Grand Prix Rejects

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

pi314159 wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but you can create every number out of 10 and 49 using the following method: (5*10)-49=1, so n=(5n*10)-n*49. So constructing any Wurz-related number out of 10 and 49 isn't any evidence at all for a Wurz conspirancy.

Maybe that method was discovered by Wurz...

Er...hmmm....

Wizzie wrote:I wouldn't say Rumi was behind all that; most of the credit for their brilliant cars must go to Gustav Brunner, who had spent the best part of two decades designing extraordinary good cars in relation to the shoestring budgets he had to work with.

Who as soon has he moved to a rich team designed crap!

This wrote:

Ferrim wrote:They actually were able to, back in 1991. But they weren't as successful as they expected, and as the engines were very expensive, they couldn't extend the contract for 1992. Back in 1991 Ferrari was much more wary of supplying other teams than they are today, and apart from being expensive, the engines weren't too close to the works ones.

Slightly, in fact, it was Scuderia Italia that got the Ferrari Contract under their nose, so Minardi settled for Lamborghinis instead. After that, they preferred cosworths. But Minardi has seen a lot of engine deals fail at the last moment: Alfa-Romeo for 1985, Mugen-honda for 1996, Supertec for 2001. And lot of engine deals didn't quite work out, like Motori Moderni or Asiatech.

The Mugen-Honda deal was 1995, IIRC.

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:

Wizzie wrote:I wouldn't say Rumi was behind all that; most of the credit for their brilliant cars must go to Gustav Brunner, who had spent the best part of two decades designing extraordinary good cars in relation to the shoestring budgets he had to work with.

Who as soon has he moved to a rich team designed crap!

And we haven't heard of him since. Just another reason to hate Toyota.

The PS01 was the first F1 car to feature a titanium gearbox, IIRC.

Wizzie wrote:I wouldn't say Rumi was behind all that; most of the credit for their brilliant cars must go to Gustav Brunner, who had spent the best part of two decades designing extraordinary good cars in relation to the shoestring budgets he had to work with.

He partially was, through his alloy wheel company, Fondmetal (also a team in the early 90s, as we know). Fondmetal invested big amounts of money in a state-of-the-art wind tunnel which was one of the best facilities of its kind in the mid-90s, better than what most F1 teams had. In fact, they worked with Tyrrell and Benetton before buying into Minardi. The cars Brunner designed were developped using that wind tunnel, and to great effect.

midgrid wrote:The PS01 was the first F1 car to feature a titanium gearbox, IIRC.

Sorry, but no. The first Formula 1 car to have a titanium gearbox (cast, in this case) was the Arrows A19 from 1998. The gearbox was cast by B3 Technologies, John Barnard's company.

Ferrim wrote:They actually were able to, back in 1991. But they weren't as successful as they expected, and as the engines were very expensive, they couldn't extend the contract for 1992. Back in 1991 Ferrari was much more wary of supplying other teams than they are today, and apart from being expensive, the engines weren't too close to the works ones.

The Ferrari engines were also heavy and had terrible fuel consumption so the car had to carry even more weight because of the extra fuel.

Faustus wrote:

midgrid wrote:The PS01 was the first F1 car to feature a titanium gearbox, IIRC.

Sorry, but no. The first Formula 1 car to have a titanium gearbox (cast, in this case) was the Arrows A19 from 1998. The gearbox was cast by B3 Technologies, John Barnard's company.

My mistake; thanks for the correction!

The 1999 European Grand Prix really was the maddest, most wonderful race ever, wasn't it?

You could chuck all the ifs and buts and maybes of that race up in the air, and have them all fall back down again into probably about six or seven completely different, completely wonderful sets of results.

Paul Hayes wrote:The 1999 European Grand Prix really was the maddest, most wonderful race ever, wasn't it?

You could chuck all the ifs and buts and maybes of that race up in the air, and have them all fall back down again into probably about six or seven completely different, completely wonderful sets of results.

And strangely, everybody talks about Badoer, Gene, Herbert, Stewart in general, the title-contenders Hakkinen, Irvine and Frentzen, and the could-be winners Coulthard, Fisichella and Ralf Schumacher. Yet everybody forgot that there was a Prost-Peugeot on the podium. Tells you how epic that races was!

This wrote:...and the could-be winners Coulthard, Fisichella and Ralf Schumacher.

And it wasn't just a win that Coulthard threw away when he binned it, don't forget - if he won that race and the other results behind him stayed the same, then he was right into the thick of the title race. That was his best ever shot at being champion.

