Grand Prix Rejects

Yeah, all of the earlier ones can largely be discounted due to the vast improvements that have been made to the circuit in modern times. The GP loop is tricky and arguably not up to standard, but in terms of facilities, standards and everything else, Brands is comfortably the number two circuit in the UK now Donington has been dug up.

With the exception of his attempt on Sunday to make a new flavour of sauce called 'Essence Of Rubens' I think MSC is doing a good job. I think the critics on the whole are being too harsh on his results and some in particular are using this as an opportunity to settle old scores (Coulthard! We get it! You're still annoyed that MSC beat you several times! Get over it, so did alot of drivers!).

I think his performance should be measured against the average rookie performance, and in that context he's doing pretty good. No testing, a team that rightly focused on last year, a three year absence, new to the team and racing against a bunch of kids who've all been at it for years. Whats the best result you'd expect for a new driver? Score some points? There you are then.

I was never a MSC fan and Im not one now but Im getting bored of all the MSC-bashing, it seems agenda driven and rather blinkered.

coops wrote:With the exception of his attempt on Sunday to make a new flavour of sauce called 'Essence Of Rubens' I think MSC is doing a good job. I think the critics on the whole are being too harsh on his results and some in particular are using this as an opportunity to settle old scores (Coulthard! We get it! You're still annoyed that MSC beat you several times! Get over it, so did alot of drivers!).

I think his performance should be measured against the average rookie performance, and in that context he's doing pretty good. No testing, a team that rightly focused on last year, a three year absence, new to the team and racing against a bunch of kids who've all been at it for years. Whats the best result you'd expect for a new driver? Score some points? There you are then.

I was never a MSC fan and Im not one now but Im getting bored of all the MSC-bashing, it seems agenda driven and rather blinkered.

Actually, you need to compare Schumi against De La Rosa, and not a rookie driver. In that context Schumi hasn't done that badly, even though he is in a far superior car to pedro.

But Lauda he ain't. Three years gone, third race of the season and a Win.

DonTirri wrote:But Lauda he ain't. Three years gone, third race of the season and a Win.

Thats a better comparison although Id argue the 83 and 84 McLaren were in a different league to the 2010 Mercedes.

coops wrote:

DonTirri wrote:But Lauda he ain't. Three years gone, third race of the season and a Win.

Thats a better comparison although Id argue the 83 and 84 McLaren were in a different league to the 2010 Mercedes.

My argument that MSC is having a bad comeback is that he is nowhere near Nico Rosberg. I'll agree that some of the critisim is harsh and that if he wanted to return then he made the right decision in coming back but on sheer performance I think he has been poor.

coops wrote:

DonTirri wrote:But Lauda he ain't. Three years gone, third race of the season and a Win.

Thats a better comparison although Id argue the 83 and 84 McLaren were in a different league to the 2010 Mercedes.

And Lauda had sort of walked off half-way through his career before, hadn't he? Schumacher had sort of reached a conclusion I think.

DonTirri wrote:But Lauda he ain't. Three years gone, third race of the season and a Win.

Lauda was 33 when he returned in 1982. Not exactly a fine comparison. While testing may have had a determining factor, Schumi is 41, and he doesn't have the energies of before, I think.

Phoenix wrote: While testing may have had a determining factor, Schumi is 41, and he doesn't have the energies of before, I think.

The 1994 Williams was a good but not great car and yet it enabled a similary aged Mansell to be very competative and pick up a lucky-ish win. Lets not mince words, the Mercedes isnt good enough to win races. So you cannot expect a driver, whoever it is, to win races. If he were in a Ferrari which seems, like the FW15, to be pretty good but far from all-conquering he would probably achieve similar results to Mansell. Who looked a little bit over weight in '94 too.

coops wrote:

Phoenix wrote: While testing may have had a determining factor, Schumi is 41, and he doesn't have the energies of before, I think.

The 1994 Williams was a good but not great car and yet it enabled a similary aged Mansell to be very competative and pick up a lucky-ish win. Lets not mince words, the Mercedes isnt good enough to win races. So you cannot expect a driver, whoever it is, to win races. If he were in a Ferrari which seems, like the FW15, to be pretty good but far from all-conquering he would probably achieve similar results to Mansell. Who looked a little bit over weight in '94 too.

