Grand Prix Rejects

As far as tires go I got a solution for the tyre complaints.
Bring 2 compounds to each race. Do away with the enforced pitstop.

So... how would that help? Get rid of all other compounds save for Ultra Soft and whip up a compound harder than the current hard.

So it would LITERALLY be a choice between one lap speed and stint length.

or just frigging bring refueling back >_>

DonTirri wrote:As far as tires go I got a solution for the tyre complaints.
Bring 2 compounds to each race. Do away with the enforced pitstop.

So... how would that help? Get rid of all other compounds save for Ultra Soft and whip up a compound harder than the current hard.

So it would LITERALLY be a choice between one lap speed and stint length.

or just frigging bring refueling back >_>

I completely agree on doing away with the mandatory compound, anything to give the drivers more freedom with tyre strategy.

how about allowing using a mix of compounds, but both front tyres and both rear tyres have to be the same so you can run mediums on the rears and softs on the front or the other way round (it was done in the 80s... oh and Williams tried it a at spa last year I think lol)

Mexico's problems have little to do with tyres. This circuit's so dismal there's nowhere a DRS zone will work!

Spectoremg wrote:Mexico's problems have little to do with tyres. This circuit's so dismal there's nowhere a DRS zone will work!

Nah, it's cool. Huge atmosphere, plenty of greenery, some places to overtake. The run-off's a big problem and I still attribute the race's overall...less interesting qualities to the weirdly good life of the medium compound.

Fundamentally though, it's not bad. Hopefully it gets the time to throw up some fun races in the next few years.

Ataxia wrote:Nah, it's cool. Huge atmosphere...

I thought the whole point was that the atmosphere was quite thin at that altitude?

dr-baker wrote:

Ataxia wrote:Nah, it's cool. Huge atmosphere...

I thought the whole point was that the atmosphere was quite thin at that altitude?

Which is why DRS does not work......

CoopsII wrote: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.

I strongly suspect that Rosberg is thinking exactly that - with the points advantage that Rosberg had after the Japanese GP, he knows full well that all he doesn't need to beat Hamilton in any of the final four races. He doesn't even need that many second places - he can still afford a third place finish and he'll still win the title, something that is almost guaranteed in most races due to the inherent pace advantage his car has.

I get the sense that, having seen what happened to Hamilton earlier in the year, he has turned his engine down to the lowest power setting in the most recent races to minimise the risk of mechanical failure and taking it relatively easy out on track. I agree that the fact that it feels as if Rosberg isn't really having to strive that hard to take the title does mean that it all feels rather anti-climactic in these races.

I don't know if anyone other than me plays collectible card games here, but I find it really funny to make game cards of some of Formula 1 happenings. Here are two I did yesterday:

solarcold wrote:I don't know if anyone other than me plays collectible card games here, but I find it really funny to make game cards of some of Formula 1 happenings. Here are two I did yesterday:

Hahaha, those are great

I love Johansson's comments in that post, by the way. He tells it like it is.

So I have Mondays off now, and being home alone, I've taken to watching old season reviews while having lunch. I have to say the bloke doing the commentary for the mid-80s ones (Clive James?) Is the funniest bathpluggier ever. Did he ever do commentary for TV? Is he still alive? Can we get him to do it again?

Wallio wrote:So I have Mondays off now, and being home alone, I've taken to watching old season reviews while having lunch. I have to say the bloke doing the commentary for the mid-80s ones (Clive James?) Is the funniest bathpluggier ever. Did he ever do commentary for TV? Is he still alive? Can we get him to do it again?

Sadly, whilst 77 year old Clive James is still alive he's suffering from terminal cancer but he does still write, often about his illness.

Last night I was reading a few articles from late 1993/early 1994 where a few F1 people where stating how fearful they were of the dangers associated from re-introducing mid race refueling for 1994. This got me thinking was that the last time the FIA introduced a rule which potentially made the sport a bit more dangerous?

The only other possible examples I can think of is the 2017 regulations and when the FIA allowed tyre wars in 1997 & 2001, which subsequently made the tyres faster and therefore the cars could go a bit quicker. But has there been anything else?

ibsey wrote:Last night I was reading a few articles from late 1993/early 1994 where a few F1 people where stating how fearful they were of the dangers associated from re-introducing mid race refueling for 1994. This got me thinking was that the last time the FIA introduced a rule which potentially made the sport a bit more dangerous?

