Grand Prix Rejects

AustralianStig wrote:

peteroli34 wrote:If Magnussen cant race in Italy who will replace him?

Is Carmen Jorda still one of the reserves?

Oh my, not her. She would be about as good as Milka Duno...

My favourite/least favourite/most underrated race of each year since 2010

2010
Favourite: Monaco
Least Favourite: Brazil, but most of the races I saw/have seen are pretty decent
Most Underrated: Britain

2011
Favourite: Canada, but I find this race to be a bit overrated
Least Favourite: Europe
Most Underrated: Abu Dhabi

2012
Favourite: Abu Dhabi
Least Favourite: India
Most Underrated: Italy

2013
Favourite: Uh, Britain or Australia, or Monaco, I don't care for this season in the slightest
Least Favourite: Canada or Belgium
Most Underrated: N/A, maybe Italy again

2014
Favourite: Bahrain, closely followed by Hungary
Least Favourite: United States
Most Underrated: Italy again (I like the 2012-14 races)

2015
Favourite: Hungary
Least Favourite: Italy or China
Most Underrated: Russia

2016 so far
Favourite: Spain
Least Favourite: Canada
Most Underrated: Europe (bathplug the haters)

In today's episode of "Regenmeister94 Wonders Why Not?", I wonder...why haven't there been so many German F1 teams as Italy and Britain?

Mercedes did great in F1 before they decided to pull out of all forms of motorsport after the the Le Mans Disaster, Porsche did OK in the early 60s before pulling out (apparently due to cost), and Wolfgang von Trips came very close to winning the drivers' title before getting killed at Monza.

In the late '80s, an era which spawned so many rejectful teams, only two new teams hailed from Germany - Rial and Zakspeed. Meanwhile, there's from four from Italy, including everyone's favourites, Minardi, and three from the UK if you include March returning as an entrant rather than supplying a customer team. In total, 11 constructors in F1 history were German, as opposed to 24 from Italy and 52 from the UK! I wonder if the relative lack of German F1 teams might have something to do with endurance racing being more attractive to German racing teams, rather than anything to do with the fact that it was split in two for about 45 years.

Regenmeister94 wrote:In today's episode of "Regenmeister94 Wonders Why Not?", I wonder...why haven't there been so many German F1 teams as Italy and Britain?

Mercedes did great in F1 before they decided to pull out of all forms of motorsport after the the Le Mans Disaster, Porsche did OK in the early 60s before pulling out (apparently due to cost), and Wolfgang von Trips came very close to winning the drivers' title before getting killed at Monza.

In the late '80s, an era which spawned so many rejectful teams, only two new teams hailed from Germany - Rial and Zakspeed. Meanwhile, there's from four from Italy, including everyone's favourites, Minardi, and three from the UK if you include March returning as an entrant rather than supplying a customer team. In total, 11 constructors in F1 history were German, as opposed to 24 from Italy and 52 from the UK! I wonder if the relative lack of German F1 teams might have something to do with endurance racing being more attractive to German racing teams, rather than anything to do with the fact that it was split in two for about 45 years.

I believe that, as you say, it's down to the fact that the main focus for both drivers and entrants in (West) Germany was endurance racing for much of the latter half of the 20th Century. Until the 1990s, almost every successful German driver was winning in sportscars - Hans-Joachim Stuck, Klaus Ludwig, Edgar Barth, Jochen Mass, Rolf Stommelen, Stefan Bellof, Manuel Reuter, Gerhard Mitter, Kurt Ahrens, Jr. and so on. Obviously, many of these names also raced in F1, but with varying levels of success, the most achieved by any of the aforementioned being a single win in a red-flagged race that I'm sure many of those involved would prefer not to remember. Even Schumacher and Frentzen, the two breakout names of the 1990s, were racing (and winning) for Mercedes in sportscars before making it to F1, and Wolfgang von Trips enjoyed greater success as part of Ferrari's sportscar team than he did in their F1 programme.

Looking at Italy and Great Britain, Italy came out of the Second World War with its motoring industry still somewhat intact, and Alfa Romeo were still able to continue successfully for a number of years using pre-war technology. Then Maserati and Ferrari came back with newer technology and the latter in particular forged a long-lasting legacy in F1, which I'm sure many would-be engineers have wanted to emulate.

