Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **02 Apr 2014, 22:50**

I was recently thinking about a comment I made on the podcast regarding my avatar. I have had the same avatar throughout my membership to this forum, I have never deviated from the pic of Nelson Piquet Jr's deliberate crash into the wall at Singapore.

As far as I'm concerned, I think its the most rejectful F1 event of all time, or otherwise that I've seen in my lifetime. The crash and the following "crashgate" saga brought the sport into more disrepute than I've ever seen before and I also heard a lot of people with little interest in F1 actually talking about it and questioning why people would follow the sport.

Now deliberate crashing was not something new to F1, Senna and Schumacher being testament to that. But stuffing a car into the wall, endangering your own safety purely to fulfil a team order, was something new. It was barmy for the team to request it and even worse for the driver to accept it. In the end, it somehow helped Alonso win the race (kudos to the analysts who figured that one out) but with the position that Fernando was in at the time, it was by no means a guaranteed win.

The cat-and-mouse game of blackmail afterwards was truly rejectful too. Yes, Symonds and Briatore were totally in the wrong but for Piquet Jr to only admit long after he'd left Renault was a chicken move. Then we had the ever unpopular Piquet Snr sticking his oar in too and then pretty much the whole of Renault's F1 operations went to pot.

Astonishing. Despicable. Bizarre. I run out of adjectives to describe the whole affair.

What do other people consider their most rejectful moment ever to be?

Posted: **02 Apr 2014, 23:10**

My first most rejectful moment was Schumacher deliberately crashing into Villeneuve in 97, but you've already mentioned that. Besides, I later learned, that Senna and Prost did the same thing to each other long before.

But I think I'll go with Spygate in 2007. Coughlan and Stepney were simply pissed off, because they didn't get the jobs they wanted, so they traded secrets... through Coughlan's wife, and Alonso knew all along, but only spilled everything after the team sided with Hamilton. It was a messy and completely unnecessary thing to happen to Formula 1.

True, Tony Southgate once "stole" his plans for the Shadow and built an Arrows with them, but that one was resolved pretty quickly. Spygate on the other hand... :roll:

Posted: **03 Apr 2014, 16:30**

I'm not going down the politics road for this one.

On pure racing Coulthard's Australia 1995 pit mistake has to be the most single reject moment ever as a win was there for him. Then DC made up the most pathetic excuse ever to compound it all with the Renault System driving him into the pit. I can't believe Sheene and Palmer believed that.

It's run close by Wurz's ROTR creation in France 2000 where he made that half-arsed attempt to pass Alesi... And then promptly came to rest in a nice bit of gravel

Posted: **03 Apr 2014, 19:21**

Not so famous but watching the two Arrows parking in the same place at the same time with the same problem in Barcelona 1998 is just so comical.

Posted: **04 Apr 2014, 09:54**

No contest. The whole weekend was farcical, especially how they......just......allowed this happen.

Posted: **04 Apr 2014, 12:03**

When I think of 'rejectful moments' I think of hilarious moments, not political farces. In terms of the most rejectful moment, Coulthard's pit entry in Adelaide 1995 stands out to many, but I'd give it to the entire entry of MasterCard Lola. Everything just went absolutely wrong at the worst time, and the end result was a clunker of a car, two drivers which were there for the money, and a team in massive debt. And all because the sponsors couldn't wait another year

Posted: **04 Apr 2014, 19:04**

giraurd wrote:

No contest. The whole weekend was farcical, especially how they......just......allowed this happen.

This, because how it spiraled out of control. Toyota has two tyre failures due to running their pressures way below what Michelin said to, and the FOTA, er I'm sorry the GPMA, used it to organize a mass boycott by Friday night. The sheer tactical brilliance of it was incredible, the GPMA knew America was a shaky market for F1 and thus this would kill it, and they knew no mater what was suggested by them, the FIA wouldn't approve it, and that Ferrari (already the bad guys to many) would race no matter what since they badly needed points.