Although of course you have to factor in whether McLaren would have allowed him to battle Hakkinen.

This wrote:

Paul Hayes wrote:The 1999 European Grand Prix really was the maddest, most wonderful race ever, wasn't it?

You could chuck all the ifs and buts and maybes of that race up in the air, and have them all fall back down again into probably about six or seven completely different, completely wonderful sets of results.

And strangely, everybody talks about Badoer, Gene, Herbert, Stewart in general, the title-contenders Hakkinen, Irvine and Frentzen, and the could-be winners Coulthard, Fisichella and Ralf Schumacher. Yet everybody forgot that there was a Prost-Peugeot on the podium. Tells you how epic that races was!

And it beat one of the Stewarts!

Fortunately this fleeting second place didn't come to fruition. I just wonder how MUCH would I whine had Badoer retired from second. I mean, I couldn't even stand well Adrian Sutil's retirement during 2008 Monaco Grand Prix...

Fate was actually very wise on not making all of us to watch a Minardi retiring while running second...

Verde wrote:I mean, I couldn't even stand well Adrian Sutil's retirement during 2008 Monaco Grand Prix...

That's funny actually because back then everyone was urging him on, hoping he'd keep the sixth before Raikonnen forgot to brake, but then considering Force India's form afterwards, indeed the very next year, it's quite stark the upturn in form they've had since the rule changes.

AndreaModa wrote:

Verde wrote:I mean, I couldn't even stand well Adrian Sutil's retirement during 2008 Monaco Grand Prix...

That's funny actually because back then everyone was urging him on, hoping he'd keep the sixth before Raikonnen forgot to brake

*sigh* Raikkonen didn't forget to brake, he just lost control of the car in the wet in a tricky spot. Perfectly understandable given Coulthard had exactly the same crash in qualifying in the dry.

Fair enough, I was typing from memory, haven't seen the race for ages. All I remember is Kimi snaking down the hill into the back of Sutil!

AndreaModa wrote:Fair enough, I was typing from memory, haven't seen the race for ages. All I remember is Kimi snaking down the hill into the back of Sutil!

Yeah, it occurs to me I was probably a bit harsh there. All I remember is everyone ever blaming Kimi for a pretty understandable mistake.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:Fair enough, I was typing from memory, haven't seen the race for ages. All I remember is Kimi snaking down the hill into the back of Sutil!

Yeah, it occurs to me I was probably a bit harsh there. All I remember is everyone ever blaming Kimi for a pretty understandable mistake.

From memory, Kimi was being more cautious that one would normally be into the chicane (which, ironically increases your chances of an accident at the best of times due to the huge bumps just before the braking zone) and managed to find a puddle in the process. But correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't the last time a Ferrari screwed over a Force India on track, was it?

Wizzie wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:Fair enough, I was typing from memory, haven't seen the race for ages. All I remember is Kimi snaking down the hill into the back of Sutil!

Yeah, it occurs to me I was probably a bit harsh there. All I remember is everyone ever blaming Kimi for a pretty understandable mistake.

From memory, Kimi was being more cautious that one would normally be into the chicane (which, ironically increases your chances of an accident at the best of times due to the huge bumps just before the braking zone) and managed to find a puddle in the process. But correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't the last time a Ferrari screwed over a Force India on track, was it?

Didn't Sutil get hit in China that year whilst running well too? Again, just from memory so could be miles off there!

AndreaModa wrote:

Wizzie wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Yeah, it occurs to me I was probably a bit harsh there. All I remember is everyone ever blaming Kimi for a pretty understandable mistake.

From memory, Kimi was being more cautious that one would normally be into the chicane (which, ironically increases your chances of an accident at the best of times due to the huge bumps just before the braking zone) and managed to find a puddle in the process. But correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't the last time a Ferrari screwed over a Force India on track, was it?

Didn't Sutil get hit in China that year whilst running well too? Again, just from memory so could be miles off there!

That might have been China 2009 where Sutil was running 6th with a few laps to go... before he decided binning it at turn 5 was a better idea

Wizzie wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:Fair enough, I was typing from memory, haven't seen the race for ages. All I remember is Kimi snaking down the hill into the back of Sutil!

Yeah, it occurs to me I was probably a bit harsh there. All I remember is everyone ever blaming Kimi for a pretty understandable mistake.

