Grand Prix Rejects

Warped Illusions, such like ME assuming Jaime Alguesuari was Portuguese.

ADx_Wales wrote:Warped Illusions, such like ME assuming Jaime Alguesuari was Portuguese.

You mean he isn't?

I think this is a new thread starter if ever there was one...

I'm sorry. Perhaps I was a bit wrong about Jean Alesi in 1999 (since I haven't seen any bright moment from Alesi in any of the highlights videos or anything I've seen about that season, I didn't really start watching F1 seriously until 2001) but he had lots of retirements, he scored only 2 points and was even outscored by Pedro Diniz. But what is wrong with the rest of my posts? You've said that my postS were absurdly stupid.

Phoenix wrote:I'm sorry. Perhaps I was a bit wrong about Jean Alesi in 1999 (since I haven't seen any bright moment from Alesi in any of the highlights videos or anything I've seen about that season, I didn't really start watching F1 seriously until 2001) but he had lots of retirements, he scored only 2 points and was even outscored by Pedro Diniz. But what is wrong with the rest of my posts? You've said that my postS were absurdly stupid.

Don't worry Phoenix, I was only refer to the one post you had previously made (about Alesi being sh*t in 1999), there is nothing wrong with any of your other posts, in fact I do quite enjoy reading them.

Glad to hear you have had a change of mind on Alesi in 1999. Believe me, I have watched every inch of Alesi progress during 1999 & it is a BIG reason as why I fell in love with F1. Whislt on paper the results may look bad. When you watch him in action &, for example the number of overtaking moves he does in races like Austria or Belgium or San Marino, you will see exactly what I mean.

The Sepang circuit is better than Instanbul.

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Shanghai circuit is better than Istanbul.

Fixed that one for you.

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Sepang circuit is better than Instanbul.

Instanbul was Istanbul
Now it's Instanbul not Istanbul
Been a long time gone in Istanbul
Why did Istanbul get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Eyebrows.

Tilke circuits... Much like mexican food... The flavours are all the same (possibly less spicy) and the only difference is how they are presented.

shinji wrote:

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Sepang circuit is better than Instanbul.

Instanbul was Istanbul
Now it's Instanbul not Istanbul
Been a long time gone in Istanbul
Why did Istanbul get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Eyebrows.

Those very same big fat eyebrows now reflect an embarrassed expression thanks to that awful typo.

Klon wrote:

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Shanghai circuit is better than any other F1 track ever.

Fixed that one for you.

Double fix.

MansellsEyebrows wrote:

Klon wrote:

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Suzuka circuit is better than any other F1 track ever.

Fixed that one for you.

Double fix.

Now it's fixed.

BlindCaveSalamander wins that one, I reckon...

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Old Hockenheim circuit is better than any other F1 track ever.

Now it's fixed.

Now it's really fixed.

JohnMLTX wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

MansellsEyebrows wrote:The Mount Panorama circuit is better than any other racing track ever past, present and future.

Now it's fixed.

Now it's really fixed.

Much better

The Norisring is better than any other racing track ever past, present and future in the whole milky way.

There we go.

Klon wrote:

The Nurburgring Nordschliefe is better than any other racing track ever past, present and future in the whole milky way.

There we go.

End of!

WeirdKerr wrote:

Klon wrote:

The 37.73-mile Manx TT Mountain course is better than any other racing track ever past, present and future in the whole milky way.

There we go.

End of!

"They thought it was all over... It is now!"

(The famous quotation made famous by my boarding school's game master's father, apparently!)

Dr. Baker, you win.

Well, I am planning on watching this this evening (providing my work gets cancelled of course, which I'm assuming it will...).

dr-baker wrote:Well, I am planning on watching this this evening (providing my work gets cancelled of course, which I'm assuming it will...).

I have got to see that movie after watching the trailer. Anyone know whether it'll be released in Australia?

Wizzie wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Well, I am planning on watching this this evening (providing my work gets cancelled of course, which I'm assuming it will...).

I have got to see that movie after watching the trailer. Anyone know whether it'll be released in Australia?

According to imdb, it'll be released in New Zealand on 17th November this year... Which is quite some time from tonight... How long does it take to get from the east coast of Australia to NZ?

dr-baker wrote:

Wizzie wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Well, I am planning on watching this this evening (providing my work gets cancelled of course, which I'm assuming it will...).

I have got to see that movie after watching the trailer. Anyone know whether it'll be released in Australia?

According to imdb, it'll be released in New Zealand on 17th November this year... Which is quite some time from tonight... How long does it take to get from the east coast of Australia to NZ?

About 3 hours.

Wizzie wrote:

dr-baker wrote:According to imdb, it'll be released in New Zealand on 17th November this year... Which is quite some time from tonight... How long does it take to get from the east coast of Australia to NZ?

About 3 hours.