As for Britain, motorsport took off in a huge way in the immediate post-war period thanks to the many abandoned airfields dotting the country now making for suitable race tracks, and it exploded in the late 1950s when the likes of Cooper and Lotus were showing that you don't need to be a specialist manufacturer making all the parts to build a successful racing car.

Germany didn't come out of the war in a positive state at all, the motor industry in particular. The old Grand Prix Silver Arrows were either confiscated by the British and the Soviets, or destroyed by the same, leaving nothing to build on. On top of this, Germans were banned from competing in international motorsport for the five years following the end of the Second World War, which would have stunted any potential growth in interest for at least that time.

Recently, there has been a greater interest on the part of German outfits in either a potential F1 programme, or actual participation. In the past decade we've had Toyota (based in Cologne), BMW, Mercedes and the never-ending rumours surrounding Volkswagen. I would suspect, though I do not come from a position of knowing, that interest in Formula 1 in Germany didn't really take off until Schumacher started winning in the 1990s. Not that I think it was unpopular before then, as there has almost always been at least one German driver on the grid over the years and Germany has hosted a Grand Prix for most of the sport's history, but in comparison with Britain and Italy it doesn't look to have been as huge before and all the success was in sportscars.

Excellent points there. I should have added BMW joining as an engine supplier in 1982 and making Brabham their effective works team, Mercedes returning in 1993 as Sauber's backer, and of course Porsche joining in 1983 with the famous TAG turbo engines for McLaren. I guess it'd be more logical to back an existing front-running constructor with engines rather than enter on their own and run the risk of falling flat on their face with a crappy/mediocre chassis of their own.

Still waiting on Isdera entering Formula 1...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGZuRL86hmI

Ataxia wrote:

peteroli34 wrote:If Magnussen cant race in Italy who will replace him?

Since Ocon's busy with Manor duties, Renault will round up Sergey Sirotkin, Ollie Rowland, Louis Deletraz, Nicholas Latifi and Kevin Joerg and force them to stage an impromptu "Renault's Got Talent" for the Italian crowd. Sirotkin performs a duet with Dany Kvyat, singing "Everybody Hurts" and wowing the crowd, whilst Nicholas Latifi is disqualified for singing Nickelback. "Louis Lewis" Deletraz steals the show with his version of "Hip To Be Square", a song so catchy, most people don't even listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends, but it's also a statement about the band itself!

and Deletraz spins at the first chicane but by some fluke ends up leading prompting crofty to utter the words "and what is Deletraz doing....

Reading up on the F1 sale - can someone explain this to me? I'm feeling a bit thick at the moment

The statement also confirmed "the transaction price represents an enterprise value for Formula 1 of $8.0billion and an equity value of $4.4 billion".

What is the enterprise value? What is the equity value? why are they different figures?

I always think how could they make F1 better not the racing and stuff but I think the presentation might be a little too dull. I would like to see more varied people than just Herbert, Hill and Brundle. Like shake it up a little bit but I don't know how.

Like when you watch the NBA or the EPL or any Grand Slam, everything is just sleeker, better presented. I don't know maybe cause F1 is more niche.

Izzyeviel wrote:Reading up on the F1 sale - can someone explain this to me? I'm feeling a bit thick at the moment

The statement also confirmed "the transaction price represents an enterprise value for Formula 1 of $8.0billion and an equity value of $4.4 billion".

What is the enterprise value? What is the equity value? why are they different figures?

They are calculated differently. You can find some explanation here: http://www.financewalk.com/calculate-equity-enterprise/.

In essence, though, it means F1 has a bucket load of debt.

Aguaman wrote:I always think how could they make F1 better not the racing and stuff but I think the presentation might be a little too dull. I would like to see more varied people than just Herbert, Hill and Brundle. Like shake it up a little bit but I don't know how.

Like when you watch the NBA or the EPL or any Grand Slam, everything is just sleeker, better presented. I don't know maybe cause F1 is more niche.

Channel 4 has all sorts of people involved, proving that the presentations don't have to be British or have race wins to their name. Karun Chandhok is probably the best thing about C4's coverage and he didn't exactly have a stellar F1 career nor is he English.

Damon Hill has never come across well on camera; being a British champion or race winner doesn't always make you a good pick to present.

I first became interested in F1 in 1992 when the British Nigel Mansell was winning the title in a Williams. That was in his final full season.

The following season, the British Damon Hill made his full-season debut for Williams. My fan allegiance naturally went from Mansell to Hill. I developed a liking for Williams at this point, clearly.