Sticking to comparisons, it'd be best to compare Schumacher with Mansell, but in 1995, since the McLaren MP4-10 was equally as mediocre as the Merc. Mansell did 2 horrible races before bowing out for good. With the competitivity of the MGP W01, he can't win a race on merit, but he's being completely bashed by Rosberg, his team-mate that only has a couple of podiums next to his name.
What I think is, it's OK if the guy stays to have some fun, but at his age, he's not going anywhere performance-wise.

Phoenix wrote:Sticking to comparisons, it'd be best to compare Schumacher with Mansell, but in 1995.

I seem to remember similar amounts of expectation, there was much talk about 'the three Ms' - Mansell, McLaren and Mercedes, how could this combination fail?

The car looked bloody awful, too.

coops wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Sticking to comparisons, it'd be best to compare Schumacher with Mansell, but in 1995.

I seem to remember similar amounts of expectation, there was much talk about 'the three Ms' - Mansell, McLaren and Mercedes, how could this combination fail?

The car looked bloody awful, too.

All 3 Ms were over-hyped: everyone expected them to be all-conquering because they were big names and were all coupled together, but the fact was, Mansell was past his best, McLaren produced a garishly ugly and uncompetitive chassis and Mercedes was still new in F1, so it was always going to be difficult and unlikely that they produced an engine stronger than Renault. People have the habit of judging things basing their judgements on previous achievements, often overlooking other relevant facts.

Brands Hatch is stupidly dangerous, and would receive damning criticism were it anywhere else in the world - and I am saying this as someone who lives in (and loves) Britain.

Some 7 or 8 years ago, former World Superbike Champion Niel Hodgson described the track as a deathtrap for riders, that would only get changed once him or another top rider got killed there. Just last April, Hodgson's career ended in...Brands Hatch, after a horrific crash. Not to mention that a couple of years ago, top World Supersport rider Craig Jones died there as well.

That place needs urgent refurbishment before more people get killed.

CarlosFerreira wrote:Brands Hatch is stupidly dangerous, and would receive damning criticism were it anywhere else in the world - and I am saying this as someone who lives in (and loves) Britain.

Some 7 or 8 years ago, former World Superbike Champion Niel Hodgson described the track as a deathtrap for riders, that would only get changed once him or another top rider got killed there. Just last April, Hodgson's career ended in...Brands Hatch, after a horrific crash. Not to mention that a couple of years ago, top World Supersport rider Craig Jones died there as well.

That place needs urgent refurbishment before more people get killed.

I agree - we've had Surtees killed due to the fact that the gravel traps are too small, and couldn't contain all of the debris off the track, and we had a serious accident in the Superleague Formula race, which left Van Der Drift with broken ribs, a broken ankle, and several other serious injuries.
It isn't just the drivers who are in danger either - we saw how a car could be thrown into the woodland surrounding the track during the Seat Cup race; considering how the car cartwheeled, and shed bits of bodywork, it was a miracle that none of the marshalls were not killed or seriously injured (and their safety needs to be considered as much as the drivers).

Much as people have fond memories of the track - particularly from the rounds of the European GP which were held there - there have been enough serious accidents and near misses to emphasise that they have to either improve the crash protection zones, or severely limit the use of the track to much slower vehicles.

mario wrote:It isn't just the drivers who are in danger either - we saw how a car could be thrown into the woodland surrounding the track during the Seat Cup race; considering how the car cartwheeled, and shed bits of bodywork, it was a miracle that none of the marshalls were not killed or seriously injured (and their safety needs to be considered as much as the drivers).

Exactly. Horrific dynamics, and it's a chilling scene to see the Marshalls literally running for their lives. One of the chaps, had he been (understandably) petrified when the crash happened, he'd have been hit by a tumbling Leon head on, and this discussion would be even more sad.

mario wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:Brands Hatch is stupidly dangerous, and would receive damning criticism were it anywhere else in the world - and I am saying this as someone who lives in (and loves) Britain.

Some 7 or 8 years ago, former World Superbike Champion Niel Hodgson described the track as a deathtrap for riders, that would only get changed once him or another top rider got killed there. Just last April, Hodgson's career ended in...Brands Hatch, after a horrific crash. Not to mention that a couple of years ago, top World Supersport rider Craig Jones died there as well.

That place needs urgent refurbishment before more people get killed.

