Grand Prix Rejects

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10057890/gene-haas-reckons-his-new-teams-2016-chassis-design-is-better-than-ferraris

This Haas guy is really claiming that his team will go strong, very strong, or later he will claim that they will claim title in the first year. That sounded either over-confident, arrogance, or the not-yet-known truth. Pheww

AxelP800 wrote:http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10057890/gene-haas-reckons-his-new-teams-2016-chassis-design-is-better-than-ferraris

This Haas guy is really claiming that his team will go strong, very strong, or later he will claim that they will claim title in the first year. That sounded either over-confident, arrogance, or the not-yet-known truth. Pheww

I think Gene is fishing for sponsors...or somehow knows the 2016 Ferrari chassis is a complete disaster!

Either that, or he's a tad delusional, and should probably leave all the interviews to Günther Steiner, who has been sensible with his comments thus far.

That really does throw a spanner in the works PR-wise. Steiner has spent all this time talking about how just getting some points finishes on the board in 2016 is the aim. This was a sensible goal. But being better than Ferrari would suddenly vault them into instant championship contenders territory, which is utter lunacy. And yes, that is the very clear and obvious implication here - with the same engine as Ferrari, and stating their chassis will have a better design than the works car, he's either fishing for more sponsor cash, is lining up Dallara as a scapegoat for underwhelming results, or just losing his mind.

I don't believe Gene Haas is a delusional fellow. He is one of the best team owners currently running in NASCAR, by doing the same thing he's doing with his Haas F1 team - linking up with an existing powerhouse of the sport (Hendrick in NASCAR). Which is exactly what makes these comments so bizarre - they have overtones of a madman, yet are coming from someone with a track record of success from the approach he is attempting with F1.

I don't get it, Gene. What are you up to here?

AxelP800 wrote:http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10057890/gene-haas-reckons-his-new-teams-2016-chassis-design-is-better-than-ferraris

This Haas guy is really claiming that his team will go strong, very strong, or later he will claim that they will claim title in the first year. That sounded either over-confident, arrogance, or the not-yet-known truth. Pheww

Shades of Craig Cod ca. 1999, if you ask me...

Waris wrote:

AxelP800 wrote:http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10057890/gene-haas-reckons-his-new-teams-2016-chassis-design-is-better-than-ferraris

This Haas guy is really claiming that his team will go strong, very strong, or later he will claim that they will claim title in the first year. That sounded either over-confident, arrogance, or the not-yet-known truth. Pheww

Shades of Craig Cod ca. 1999, if you ask me...

At least he could be forgiven for thinking big given that he had Reynard - a manufacturer that had enjoyed instant success in virtually every series it launched in - behind him at the time, along with virtually a blank cheque for the team.

As others have said, those comments are a very strange about turn in attitude given the attitude of the team in the past. Previously, Haas had spoken in much more modest terms and been at pains to play down expectations - talking about how he was focussing on just surviving the first five years and discussing how he was focussing on gradually building the team up over an extended period of time, with the idea of regular points finishes being several years down the line.

Now, though, this about change represents a surprisingly optimistic and aggressive pitch - as Biscione says, it's hard to see what Haas is hoping to gain from this given that those comments are almost certainly going to backfire on him.

Given that they are using as much of the Ferrari design as they can (engine, transmission, suspension), if they were to be a title contender I'd struggle to believe it is down to the Haas team's ability.

The idea that they're going "totally unconventional" on the aero will probably mean "crap" too. There's a reason why every F1 car looks fairly similar.

Most recent attempt to be total non-conventional in motorsport was Nissan GTR-LM LMP1 at this year's Le Mans.... Yeah that was successful!

Fetzie wrote:There's a reason why every F1 car looks fairly similar.

The reason being (at least nowadays) that the rulebook dictates how every millimeter of the car should look like, though...

novitopoli wrote:

Fetzie wrote:There's a reason why every F1 car looks fairly similar.

The reason being (at least nowadays) that the rulebook dictates how every millimeter of the car should look like, though...

Whilst the regulations do increase uniformity, we have still seen instances where teams have tried unconventional designs - remember the L shaped sidepods of the McLaren MP4/26 back in 2011?

To a certain extent, there does seem to be a certain "follow the leader" approach to competing in F1 - when it is clear that a particular team is able to efficiently exploit a particular design philosophy, other teams will instinctively tend to follow that design path given that they can see it offers a clear advantage.

A good example would be the way that teams would copy elements of the exhaust blown diffusers from other cars a few years ago, or the way that some teams are beginning to mimic the design of Mercedes's front wings in the past couple of years. Even in times when the regulations were more open, we have seen times when teams would just outright copy other teams (such as the Lotus 79 spawning imitators like Tyrrell's 009 or the Williams FW07, with varying degrees of success) when it became clear that somebody had discovered something new that offered a competitive advantage.

