

That's my thinking behind it. But i'd never put it at the end of the F1 calendar, it's such a great season opener.

Posted: **11 Nov 2015, 18:10**

FullMetalJack wrote:That's my thinking behind it. But i'd never put it at the end of the F1 calendar, it's such a great season opener.

I agree that Melbourne is a great opening track, but do any of us actually know why we feel that way? It's even more feely than something like the flow of a circuit.

More interesting for me is the closing round: I know a lot of people like Suzuka as the last track, but personally I think Interlagos is better. It's epic enough on its own to make a title-decider that much better, but not so good that I want it to be in the middle so I can just enjoy the track; this is my main problem with a high-speed-themed track like Suzuka being the final round. Also, the short length and sort of Magny-Cours-style "packedness" gives Interlagos an "arena" feel if you squint, which is perfect for a final round.

Posted: **12 Nov 2015, 10:58**

Brazil has one hell of an atmosphere which makes it so good as the final round. Same with Suzuka, although I personally prefer the Interlagos track itself. Melbourne is a great track and is a great season-opener track, however it doesn't have that rabid audience who shout manically at everything going on which makes the first two tracks so special at closing a season

Posted: **15 Nov 2015, 19:22**

CoopsII wrote:Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

The fact it isn't by some would surprise me greatly. I assumed this was already widely accepted to be the case.

Posted: **18 Nov 2015, 19:09**

CoopsII wrote:Interlagos should be held in the same high esteem as the other grandee circuits such as Monza et al.

Most of these traditional circuits needs to be removed from F1. This year proved once more Monza and Monaco circuits are failing in producing good races. Interlagos only have good races with rain. The races in dry conditions were boring, like in this year, 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2010. Silverstone is much more a miss than a hit.

Posted: **20 Nov 2015, 10:44**

Well, there you go Biscuittione. Enjoy the surprise.

Posted: **21 Nov 2015, 18:17**

Not sure if my thinking is clouded by the tragic absence of a French GP but I always liked Magny-Cours.
I also respect the French for standing up to the Greedy Martinet.

Grand Prix Rejects

Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions

Re: Unpopular F1 opinions