Grand Prix Rejects

go_Rubens wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

CoopsII wrote::lol: dr-baker is that kid at school who had the Spider-Man lunchbox (and matching flask) when us cool kids had Empire Strikes Back ones (also with matching flask).

I wish that I could be with the cool kids, because the cool kids, they all seem to fit in...

Biscione wrote:I think dr-baker is a time-traveller from the past...

Well, my favourite film(s) is/are Back To The Future, I enjoy Doctor Who, and I have read the Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy...

By this logic, I am also a time traveller from the past. This being based of my James Hunt style of hair and every Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book be Douglas Adams ever. Perhaps I belong in the 80s, seeing as most of my interests were in their greatest age. Unless a person was a Sunderland supporter...

Count me in as well. I always know where my towel is and am a huge Back to the Future fan!

Cool and froody.

By a staggering coincidence, on the website Rate Your Music, I'm known as Agrajag.

I realised recently that, over thirty years since I first read Life, The Universe And Everything, I often refer to things in everyday life as being an SEP. For example, in a supermarket the other week I saw a huge display of Easter things do a slow collapse (the cardboard base of the display had gotten wet, probably by the cleaners) and there was eggs, bunnies and all sorts cast across the floor. I felt bad for the guy trying to pick it all up but it was clearly an SEP.

If you don't know what an SEP is that's fine but you should probably read more.

Perhaps Ferrari's 2014 season was all done under cover of an SEP field.

McLaren have an image problem. They've become offensively bland. What's worse is it appears to be a culture of corporate stiffness that's been cultivated on purpose as a marketing exercise. Lining themselves up as the anti-Ferrari in the road-going supercar market. For all of Ferrari's connotations of passion, heart and flair, McLaren is positioning themselves nicely as the supercar of choice for accountants and hedgefund managers.

CoopsII wrote:I realised recently that, over thirty years since I first read Life, The Universe And Everything, I often refer to things in everyday life as being an SEP. For example, in a supermarket the other week I saw a huge display of Easter things do a slow collapse (the cardboard base of the display had gotten wet, probably by the cleaners) and there was eggs, bunnies and all sorts cast across the floor. I felt bad for the guy trying to pick it all up but it was clearly an SEP.

If you don't know what an SEP is that's fine but you should probably read more.

I'm glad to hear it's not just me who makes regular use of the SEP. A couple of the young kids at work have followed my lead and are using the SEP reference themselves - but judging by their blank looks whenever a "meaning of life = 42" comment is made by one of us old fogeys they aren't particularly familiar with Douglas Adams' work. They probably think I made the SEP thing up myself.

More_Blue_Flags wrote:

CoopsII wrote:I realised recently that, over thirty years since I first read Life, The Universe And Everything, I often refer to things in everyday life as being an SEP. For example, in a supermarket the other week I saw a huge display of Easter things do a slow collapse (the cardboard base of the display had gotten wet, probably by the cleaners) and there was eggs, bunnies and all sorts cast across the floor. I felt bad for the guy trying to pick it all up but it was clearly an SEP.

If you don't know what an SEP is that's fine but you should probably read more.

I'm glad to hear it's not just me who makes regular use of the SEP. A couple of the young kids at work have followed my lead and are using the SEP reference themselves - but judging by their blank looks whenever a "meaning of life = 42" comment is made by one of us old fogeys they aren't particularly familiar with Douglas Adams' work. They probably think I made the SEP thing up myself.

There's no excuse for someone not to get the 42 reference. The movie isn't even that old! Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

Simtek wrote:

More_Blue_Flags wrote:

CoopsII wrote:I realised recently that, over thirty years since I first read Life, The Universe And Everything, I often refer to things in everyday life as being an SEP. For example, in a supermarket the other week I saw a huge display of Easter things do a slow collapse (the cardboard base of the display had gotten wet, probably by the cleaners) and there was eggs, bunnies and all sorts cast across the floor. I felt bad for the guy trying to pick it all up but it was clearly an SEP.

If you don't know what an SEP is that's fine but you should probably read more.

I'm glad to hear it's not just me who makes regular use of the SEP. A couple of the young kids at work have followed my lead and are using the SEP reference themselves - but judging by their blank looks whenever a "meaning of life = 42" comment is made by one of us old fogeys they aren't particularly familiar with Douglas Adams' work. They probably think I made the SEP thing up myself.

There's no excuse for someone not to get the 42 reference. The movie isn't even that old! Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

SEP I don't mind, but if you don't get 42, you've spent fewer than 42 hours on the Internet. And yes, that's bad.

Simtek wrote:Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

Jeepers, a whole decade of being annoyed at that loathsome pathetic excuse for a movie adaptation. Hey Hollywood, if a book is popular then why don't you just go ahead and use the story out of it rather than concoct a bastardised version of it?

It was a waste of a not entirely awful cast, too.

CoopsII wrote:

Simtek wrote:Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

Jeepers, a whole decade of being annoyed at that loathsome pathetic excuse for a movie adaptation. Hey Hollywood, if a book is popular then why don't you just go ahead and use the story out of it rather than concoct a bastardised version of it?