I agree - we've had Surtees killed due to the fact that the gravel traps are too small, and couldn't contain all of the debris off the track, and we had a serious accident in the Superleague Formula race, which left Van Der Drift with broken ribs, a broken ankle, and several other serious injuries.
It isn't just the drivers who are in danger either - we saw how a car could be thrown into the woodland surrounding the track during the Seat Cup race; considering how the car cartwheeled, and shed bits of bodywork, it was a miracle that none of the marshalls were not killed or seriously injured (and their safety needs to be considered as much as the drivers).

Much as people have fond memories of the track - particularly from the rounds of the European GP which were held there - there have been enough serious accidents and near misses to emphasise that they have to either improve the crash protection zones, or severely limit the use of the track to much slower vehicles.

Blimey Carlos will you be wanting to stop the TT or NW 200 next.
With reard to Surtees accident, the errant car hit the barrier halfway between Westfield & Dingle Dell. The wheel hit the Armco & bounced back across the track & probably would have done so, gravel trap or not. It was a freak accident & may have happened anywhere. It could be argued that the Westfield gravel trap should be extended further & I do not know why this has not happened. An accident at the same point ended Jonny Cecotto's career in 1984. Or to be disingenuous we could have 100yd wide gravel traps all round both sides of the track & watch Scalextric.
On the weekend of the Hungarian GP there were a No of serious accidents in junior formulae & I wonder what correspondent's opinion is of those tracks.
I for one am glad that Brands retains it's challenging nature, competitors seem to like it that way & know the risks. (Although some improvements are overdue). Motor racing is dangerous & as Sir Stirling has said, would we want it any other way?

eagleash wrote:Blimey Carlos will you be wanting to stop the TT or NW 200 next.

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't close the Paris-Dakar to bikes (as has been suggested) either, or the Macau race, or those horrid tracks American Superbikes race on. But the point of a race track is it's supposed to be a safer, more controlled environment. Drivers attack any corner in Brands (and each other...) just as they attack a corner in Silverstone - but they are a lot less safe. Remember how everyone screamed after Daijiro Kato died in Suzuka, and the track ended up being changed?

I love the Brands layout, proper pukka racetrack, but it can be improved immensely by larger runoff areas.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eagleash wrote:Blimey Carlos will you be wanting to stop the TT or NW 200 next.

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't close the Paris-Dakar to bikes (as has been suggested) either, or the Macau race, or those horrid tracks American Superbikes race on. But the point of a race track is it's supposed to be a safer, more controlled environment. Drivers attack any corner in Brands (and each other...) just as they attack a corner in Silverstone - but they are a lot less safe. Remember how everyone screamed after Daijiro Kato died in Suzuka, and the track ended up being changed?

I love the Brands layout, proper pukka racetrack, but it can be improved immensely by larger runoff areas.

So could Monaco...oh no wait...it couldn't.

It could be argued that a safer, more controlled environment is one reason why race tracks were developed & led to the demise of many of the great road circuits. But it should also be challenging & demanding of the drivers. Too much emphasis on safety will lose the sport some of it's appeal.

eagleash wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eagleash wrote:Blimey Carlos will you be wanting to stop the TT or NW 200 next.

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't close the Paris-Dakar to bikes (as has been suggested) either, or the Macau race, or those horrid tracks American Superbikes race on. But the point of a race track is it's supposed to be a safer, more controlled environment. Drivers attack any corner in Brands (and each other...) just as they attack a corner in Silverstone - but they are a lot less safe. Remember how everyone screamed after Daijiro Kato died in Suzuka, and the track ended up being changed?

I love the Brands layout, proper pukka racetrack, but it can be improved immensely by larger runoff areas.

So could Monaco...oh no wait...it couldn't.

It could be argued that a safer, more controlled environment is one reason why race tracks were developed & led to the demise of many of the great road circuits. But it should also be challenging & demanding of the drivers. Too much emphasis on safety will lose the sport some of it's appeal.

Too little emphasis though and it could end up being diluted beyond all recognition. It's hardly a coincidence that so many bad accidents have happened at Brands, it should be looked into at least.

eagleash wrote:It could be argued that a safer, more controlled environment is one reason why race tracks were developed & led to the demise of many of the great road circuits. But it should also be challenging & demanding of the drivers. Too much emphasis on safety will lose the sport some of it's appeal.