As sswishbone points out, going for an unconventional design is a high risk option at times - whilst it can sometimes pay great dividends, there have been instances where it has also backfired. We saw something of that in 2014, as Ferrari took a number of unusually risky design decisions during development of the SF-14T - and we saw how many of those decisions ended up backfiring on the team.

Red Bull are allegedly on the brink of a new deal to continue using Renault engines next year. This would entail a reduction in sponsorship income from Infiniti and Total, with the brands disappearing from the car from 2017 onward. It's also possible that the power unit itself will be rebranded next year. However, all of this hinges on whether or not Mateschitz gives the green light for this deal to go ahead.

In more predictable news, Stoffel Vandoorne will be McLaren's reserve driver next season.

On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

And who was the last person before Andretti? It must be the late 70s doldrums prior to Ron Dennis' entrance! Or was it Gilles Villeneuve in nineteen-seventy-bloody-six??!

My point being, is it really any surprise that McLaren aren't giving Stoffel seat time?

AndreaModa wrote:On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

Uh, Lewis Hamilton? Also, both Jan and Kevin Magnussen. Before Andretti, though, you have to look back to 1980, with both Alain Prost and Stephen South. Then 1977 with Villeneuve (as mentioned) and Bruno Giacomelli.

That's right. Bruno Giacomelli had his début with McLaren. Yeah, me neither.

tommykl wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

Uh, Lewis Hamilton? Also, both Jan and Kevin Magnussen. Before Andretti, though, you have to look back to 1980, with both Alain Prost and Stephen South. Then 1977 with Villeneuve (as mentioned) and Bruno Giacomelli.

That's right. Bruno Giacomelli had his début with McLaren. Yeah, me neither.

I did mention Hamilton, Tommy.

But Jan had slipped my mind. Still if you go from 1981 to the present day, so 34 years, and McLaren have employed a total of four rookies.

AndreaModa wrote:

tommykl wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

Uh, Lewis Hamilton? Also, both Jan and Kevin Magnussen. Before Andretti, though, you have to look back to 1980, with both Alain Prost and Stephen South. Then 1977 with Villeneuve (as mentioned) and Bruno Giacomelli.

That's right. Bruno Giacomelli had his début with McLaren. Yeah, me neither.

I did mention Hamilton, Tommy.

But Jan had slipped my mind. Still if you go from 1981 to the present day, so 34 years, and McLaren have employed a total of four rookies.

Well, Ferrari hasn't employed rookies since 1972... (not counting Villeneuve, who indeed drove his second ever race for Ferrari)

AndreaModa wrote:

tommykl wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

Uh, Lewis Hamilton? Also, both Jan and Kevin Magnussen. Before Andretti, though, you have to look back to 1980, with both Alain Prost and Stephen South. Then 1977 with Villeneuve (as mentioned) and Bruno Giacomelli.

That's right. Bruno Giacomelli had his début with McLaren. Yeah, me neither.

I did mention Hamilton, Tommy.

But Jan had slipped my mind. Still if you go from 1981 to the present day, so 34 years, and McLaren have employed a total of four rookies.

...so you did. I apologise, I've had a long, long day with little sleep to precede it.

novitopoli wrote:Well, Ferrari hasn't employed rookies since 1972... (not counting Villeneuve, who indeed drove his second ever race for Ferrari)

But Ferrari haven't had a queue of very talented and exciting rookies lining up deserving of a race seat have they? They groomed Massa, and obviously had Bianchi coming through more recently, but not to the extent of McLaren, and certainly not Red Bull. It's never been an issue for Ferrari.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this: why did McLaren initiate a young driver scheme in the mould of Red Bull when they were so unsure about ultimately signing them on to the main team? Looks like another of those decisions made at the team in recent times that wasn't thought through properly.

tommykl wrote:...so you did. I apologise, I've had a long, long day with little sleep to precede it.

No sweat dude, all's good!

FullMetalJack wrote:

Simtek wrote:In spite of recent doubts, especially since the signing of Jolyon Palmer, it appears that the Renault deal is going ahead at Lotus as Renault personnel have started working at Enstone. It also appears that Bob Bell is returning to the Enstone team.

Here's hoping they bring back this sort of livery

Last week I dreamt that Renault(nee Lotus/Renault/Benetton/Toleman) were going to run a similar livery to the 1983 car but with red nose cone sides on one car and blue on the other.... (I kept meaning to pst about this on the f1 dreams thread but forgot

Quite liked the look of the cars from that season. 2010 right?

