Grand Prix Rejects

Not the most interesting race, but something to consider:

Lotus - bad performance, culminating to Räikkönen's first DNF since the comeback.
Maldonado - Stupid collision
Activists - What to say?

I don't really know! I guess the Weather Forecasts will have to cop some flak simply for raising our hopes.

The Reverend - Managed to hit both Force Indias in the space of two seconds.

Sergio Perez - That was pretty silly with Grosjean, and Button had the measure of him all weekend.

DRS - Far too easy to make passes today.

Greenpeace - Go and protest something else, instead of trying to ruin the race for the spectators.

But ROTR must go to:

Kimi Raikkonen's brakes - Ruined his chance of overhauling Quick Nick's finishing record.

Sutil - For having a hissy fit twice when Gutierrez dared to challenge him up to Eau Rouge and doing his best to shove him off the first time, and for being the real cause of the Maldonado / Di Resta incident. It amazes me that people call Vettel arrogant when this ****wit is around.

Honourable mention to the Stewards for getting 3 decisions wrong (Perez, Maldonado and Gutierrez) and to Lotus for being so poor.

East Londoner wrote:Kimi Raikkonen's brakes - Ruined his chance of overhauling Quick Nick's finishing record.

Agreed.

The Weather Forecast for giving false hopes of rain. The race was as dry as Atacama Desert.

Kimi Raikkonen's Brakes destroying the chance of record

-Kimi's brakes
-Webber's clutch
-Pasta
-Jenson for not making finger's life more difficult.
-DRS

But winner goes to;
My own swollen expectations

1: The Stewards. Again. - Gutierrez holds it around the outside of Blanchimont bravely - penalty. Pérez lightly pushed Grosjean onto the kerb, who chooses to stay there - penalty. Sutil cuts across Maldonado and forces the start of a major collision - no penalty.

2: Lotus - Too late to pit Grosjean, and brake failure for Räikkönen. That and poor qualifying = poor race.

REJECT OF THE RACE
DRS
Made overtaking too commonplace

REJECT OF THE RACE
The Spa microclimate
Was on holiday for the race

REJECT OF THE RACE
The whole field bar Vettel
Just had no answer to him

TV Directors: Its the same team that did the coverage in Saturday? Many overtakes that are showed only in replays. Almost cut the fierce battle between Gutierrez, Maldonado and Force Indias to show Kimi's interview. Too much focus in front runners again. Who Chilton blocked to get a penalty? When Gutierrez gained time in leaving the track? Was in the Maldonado incident?

Speaking in the crasher, Maldonado deserves a mention too, for causing the only collision of the race, hitting both Force India cars.

Also:

The race itself. Boring for Spa standards.
Stewards: I strongly think that Chilton's penalty was undeserved. Also, the penalty for Maldonado was a bit harsh. He already loses a lot of time in the crash, a drive through is sufficient. Also, The Hulk forced Vergne too off-track in the same point of Perez did with GRSJN and got nothing. Yeah, he didn't produces the same result, but he did the same. Massa crossed the white line in pit exit and didn't get a penalty.
Rubens Barrichello: For saying in brazilian tv coverage that the race was great.

Maldonado for me. The collision was his fault. Why was he turning right into a left handed corner? Had he just turned left to get around the corner he could have got the positions back down the Kemmel straight. Was he trying to block? It almost looked like he was trying to pit!

watka wrote:Maldonado for me. The collision was his fault. Why was he turning right into a left handed corner? Had he just turned left to get around the corner he could have got the positions back down the Kemmel straight. Was he trying to block? It almost looked like he was trying to pit!

He actually was trying to pit because Sutil chopped across him and took out a chunk of his front wing right before the crash.

Several Nominations here

Greenpeace- Oh F**k Off. Or invade the track like 2003- Might have been more interesting then.
Lotus- Bad day all round with a dnf for Kimi and Romain not making a impact (not that sort) on the race
Belgium weather- Rained on the wrong day.
The BBC- Overhyped the gp all weekend and it turned out to be a dullfest.
Sergio Perez- Daft Begger- Again was thrashed by button-
The winner is-
Pastor Maldonado- Back to his crazy best by trying to take both FI's out and succeeding with one.