Well I saw the film/documentary last night, and it may well be worth making that trip to watch this film if it does not get released in Australia. Only question is: I have not yet seen the Senna movie. Which film is better?

dr-baker wrote:

Wizzie wrote:

dr-baker wrote:According to imdb, it'll be released in New Zealand on 17th November this year... Which is quite some time from tonight... How long does it take to get from the east coast of Australia to NZ?

About 3 hours.

Well I saw the film/documentary last night, and it may well be worth making that trip to watch this film if it does not get released in Australia. Only question is: I have not yet seen the Senna movie. Which film is better?

It'll be very close. From memory Senna is being slated for release in the Commonwealth on the third of June but I need to check up on that. Either way both are on my "must watch" list.

Gil De Ferran should have got that Stewart seat in '97.

Jordan's 1-2 at Spa 1998 should have been illegal.

Because they clearly impletemented team orders & at the time the use of team orders were banned in light of Mclaren swaping their drivers around in Australia 1998.

http://www.enterf1.com/the-bite-point/1 ... la-One.asp

Even though the FIA provided a 'clarification'...which actually does a very good job at making the issue even more confusing.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns01672.html

However in light of this, I still believe Jordan DID breach this ruling. As they didn't allow Ralf to fight Damon for the win, I therefore feel an "act prejudicial to the interests of any competition" was committed by Jordan.

Call me cynical, however it seems to me, that the FIA only ever acted on team orders when there was a negative public outcry. For instance, remember in Hockenhiem 2010, the FIA didn't actually start looking into the team order matter until about 1 hour after the race, after everyone was complaining about it...not before. There was no actual notification during the race that the "the incident between the Ferrari's will be investigated" or anything like that.

Either the FIA forgot about the 'team orders' ruling they had only just implemented (unlikely?), or they didn't want to introduce it because it was good for F1 that a Jordan finally won a GP (perhaps more likely?).

My unpopular opinion is that you're raising this up only because it was Hill who benefitted

Ferrim wrote:My unpopular opinion is that you're raising this up only because it was Hill who benefitted

You are absolutely spot on Ferrim.

In short, if anaylse this race in a greater amout of detail, its difficult not to come to the conclusion that this (along with vast majority of races that are considered to be Damon's "greatest victories") actually flatter Hill's real ability. Hence one of the reason's I don't rate Hill very highly.

For instance a simply analysis of the difference in lap times between Ralf & Damon during the second half of the race, reveals that Ralf was significantly faster than Damon before the final SC came out & EJ forced them to hold position (thus handing the win on a plate to Damon).

Also remember that Damon was on a drier setup in that race, so in theory, he should have struggled more towards the end of that race, when the conditions were at there worst (only 6/7 cars were running after the SC so clearance of standing water off the track was minimal + all the cars were on full wets etc). Therefore towards the end of the race, the conditions appeared to be playing more into the hands of Ralf (who was on a full wet weather set-up & had worked his way through the field).

Also if you watch the race, you will see that Damon went off the track at least twice when Ralf was putting him under pressure (once on lap 27 when he over-shot the Bus Stop chicane, running across the grass & Hill had a collision with Trulli while lapping him a few laps before the final pitstops). Furthermore when the SC came in, Hill's car looked extermely twitchy coming out of the Bus Stop chicane & into La Source hairpin (where Hill ran very wide), which would have given Ralf a run at Hill going down the long straight to Les Coombes...if the team didn't order them to hold position.

That is why I feel robbed by the team orders & the Jordan 1-2 result IMO is illegal, bearing in mind my previous post. Simply because we didn't get to see the battle between the Jordan drivers develop.

If team orders weren't applied & Hill still managed (somehow) to hold off Ralf given all of the above, I for one, would have rated Hill in a much higher regard as a result.

It was a Jordan 1-2. A Jordan 1-2. A 1-2. For Jordan.

Of all the results to take issue with like...

shinji wrote:It was a Jordan 1-2. A Jordan 1-2. A 1-2. For Jordan.

Of all the results to take issue with like...

That's why its an unpopular F1 opinion.

I do understand why the FIA didn't penalise Jordan in Spa 1998 (i.e. because it was good for F1 that a Jordan finally won a GP etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

ibsey wrote:

shinji wrote:It was a Jordan 1-2. A Jordan 1-2. A 1-2. For Jordan.

Of all the results to take issue with like...

That's why its an unpopular F1 opinion.

I do understand why the FIA didn't penalise Jordan in Spa 1998 (i.e. because it was good for F1 that a Jordan finally won a GP etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

I get that.

I'm just blinkered I guess.

There was no penalty either for Ferrari in Austria 1998. Ferrari stated that Irvine had brake problems towards the end of the race, as Schumacher went past him. McLaren also asked drivers to hold position in Germany 1998 after Häkkinen had some minor problems.

ibsey wrote:

shinji wrote:It was a Jordan 1-2. A Jordan 1-2. A 1-2. For Jordan.

Of all the results to take issue with like...

That's why its an unpopular F1 opinion.