AdrianSutil wrote:Quite liked the look of the cars from that season. 2010 right?

I didn't apart from Lotus. Renault and Virgin were good too, but I never liked the shark fin that most cars had.

Yes, it was 2010.

AndreaModa wrote:On the Stoffel news, aside from Magnussen and obviously Hamilton, when was the last time McLaren employed a rookie? Michael Andretti?

And who was the last person before Andretti? It must be the late 70s doldrums prior to Ron Dennis' entrance! Or was it Gilles Villeneuve in nineteen-seventy-bloody-six??!

My point being, is it really any surprise that McLaren aren't giving Stoffel seat time?

Does De Cesaris in '81 count? I mean despite him driving for Alfa in 1980.

NBC is reporting that this may very well be the last USGP at Austin, as the Texas budget cutting roughly $7 million from there support, plus this year's race being a total washout has left the track heavily in debt. It just wouldn't be a USGP unless it was under threat, right?

How much has the return of Mexico caused this I wonder? Sure the weather was disastrous but already Mexico is eyeing over 300,000 attendance next time out, reckon Austin just want to go 'bugger it I'm out' ?

sswishbone wrote:How much has the return of Mexico caused this I wonder? Sure the weather was disastrous but already Mexico is eyeing over 300,000 attendance next time out, reckon Austin just want to go 'bugger it I'm out' ?

I have said this from day one. Part of my job is being an event planner, and any event needs 6-6 stable years to settle in. Get that and competition will have a much harder time of it. During the first Austin weekend, a TSA agent at the airport told Will Buxton "Half of Mexico is here".

But really it seems like the perfect storm, attendance would be lower anyway due to Mexico, but Friday and Saturday were busts (not just in attendance sales, but no attendance means no concessions, merch, etc.), plus the state money, which was earmarked specifically to pay Bernie, has been cut.

Hopefully this is premature gloom and doom, but COTA seems to have taken a bath.

McLaren have lost another sponsor and it's a significant one.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121844

I'm wearing a Tag Heuer watch right now. I think I've gone off it

CoopsII wrote:McLaren have lost another sponsor and it's a significant one.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121844

I'm wearing a Tag Heuer watch right now. I think I've gone off it

Red Bull will use TAG branded engines in 2016 then, like McLaren did in the '80s. You heard it here first!

CoopsII wrote:McLaren have lost another sponsor and it's a significant one.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121844

I'm wearing a Tag Heuer watch right now. I think I've gone off it

One wonders how long McLaren can go on like this. Surely their bottom line is suffering already without a title sponsor. Once Tag is gone, who have they got left, and is that enough (plus FOM money) to run a race-winning team on?

Well Honda is paying most of their bills, so I think they'll be ok, at least in the short term.

Hilton recently re-signed until about 2020 I think. Would have thought Mobil 1 will stick around as well, and of course Honda will stump up plenty. But yes, Ron Dennis' continued stubbornness over the value of a title sponsorship is costing the team dear. Look at Williams. Cut your rate card down a bit and reap the rewards. Companies just don't want to spend big anymore, certainly not to the extent the tobacco companies were. Ron needs to remember that.

Also, on the Tag Heuer to Red Bull thing. Maybe Tag branded engines will be a thing? That would be brilliant, and tragically ironic for poor old McLaren.

Meanwhile Red Bull has partnership/sponsorship with Casio... so they will switch to McLaren?
(I'm wearing a worn-out Casio watch).

AndreaModa wrote:Hilton recently re-signed until about 2020 I think. Would have thought Mobil 1 will stick around as well, and of course Honda will stump up plenty. But yes, Ron Dennis' continued stubbornness over the value of a title sponsorship is costing the team dear. Look at Williams. Cut your rate card down a bit and reap the rewards. Companies just don't want to spend big anymore, certainly not to the extent the tobacco companies were. Ron needs to remember that.

Also, on the Tag Heuer to Red Bull thing. Maybe Tag branded engines will be a thing? That would be brilliant, and tragically ironic for poor old McLaren.

I'm afraid I've got to step in and urinate on everybody's bonfires, but Tag Heuer haven't been owned by the TAG Group since 1999, they're owned by decadence-peddlers LVMH. According to Biscione, LVMH own the Chandon brand of sparkling wines, who have just signed a partnership with McLaren. It seems that they're not completely losing the backing; what it looks like is that Tag Heuer want to find a more "contemporary" market, and Red Bull give them the platform on which to do that.