Please god let Monza be better- AND NO OVERHYPING BBC!

rachel1990 wrote:Several Nominations here

Greenpeace- Oh F**k Off. Or invade the track like 2003- Might have been more interesting then.
Lotus- Bad day all round with a dnf for Kimi and Romain not making a impact (not that sort) on the race
Belgium weather- Rained on the wrong day.
The BBC- Overhyped the gp all weekend and it turned out to be a dullfest.
Sergio Perez- Daft Begger- Again was thrashed by button-
The winner is-
Pastor Maldonado- Back to his crazy best by trying to take both FI's out and succeeding with one.

Please god let Monza be better- AND NO OVERHYPING BBC!

You're obviously hoping that Red Bull don't have a 2011 there

There'll be only one nomination from me for the reject of this year's Belgian Grand Prix.

Greenpeace activists: An asinine troupe of self-aggrandizing, melodramatic, presumptuous, supercilious, impotent, putrid, parochial and Quixotic ignoramuses intent on disrupting the Grand Prix, or indeed any public event as suits their purpose without any regard to decorum and propriety, as some petty and vacuous statement on an issue which is inconsequential in the absence of an exploration of the deeper, more intractable socioeconomic complexities underlying the issue at hand, but ultimately which Greenpeace are too contemptible to even begin to consider, foregoing substantial analysis in favor of disruptive, superficial, bathetic, and completely worthless appeals to the general public.

Lotus. It's not rare to see them have an average Qualifying, but it was expected both drivers, Kimi Räikkönen in particular, would make up ground during the race. Instead, Räikkönen suffered brake troubles throughout the race that forced his retirement and ended his points-scoring streak, while all Romain Grosjean could muster was an 8th place. With this, Lotus drops off the radar in the Constructors Championship.

Also, honorable mention for Sergio Pérez for being pretty absent during the race while Jenson Button showed great pace with a car that is still too average. Well, pretty absent save for the moment he thought putting Grosjean in the kerbs was a good idea. No matter what people say, Pérez didn't give Grosjean room to get out of the kerbs, which made him lose control and forced him to take the asphalt runoff area to avoid a collision. That made it very easy for the trigger-happy stewards to hand him a penalty. Notice the fact Nico Hülkenberg did something similar, although less exaggerated, to Jean-Éric Vergne, and was unpunished, because Vergne not only didn't go off the track, he even managed to succesfully overtake Hülkenberg.

wsrgo wrote:ALL THOSE WHO SAY STEWARDS WERE IN THE WRONG

So what, it's okay for Perez to be penelised entirely because Grosjean couldn't hang on to his car? Because Hulkenberg did the exact same thing to Vergne, with the only difference being Vergne didn't go wide. And yet he walks away without even a slap on the wrist...

kevinbotz wrote:There'll be only one nomination from me for the reject of this year's Belgian Grand Prix.
Greenpeace activists: An asinine troupe of self-aggrandizing, melodramatic, presumptuous, supercilious, impotent, putrid, parochial and Quixotic ignoramuses intent on disrupting the Grand Prix, or indeed any public event as suits their purpose without any regard to decorum and propriety, as some petty and vacuous statement on an issue which is inconsequential in the absence of an exploration of the deeper, more intractable socioeconomic complexities underlying the issue at hand, but ultimately which Greenpeace are too contemptible to even begin to consider, foregoing substantial analysis in favor of disruptive, superficial, bathetic, and completely worthless appeals to the general public.

Delicately put, Mr Botz. I could sum up what I think of Greenpeace in one word, but it would get me thrown off the forums.

1. Greenpeace: Glad I own a V8 Mustang.

2. Lotus: Pale weekend compared to earlier this year. Also marked the end of Kimi's points streak.

Greenpeace do a lot of fine work throughout the world, and actually get up off their backsides and try to make a difference, which most of us - myself included - are far too lazy to do. So they protested the GP, big deal. It didn't affect the race, did it? I don't have enough information to hand to know whether their concerns were justified over my personal enjoyment of an expensive sporting event; but even if they weren't in this instance, they're actually trying to protect this fragile world on which we live.

Time to get over yourselves, I think.

I can't remember anything they've done that wasn't solely for the sake of publicity. I'd argue that their underlying motivations lie more with securing attention and resources for themselves rather than anything pertaining to the lofty moral proclamations they make on a regular basis. What irritates me isn't so much that they disrupted the Grand Prix, but rather that they have the gall to occupy the moral high ground with their fatally incomplete arguments and issue condemnations of others, without ever contributing anything of any value to the greater, and far more painful, discussion at hand.

"How can any industrialized nation feasibly survive the aftermath of a shift to an oil-free economy?"