From memory, Kimi was being more cautious that one would normally be into the chicane (which, ironically increases your chances of an accident at the best of times due to the huge bumps just before the braking zone) and managed to find a puddle in the process. But correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't the last time a Ferrari screwed over a Force India on track, was it?

I'm assuming you mean Germany 2009, when Raikkonen again clattered into Sutil when he was in a points paying position, earning him Reject of the Race...

Also Liuzzi and Massa tangling in the first corners of the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix.

Monaco 2008: It wasn't Raikkonen's fault he lost it at the chicane, although the one car everyone was cheering on as the underdog got it, so some people blame Kimi for being a tool, which he wasn't. Shame for Sutil. Although many people seem to forget he scored a point before that race.

China 2009: Sutil's wet tyres were as knackered as Hamilton's were the previous year (remember the canvas-showing fronts when he went into pitlane gravel). Only a fool would lose control at that corner (read: Nelaon Piquet Jr).

This wrote:

Paul Hayes wrote:The 1999 European Grand Prix really was the maddest, most wonderful race ever, wasn't it?

You could chuck all the ifs and buts and maybes of that race up in the air, and have them all fall back down again into probably about six or seven completely different, completely wonderful sets of results.

And strangely, everybody talks about Badoer, Gene, Herbert, Stewart in general, the title-contenders Hakkinen, Irvine and Frentzen, and the could-be winners Coulthard, Fisichella and Ralf Schumacher. Yet everybody forgot that there was a Prost-Peugeot on the podium. Tells you how epic that races was!

Later to think.

If Frentzen would have won the race with Coulthard 2nd, 1st to 4th of actual results dropped 3rd to 6th, so no points for Häkkinen or Irvine.
In Malaysia, Häkkinen and Irvine take each other out, Frentzen suffers the mechanical problem there instead of Nürburgring. Coulthard's car lasts to the finish and he takes 2nd place behind Schumacher.

We would have had four drivers in equal points going to last race in Japan!

AdrianSutil wrote:Monaco 2008: It wasn't Raikkonen's fault he lost it at the chicane, although the one car everyone was cheering on as the underdog got it, so some people blame Kimi for being a tool, which he wasn't. Shame for Sutil. Although many people seem to forget he scored a point before that race.

It was bad luck for both drivers that Kimi made an understandable mistake in those conditions - we'd seen Coulthard crash after going slightly off line in qualifying and the bumps threw the back of his car out of line (and we've seen a few crashes at that corner since then), and that was on a dry track. It didn't stop Gascoyne complaining quite bitterly, though - understandable in a sense given how valuable points would have been to the team back in 2008, when they were effectively propping up the grid, but a bit harsh nevertheless.

That said, what is also somewhat forgotten about that race is that, even if Sutil had finished ahead of Kimi, he wouldn't have been allowed to keep his position. The FIA did later announce that Sutil was already under investigation when Raikkonen ran into him because Sutil was suspected of passing other cars under yellow flags. They later announced that he'd passed Rubens, Piquet Jr and Nakajima on lap 13 at the hairpin when a yellow flag zone in operation due to the accident between Alonso and Heidfeld - that was part of the reason why he was unusually far up the field to begin with.

Had he finished the race, therefore, he would have automatically been penalised for that move - the stewards made it clear that he'd have received a 25 second time penalty, which would almost certainly have dropped him right out of the points. As it was, because he failed to finish the race, all the stewards could do in the end was reprimand him for his conduct and warn him that a repeat offence would have resulted in stricter disciplinary action.

mario wrote:

AdrianSutil wrote:Monaco 2008: It wasn't Raikkonen's fault he lost it at the chicane, although the one car everyone was cheering on as the underdog got it, so some people blame Kimi for being a tool, which he wasn't. Shame for Sutil. Although many people seem to forget he scored a point before that race.

It was bad luck for both drivers that Kimi made an understandable mistake in those conditions - we'd seen Coulthard crash after going slightly off line in qualifying and the bumps threw the back of his car out of line (and we've seen a few crashes at that corner since then), and that was on a dry track. It didn't stop Gascoyne complaining quite bitterly, though - understandable in a sense given how valuable points would have been to the team back in 2008, when they were effectively propping up the grid, but a bit harsh nevertheless.

That said, what is also somewhat forgotten about that race is that, even if Sutil had finished ahead of Kimi, he wouldn't have been allowed to keep his position. The FIA did later announce that Sutil was already under investigation when Raikkonen ran into him because Sutil was suspected of passing other cars under yellow flags. They later announced that he'd passed Rubens, Piquet Jr and Nakajima on lap 13 at the hairpin when a yellow flag zone in operation due to the accident between Alonso and Heidfeld - that was part of the reason why he was unusually far up the field to begin with.