So all that lead to really farcical things like Trulli taking pole with 5 laps of fuel on board (Toyota, not the FIA actually nixed the chicane idea, as they wouldn't have been able to run the acclimation session due to fuel, no matter as Mosley was against it anyway) and then lining up for a dummy grid an pulling off. And remember over here we had NO IDEA any of this was going to happen, as F1 coverage is terrible. However the farce did make "Sportscenter" that night...... :roll:

The whole weekend was a joke, after Ralf announced he was pulling out, that half-wit muppet Windbag (I mean Windsor) interviewed him, and asked if he had a carbon-fiber shard in the eye (the rumor at the time). Ralf said, very clearly, no its by neck/back and a concussion. Windsor looks in the camera and goes "Thank you Ralf, that was Ralf Schumacher, who has withdrawn from the USGP due to an eye injury." Ralf actually threw up his hands before the camera cut.

Posted: **04 Apr 2014, 19:34**

Wallio wrote:
giraurd wrote:

No contest. The whole weekend was farcical, especially how they......just......allowed this happen.

This, because how it spiraled out of control. Toyota has two tyre failures due to running their pressures way below what Michelin said to, and the FOTA, er I'm sorry the GPMA, used it to organize a mass boycott by Friday night. The sheer tactical brilliance of it was incredible, the GPMA knew America was a shaky market for F1 and thus this would kill it, and they knew no mater what was suggested by them, the FIA wouldn't approve it, and that Ferrari (already the bad guys to many) would race no matter what since they badly needed points.

So all that lead to really farcical things like Trulli taking pole with 5 laps of fuel on board (Toyota, not the FIA actually nixed the chicane idea, as they wouldn't have been able to run the acclimation session due to fuel, no matter as Mosley was against it anyway) and then lining up for a dummy grid an pulling off. And remember over here we had NO IDEA any of this was going to happen, as F1 coverage is terrible. However the farce did make "Sportscenter" that night......

The whole weekend was a joke, after Ralf announced he was pulling out, that half-wit muppet Windbag (I mean Windsor) interviewed him, and asked if he had a carbon-fiber shard in the eye (the rumor at the time). Ralf said, very clearly, no its by neck/back and a concussion. Windsor looks in the camera and goes "Thank you Ralf, that was Ralf Schumacher, who has withdrawn from the USGP due to an eye injury." Ralf actually threw up his hands before the camera cut.

I take back my earlier post. This interview deserves the honor of being most rejectful F1 moment ever. :lol:

Honestly, I didn't even know this interview happened. That's far more farcial than the shite RTL (german F1 broadcaster) is airing most of the time.

Posted: **05 Apr 2014, 23:48**

I suppose on a grand scale, the Michelin tyre farce was probably the most far reaching scandal that F1's seen. I think the only comparable race would the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, but still, that had 14 cars and the teams not competing didn't actually turn up for the race. On the other hand, perhaps Gilles Villeneuve would still be around today had the boycott not happened...

Posted: **06 Apr 2014, 21:38**

watka wrote:I suppose on a grand scale, the Michelin tyre farce was probably the most far reaching scandal that F1's seen. I think the only comparable race would the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, but still, that had 14 cars and the teams not competing didn't actually turn up for the race. On the other hand, perhaps Gilles Villeneuve would still be around today had the boycott not happened...

I hate to be the one to say this, but Villeneuve was such a madman that he was going to die behind the wheel of a racecar sooner or later. :cry:

Posted: **07 Apr 2014, 18:58**

Cynon wrote:
watka wrote:I suppose on a grand scale, the Michelin tyre farce was probably the most far reaching scandal that F1's seen. I think the only comparable race would the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, but still, that had 14 cars and the teams not competing didn't actually turn up for the race. On the other hand, perhaps Gilles Villeneuve would still be around today had the boycott not happened...

I hate to be the one to say this, but Villeneuve was such a madman that he was going to die behind the wheel of a racecar sooner or later.

As much as it does sadden me to say this...I have to agree with this. And this is coming from a diehard GV fan. I can't see him surviving the turbo beasts of the mid 1980's :cry:

.

Rejectful moments...how about the race which no-body knew who won... what that the 1973 Candian GP? (Can't be bothered to check).

Or how about the botched pit stop for Eddie Irvine at Nurburgring in 1999.

Or Nurburgring 2007 when everyone kept spining off at the 1st corner.