"What fundamental structural changes need to take place, both institutional and psychological, for mankind to adapt to a world without the convenience of non-renewable resources?"

"To what extent are developing economies obligated to reduce their pollution outputs at the expense of their economic development, especially considering that said economic development is responsible for lifting hundreds of millions, if not billions, out of abject poverty?"

Beyond these relatively simple pragmatic queries, there also exist philosophical questions associated with the discussion, and which are significantly more nebulous and insoluble.

"Is self-destruction the natural course of mankind? Is self-implosion resulting from relentless human development the inevitable conclusion of humanity's existence? Is the destruction of nature necessarily an evil action, and if it is, how and why?"

"Are we inherently good? Are we inherently evil? Do we deserve to survive?"

"Whence do we come? Where are we? Where are we going?"

"Why do we exist?"

And so on, and so forth. I think I've established my point. From my perspective, Greenpeace seems to take a reductionist brush to all of these questions, conveniently packaging them (and subsequently emasculating the substance behind these questions) in a banal regurgitation of the naturalistic fallacy, holding nature as a moral imperative. Rather than forcing the serious consideration of the unimaginable structural and philosophical shifts concomitant with a dedicated and determined human initiative to alter the present trends of natural destruction, Greenpeace seem to find it apt to draw attention instead to the easily publicized, but ultimately inconsequential, symptoms of far more intractable quandaries which they contemptibly refuse to approach seriously.

Anyone heard of the Rainbow Warrior?

My reject of the race is DRS. It is simply not necessary on Kemmel straight. The only reason for DRS to exist is to make the race more interesting. Today it made the race more dull.

good_Ralf wrote:Anyone heard of the Rainbow Warrior?

I was sorely tempted to write that I hoped the GIGN would blow up a couple more of their boats in the heat of the moment, but thought better of it.

Even Greenpeace don't deserve to be subject to state-sanctioned terrorism.

See what Greenpeace has done! Instead of us having a funny rip at who was the most crap in the race we are now discussing world issues!

Greenpeace has taken the fun out of f1!!

Pastor Maldonado: Spain 2012 seems more of a fluke everyday. He was very lucky to survive that crash without retiring plus he was beaten by GVDG

Force India: Di Resta dropped like a stone and Sutil behaved like a baby against Gutierrez and they lost 5th overall to Mclaren as well

Mark Webber's start: Stopped him from challenging Vettel which was a shame.

Sauber/Williams: Both were Pathetic

ROTR for me is:

Sebastian Vettel's new hair colour: That Burnt My Eyes

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Pastor Maldonado: Spain 2012 seems more of a fluke everyday.

I've had that exact thought for months. It probably was a fluke.

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:ROTR for me is:

Sebastian Vettel's new hair colour: That Burnt My Eyes

He reminds me of Adam off MythBusters.

Were Jacques Villeneuve's hairdos better or worse than Seb's?

good_Ralf wrote:Were Jacques Villeneuve's hairdos better or worse than Seb's?

Worse. Much worse.

kevinbotz wrote:I can't remember anything they've done that wasn't solely for the sake of publicity. I'd argue that their underlying motivations lie more with securing attention and resources for themselves rather than anything pertaining to the lofty moral proclamations they make on a regular basis. What irritates me isn't so much that they disrupted the Grand Prix, but rather that they have the gall to occupy the moral high ground with their fatally incomplete arguments and issue condemnations of others, without ever contributing anything of any value to the greater, and far more painful, discussion at hand.

"How can any industrialized nation feasibly survive the aftermath of a shift to an oil-free economy?"

"What fundamental structural changes need to take place, both institutional and psychological, for mankind to adapt to a world without the convenience of non-renewable resources?"

"To what extent are developing economies obligated to reduce their pollution outputs at the expense of their economic development, especially considering that said economic development is responsible for lifting hundreds of millions, if not billions, out of abject poverty?"

Beyond these relatively simple pragmatic queries, there also exist philosophical questions associated with the discussion, and which are significantly more nebulous and insoluble.

"Is self-destruction the natural course of mankind? Is self-implosion resulting from relentless human development the inevitable conclusion of humanity's existence? Is the destruction of nature necessarily an evil action, and if it is, how and why?"

"Are we inherently good? Are we inherently evil? Do we deserve to survive?"

"Whence do we come? Where are we? Where are we going?"

"Why do we exist?"