Keep the layout, double the kitty litter. I like the thrills and spills of a proper racetrack, but can't reconcile that with the idea of young men getting killed for nothing.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eagleash wrote:It could be argued that a safer, more controlled environment is one reason why race tracks were developed & led to the demise of many of the great road circuits. But it should also be challenging & demanding of the drivers. Too much emphasis on safety will lose the sport some of it's appeal.

Keep the layout, double the kitty litter. I like the thrills and spills of a proper racetrack, but can't reconcile that with the idea of young men getting killed for nothing.

It is astonishing to me how safe it has become since I first watched. I suppose one of the reasons why the sport was so attractive to adrenaline fuelled young men (both to watch & participate) was the heroism involved in hurling an incendiary bomb, made of cardboard at the scenery at up to 200 MPH for an hour or too. Some of that appeal has been lost. Although that is not necessarily a bad thing. But I must admit to disliking huge run off areas where (to misquote the maestro again) there is no true penalty for an error. "Might lose a tenth or two so go for it!!!"

eagleash wrote:It is astonishing to me how safe it has become since I first watched. I suppose one of the reasons why the sport was so attractive to adrenaline fuelled young men (both to watch & participate) was the heroism involved in hurling an incendiary bomb, made of cardboard at the scenery at up to 200 MPH for an hour or too. Some of that appeal has been lost. Although that is not necessarily a bad thing. But I must admit to disliking huge run off areas where (to misquote the maestro again) there is no true penalty for an error. "Might lose a tenth or two so go for it!!!"

That's proper perspective there, that's for sure. Much as Brands is flawed, it was much worse not that long ago. Still could do with a lot of improvement, whatever way you look at it - you were deprived of a few more years of Moss, after all.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eagleash wrote:It is astonishing to me how safe it has become since I first watched. I suppose one of the reasons why the sport was so attractive to adrenaline fuelled young men (both to watch & participate) was the heroism involved in hurling an incendiary bomb, made of cardboard at the scenery at up to 200 MPH for an hour or too. Some of that appeal has been lost. Although that is not necessarily a bad thing. But I must admit to disliking huge run off areas where (to misquote the maestro again) there is no true penalty for an error. "Might lose a tenth or two so go for it!!!"

That's proper perspective there, that's for sure. Much as Brands is flawed, it was much worse not that long ago. Still could do with a lot of improvement, whatever way you look at it - you were deprived of a few more years of Moss, after all.

Yes but his accident was at Goodwood & the car went quite a way till it hit the bank, but gravel & a selt belt might have saved him from the head injury.

eagleash wrote:

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eagleash wrote:Blimey Carlos will you be wanting to stop the TT or NW 200 next.

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't close the Paris-Dakar to bikes (as has been suggested) either, or the Macau race, or those horrid tracks American Superbikes race on. But the point of a race track is it's supposed to be a safer, more controlled environment. Drivers attack any corner in Brands (and each other...) just as they attack a corner in Silverstone - but they are a lot less safe. Remember how everyone screamed after Daijiro Kato died in Suzuka, and the track ended up being changed?

I love the Brands layout, proper pukka racetrack, but it can be improved immensely by larger runoff areas.

So could Monaco...oh no wait...it couldn't.

It could be argued that a safer, more controlled environment is one reason why race tracks were developed & led to the demise of many of the great road circuits. But it should also be challenging & demanding of the drivers. Too much emphasis on safety will lose the sport some of it's appeal.

Except at places like Monaco, they have been looking into different barriers (such as the TecPro system, which is designed to absorb more energy, and should prevent cars going underneath, as sometimes happens with the tyre barriers).
Yes, I can appreciate the argument that some, like Moss, have made, which insist that there will always be some inherent danger, and that it is part of the attraction of the sport. But what is perhaps less acceptable is when that danger extends to those who support those who have to deal with what happens when somebody runs out of track. As I pointed out, the safety of the marshalls has to also be considered, and at the moment, you could argue that they are not adequately protected (those low barriers make it easy for flying debris, or even vehicles, to end up on the wrong side of a barrier - after all, we had a near miss at the Chinese GP during the practise sessions when Toro Rosso's lightweight suspension proved inadequate for the job, and a camera man was nearly hit by an errant wheel where the barriers had been lowered).