My favorite has to be when Ukyo Katayama spins off at the start of the race at Silverstone 1997. Before he even reached the end of the grid hatchings. Just brilliant :lol:

Posted: **07 Apr 2014, 21:51**

How about Di Grassi binning it on the formation lap in Japan 2010? :lol:

Posted: **07 Apr 2014, 21:59**

Monaco 1982? The race that no one wanted to win?

Posted: **07 Apr 2014, 22:52**

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Monaco 1982? The race that no one wanted to win?

The fact that Derek Daly almost won that race makes it pretty rejectful.

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 13:04**

I would say Ralf Schumacher deciding to become an airline pilot for the 2002 season and using Rubens Barrichello as a launch pad at the start of the Australian Grand Prix was pretty rejectful. I mean, he just flew over the back of him!

Also, speaking of Schumacher's flying, what about Micky Schu's crashes at the 2011 and 2012 Singapore Grand Prix?

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 18:55**

Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:03**

ibsey wrote:Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Dallas has got the be the worst track F1 has raced on. Either that or AVUS.

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:28**

watka wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Dallas has got the be the worst track F1 has raced on. Either that or AVUS.

Why was the AVUS so bad? Granted, it was a pretty boring layout, but I can't remember the tarmac breaking up or anything else utterly rejectful happening there...

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:32**

watka wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Dallas has got the be the worst track F1 has raced on. Either that or AVUS.

Las Vegas says hello.

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:38**

good_Ralf wrote:
watka wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Dallas has got the be the worst track F1 has raced on. Either that or AVUS.

Las Vegas says hello.

Oh yeah, Las Vegas. Also the Circuit Bugatti, Zeltweg (not the Austria-Ring / A1-Ring / Red-Bull-Ring) and Nivelles-Baulers. Why hasn't anyone made a game in the PMMF featuring not only the worst cars and drivers, but also the worst circuits? It would be the ultimate F1Rejects experience (hey, that's actually a pretty good title...).

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:43**

Turbogirl wrote:
watka wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dallas 1984. Not just the track breaking up. But the way most of the drivers crashed and parked up at the same spot.

Dallas has got the be the worst track F1 has raced on. Either that or AVUS.

Why was the AVUS so bad? Granted, it was a pretty boring layout, but I can't remember the tarmac breaking up or anything else utterly rejectful happening there...

The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 22:51**

watka wrote:
Turbogirl wrote:Why was the AVUS so bad? Granted, it was a pretty boring layout, but I can't remember the tarmac breaking up or anything else utterly rejectful happening there...

The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Yes, I totally agree, but many corners back in the days seem to have had names like that.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/t5.htm

The Djurgardsbanan in Helsinki (top of the page) had a corner called "Kuolemankurva", which literally means death curve. It's also mentioned in the description. Different times, different tastes, I guess.

Posted: **08 Apr 2014, 23:29**

Turbogirl wrote:
watka wrote:
Turbogirl wrote:Why was the AVUS so bad? Granted, it was a pretty boring layout, but I can't remember the tarmac breaking up or anything else utterly rejectful happening there...

The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Yes, I totally agree, but many corners back in the days seem to have had names like that.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/t5.htm

The Djurgardsbanan in Helsinki (top of the page) had a corner called "Kuolemankurva", which literally means death curve. It's also mentioned in the description. Different times, different tastes, I guess.

I'm not referring so much to the name of the corner, more its nature. A 43 degree banked turn with no barrier at the top and the cars were approaching at close to 200mph in times where they had no brakes and no aero. Perhaps its just the way I think about motorsport. Jackie Stewart is one of my heroes not only because he was staggeringly good and won 3 titles but also because he pushed strongly to get rid of a lot of the needless danger in motorsport.

Posted: **09 Apr 2014, 09:56**

Turbogirl wrote:
watka wrote:
Turbogirl wrote:Why was the AVUS so bad? Granted, it was a pretty boring layout, but I can't remember the tarmac breaking up or anything else utterly rejectful happening there...