The only other possible examples I can think of is the 2017 regulations and when the FIA allowed tyre wars in 1997 & 2001, which subsequently made the tyres faster and therefore the cars could go a bit quicker. But has there been anything else?

KERS perhaps? There were a lot of talk about the high voltages required and some mechanics got electric shocks. I don't recall anyone being seriously injured though.

CarloSpace wrote:KERS perhaps? There were a lot of talk about the high voltages required and some mechanics got electric shocks. I don't recall anyone being seriously injured though.

Good call CarloSpace I remember one Mechanic was hospitalised after a KERS incident:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69402


Furthermore Ferrari abandoned Kers for 2009 China GP:

"We found a problem with the Kers on Kimi's car in Sepang and we have therefore decided not to run with it in Shanghai," said Domenicali.

"We need to understand what happened to the system from the point of view of safety and reliability.
"It has delivered a performance benefit, but if it is not running safely and reliably, we can no longer take the risk of running it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 001866.stm

If I recall, it was more than just a minor problem: I recall Kimi jumping out of his car because it was on fire - like, properly on fire

I found Lord Yuji Ide's Insta... https://www.instagram.com/yuji_ide_official/

CarloSpace wrote:

ibsey wrote:Last night I was reading a few articles from late 1993/early 1994 where a few F1 people where stating how fearful they were of the dangers associated from re-introducing mid race refueling for 1994. This got me thinking was that the last time the FIA introduced a rule which potentially made the sport a bit more dangerous?

The only other possible examples I can think of is the 2017 regulations and when the FIA allowed tyre wars in 1997 & 2001, which subsequently made the tyres faster and therefore the cars could go a bit quicker. But has there been anything else?

KERS perhaps? There were a lot of talk about the high voltages required and some mechanics got electric shocks. I don't recall anyone being seriously injured though.

One other suggestion might be the decision to reduce the height of the nose in 2012. Whilst the change was brought about to reduce the risk of the sort of accident that Webber had, where the high noses allowed the car to flip as it rode up over the rear wheel, there were some who argued that it increased the risk of cars submarining below the car that they struck.

However, it has to be said that argument has to be treated with a certain amount of caution given that the main criticism for the change in nose height came from Newey, who had been one of the designers responsible for pushing the nose section up to an extreme height in the first place for aerodynamic benefits.

good_Ralf wrote:I found Lord Yuji Ide's Insta... https://www.instagram.com/yuji_ide_official/

Was thinking he looks pretty old now but he was no spring chicken when he competed in F1.

Vettel crashed an old car in testing at Fiorano yesterday. My ponder is, is anybody interested?

And, mostly, there didn't appear to be a suitable thread so I guess this will do.

It is interesting in that fingers are immediately being pointed at Pirelli. The test was for their new wet tyres and this doesn't exactly suggest improvement. The Brazilian GP last year was basically a farce as a result of their tyres and fans & teams alike are bemoaning the lack of wet racing.

There is usually a testing thread at the start of the season, but I don't know if I'd get lambasted for opening it yet...

watka wrote:It is interesting in that fingers are immediately being pointed at Pirelli. The test was for their new wet tyres and this doesn't exactly suggest improvement. The Brazilian GP last year was basically a farce as a result of their tyres and fans & teams alike are bemoaning the lack of wet racing.

It's the wet-weather running farce that turns people off of F1 and scares away non-fans, because it should be one of the simple and working parts of the sport. When someone turns on their television and sees that the race is being delayed by half an hour and the first 10 laps are going to be under the safety car - every.single.time.it.rains - it's quite easy to put people off of watching the sport that way, because you would assume that even under "damp" conditions, it shouldn't be so much of a hassle to drive in the wet.

Then take the experienced fans. They see slight drizzle and groan, because they know they can get on with what they were originally doing for the next 20 minutes because whoever is in charge will simply not let anyone race under those conditions- oh wait this is the ponderbox, not the rantbox

watka wrote:There is usually a testing thread at the start of the season, but I don't know if I'd get lambasted for opening it yet...