Anyway, I continued to support Damon Hill until his retirement in 1999. In 2000, there just happened to be another British driver making his debut at, yes you guessed it, Williams. He was Jenson Button. And I supported him as a driver throughout his F1 career.

Now I need another British driver to make his debut at Williams next year so I know which driver to support. Because I can't see Palmer or Lewis being my primary favourite as they haven't been Williams drivers. I can see myself warming to Valterri, but he just isn't British. Or even Irish.

Maybe Lance Stroll, because Canada are a Commonwealth country?

Regenmeister94 wrote:Maybe Lance Stroll, because Canada are a Commonwealth country?

Well, even though he is being strongly linked with Williams, he hasn't secured a seat on the grid just yet. dr-baker, I guess that, if you do want a young British driver to support on the grid, your best bet might be if Williams decide to hire Lynn instead of Stroll.

Actually, on that note, if Renault do decide to drop Palmer - there has been talk that they will ditch both Palmer and Magnussen at the end of the year - it looks like there might be just one British driver left on the grid, which would be Hamilton. It must be quite some time when the number of British drivers was that low - I believe that, after Hunt quit partway through the 1979 season, there were a few races where Watson was the only British driver on the grid, but when was the last full season with just one British driver on the grid?

Instantly thought it must have been in the early Fifties - obviously defining a "full season" would be hard at that time as most drivers didn't necessarily aim to complete the full World Championship tour (and barring Ascari in 1952, each missed the Indy 500 round); if using the definition "partaking in +50% of the non-Indy WC events constitutes a full time season", the correct answer must be 1951 as Peter Whitehead was the lone British driver to reach four entries over the seven-race season.

watka wrote:

Aguaman wrote:I always think how could they make F1 better not the racing and stuff but I think the presentation might be a little too dull. I would like to see more varied people than just Herbert, Hill and Brundle. Like shake it up a little bit but I don't know how.

Like when you watch the NBA or the EPL or any Grand Slam, everything is just sleeker, better presented. I don't know maybe cause F1 is more niche.

Channel 4 has all sorts of people involved, proving that the presentations don't have to be British or have race wins to their name. Karun Chandhok is probably the best thing about C4's coverage and he didn't exactly have a stellar F1 career nor is he English.

Damon Hill has never come across well on camera; being a British champion or race winner doesn't always make you a good pick to present.

Oh I know being great at your sports doesn't always equal a good commentator but I think Sky needs to shake it up a bit because it is really dull and not engaging. I would like to check out C4 though.

You should! It's free!

And sit back down those of you about to moan about the TV licence. You're paying more per month to rent a telephone line into your house.

In Australia, Foxtel has the Sky Sports coverage. I don't know about Channel 10 but they play ads, so I avoid them.

Aguaman wrote:In Australia, Foxtel has the Sky Sports coverage. I don't know about Channel 10 but they play ads, so I avoid them.

Channel 10 has C4.

This discussion just makes me understand how lucky we Russians are and we barely realise it.

We have one TV holding broadcasting F1, but it does it well. Commentator (Alexey Popov) is in love with F1 since childhood and he comments for decades already, and by his voice you can figure he really lives it. There's Match TV with ads, but also Match Arena TV with no ads, high quality and special F1-themed shows before and sometimes after the race. It's always a pleasure!

solarcold wrote:This discussion just makes me understand how lucky we Russians are and we barely realise it.

We have one TV holding broadcasting F1, but it does it well. Commentator (Alexey Popov) is in love with F1 since childhood and he comments for decades already, and by his voice you can figure he really lives it. There's Match TV with ads, but also Match Arena TV with no ads, high quality and special F1-themed shows before and sometimes after the race. It's always a pleasure!

I wonder how Popov as a child in the USSR would've come into contact with F1 - maybe perestroika was in force at the time?

Actually, that seems likely, I just found out through Google that he was born in 1974.

Regenmeister94 wrote:

solarcold wrote:This discussion just makes me understand how lucky we Russians are and we barely realise it.

We have one TV holding broadcasting F1, but it does it well. Commentator (Alexey Popov) is in love with F1 since childhood and he comments for decades already, and by his voice you can figure he really lives it. There's Match TV with ads, but also Match Arena TV with no ads, high quality and special F1-themed shows before and sometimes after the race. It's always a pleasure!

I wonder how Popov as a child in the USSR would've come into contact with F1 - maybe perestroika was in force at the time?

Actually, that seems likely, I just found out through Google that he was born in 1974.

