Grand Prix Rejects

It would have been great to see, especially if they used the classic Renown livery

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36855566
On it goes. They forgot to mention that only small teams will be punished fully as usual.

So between 2010 to 2016 so far. We have had 4 different maiden winners. Rosberg, Maldonado, Ricciardo & Verstappen.

From 2000 to 2006 Hungarian GP, we have had 8 maiden winners (Barrichello, Schumacher, Montoya, Raikkonen, Fisichella, Alonso, Truili & Button)

Post 2006 Hungary to end of 2009, we have had
(Massa, Hamilton, Kubica, Kovalainen, Vettel, Webber) - 6

A ponder:

Hypothetically, if Rosberg never wins a championship, how would history view him as a driver? He is already one of the most successful drivers never to win one, though he has obviously been in the best car for 3 years running now. I would rate him above a "Barrichello" level myself, because although he has choked on occasions - admittedly much less so this year - he has won a considerable number of races and matched Hamilton on many occasions, being a genuine threat for the championship in 2014. However, drivers such as Barrichello and Fisichella were punching well above their weight on occasion in smaller teams, whereas Rosberg's top performances were much less frequent in worse teams. If Mercedes continue to be a top team in 2017/8 and Rosberg continues to win races, will that improve or worsen his reputation if in this time he is successful yet never wins a championship?

Overall I'm not sure how I feel about the guy. I like him more than Hamilton and want to see him get a championship one day, but some of that is due to my dislike of Lewis and desire to see some more variety in the sport as well as Nico's own qualities.

Rob Dylan wrote:A ponder:

Hypothetically, if Rosberg never wins a championship, how would history view him as a driver? He is already one of the most successful drivers never to win one, though he has obviously been in the best car for 3 years running now. I would rate him above a "Barrichello" level myself, because although he has choked on occasions - admittedly much less so this year - he has won a considerable number of races and matched Hamilton on many occasions, being a genuine threat for the championship in 2014. However, drivers such as Barrichello and Fisichella were punching well above their weight on occasion in smaller teams, whereas Rosberg's top performances were much less frequent in worse teams. If Mercedes continue to be a top team in 2017/8 and Rosberg continues to win races, will that improve or worsen his reputation if in this time he is successful yet never wins a championship?

Overall I'm not sure how I feel about the guy. I like him more than Hamilton and want to see him get a championship one day, but some of that is due to my dislike of Lewis and desire to see some more variety in the sport as well as Nico's own qualities.

Rosberg has been a couple of tenths off of one of the sport's best-ever drivers, and he's even beaten Hamilton a fair few times. Barrichello was never that close to Schumacher.

I would love to see Rosberg win the title this year, but the circuits coming up have favoured Hamilton in the past and so I think that the door is starting to close on his ambitions. I hope Nico can prove me wrong here.

Whatever happened to Salamander?

CoopsII wrote:Whatever happened to Salamander?

His relations with other people in the Andrea Sassetti Memorial Forum began to deteriorate, so he decided to leave altogether.

tommykl wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Whatever happened to Salamander?

His relations with other people in the Andrea Sassetti Memorial Forum began to deteriorate, so he decided to leave altogether.

Kin 'ell? Isn't that the make-believe stuff? (No offence. Well...) That's no reason to leave. If you're reading this Salamander, come back. To the real world.

CoopsII wrote:

tommykl wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Whatever happened to Salamander?

His relations with other people in the Andrea Sassetti Memorial Forum began to deteriorate, so he decided to leave altogether.

Kin 'ell? Isn't that the make-believe stuff? (No offence. Well...) That's no reason to leave. If you're reading this Salamander, come back. To the real world.

I spoke to him over Steam recently, he's well and getting on with life. I think he'd just had enough of the forum and felt he was getting too worked up over stuff here.

Ataxia wrote:I spoke to him over Steam recently, he's well and getting on with life. I think he'd just had enough of the forum and felt he was getting too worked up over stuff here.

Pity, I miss seeing the old names on here. I was even pleased to see DonTirri back, just don't tell him.

CoopsII wrote:Pity, I miss seeing the old names on here.

Be careful what you wish for, I may never leave.

FullMetalJack wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Pity, I miss seeing the old names on here.

Be careful what you wish for, I may never leave.