No, I don't want the circuit to be ruined completely, and in reality it doesn't need the very large run off areas which F1 grade circuits have used recently (although places like Abu Dhabi have shown that you don't necessarily need massive tarmac areas if you can develop a way of stopping a car safely in a shorter distance, such as with the high friction run off areas (as used at Paul Ricard during Endurance Racing - and also have the advantage of discouraging drivers from cutting the corners too much, as it increases the tyre wear markedly)).

But there are some measures which could be taken which would be sensible, and yet improve safety for those involved - such as higher barriers to prevent debris leaving the track, better energy absorbing barriers to slow a car down, and a small increase in the distance from the edge of the track to the barriers (not hundreds of metres, because the marshalls need to be able to get to the site of an accident as quickly as possible, as well as for the benefit of the viewing public, but perhaps 20m, say, would be more acceptable).

Most of the recent major accidents at Brands Hatch have only happened on the GP loop, not on the Indy section of track. Cars are regularly running wide/off at Paddock Hill Bend (hence why this is one of the most popular spectator viewing areas). It is only the Grand Prix loop that needs slowing down/widening/abandoning a la Hockenheim's forest section.

dr-baker wrote:Most of the recent major accidents at Brands Hatch have only happened on the GP loop, not on the Indy section of track. Cars are regularly running wide/off at Paddock Hill Bend (hence why this is one of the most popular spectator viewing areas). It is only the Grand Prix loop that needs slowing down/widening/abandoning a la Hockenheim's forest section.

The GP loop really is quite quick with straights, fast bends at Hawthorn & Westfield & drops & climbs at Pilgrims & Dingle Dell. Only Sheene (or whatever it's called now) & Stirlings intervene before Clearways leads into the sort of "mini-Paddock" at Clark curve where the A1GP (for example) cars twitched alarmingly when viewed from the helipad before dropping down in front of you. Some improvement is needed to the GP loop but I would hate to lose it &/or find it emasculated in the name of safety. But as discussed in another thread plans have been mooted to build a new GP extension on land owned to the north of the current circuit. This would also take the circuit away from the housing estate close to Clearways which has brought about the restrictions on "noisy running".

eagleash wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Most of the recent major accidents at Brands Hatch have only happened on the GP loop, not on the Indy section of track. Cars are regularly running wide/off at Paddock Hill Bend (hence why this is one of the most popular spectator viewing areas). It is only the Grand Prix loop that needs slowing down/widening/abandoning a la Hockenheim's forest section.

The GP loop really is quite quick with straights, fast bends at Hawthorn & Westfield & drops & climbs at Pilgrims & Dingle Dell. Only Sheene (or whatever it's called now) & Stirlings intervene before Clearways leads into the sort of "mini-Paddock" at Clark curve where the A1GP (for example) cars twitched alarmingly when viewed from the helipad before dropping down in front of you. Some improvement is needed to the GP loop but I would hate to lose it &/or find it emasculated in the name of safety. But as discussed in another thread plans have been mooted to build a new GP extension on land owned to the north of the current circuit. This would also take the circuit away from the housing estate close to Clearways which has brought about the restrictions on "noisy running".

I agree that changes to the Grand Prix loop would be a catastrophe but it is the least safe part, partly because of the high speed through Pilgrim's Drop and that whole straight. But I haven't heard of anything before of this new proposed GP extension (even though I thought I read all the threads - although I remember making some suggestions that might work, but was entirely out from my own head...).

dr-baker wrote:

eagleash wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Most of the recent major accidents at Brands Hatch have only happened on the GP loop, not on the Indy section of track. Cars are regularly running wide/off at Paddock Hill Bend (hence why this is one of the most popular spectator viewing areas). It is only the Grand Prix loop that needs slowing down/widening/abandoning a la Hockenheim's forest section.

The GP loop really is quite quick with straights, fast bends at Hawthorn & Westfield & drops & climbs at Pilgrims & Dingle Dell. Only Sheene (or whatever it's called now) & Stirlings intervene before Clearways leads into the sort of "mini-Paddock" at Clark curve where the A1GP (for example) cars twitched alarmingly when viewed from the helipad before dropping down in front of you. Some improvement is needed to the GP loop but I would hate to lose it &/or find it emasculated in the name of safety. But as discussed in another thread plans have been mooted to build a new GP extension on land owned to the north of the current circuit. This would also take the circuit away from the housing estate close to Clearways which has brought about the restrictions on "noisy running".