In soviet Russia F1 contacts you........

You're right, he has seen his first race in 1988 in Belgium. His father worked in some trading ministry of USSR or something like that.

You're also right about Soviet Russia, though I've never experienced the full effect: I was only _made_ in USSR, but I was born in Russia already.

From what I know of motorsport in Eastern Europe at that time (which until recently was almost nothing), F1 was at best reported on in newspapers and magazines; there was no way of seeing it on television. The big motorsport categories in that direction were F2 in the 1950s (especially in East Germany), then F3 and FJunior in the 1960s, before the separate Formula Easter category was created in the 1970s, which I believe made up the support programme for the Hungarian Grand Prix when F1 first ventured there. They raced on some very impressive (if dangerous) circuits, like Schleiz in the GDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MwN0EyoR8E

There's also quite an interesting thread over on Autosport dedicated to the championship that was run to Formula Easter rules from the '70s onwards. It carried the very socialist title of "International Cup of Peace and Friendship"

Simtek wrote:From what I know of motorsport in Eastern Europe at that time (which until recently was almost nothing), F1 was at best reported on in newspapers and magazines; there was no way of seeing it on television. The big motorsport categories in that direction were F2 in the 1950s (especially in East Germany), then F3 and FJunior in the 1960s, before the separate Formula Easter category was created in the 1970s, which I believe made up the support programme for the Hungarian Grand Prix when F1 first ventured there. They raced on some very impressive (if dangerous) circuits, like Schleiz in the GDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MwN0EyoR8E

There's also quite an interesting thread over on Autosport dedicated to the championship that was run to Formula Easter rules from the '70s onwards. It carried the very socialist title of "International Cup of Peace and Friendship"

that race looks quite tame compared to REECCS......

We've passed 15 Grand Prix already. Look at internal race battle within Haas:

GRO / GUT
- - - - - - - - -
AUS: 6 / ret (GRO)
BAH: 5 / ret (GRO)
CHN: 19 / 14 (GUT)
RUS: 8 / 17 (GRO)
ESP: ret / 11 (GUT)
MON: 13 / 11 (GUT)
CAN: 14 / 13 (GUT)
AZE: 13 / 16 (GRO)
AUT: 7 / 11 (GRO)
GBR: ret / 16 (GUT)
HUN: 14 / 13 (GUT)
GER: 13 / 11 (GUT)
BEL: 13 / 12 (GUT)
ITA: 11 / 13 (GRO)
SIN: ns / 11 (GUT)

Pretty unusual how Guttierez winning over Grosjean 9 against 6, Grosjean has 28 points and Gutierrez has 0.

It's kind of worrying that Sauber and Manor are running on very tight budgets, and at Austin a few days ago, when Ericsson genuinely had the chance of scoring some surprise points, many people on the chat were polarised in wanting Marcus either to get that point or for him to fail. The reason for this is obviously the championship position and subsequent prize money and that a team receives at the end of the year. I was pondering: is F1 facing an inevitable drop of one of its backmarker teams? Are Manor and Sauber both so desperate for a 10th place in the championship that failing to achieve this will result in financial collapse in the near future? Not exactly a healthy situation for Formula 1 to be in if so.

Manor have raced without sponsors and money for what feels like such a long time I subconsciously expect them to get by nevertheless, no matter whether they get the championship money or not.

The randomest of random thoughts here is nothing to do with F1 at all... except on this forum.

I have just six-hour-marathonned the audiobook of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (helped no end by the voice of Stephen Fry), and so I am now completely aware of the Infinite Improbability Drive and where it came from.

I will also suggest that the way to stop Mercedes from continuing to trounce the rest of the field is via the liberal application of a million gallon vat of custard.

dinizintheoven wrote:The randomest of random thoughts here is nothing to do with F1 at all... except on this forum.

I have just six-hour-marathonned the audiobook of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (helped no end by the voice of Stephen Fry), and so I am now completely aware of the Infinite Improbability Drive and where it came from.

I will also suggest that the way to stop Mercedes from continuing to trounce the rest of the field is via the liberal application of a million gallon vat of custard.

d' ambrosia custard?

dinizintheoven wrote:I have just six-hour-marathonned the audiobook of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (helped no end by the voice of Stephen Fry), and so I am now completely aware of the Infinite Improbability Drive and where it came from.