It'll take a cataclysmic event to get me to leave this place. Sorry Klon.

CoopsII wrote:

Ataxia wrote:I spoke to him over Steam recently, he's well and getting on with life. I think he'd just had enough of the forum and felt he was getting too worked up over stuff here.

Pity, I miss seeing the old names on here. I was even pleased to see DonTirri back, just don't tell him.

Awww. I didn't realize you missed me
<3

DonTirri wrote:

CoopsII wrote:I was even pleased to see DonTirri back, just don't tell him.

Awww. I didn't realize you missed me
<3

I didn't say I'd missed you I said I was pleased you were back. Intentionally mis-quoting again just to stir it up? Classic DonTirri

Came across this article http://www.crash.net/motogp/feature/232472/1/motorcycle-racings-dirtiest-deeds.html on espionage in motor cycling which explained how the Degner corners at Suzuka got their name, and it got me thinking; which other corners have interesting back stories behind their names?

Izzyeviel wrote:Came across this article http://www.crash.net/motogp/feature/232472/1/motorcycle-racings-dirtiest-deeds.html on espionage in motor cycling which explained how the Degner corners at Suzuka got their name, and it got me thinking; which other corners have interesting back stories behind their names?

There are apparently many stories about how Tarzanbocht at Zandvoort got its name, one of which involves a local vegetable gardener nicknamed Tarzan who wouldn't give up his land unless they named a corner after him.

Bathurst has quite a few interesting places: Hell Corner gets its name from a tree stump that used to sit at the apex. Whenever a motorcyclist hit the stump he would die in an act of folly and be condemned for eternity... Forrest's Elbow also comes from Jack Forrest, a motorcyclist who, er, scraped his elbow there, and Conrod Straight gets its name from someone whose connecting rod failed there. Finally Murray's Corner comes from Bill Murray (no, not that Bill Murray), who crashed his Hudson there in 1946.

Snaefell Mountain has quite a few interesting stories as well, IIRC.

Here's a thought I've recently had
So there's Ferrari dreaming big about having a 3rd car
Okay, but why not consider a possibility of having the 1-car teams? Manor could afford 1 car _and_ proper development, rather than 2 cars and doubtful development. Also we could see an influx of new ambitious projects, for whom 1 car is a cheaper starter set to gain experience, develop and eventually expand to two cars. What do you think?

solarcold wrote:Here's a thought I've recently had
So there's Ferrari dreaming big about having a 3rd car
Okay, but why not consider a possibility of having the 1-car teams? Manor could afford 1 car _and_ proper development, rather than 2 cars and doubtful development. Also we could see an influx of new ambitious projects, for whom 1 car is a cheaper starter set to gain experience, develop and eventually expand to two cars. What do you think?

Personally I do not think any team would like to have just one car. With no in-season test allowed, two cars are the only way to have some consistent mileage during Friday's practice. So even if it would be a cheaper starter for a team I bet they would not have possibility to improve. Moreover, a team with no money would like to sign a pay driver, who of course may not be the best one to give feedback on how to develop the car. Thus having two driver (one rather quick or experienced and the other one paying) is to me the best choice.

By the way, was Fondmetal the last team to run with one car? Or am I missing something?

EuroBrun wrote:

solarcold wrote:Here's a thought I've recently had
So there's Ferrari dreaming big about having a 3rd car
Okay, but why not consider a possibility of having the 1-car teams? Manor could afford 1 car _and_ proper development, rather than 2 cars and doubtful development. Also we could see an influx of new ambitious projects, for whom 1 car is a cheaper starter set to gain experience, develop and eventually expand to two cars. What do you think?

Personally I do not think any team would like to have just one car. With no in-season test allowed, two cars are the only way to have some consistent mileage during Friday's practice. So even if it would be a cheaper starter for a team I bet they would not have possibility to improve. Moreover, a team with no money would like to sign a pay driver, who of course may not be the best one to give feedback on how to develop the car. Thus having two driver (one rather quick or experienced and the other one paying) is to me the best choice.

By the way, was Fondmetal the last team to run with one car? Or am I missing something?

Fondmetal and Coloni were the last ones, in 1991.

More on-topic, bear in mind that running one car instead of two does not reduce costs that much. The development Solarcold is talking about, will still roughly cost the same for one or two cars, for example. Also, sponsor income will be a lot less, because the logos will appear about half the time on TV.