It was a waste of a not entirely awful cast, too.

Apparently the bastardised version was also written by Douglas Adams. It just had bits taken out of it for pacing reasons (such as the exchange between Arthur and Ford about Earth's entry in the guide or actually explaining the importance of a towel instead of it just being a throwaway joke), resulting in a bastardised version of what might have been a decent screenplay. I still enjoyed the movie when I first watched it, although it was regrettably my first experience of the guide (I was 10 at the time). I watched the TV series later, which is superior in almost every aspect, then read the books and now I'm in the process of listening to the radio series. So yes, the movie is the worst adaptation of the guide, though it did get me interested at least.

Simtek wrote:

More_Blue_Flags wrote:I'm glad to hear it's not just me who makes regular use of the SEP. A couple of the young kids at work have followed my lead and are using the SEP reference themselves - but judging by their blank looks whenever a "meaning of life = 42" comment is made by one of us old fogeys they aren't particularly familiar with Douglas Adams' work. They probably think I made the SEP thing up myself.

There's no excuse for someone not to get the 42 reference. The movie isn't even that old! Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

Or they get it and just refuse to acknowledge it, because the whole 42 thing makes even my "your mum" jokes look most amusing, and those are supposed to be absolutely atrocious.

Klon wrote:

Simtek wrote:

More_Blue_Flags wrote:I'm glad to hear it's not just me who makes regular use of the SEP. A couple of the young kids at work have followed my lead and are using the SEP reference themselves - but judging by their blank looks whenever a "meaning of life = 42" comment is made by one of us old fogeys they aren't particularly familiar with Douglas Adams' work. They probably think I made the SEP thing up myself.

There's no excuse for someone not to get the 42 reference. The movie isn't even that old! Speaking of which, the movie was released ten years ago. Wow.

Or they get it and just refuse to acknowledge it, because the whole 42 thing makes even my "your mum" jokes look most amusing, and those are supposed to be absolutely atrocious.

But then, only the worst of society "ermegerd, I'm too cool for such mainstream jokes, you bunch of lame-o's" would detest such a thing.

Klon? Humour? Now you really are talking science fiction.

CoopsII wrote:Klon? Humour? Now you really are talking science fiction.

There's nothing humorous about F1!

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Klon? Humour? Now you really are talking science fiction.

There's nothing humorous about F1!

There's no 'arm in being humerus...

dr-baker wrote:

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Klon? Humour? Now you really are talking science fiction.

There's nothing humorous about F1!

There's no 'arm in being humerus...

It is well known that tragedy and Homeros are well connected...

DanielPT wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote:
There's nothing humorous about F1!

There's no 'arm in being humerus...

It is well known that tragedy and Homeros are well connected...

You're troying to hard to make a good pun.

This wrote:You're troying to hard to make a good pun.

Worst Irish accent ever.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

This wrote:You're troying to hard to make a good pun.

Worst Irish accent ever.

You're back!

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

This wrote:You're troying to hard to make a good pun.

Worst Irish accent ever.

Aren't 'worst' and 'Irish' synonyms?

pah!!!! who cares about the champ's love life....*rant over*

WeirdKerr wrote:pah!!!! who cares about the champ's love life....*rant over*

Indeed. We want to know more about the love life of Ericcson!

GwilymJJames wrote:

GwilymJJames wrote:Representatives from the FIA, FOM, the F1SG and all the other acronyms need to be locked in a room with no food or water and be told that they're not allowed out until they've come up with some real solutions for the problems facing the sport.

And no, standing re-starts are not a real solution. Banning team radio is not a real solution. Wacky driver numbers are not a real solution. DOUBLE bathplug POINTS ARE NOT A bathplug REAL SOLUTION.

Hiding under some coats and hoping that somehow everything will work out isn't a real solution, either.

Hey. Hey. FIA. Just wondering if you thought banning helmet changes was a real solution? Well I've thought about it, and I've concluded that it isn't.

GwilymJJames wrote:Hey. Hey. FIA. Just wondering if you thought banning helmet changes was a real solution? Well I've thought about it, and I've concluded that it isn't.

Are you implying that the ban on helmet changes wont make the racing better?

Changing income distribution among teams, reducing track fees and the percentage of income that its taken away from the sport to something like 10-20% (which is still a lot) instead of almost 50%, and allowing more people to watch the races on free-to-air TV might be valid solutions. Instead they keep proposing stupid ideas to "improve the show".

Why is the helmet change ban a bad thing, may I ask? Isn't it helpful that there is a static indicator of which driver is which given that race numbers on the car aren't very large and given that the T-bar colours are sometimes hard to make out? No one ever said it was "THE SOLUTION" and I doubt that they actually wasted a lot of time set in a room coming up with it given the popular opinion that Vettel's helmet design changes were getting annoying.

I actually have to agree with the premise behind it. Some might tar it as being jobsworth, but isn't that complaint a tad pedantic in itself?