I know that I, personally, will lambast you for it.

watka wrote:It is interesting in that fingers are immediately being pointed at Pirelli. The test was for their new wet tyres and this doesn't exactly suggest improvement. The Brazilian GP last year was basically a farce as a result of their tyres and fans & teams alike are bemoaning the lack of wet racing.

It's hardly Pirelli's fault that they get such limited wet testing. The experiences they tend to get is on slightly damp tracks which have been given a quick spritz with the sprinklers; Pirellis struggle with the standing water and can't seem to clear it off-line effectively.

That said, wet conditions could certainly be a lot more difficult to navigate with the current powertrain setup, simply because the torque at low speeds is a great deal higher than it was pre-2014. If the throttle's not modulated correctly, then all you can expect is a trip to the scene of the accident.

That said, Vettel's incident seems to be as a result of snap oversteer under braking, so maybe it's a mix of the two overall...

Ataxia wrote:

watka wrote:It is interesting in that fingers are immediately being pointed at Pirelli. The test was for their new wet tyres and this doesn't exactly suggest improvement. The Brazilian GP last year was basically a farce as a result of their tyres and fans & teams alike are bemoaning the lack of wet racing.

It's hardly Pirelli's fault that they get such limited wet testing. The experiences they tend to get is on slightly damp tracks which have been given a quick spritz with the sprinklers; Pirellis struggle with the standing water and can't seem to clear it off-line effectively.

That said, wet conditions could certainly be a lot more difficult to navigate with the current powertrain setup, simply because the torque at low speeds is a great deal higher than it was pre-2014. If the throttle's not modulated correctly, then all you can expect is a trip to the scene of the accident.

That said, Vettel's incident seems to be as a result of snap oversteer under braking, so maybe it's a mix of the two overall...

There was an interesting comment from Pirelli that the requirement to increase the width of the wet weather tyres was, in their view, more likely to increase the risk of aquaplaning.

It has to be said that the conditions in which Vettel was testing that car weren't great - a number of pictures of the circuit indicate that there was a reasonable amount of standing water on the circuit at the time, whilst the ambient conditions were quite cold too (5ºC at most, and probably colder).

Furthermore, it should be noted that the car that Vettel was using was an old SF15-T chassis that Ferrari have been modifying in an effort to simulate a 2017 spec car, and in particular they have been modifying the rear of the floor (adding skirts to the rear portion of the floor).

It is therefore possible that the handling of the car may be somewhat sub-optimal given that it is a rather hastily modified car (with rumours that Pirelli were disappointed that Ferrari's test mule failed to produce any more downforce than the normal SF15-T), and the compromised aero package that the car has been fitted with may have resulted in less predictable handling characteristics.

mario wrote:There was an interesting comment from Pirelli that the requirement to increase the width of the wet weather tyres was, in their view, more likely to increase the risk of aquaplaning.

I wouldn't be surprised; a thinner tyre (read: motorcycle) is able to break through the surface tension of on-track standing water more easily and get through to the road surface. Widening the tyre reduces your chances of doing that, even if you throw the camber up to a ridiculous angle.

Tyre grip comes from physical and chemical reactions; the physical aspect is the elastic effect of the tyre getting purchase along the road surface, whilst the other comes from the rubber reacting with the road surface to form an instantaneous chemical bond. With a wide tyre and a big puddle, there's very little chance you'll manage to achieve either.

Been sick at home all week with the flu (Its H1N3 this year lads, which my medical friends tell me is worse than the swine flu that was supposed to kill us all), so I have been watching old season reviews to pass the time between vomiting.

Now I have always been of the opinion that the MP4-4, which while one of the best by far, is far from the greatest F1 car of all time, and dare I say it, is kind of overrated. There is some proof of this: 8w has this great article up on how it had no real competition: . Every team except Lotus used 1987 chassis slightly modified to meet the '87 footwell rules. Hell, even the new Rial was just the '87 Ferrari essentially, and Dallara ran an F3000 car for Caffi!