Which makes me wonder, I have never seen a thorough cost analysis of running an F1 team, split out in costs per car and fixed costs. Does anyone know if such an analysis exists?

The bulk of a team's budget goes into development, so that wouldn't be significantly reduced by having just one car. Where you will get savings is on building a second car, transporting that second car and all equipment related to it, hiring the people who work on that car, paying a second driver, etc.

Of course, with the nature of Formula 1, that money doesn't just disappear, it just gets poured into other parts of the team. Money saved by not having a second car, ideally, gets re-invested into developing the car. Of course, there's always a trade-off, because if your car isn't good, or if it breaks down, you don't have a second driver to keep the weekend going. Your chances of bringing home points are smaller, and you may get less prize money.

Nonetheless, were single-car teams to be relegalised, I think we could potentially have larger grids. The currently poorer teams could face pressure from sponsors to keep the second car for maximum exposure, while new teams could now enter more easily, as the required budget would be smaller. I must say, I like this idea very much.

tBone wrote:

EuroBrun wrote:

solarcold wrote:Here's a thought I've recently had
So there's Ferrari dreaming big about having a 3rd car
Okay, but why not consider a possibility of having the 1-car teams? Manor could afford 1 car _and_ proper development, rather than 2 cars and doubtful development. Also we could see an influx of new ambitious projects, for whom 1 car is a cheaper starter set to gain experience, develop and eventually expand to two cars. What do you think?

Personally I do not think any team would like to have just one car. With no in-season test allowed, two cars are the only way to have some consistent mileage during Friday's practice. So even if it would be a cheaper starter for a team I bet they would not have possibility to improve. Moreover, a team with no money would like to sign a pay driver, who of course may not be the best one to give feedback on how to develop the car. Thus having two driver (one rather quick or experienced and the other one paying) is to me the best choice.

By the way, was Fondmetal the last team to run with one car? Or am I missing something?

Fondmetal and Coloni were the last ones, in 1991.

More on-topic, bear in mind that running one car instead of two does not reduce costs that much. The development Solarcold is talking about, will still roughly cost the same for one or two cars, for example. Also, sponsor income will be a lot less, because the logos will appear about half the time on TV.

Which makes me wonder, I have never seen a thorough cost analysis of running an F1 team, split out in costs per car and fixed costs. Does anyone know if such an analysis exists?

Do you understand Spanish?
In case you do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB-ilaViabg

It is a 2014 pre-race video from the Spanish tv with former HRT Toni Cuquerella.

PS: hope posting a link to a video is ok

Simtek wrote:There are apparently many stories about how Tarzanbocht at Zandvoort got its name, one of which involves a local vegetable gardener nicknamed Tarzan who wouldn't give up his land unless they named a corner after him.

Wasn't another corner at Zandvoort named after a porno? I swear I read that somewhere.

As for a one car team, with economies of scale, the savings wouldn't be all that much, well not as much as you think. The only real savings would be on the big, low volume pieces, like engines and chassis tubs.

Wallio wrote:Wasn't another corner at Zandvoort named after a porno? I swear I read that somewhere.

Sure was. Turn 8. It was called the 'Freaky Dicks' corner.

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote:Wasn't another corner at Zandvoort named after a porno? I swear I read that somewhere.

Sure was. Turn 8. It was called the 'Freaky Dicks' corner.

God Bless the Dutch.

tBone wrote:

EuroBrun wrote:

solarcold wrote:Here's a thought I've recently had
So there's Ferrari dreaming big about having a 3rd car
Okay, but why not consider a possibility of having the 1-car teams? Manor could afford 1 car _and_ proper development, rather than 2 cars and doubtful development. Also we could see an influx of new ambitious projects, for whom 1 car is a cheaper starter set to gain experience, develop and eventually expand to two cars. What do you think?

Personally I do not think any team would like to have just one car. With no in-season test allowed, two cars are the only way to have some consistent mileage during Friday's practice. So even if it would be a cheaper starter for a team I bet they would not have possibility to improve. Moreover, a team with no money would like to sign a pay driver, who of course may not be the best one to give feedback on how to develop the car. Thus having two driver (one rather quick or experienced and the other one paying) is to me the best choice.

By the way, was Fondmetal the last team to run with one car? Or am I missing something?