I think the rule is a great idea, so long as minor modifications are allowed for special occasions and/or memorials. For example, I highly doubt that had the rule exited this year, the FIA would be handing out penalties for running "Tous Avec Jules #17" on drivers' helmets.

Just because the rule exists, doesn't mean the FIA is certain to exercise it. That's all it likely is - they want drivers sticking to similar designs year on year to keep it easy for identification, but allowing some scope for changes. I don't think they'll go around punishing people for literal one-off designs or partial modifications.

watka wrote:Why is the helmet change ban a bad thing, may I ask?

Joking aside I think it's a very good thing. However, I'm sure we can all agree that there are bigger issues than this affecting F1 right now. Knocking this one on the head and then sitting back and feeling smug isn't going to help F1 in the long-term.

watka wrote:Why is the helmet change ban a bad thing, may I ask? Isn't it helpful that there is a static indicator of which driver is which given that race numbers on the car aren't very large and given that the T-bar colours are sometimes hard to make out? No one ever said it was "THE SOLUTION" and I doubt that they actually wasted a lot of time set in a room coming up with it given the popular opinion that Vettel's helmet design changes were getting annoying.

And yet Vettel is still planning on changing helmet design on a regular basis.

From Autosport:

Seb Vettel wrote:"I don't know what is the penalty. If it is a little fine with money for charity, then I am happy to keep changing my helmet."

This is what should have been done instead of that numbers thing. Helmets are what identify drivers in open-wheel and it is obvious. Of course, this alone won't change the diminishing TV spectators or fan base. This rule is done to try and improve and facilitate connection between new fans and F1, though. I think it is important to try and create this connection but it should be coupled together with lower GP entry fees and higher social network presence and contact. Similar to what Ferrim said, some free TV races, like the Champions League do with some of its matches, would also be an improvement.

As for the punishments for breaking this rules, I am all favor. Of course some exceptions, like those Biscione presented, should be made.

CoopsII wrote:

watka wrote:Why is the helmet change ban a bad thing, may I ask?

Joking aside I think it's a very good thing. However, I'm sure we can all agree that there are bigger issues than this affecting F1 right now. Knocking this one on the head and then sitting back and feeling smug isn't going to help F1 in the long-term.

I lost all hope on that. We have to face it that it is not in the interest of anyone involved if we assume that teams can't see beyond the following season. And this is a valid assumption.

dr-baker wrote:

watka wrote:Why is the helmet change ban a bad thing, may I ask? Isn't it helpful that there is a static indicator of which driver is which given that race numbers on the car aren't very large and given that the T-bar colours are sometimes hard to make out? No one ever said it was "THE SOLUTION" and I doubt that they actually wasted a lot of time set in a room coming up with it given the popular opinion that Vettel's helmet design changes were getting annoying.

And yet Vettel is still planning on changing helmet design on a regular basis.

From Autosport:

Seb Vettel wrote:"I don't know what is the penalty. If it is a little fine with money for charity, then I am happy to keep changing my helmet."

I read that which made me feel quite conflicted because I like Vettels attitude despite me thinking he shouldnt be changing his helmet design more often then his pants (allegedly). Also, anyone who wants to Stick It To The Man gets hero points from me.

Gah. I don't know what to think anymore. All this angst over such a little issue.

I just don't see why on earth this is such a critical issue that the FIA feels the need to take any sort of action on it.

Salamander wrote:I just don't see why on earth this is such a critical issue that the FIA feels the need to take any sort of action on it.

It's a damn sight easier and quicker than trying to affect any positive change on the sport.

NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

Yeah, but when they include Zoran Stefanovic all the time...

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

I know I'm not as clue'd up as most people on here but when was F1 not open to new teams? I thought anybody with a large amount of cash and a good dose of stupidity could either start a team or buy the rotting carcass of an old one?

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

I know I'm not as clue'd up as most people on here but when was F1 not open to new teams? I thought anybody with a large amount of cash and a good dose of stupidity could either start a team or buy the rotting carcass of an old one?

Didn't the last time the FIA opened up the entry list to new teams amount to no new teams joining?

Frogfoot9013 wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

I know I'm not as clue'd up as most people on here but when was F1 not open to new teams? I thought anybody with a large amount of cash and a good dose of stupidity could either start a team or buy the rotting carcass of an old one?

Didn't the last time the FIA opened up the entry list to new teams amount to no new teams joining?

What about Haas? Although I assume you mean 2011, in which case you are correct.

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting Todt will open F1 up to new teams again.....

I suppose you never have to fix the issues with the sport if people keep lining up to play.

I know I'm not as clue'd up as most people on here but when was F1 not open to new teams? I thought anybody with a large amount of cash and a good dose of stupidity could either start a team or buy the rotting carcass of an old one?

You're right as far as I'm aware. Normally when someone comes along now with plans for a team the FIA announces a tender process for new teams to see if anyone else wants to be involved. In reality, assuming the new team is serious and viable, the tender process is a formality, but I guess it's a way for the FIA to make itself feel important every now and then.