I agree that changes to the Grand Prix loop would be a catastrophe but it is the least safe part, partly because of the high speed through Pilgrim's Drop and that whole straight. But I haven't heard of anything before of this new proposed GP extension (even though I thought I read all the threads - although I remember making some suggestions that might work, but was entirely out from my own head...).

I brought it up in the "Moving Euro GP" thread. I cannot remember where I first saw it but it was something Jonathon Palmer was talking about. I'll try & find it. There is a huge amount of land which I understand is owned by BH extending as far as the M25 "cutting", Ie the other side of Scratchers Lane. GP parking in the 80s was on the North side of "Scratchers". (& chaos it was too!)

Something that's been annoying me lately is the tendency of some people on motorsport forums (this isn't intended as a dig at anyone here, by the way) to weigh into debates on driving styles, racing incidents, overtaking manoeuvres etc. with comments along the lines of "I can go faster than x real life lap in my y game on z console", "I'm surprised he lost it there, I was driving on this track on x game yesterday and it's not bumpy at all", and so on. I know video games are more realistic than they've ever been before, but they still don't compare to the real thing by a long chalk. Hell, even the F1 teams' simulators are still nowhere near as useful to a driver than an equivalent time actually testing on the real track. Video game experience doesn't make you a circuit or driving expert!

I do not really know where to put this, so I'll have it here

Ralf Schumacher shows compassion to his brother (Google translated German news article)

It says a lot about your F1 comeback if your brother, who (admittedly) struggles in DTM pities you.

Klon wrote:I do not really know where to put this, so I'll have it here

Ralf Schumacher shows compassion to his brother (Google translated German news article)

It says a lot about your F1 comeback if your brother, who (admittedly) struggles in DTM pities you.

If his brother doesn't show compassion for him, then who will?

Phoenix wrote:

Klon wrote:I do not really know where to put this, so I'll have it here

Ralf Schumacher shows compassion to his brother (Google translated German news article)

It says a lot about your F1 comeback if your brother, who (admittedly) struggles in DTM pities you.

If his brother doesn't show compassion for him, then who will?

He has a repertoire only a brother could love.

midgrid wrote:Something that's been annoying me lately is the tendency of some people on motorsport forums (this isn't intended as a dig at anyone here, by the way) to weigh into debates on driving styles, racing incidents, overtaking manoeuvres etc. with comments along the lines of "I can go faster than x real life lap in my y game on z console", "I'm surprised he lost it there, I was driving on this track on x game yesterday and it's not bumpy at all", and so on. I know video games are more realistic than they've ever been before, but they still don't compare to the real thing by a long chalk. Hell, even the F1 teams' simulators are still nowhere near as useful to a driver than an equivalent time actually testing on the real track. Video game experience doesn't make you a circuit or driving expert!

Playing realistic video games does teach you a thing or two about driving a car, though.

You are referring to other motorsport forums. I've been on a few and this one is the creme de la creme. Seriously.

No-one reads my damn threads.

kostas22 wrote:No-one reads my damn threads.

I do. And I use them as a potty training for my (hopefully) future job.

kostas22 wrote:No-one reads my damn threads.

Yeah we do!!

kostas22 wrote:No-one reads my damn threads.

I've read every post in this forum. Every. Last. One. Just because I read it doesn't mean I have a comment or that I care.

thehemogoblin wrote:

kostas22 wrote:No-one reads my damn threads.

I've read every post in this forum. Every. Last. One. Just because I read it doesn't mean I have a comment or that I care.

You're saying you don't care about Alex Katajamäki?

Phoenix wrote:

thehemogoblin wrote:

kostas22 wrote:No-one reads my damn threads.

I've read every post in this forum. Every. Last. One. Just because I read it doesn't mean I have a comment or that I care.

You're saying you don't care about Alex Katajamäki?

With the exception of aerond's posts, I don't really like the mock career threads. That's why I seldom comment on them. They just don't interest me.

thehemogoblin wrote:With the exception of aerond's posts, I don't really like the mock career threads. That's why I seldom comment on them. They just don't interest me.

Hell, i mostly dont even read them "mark all threads as read" on J-D Deletraz forum is almost a daily routine for me