Had he finished the race, therefore, he would have automatically been penalised for that move - the stewards made it clear that he'd have received a 25 second time penalty, which would almost certainly have dropped him right out of the points. As it was, because he failed to finish the race, all the stewards could do in the end was reprimand him for his conduct and warn him that a repeat offence would have resulted in stricter disciplinary action.

Yes you are correct, I know the penalty was being brought forward at the time of the crash. It's just as well Sutil didn't finish the race really...

Great insight in this thread!

So basically we could've had a result of 1. Herbert 2. Badoer 3. Trulli 4. Barrichello 5. R. Schumacher 6. Häkkinen

which means that Irvine would've been champion and Minardi would've been 8th in the Constructors, ahead of Sauber, Arrows and BAR

Talking about 1999 lets not forget Frentzen losing 6 points at the Canadian GP to a brake failure some four laps before the finish. So a Frentzen +6 pts and +10 pts from Nürburgring could have really seen him challenge for a title.

So IF we have Frentzen as 2nd at Canada and 1st at Nürburgring we have this situation going into Suzuka

Irvine 69 pts
Frentzen 67 pts
Häkkinen 64 pts

Benetton wrote:Great insight in this thread!

So basically we could've had a result of 1. Herbert 2. Badoer 3. Trulli 4. Barrichello 5. R. Schumacher 6. Häkkinen

which means that Irvine would've been champion and Minardi would've been 8th in the Constructors, ahead of Sauber, Arrows and BAR

Talking about 1999 lets not forget Frentzen losing 6 points at the Canadian GP to a brake failure some four laps before the finish. So a Frentzen +6 pts and +10 pts from Nürburgring could have really seen him challenge for a title.

So IF we have Frentzen as 2nd at Canada and 1st at Nürburgring we have this situation going into Suzuka

Irvine 69 pts
Frentzen 67 pts
Häkkinen 64 pts

And suddenly, Schumacher letting Irvine through in Japan would have had a purpose...

Back to Minardi and engines, according to 'Forza Minardi' (the book), some senior person in the team (cant recall name!) was talking to Ford in regards to a customer works unit for 1991, which eventually ended up at Jordan. But Mr.Minardi was not interested at all and only wanted the Ferrari engine.

Other things that went badly for them, they started 1991 with an early 1989 spec engine, and only got a 1990 spec engine late in the season, combine that with the older spec gearbox, the weight issues as discussed before, which effects tyre wear etc.

And crucially, Minardi could not 'compete' with Ferrari off the field. Apparently they were talking to B&H for major sponsorship, but with the Ferrari links they could only be supported by Marlboro. They were also close to signing Pioneer as next major sponsor but Ferrari snatched it too, they could only use customer Agip fuels not no one else etc.

David AGS wrote:Back to Minardi and engines, according to 'Forza Minardi' (the book), some senior person in the team (cant recall name!) was talking to Ford in regards to a customer works unit for 1991, which eventually ended up at Jordan. But Mr.Minardi was not interested at all and only wanted the Ferrari engine.

Other things that went badly for them, they started 1991 with an early 1989 spec engine, and only got a 1990 spec engine late in the season, combine that with the older spec gearbox, the weight issues as discussed before, which effects tyre wear etc.

And crucially, Minardi could not 'compete' with Ferrari off the field. Apparently they were talking to B&H for major sponsorship, but with the Ferrari links they could only be supported by Marlboro. They were also close to signing Pioneer as next major sponsor but Ferrari snatched it too, they could only use customer Agip fuels not no one else etc.

So this might have been what lead to Minardi's years at the back, with costs getting higher and their budget not getting larger to help support them because of Ferrari? Talk about a farce. Ferrari was only an engine supplier to Minardi, why should they completly restrict Minardi when the costs were going up? When would a contract be so idiotic to read that we greatly restrict the freedom of our customer team? Let the team managers run the team itself.

If an overreaction, I apologize. But that seems pretty stupid. I don't think Red Bull or Renault treats Toro Rosso the same way.

go_Rubens wrote:
So this might have been what lead to Minardi's years at the back, with costs getting higher and their budget not getting larger to help support them because of Ferrari? Talk about a farce. Ferrari was only an engine supplier to Minardi, why should they completly restrict Minardi when the costs were going up? When would a contract be so idiotic to read that we greatly restrict the freedom of our customer team? Let the team managers run the team itself.