And so on, and so forth. I think I've established my point. From my perspective, Greenpeace seems to take a reductionist brush to all of these questions, conveniently packaging them (and subsequently emasculating the substance behind these questions) in a banal regurgitation of the naturalistic fallacy, holding nature as a moral imperative. Rather than forcing the serious consideration of the unimaginable structural and philosophical shifts concomitant with a dedicated and determined human initiative to alter the present trends of natural destruction, Greenpeace seem to find it apt to draw attention instead to the easily publicized, but ultimately inconsequential, symptoms of far more intractable quandaries which they contemptibly refuse to approach seriously.

Having actually worked for Greenpeace in the past, answers are actually suggested for the majority of these questions, which I'm happy to elaborate upon if people are interested. However, I've always disagreed with Greenpeace on public PR exercises such as these, and feel they often do more harm than good - to me direct action is only relevant when an immediate harm is posed (i.e anti-whaling), not just attempting to garner media attention like this.

Svenko Wankerov wrote:

watka wrote:Maldonado for me. The collision was his fault. Why was he turning right into a left handed corner? Had he just turned left to get around the corner he could have got the positions back down the Kemmel straight. Was he trying to block? It almost looked like he was trying to pit!

He actually was trying to pit because Sutil chopped across him and took out a chunk of his front wing right before the crash.

Ah yes, I've noticed that now. Still should have checked his mirrors, you can't just expect to chop other cars, he knew there was a sizeable number of cars behind him.

Well, I don't know who to choose for my top 3. But I'll have a go at it...

3. Williams. Their car is an absolute crapwagon, they have a self destructive driver, and a driver whose talents are hidden by the all conquering FW35 Clearly not the best this weekend, and their qualifying was downright horrible. What more can I say?

2. Lotus. C'mon. We know you are better than that.

1. Greenpeace. Bathplugging Greenpeace. The fact that they never ran out onto the track in protest surprises me, because we know they are a bunch of nitwits. They would have potential to be an opinion to listen to if they weren't so srewed up in the head.

I see no point in expressing my opinion further, because it has already been said somewhere else. Read elsewhere.

DC. For complaining about his suit. Don't get mad, get even.

3. Lotus: brake failure and 8th, g'job
2. Weather: for getting my hopes up
1. Maldonado: there were cars there, you moron

Maldonado gave me a good case of wut this morning, so I suppose I'd have to give it to him. Greenpeace didn't do anything extraordinary, just a protest, so whatever. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their right to express it as long as there are no negative consequences of that expression.

and no, being butthurt over a protest isn't considered a negative consequence.

Well I actually fell asleep during the race so I'll say the race itself. For those nominating Maldonado, well at least that woke me up.

I would second the nomination for Raikkonen's brakes! They started to smoke extremely early in the race after all! Heidfeld manages to hold onto the record for longer now!

The race All weekend we heard about the "magic" of Spa and how it had its own micro-climate. I Spent the whole race checking twitter for rain forecasts, clutching at straws and then the race then stayed dry and turned out to be the most boring Grand Prix since India last year, which was made worse because of the high hopes beforehand.

The Race Stewards should also be a contender. After The incredibly harsh decision to penalise Grosjean in Hungary the stewards were even more harsh with Perez and Gutierrez. If the stewards continue with these very harsh decisions they are going to end wheel to wheel racing or daring overtakes because of fears of getting a penalty for all sorts of reasons.

I personally would not give Maldonado the ROTR this time round, but it's funny how he just can't avoid getting involved in collisions, whether racing for a top position or even 12th. It must just come down to poor decision making skills. Grosjean has been noticed more as he has been at the front, but I think that's now Maldonado's fourth spin/crash this year!

pher38 wrote:I think that's now Maldonado's fourth spin/crash this year!

And his third incident in succession at Spa

2011: Crashed into Hamilton
2012: Jump started and hit Glock
2013: Punted di Resta off

good_Ralf wrote:2011: Crashed into Hamilton

Sorry?

I've got a terrible memory, but wasn't it Kobayashi whom Hamilton had a sice and dice with?

wsrgo wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:2011: Crashed into Hamilton

Sorry?

I've got a terrible memory, but wasn't it Kobayashi whom Hamilton had a sice and dice with?

Yeah, Hamilton stupidly moved over on Kamui coming up to Les Combes, and got his just desserts by hitting the wall.

Pastor on the other hand, had one of his few decent races in 2011, scoring his only point of the season by finishing 10th.