Fondmetal and Coloni were the last ones, in 1991.

More on-topic, bear in mind that running one car instead of two does not reduce costs that much. The development Solarcold is talking about, will still roughly cost the same for one or two cars, for example. Also, sponsor income will be a lot less, because the logos will appear about half the time on TV.

Which makes me wonder, I have never seen a thorough cost analysis of running an F1 team, split out in costs per car and fixed costs. Does anyone know if such an analysis exists?

Does Brabham in the latter half of the '92 season count? They scaled back to one car for Hill in Hungary, then collapsed.

SuzukiSwift wrote:Does Brabham in the latter half of the '92 season count? They scaled back to one car for Hill in Hungary, then collapsed.

That would include Manor-Marussia in Russia 2014 as well, then. Also Sauber at the 1994 Spanish GP, Williams at same year's Monaco GP and Simtek at same year's Monaco and Canadian GPs.

And probably a few others that I've forgotten about.

tBone wrote:Fondmetal and Coloni were the last ones, in 1991.

More on-topic, bear in mind that running one car instead of two does not reduce costs that much. The development Solarcold is talking about, will still roughly cost the same for one or two cars, for example. Also, sponsor income will be a lot less, because the logos will appear about half the time on TV.

Which makes me wonder, I have never seen a thorough cost analysis of running an F1 team, split out in costs per car and fixed costs. Does anyone know if such an analysis exists?

Sauber produced a rough cost breakdown of what they believed to be the minimum cost of competing in F1 back in 2014 - it was submitted to Todt and the FIA as they lobbied them for a reduction in engine costs, but it was subsequently leaked to Autosport.

Their breakdown was as follows:
Windtunnel/CFD facilities: $18.5 million
Chassis production/manufacturing: $20 million
Hybrid power system: $28 million
Gearbox and hydraulics: $5 million
Electronics: $1.95 million
Fuel and lubricants: $1.5 million
Tyres: $1.8 million
Salaries (not including drivers): $20 million
IT: $3 million
HR and professional services: $1.5 million
Utilities and factory maintenance: $2 million
Travel and trackside facilities: $12 million
Freight: $5 million

Total: $120.25 million
http://www.ausmotive.com/2014/10/30/how ... -team.html

As is pointed out, that figure of about $120 million only covers some of the larger expenses that you need to cover to keep the team afloat and is therefore probably an underestimate of the total cost of competing.

If I recall well, Symonds also provided some indication of the cost of competing whilst he was at Marussia, though I'd need longer to try and find that article again. I believe that, during the interview he gave where he discussed the costs, he was asked if he thought that it might be better to allow one car teams to exist, since it was posited that it would reduce costs and allow more teams to compete. His response was that, on balance, he didn't think that there would be much benefit from the point of view of the team to go down that route these days.

He pointed out that it is true that, as tommykl notes, it would reduce some of the overheads of the team by reducing staffing costs, which would be the main area where costs would be brought down (the difference in production costs was not that great).

On the flip side, that would probably be offset by a reduction in revenue for the team - the first issue would be that the reduction in potential airtime would potentially reduce the value of the sponsorship deals the team could strike. There was also the downside that having only one car that could potentially score points would probably push a team further down the WCC rankings and reduce their TV rights revenue - overall, if I recall correctly, he reckoned that the reduction in revenue would probably offset most of the potential cost savings from running just one car.

Nuppiz wrote:

SuzukiSwift wrote:Does Brabham in the latter half of the '92 season count? They scaled back to one car for Hill in Hungary, then collapsed.

That would include Manor-Marussia in Russia 2014 as well, then. Also Sauber at the 1994 Spanish GP, Williams at same year's Monaco GP and Simtek at same year's Monaco and Canadian GPs.

And probably a few others that I've forgotten about.

I always got the impression that Brabham just eliminated the seat. The other cases you listed, while valid, were due to deaths or injuries. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

SuzukiSwift wrote:

Nuppiz wrote:

SuzukiSwift wrote:Does Brabham in the latter half of the '92 season count? They scaled back to one car for Hill in Hungary, then collapsed.

That would include Manor-Marussia in Russia 2014 as well, then. Also Sauber at the 1994 Spanish GP, Williams at same year's Monaco GP and Simtek at same year's Monaco and Canadian GPs.