However, after watching the 1988 Season Review, I now think the MP4-4 is rather highly overrated. It only had two real competitors: Lotus, who had a bespoke '88 chassis and the best engine on the grid, but also a number 1 driver on a championship hangover too busy taking shots at a dying Enzo Ferrari in Playboy to race, and a pay driver who DNQ'd twice, and Benetton, best of the atmo teams by far, but saddled with a new experimental Ford motor, and with Nannini's high risk, high reward driving style causing a few too many errors.

Everyone else? A joke. Ferrari was going into races flat out saying they were going to run out of fuel, and then did, and Berger did nothing but bitch about the engine all year (my personal favorite on the review was his interview at Silverstone when he said the Ferrari's were only good there because "it wasn't a power circuit". Even the interviewer went "What?"). Williams, the reigning champions, said bathplug all and ran their '87 car with a Judd engine which lead to Nigel retiring from 8 straight races, coming second at Silverstone (maybe it isn't a power circuit? lol) then retiring next race, then taking two races off. Williams then scrapped their active suspension which they spent all the year prior designing, nearly costing them Nelson's title. What a clown show.

You also had multiple interviews from team bosses and drivers all saying the same thing, since Ferrari won the last two races of '87 every team used them as the testing benchmark. When they were as fast (or in Lotus's case faster) in testing, they said job done. Well McLaren came out flying and after after four races they all said bathplug it and started focusing on '89 and the all atmo format. Understandable, probably smart, but kinda sad.

So the three takeaways I had from '88 was that 1.) the Mclaren wasn't that good, but simply didn't make mistakes in '88 (How very Ron Dennis) and were simply competing against indifference, 2.) Thank God for Jean-Louis Schlesser, who interestingly enough Stirling Moss completely absolves of blame on the review, and 3.) Jonathan Palmer is underrated. 2 5ths, 2 6ths, and a 4th? All on Street courses? In a Tyrell???

It seems like 2016, everyone was developping the car for next year.

For the wet races, F1 has a problem, the cars are not driveable with the rain.

Only two solution : develop the cars and the tyres (not with 2 years old cars ) or don't race when it rains but make it clear

"The cars can't drive in the rain"

How did they have wet races in the 70s, when wide tyres were all the rage? The technology obviously exists for giving traction to wide tyres in the wet.

Team-mate comparisons for Nick Heidfeld

2000: Defeated Jean Alesi (32 F1 podiums) 9-7 as a rookie
2001: Defeated Kimi Raikkonen (2007 Champion) 10-7
2002: Defeated Felipe Massa (2008 runner-up) 11-5 *
2003: Defeated Heinz-Harald Frentzen (1997 runner-up) 11-5
2004: Defeated Giorgio Pantano (2008 GP2 winner) 10-4 *
2005: Defeated Mark Webber (3rd in 2010, 2011, 2013) 7-6 *
2006: Defeated Jacques Villeneuve (1997 Champion) 7-6 *
2007: Defeated Robert Kubica (would have been a Champion) 10-6 *
2008: Lost to Robert Kubica (would have been a Champion) 11-7
2009: Defeated Robert Kubica (would have been a Champion 10-7
2010: [insufficient sample size - only 5 Grands Prix]
2011: Defeated Vitaly Petrov (okay, I got nothing) 6-5 *

* Were not team-mates for full season.

The only team-mate to beat Heidfeld head-to-head over the course of a season was Robert Kubica, whom he defeated 30-27 over three-and-a-bit seasons.

- - -

My question is this: has there ever been a better driver to be so consistently denied a race-winning car to drive?

pasta_maldonado wrote:"The cars can't drive in the rain"

How did they have wet races in the 70s, when wide tyres were all the rage? The technology obviously exists for giving traction to wide tyres in the wet.

Of course it is possible but for now it is not F1 priority.
I only think they have to make a choice, develop the tyres of give up rain races.

We don't want Safety cars Lap

pasta_maldonado wrote:"The cars can't drive in the rain"

How did they have wet races in the 70s, when wide tyres were all the rage? The technology obviously exists for giving traction to wide tyres in the wet.

Not really, quite a few races back then were red-flagged because of rain.

Neno wrote:I only think they have to make a choice, develop the tyres of give up rain races.