I agree with you guys on most counts though, McLaren seem to be pricing the space on their cars and other ancilliaries too high; I think the most telling thing from the past weekend and boatload of Alonso photoshops is how bare the McLaren overalls are. The technical problems can be sorted, but the rot seems to have set in elsewhere in the team.

GP3 and FR3.5 midfielder Alfonso Celis has signed on as a Force India test driver, I can only assume that some of Perez's Mexican backers are funding him.

Looking at Professor Wikipedia, I burst into laughter realising that none of the Renault-engined cars have actually been confirmed publicly for next year.

Strewth, some Aussie columnists* are saying the Sky commentators are a bunch of flaming gollahs even more than we do.

Or, to put it more succinctly: "...mate."

* Not our original overlords, mind.

That's pretty unsurprising. I'd get pretty pissed off if I was an Australian paying serious wedge for my live F1 races only to get that drivel. I wonder what Brundle makes of it all. I bet if you gave him enough beers he'd have something to say on the matter!

Having said that, I watched the '93 Brazilian GP earlier. It was Australian Channel 9 coverage, using BBC commentary. Hill had a good chance of winning in only his second race for Williams, and good old Murray and James made sure you knew about it! So really, not much has changed. It wouldn't hurt for Sky to wind their neck in a bit though.

Waris wrote:

AxelP800 wrote:http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10057890/gene-haas-reckons-his-new-teams-2016-chassis-design-is-better-than-ferraris

This Haas guy is really claiming that his team will go strong, very strong, or later he will claim that they will claim title in the first year. That sounded either over-confident, arrogance, or the not-yet-known truth. Pheww

Shades of Craig Cod ca. 1999, if you ask me...

Shades of Eric Broadley on early 1997... 'nuff said

dinizintheoven wrote:Strewth, some Aussie columnists* are saying the Sky commentators are a bunch of flaming gollahs even more than we do.

Or, to put it more succinctly: "...mate."

* Not our original overlords, mind.

I've had to resort to Sky instead of my national broadcast for a few races now...and it's been awful.

Okay I get it, I can bear them celebrating their winners, it's fine to be nationalistic and cheer for your countrymen as long as it stays respectable and civil - that's no different in the non-english speaking world. But what irks me is the amount of conspiracy theories and other social media bullshit that only seems to be part of the broadcast to reinforce the "views" of the very casual and dumb British Lewis Hamilton fan - makes watching Sky rather unbearable.

dinizintheoven wrote:Strewth, some Aussie columnists* are saying the Sky commentators are a bunch of flaming gollahs even more than we do.

Or, to put it more succinctly: "...mate."

* Not our original overlords, mind.

I don't feel like the BBC deserved the free pass they were given there. They have been equally bad. I remember at the Mexican GP, I believe it was Suzi Perry, describing Rosberg "stealing" pole away from Hamilton. This feels like suggesting that, by default, it belongs to him all season long, and anyone else who dares come first is undeserving of it. The language is very combative against anyone who dare stand in between Hamilton and first place.

Biscione wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:Strewth, some Aussie columnists* are saying the Sky commentators are a bunch of flaming gollahs even more than we do.

Or, to put it more succinctly: "...mate."

* Not our original overlords, mind.

I don't feel like the BBC deserved the free pass they were given there. They have been equally bad. I remember at the Mexican GP, I believe it was Suzi Perry, describing Rosberg "stealing" pole away from Hamilton. This feels like suggesting that, by default, it belongs to him all season long, and anyone else who dares come first is undeserving of it. The language is very combative against anyone who dare stand in between Hamilton and first place.

Yeah, from an Aussie perspective they don't get exposed to the BBC coverage, which is only better in their eyes because they're not being forced to watch it. But then again you guys know my opinion on the subject

Not to mention how dreadful Coulthard's commentary is. They'd be better off swapping him with McNish - he might not have the F1 experience, but his technical insight and input is far superior.

McNish might have a good handle on the technical side of things but he's dull as dishwater with it. Give it a couple of years and when Jenson Button is on the mic everything will be better.

AndreaModa wrote:That's pretty unsurprising. I'd get pretty pissed off if I was an Australian paying serious wedge for my live F1 races only to get that drivel. I wonder what Brundle makes of it all. I bet if you gave him enough beers he'd have something to say on the matter!

Well I mean I have Fox Sports mainly for EPL (Which is going to Optus) and International cricket. F1 is just a bonus but it is so dire that we have to listen to the crap that we get with post race/post qualifying crap. It isn't going to turn me off Fox Sports, the only thing that would is if International cricket goes.

No one really cares about the bias. Naturally if it is Finnish, it will be geared towards Kimi and Bottas. German would be the Nicos and Seb. But the fact that there is conspiracy stuff and the social media crap that another user points out, irks.