And probably a few others that I've forgotten about.

I always got the impression that Brabham just eliminated the seat. The other cases you listed, while valid, were due to deaths or injuries. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

They only dropped it after van de Poele jumped ship to Fondmetal, where he would have a much brighter future.

An extra few rounds is pretty bright, no?

Well he jumped from BT60B into the....BT61 (technically).

Simtek wrote:

SuzukiSwift wrote:I always got the impression that Brabham just eliminated the seat. The other cases you listed, while valid, were due to deaths or injuries. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

They only dropped it after van de Poele jumped ship to Fondmetal, where he would have a much brighter future.

An extra few rounds is pretty bright, no?

According to StatsF1, Julian Bailey was on the entry list for Brabham at that GP, but I didn't find any other official confirmation. He sure tried (and was rumoured to) step in for van de Poele, but that didn't happen.

EuroBrun wrote:Do you understand Spanish?
In case you do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB-ilaViabg

It is a 2014 pre-race video from the Spanish tv with former HRT Toni Cuquerella.

Unfortunately, I don't, but thanks anyway!

As for what mario posted, I remember that list as well. But I assume that items like electronics can be split up in a fixed part for R&D and such things, and costs per car for production.

tBone wrote:

EuroBrun wrote:Do you understand Spanish?
In case you do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB-ilaViabg

It is a 2014 pre-race video from the Spanish tv with former HRT Toni Cuquerella.

Unfortunately, I don't, but thanks anyway!

As for what mario posted, I remember that list as well. But I assume that items like electronics can be split up in a fixed part for R&D and such things, and costs per car for production.

A quick translation

Estimate budgets:
350/400m €- 50m €

MotoGP teams ranges between 50 and 10 m €, America's cup competitors between 250 and 80 m €.
Expenses of an average team:
- engine 20m €
- car production 18m €
- wages (excluding drivers) 15m € (mechanics i.e. have a salary of 25k € per year)
- organizational structures and facilities 16m €
- logistics 12m €
- gearbox 5m €
- other 9m €

Toni points out how salaries of drivers can be either incomes or costs, engines and gearbox have the same costs instead.
A crash affects much more the production of a small team, since they do not have spare parts and they have to make new ones whenever an incident occurs. A big one in a team like Sauber may cost up to 2m €, but RBR or Mercedes have many spare parts they are not affect economically.

Whenever I see the yellow and white livery McLaren used at Estoril in 1986, I don't see yellow. My mind refuses to see it as yellow, and instead tries to see the normal red, and the result is that it looks like a really ugly bright orange. And then I have to tell myself it's actually yellow and with enough concentration I see it for what it is and... it looks fine, the yellow kind of suits.

Reality really is subjective...

It didn't come out very well on the TV coverage though did it? I think if they'd worked on it and tested it before they could have come up with a shade that looked better on camera.

AndreaModa wrote:It didn't come out very well on the TV coverage though did it? I think if they'd worked on it and tested it before they could have come up with a shade that looked better on camera.

Was it only on Rosberg's car or was Prost's car the same?

AndreaModa wrote:It didn't come out very well on the TV coverage though did it? I think if they'd worked on it and tested it before they could have come up with a shade that looked better on camera.

To be fair, I believe that it can sometimes be tricky to produce a colour shade which looks OK on the TV cameras - if you looked at the Alfa Romeo and McLaren cars of the time under normal lighting, I believe that the red part of their liveries had an orange tint to it to make the colour appear correct on the TV cameras of the time (the colours tended to appear slightly darker on camera).

The 80-83 Marlboro-Alfas always looked orange/white to me. Perhaps to differentiate themselves from the McLarens of the time?

SuzukiSwift wrote:The 80-83 Marlboro-Alfas always looked orange/white to me. Perhaps to differentiate themselves from the McLarens of the time?

I always found the McLarens appear as orange as well. They only seemed to appear the proper red at certain angles. Back at the time, the art of making paint that looks good in all types of light and angles of course wasn't as perfected. And orange/red/yellow were particularly hard to get right.

SuzukiSwift wrote:The 80-83 Marlboro-Alfas always looked orange/white to me. Perhaps to differentiate themselves from the McLarens of the time?

From this photo it seems Alfas and McLarens used a similar shade of red (Austria 1982).