What a coincidence, I've been working through the original BBC radio series and I'm just about to begin Fit The Second. I would heartily recommend you give this a go too, if you haven't already. If you don't fancy forking out the Altairan dollars for the CDs then it may be knocking around various Torrent sites but I really couldn't say. For certain.

CoopsII wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:I have just six-hour-marathonned the audiobook of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (helped no end by the voice of Stephen Fry), and so I am now completely aware of the Infinite Improbability Drive and where it came from.

What a coincidence, I've been working through the original BBC radio series and I'm just about to begin Fit The Second. I would heartily recommend you give this a go too, if you haven't already. If you don't fancy forking out the Altairan dollars for the CDs then it may be knocking around various Torrent sites but I really couldn't say. For certain.

I second this recommendation. I do believe they can be found on YouTube, although saying that it's been two years since I've listened to the radio series via that method.

I'm starting to come around to the idea of ditching blue flags, primarily as a way of getting more screen time for backmarkers' sponsors and hence more money for those teams.

Regenmeister94 wrote:I'm starting to come around to the idea of ditching blue flags, primarily as a way of getting more screen time for backmarkers' sponsors and hence more money for those teams.

I'd be entirely in favour.

And besides, if a Mercedes can't get past Gutierrez, it doesn't deserve to win the race.

I really want Brazil to not go a certain way. If Rosberg blows up and we get a final showdown, that's good. If Rosberg wins in a boring fashion and takes the championship, that's good. But if we have Hamilton first and Rosberg second, then the whole deserving thing will really get uncomfortable. Let's look at the head-to-head race performances, and us obviously means me:

Australia: Rosberg wins uncontroversially. 0-1
Bahrain: Hamilton didn't deserve that crash, but still, Rosberg was better. 0-2
China: Mechanical issue. 0-2
Russia: Rosberg pole and win. 0-3
Spain: Both drivers made a stupid mistake without which the crash wouldn't have happened. 0-3
Monaco: Hamilton wins uncontroversially, or at least beats Rosberg. 1-3
Canada: Hamilton pole and win. 2-3
Baku: Hamilton did have the qualifying issue, but Rosberg was better anyway. Plus he knew how to operate his own car. 2-4
Austria: There's only one person to blame for that one. 3-4
UK: Hamilton pole and win. 4-4
Hungary: I don't remember anything controversial happening. 5-4
Germany: Rosberg fluffed the start for once. 6-4
Belgium: I feel like Rosberg was better anyway, but it isn't as clear as Baku. 6-4
Italy: Hamilton takes pole, then throws it away. Typical 2016 race. 6-5
Singapore: Yep. 6-6
Malaysia: The cause of all this distress. 7-6
Japan: Like Italy, except he didn't even get pole. 7-7
USA: Hamilton pole and win. 8-7
Mexico: Hamilton pole and win. 9-7

Spain and Belgium being easy to put whichever way you want, plus the fact that Hamilton's failures have generally been big compared to Rosberg just coming second, mean that Rosberg can still be a deserving champion even if they split these last two races. I felt like things were "even" before Malaysia, maybe slightly in favour of Rosberg but nothing that annoyed me at all, and now I feel like what I already described in the beginning. We can't have two more Hamilton-Rosberg finishes, for the sake of justice!

Since there's been a few grumpy-bums taking issue with the AHR circuit in the "Which Tracks Will Get The Boot" thread, I'm not entirely sure it's the fault of the circuit. Instead, I blame the longevity of the medium tyres.

You know how the casual fanbase cry out for "tyres that last and that you can push on"? This is what happens. Because everyone's pushing, it makes no difference. The thing that made the Pirelli era so interesting at the start was the fact that people were on different strategies at different times, and this made the races overall an exciting prospect. Mexico only came alive in the dying stages thanks to Vettel and Ricciardo deciding to do something different with their tyres.

Alternatively, I have another suggestion. I'm quite sure that, if Pirelli were willing to put in the money, you could develop some variable compound tyres. Because tyres produce grip through chemical adhesion as well as the hysteretic response to the road, you could vary the adhesiveness in every layer of rubber as well as creating a mix of rubber softness. In short, the cars would then experience a difference in ability to generate grip on a lap-to-lap basis, through generating instantaneous bonds to the road as well as getting purchase into the road aggregate surface.

What would that do overall? If the layers were able to be randomised, it would be much harder for teams to predict whether you're at the end of the usable rubber or just currently in a harder layer of the tyre.