I do understand why the FIA didn't penalise Jordan in Spa 1998 (i.e. because it was good for F1 that a Jordan finally won a GP etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Reasons why they didn't penalise it probably include (irrelevant of whether it was right or wrong):

a) There probably would have been a massive public outcry against what was a very popular result.
b) It had no baring on the championship.

i.e. common sense prevailed over the rule book

ibsey wrote:at the time the use of team orders were banned in light of Mclaren swaping their drivers around in Australia 1998.

If I recall correctly the driver swap wasnt team orders, Coulthardt let Mika past because they had a gentleman agreement that whoever got into the first corner first would finish first, and Mika was behind him only because there was a mixup in Mikas pitstop.

Atleast thats how David and Mika wants us to believe.

I do not know why I like to revive old boards like this.

This quote comes from Ibsey from the "What If?" thread:

ibsey wrote:There's a great story on this [Italy 1988] incident, that apparently once Alain Prost realised he was going to have to retire from that race (due to engine probs), he basically pushed Senna hard, forcing him to use more fuel, hence the reason Senna was marginal at the end. Here's the full story

"My favourite Alain Prost story, the one that I feel sums up his tactical genius more than any other, surrounds the Italian GP at Monza in 1988. Prost and Senna are locked in an intense championship battle that is between them alone - a McLaren in-house affair. It is late in the season and they can indulge themselves in the races because there is no 3rd party threat - they will finish 1-2 in the championship no matter what. Prost is following Senna closely in the early stages when Alain realizes that he has an engine problem that will surely prove terminal – realizes with certainty that he will not last the race. Knowing this, and knowing Senna’s ego and his need to prove he’s fastest, Prost decides to drive 11/10th’s and push Senna hard, setting fastest lap after fastest lap. Senna takes the bait, and increases his pace to match Prost and maintain or increase his gap. Prost however, is deliberately driving at such a pace as to put himself the wrong side of his fuel reading, leaving him not enough to finish the race. He is making Senna do the same. Now if Senna had really thought about it, he would have realized that Prost simply does not do things like that, that’s he’s too great a thinker to miscalculate his fuel supply. Senna takes the bait however, thinks only of proving he can match Prost’s challenge, be as fast, stay ahead. Half way through the race, Prost duly drops out with engine failure, and the damage to Senna is done. In the late stages he is so marginal on fuel that he’s had to cut back dramatically, and the Ferraris are now breathing down his neck. Senna feels a desperate need to get by a rookie in traffic at a risky place, they collide, and his race is over. It was a long shot on Prost’s part, but his actions did, in the end, have a compromising effect on Senna’s race, even long after Prost had dropped out.

Sitting in our armchairs analyzing this it seems very logical, but to think something like this through in the midst of a race at 180 m.p.h. speaks of a level of genius equal to that which Senna was so much more readily appreciated for. It is a different, more subtle kind of genius in Prost’s case. Those who fail to appreciate Prost as a "racer" are missing the degree to which racing is chess, and not merely an athletic exercise."


Source is http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/ramble5.htm

I also heard Prost tried that same trick at Monaco 1988 (causing Senna to crash, when attempting to beat Prost's fastest lap). IMO these are great example of Prost's (perhaps unappreciated) genius.

BOOM!
Which is why Prost will always beat Senna.

Interesting note: My spell checker says "Prost" is a misspelling... but not "Senna." Hmm

For me, you can't really tell if Senna was better than Prost or otherwise. They were absolutely complementary in their ways to approach racing; if you take their strong points and create a racing driver mashing them together you'll have the perfect racing driver. This is probably not an unpopular opinion, but I stopped saying "Senna is better" because of this.

The 2.4L V8s that the Formula One cars use now sound better than the highest-revving V10s in 2005. The V10s only sounded good during the early 1990s, when they were limited in rev range.

I really do not care for the proposed V6 engines for 2014. Really? First we go from V12's in 2001 to V6 today? (Or something like that) I doubt 24 cars would make a huge environmental impact.

JeremyMcClean wrote:V12's in 2001

Huh?

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:

JeremyMcClean wrote:V12's in 2001

Huh?

Were it not for the regulations outlawing it, we could have seen a V12 engined car on the grid in 2001 - Toyota had originally designed their car around a V12 engine, only for the FIA to mandate a V10 engine. That's part of the reason why the TF101 ended up being used as a test car instead - because it was too late to produce a new engine and redesign the car around that.

Still, it's true that the cars do not have a significant direct impact on the environment - the worst culprits are the fleet of cargo aircraft that the teams use, and the highly energy intensive wind tunnels and CFD server farms that they use designing the cars. The cars themselves only make up a few percent of the emissions of the sport, so any change to the engine regulations to encourage efficiency is relatively symbolic - especially since the current V8 engines are actually quite efficient for what they are.
But, after all, "greenwash" is a lot easier to adopt to present a more friendly face to the world, compared to what would actually make an impact - after all, the amount of money being spent on Formula 1 drivetrain technology is a drop in the ocean compared to what the major manufacturers spend on Research and Development for the wider automotive world.