Pirelli are trying. Unfortunately testing restrictions and a general unwillingness to cooperate from teams until fairly recently have hampered their progress.

Aislabie wrote:Team-mate comparisons for Nick Heidfeld
2011: Defeated Vitaly Petrov (okay, I got nothing) 6-5

Lada Cup, 2002: 12 races, 12 wins. What do you mean, "I got nothing"? He's up there with Giacomo Agostini.

This'll be the first season where half the entries in every race score points. Even in ten-team 2009, you had worse chances. Even at Imola in 1982, you had worse chances. I know the 2010 teams basically didn't exist, so in a sense it's been like that for a while, and I know Haas are more competition than any of them ever were so it's actually harder than before, but it's still a bit weird.

Sometimes I wonder what things would look like, what teams and drivers would have been successful, if the FIA had never changed from the 1991 points system and we had 50-60% reliability up to the present day. The 2003 change was just an attempt to make things closer than they should've been, like double points almost, but it's what took us down this path of reliability. I'm not saying I don't like ultra-reliability, I sort of prefer it actually, but it's one big what if....

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:This'll be the first season where half the entries in every race score points. Even in ten-team 2009, you had worse chances. Even at Imola in 1982, you had worse chances. I know the 2010 teams basically didn't exist, so in a sense it's been like that for a while, and I know Haas are more competition than any of them ever were so it's actually harder than before, but it's still a bit weird.

Sometimes I wonder what things would look like, what teams and drivers would have been successful, if the FIA had never changed from the 1991 points system and we had 50-60% reliability up to the present day. The 2003 change was just an attempt to make things closer than they should've been, like double points almost, but it's what took us down this path of reliability. I'm not saying I don't like ultra-reliability, I sort of prefer it actually, but it's one big what if....

2015 had half too.

And to be fair, I disagree on ultra-reliability. I hate it.

FullMetalJack wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:This'll be the first season where half the entries in every race score points. Even in ten-team 2009, you had worse chances. Even at Imola in 1982, you had worse chances. I know the 2010 teams basically didn't exist, so in a sense it's been like that for a while, and I know Haas are more competition than any of them ever were so it's actually harder than before, but it's still a bit weird.

Sometimes I wonder what things would look like, what teams and drivers would have been successful, if the FIA had never changed from the 1991 points system and we had 50-60% reliability up to the present day. The 2003 change was just an attempt to make things closer than they should've been, like double points almost, but it's what took us down this path of reliability. I'm not saying I don't like ultra-reliability, I sort of prefer it actually, but it's one big what if....

2015 had half too.

And to be fair, I disagree on ultra-reliability. I hate it.

Oh damn it, yeah. Well, my point still sort of works. A little.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:This'll be the first season where half the entries in every race score points. Even in ten-team 2009, you had worse chances. Even at Imola in 1982, you had worse chances. I know the 2010 teams basically didn't exist, so in a sense it's been like that for a while, and I know Haas are more competition than any of them ever were so it's actually harder than before, but it's still a bit weird.

Sometimes I wonder what things would look like, what teams and drivers would have been successful, if the FIA had never changed from the 1991 points system and we had 50-60% reliability up to the present day. The 2003 change was just an attempt to make things closer than they should've been, like double points almost, but it's what took us down this path of reliability. I'm not saying I don't like ultra-reliability, I sort of prefer it actually, but it's one big what if....

I know this isn't the "What If" thread but I can imagine Red Bull having been less dominant in this scenario. The Newey McLarens used to be motorised grenades in the early 00s.

FullMetalJack wrote:And to be fair, I disagree on ultra-reliability. I hate it.

Me too. F1 is too conservative, too just-keep-it-running-and-we-might-pick-up-a-point-for-tenth. Put the old scoring system back in, nothing beyond sixth and let's see if they decide to start taking some risks again to make that position.

I just realized, if Force India continues to exist in its current form for 5 more years, it will have existed in that form for as long as Jordan did.

Waris wrote:I just realized, if Force India continues to exist in its current form for 5 more years, it will have existed in that form for as long as Jordan did.

Damn you're right. And here I still look at them as the team that couldn't keep a name, going
Jordan/Jordan-Midland/MF1/Spkyer/Force India in successive seasons.