Ataxia wrote:The thing that made the Pirelli era so interesting at the start was the fact that people were on different strategies at different times, and this made the races overall an exciting prospect.

You've basically described every regulation change ever. It's only more exciting to begin with because teams and drivers are yet to figure out the optimal way of maximising performance.

Take the current engines for example, they were more interesting a couple of years back because the finishing rate decreased significantly for a while. Now that we're back to 20/21 finishers a race, the interest in them has faded.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I really want Brazil to not go a certain way. If Rosberg blows up and we get a final showdown, that's good. If Rosberg wins in a boring fashion and takes the championship, that's good. But if we have Hamilton first and Rosberg second, then the whole deserving thing will really get uncomfortable. Let's look at the head-to-head race performances, and us obviously means me:

Australia: Rosberg wins uncontroversially. 0-1
Bahrain: Hamilton didn't deserve that crash, but still, Rosberg was better. 0-2
China: Mechanical issue. 0-2
Russia: Rosberg pole and win. 0-3
Spain: Both drivers made a stupid mistake without which the crash wouldn't have happened. 0-3
Monaco: Hamilton wins uncontroversially, or at least beats Rosberg. 1-3
Canada: Hamilton pole and win. 2-3
Baku: Hamilton did have the qualifying issue, but Rosberg was better anyway. Plus he knew how to operate his own car. 2-4
Austria: There's only one person to blame for that one. 3-4
UK: Hamilton pole and win. 4-4
Hungary: I don't remember anything controversial happening. 5-4
Germany: Rosberg fluffed the start for once. 6-4
Belgium: I feel like Rosberg was better anyway, but it isn't as clear as Baku. 6-4
Italy: Hamilton takes pole, then throws it away. Typical 2016 race. 6-5
Singapore: Yep. 6-6
Malaysia: The cause of all this distress. 7-6
Japan: Like Italy, except he didn't even get pole. 7-7
USA: Hamilton pole and win. 8-7
Mexico: Hamilton pole and win. 9-7

Spain and Belgium being easy to put whichever way you want, plus the fact that Hamilton's failures have generally been big compared to Rosberg just coming second, mean that Rosberg can still be a deserving champion even if they split these last two races. I felt like things were "even" before Malaysia, maybe slightly in favour of Rosberg but nothing that annoyed me at all, and now I feel like what I already described in the beginning. We can't have two more Hamilton-Rosberg finishes, for the sake of justice!

Hamilton might have beaten Rosberg that race, but the win was far from non-controversial. We musn't forget Hamilton won because of the Red Bull bathplug up, and because of his stupid ass defending when he made the mistake at the chicane, and Ricky almost passed him, but he closed the door in very dangerous way.

Ataxia wrote:Since there's been a few grumpy-bums taking issue with the AHR circuit in the "Which Tracks Will Get The Boot" thread, I'm not entirely sure it's the fault of the circuit. Instead, I blame the longevity of the medium tyres.

You know how the casual fanbase cry out for "tyres that last and that you can push on"? This is what happens. Because everyone's pushing, it makes no difference. The thing that made the Pirelli era so interesting at the start was the fact that people were on different strategies at different times, and this made the races overall an exciting prospect. Mexico only came alive in the dying stages thanks to Vettel and Ricciardo deciding to do something different with their tyres.

Alternatively, I have another suggestion. I'm quite sure that, if Pirelli were willing to put in the money, you could develop some variable compound tyres. Because tyres produce grip through chemical adhesion as well as the hysteretic response to the road, you could vary the adhesiveness in every layer of rubber as well as creating a mix of rubber softness. In short, the cars would then experience a difference in ability to generate grip on a lap-to-lap basis, through generating instantaneous bonds to the road as well as getting purchase into the road aggregate surface.

What would that do overall? If the layers were able to be randomised, it would be much harder for teams to predict whether you're at the end of the usable rubber or just currently in a harder layer of the tyre.

Each tyre on the car would have to be layered the same..... if not then the handling on the cars could be interesting (or possibly dangerous) so this would be impossible to do....

I wonder if Rosberg was sat there last Sunday thinking "Second? Aah, that'll do". It would've been quite sensible to do so and I certainly don't blame him but it could mean that the last few races will end up being anti climactic damp squibs. If he finds himself first with Hamilton all over him I doubt he'll want to risk contact that may put him out but not his teammate so we could see him not fight too hard against him.

Don't believe the hype. In these last few races anything could happen but it most likely won't.