There is another example of Minardi getting a less developed fuel from Agip when at times they were more competitive than Ferrari. At times Ferrari were definetly looking over their shoulder that's for sure!

Minardi did also admit that the cost of the Ferrari engine effected their budget for the next 2 years at least. Hence why they downgraded to the Lamboghini, and then to the Ford/Cosworth V8 in 1993.

Hindsight is wonderful re the Ferrari engine though!

Huge rebump, but I think this deserves it...

The captures from my investigation, over 12 years ago, have long been lost. I'm no longer subscribed to FORIX, and have no plans to subscribe again.

However, it was only yesterday that I found, by total chance, an incredible resource, hosted under the good old Atlas F1 website: http://www.atlasf1.com/99/season.html

I have come across many archived Atlas F1 material, but this is the first time I've seen this. Inside you will find links to every preview and review issue of Atlas, and more importantly, full race lap times and gaps for every race of the season. They are available for each of the 1996-2004 season. For example, this is the link to the lap chart of the 1999 European Grand Prix: http://www.atlasf1.com/99/gapchart.html?raceid=14

I am absolutely stunned: somehow, back in the mid and late nineties, they had access to this level of detail and published it in structured format, for free. (The "for free" part doesn't really surprise me, because back then everything online was for free). I'm pretty sure (but, as Murray would say, could very well be mistaken) this is not available anywhere on the net for recent years and races; certainly, not for free.

Following my second link above, you can easily reconstruct my whole investigation from 12 years ago, because you get real, full gaps, so if someone was lapped it will still show him being 2:15.437 behind the leader, not a lame "+1 lap".

They even had this feature for six pre-1996 "classic races" (I won't spoil them) here: http://www.atlasf1.com/0000/season.html


EDIT: I found some more info about this. It seems they added all this data at some point in 2003: https://forums.autosport.com/topic/5559 ... -atlas-f1/

Ferrim wrote: ↑14 Jan 2025, 11:42 Huge rebump, but I think this deserves it...

The captures from my investigation, over 12 years ago, have long been lost. I'm no longer subscribed to FORIX, and have no plans to subscribe again.

However, it was only yesterday that I found, by total chance, an incredible resource, hosted under the good old Atlas F1 website: http://www.atlasf1.com/99/season.html

I have come across many archived Atlas F1 material, but this is the first time I've seen this. Inside you will find links to every preview and review issue of Atlas, and more importantly, full race lap times and gaps for every race of the season. They are available for each of the 1996-2004 season. For example, this is the link to the lap chart of the 1999 European Grand Prix: http://www.atlasf1.com/99/gapchart.html?raceid=14

I am absolutely stunned: somehow, back in the mid and late nineties, they had access to this level of detail and published it in structured format, for free. (The "for free" part doesn't really surprise me, because back then everything online was for free). I'm pretty sure (but, as Murray would say, could very well be mistaken) this is not available anywhere on the net for recent years and races; certainly, not for free.

Following my second link above, you can easily reconstruct my whole investigation from 12 years ago, because you get real, full gaps, so if someone was lapped it will still show him being 2:15.437 behind the leader, not a lame "+1 lap".

They even had this feature for six pre-1996 "classic races" (I won't spoil them) here: http://www.atlasf1.com/0000/season.html


EDIT: I found some more info about this. It seems they added all this data at some point in 2003: https://forums.autosport.com/topic/5559 ... -atlas-f1/

You might be interested to know that the FIA does actually publish comparable timing data for the public to access for free, and those records go back to 2014.

That sounds great! Could you share a link? Thanks.

Ferrim wrote: ↑21 Jan 2025, 17:40 That sounds great! Could you share a link? Thanks.

The FIA has archived the documents for the seasons from 2012 to 2023 here: https://www.fia.com/f1-archives

After that, it's usually a case of looking for a link to "event information", and there you can then find the "race history" documents - those give the lap time of each driver and the gaps between drivers.

It also looks like I am mistaken, and the data may in fact go back slightly further than I thought - they seem to also have records for 2013, and for the final race of the 2012 season. Here, as an example, is where you can find the data for the 2013 Australian GP: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... nformation

Thanks!

Those are very nice indeed, but they also kind of prove my point. First of all, they are in PDF format. And then, lapped drivers are shown as "1 LAP" in the standings for that lap.

You could create the kind of chart that Atlas F1 created from that data, because they also provide full lap times, but it would be quite a bit of work.