The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Yes, I totally agree, but many corners back in the days seem to have had names like that.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/t5.htm

The Djurgardsbanan in Helsinki (top of the page) had a corner called "Kuolemankurva", which literally means death curve. It's also mentioned in the description. Different times, different tastes, I guess.

What remains of the Eläintarha racetrack is still there in good condition, I've walked around it and it's the maddest track on the world. I would barely have the balls to ride a bicycle around it, yet these guys raced around it in the 50's F2 cars at full speed....

Posted: **10 Apr 2014, 16:08**

watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

Posted: **10 Apr 2014, 16:41**

Wallio wrote:
watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

I know that building the Nurburgring was a boost to Germany's employment rates and economy at the time it was built, but one thing my dad and I were unsure of in conversation at the weekend was whether the people building it were properly paid, or whether it was built using slave labour?

Posted: **10 Apr 2014, 17:51**

dr-baker wrote:
Wallio wrote:
watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

I know that building the Nurburgring was a boost to Germany's employment rates and economy at the time it was built, but one thing my dad and I were unsure of in conversation at the weekend was whether the people building it were properly paid, or whether it was built using slave labour?

Both IIRC. The funny/sad part is the "Green Hell" was dubbed "The Safest Track on Earth" when it opened.

Posted: **10 Apr 2014, 23:58**

Wallio wrote:
watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

That is indeed true but it is almost as if the corner was designed deliberately to be a danger to life.

Posted: **11 Apr 2014, 15:46**

watka wrote:
Wallio wrote:
watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

That is indeed true but it is almost as if the corner was designed deliberately to be a danger to life.

Again, it was safer than a great many ovals of the time. It's all relative. Its like the classic "F1 cars can't run Daytona" sure they could, I believe the chassis could take the impacts nowadays, but the drivers would black out from the G's long beforehand.

Anyway, back on topic, I submit the three USGPs in Phoenix as really bad (why does F1 always bathplug up over here :lol:

) average temperature of nearly 100 degrees, average attendance of a mere 18,000, and the 1990 race was out drawn by an ostrich festival. The really embarrassing part? Said festival drew 3.5x the spectators!!!

Posted: **12 Apr 2014, 23:11**

Wallio wrote:
Anyway, back on topic, I submit the three USGPs in Phoenix as really bad (why does F1 always bathplug up over here ) average temperature of nearly 100 degrees, average attendance of a mere 18,000, and the 1990 race was out drawn by an ostrich festival. The really embarrassing part? Said festival drew 3.5x the spectators!!!

I've always wondered is that true or an urban myth?

Posted: **13 Apr 2014, 14:34**

Wallio wrote:
watka wrote:
The "Wall of Death" is quite possibly the stupidest idea for a corner: http://basementgeographer.com/avus-the- ... g-circuit/

Well Hitler had it built because some Nazi building project (the Olympics maybe?) required the old AVUS to be shortened. He paid for the new faster, tighter, higher banked corner as a "thank you". And really, it is only dumb by today's standards. It was much safer than Monza's oval, or the board tracks still around in America.

It was safer in some ways, but more dangerous than others - whilst the banking at Monza was bumpier (because there were issues with some of the sections of the banking settling more than others), AVUS's banking was considerably steeper (Monza's banking was, IIRC, about 26 degrees), therefore permitting even higher cornering speeds.

watka wrote:
Wallio wrote:
Anyway, back on topic, I submit the three USGPs in Phoenix as really bad (why does F1 always bathplug up over here ) average temperature of nearly 100 degrees, average attendance of a mere 18,000, and the 1990 race was out drawn by an ostrich festival. The really embarrassing part? Said festival drew 3.5x the spectators!!!

I've always wondered is that true or an urban myth?

It is certainly true that the crowds at the 1990 event were pretty pathetic - I've seen a figure of 15,000 being bandied about for race day attendance, though the ostrich festival is less clear (it'd have to be pretty substantial though to draw that many people).

Posted: **16 Apr 2014, 13:03**

The ostrich festival was for either 5 or 7 days I forget, while the GP was of course only 3, but the festival's total blew away the races. I'd say it is true, since they mention it on the F1 review for the race......

Posted: **16 Apr 2014, 17:21**

Wallio wrote:The ostrich festival was for either 5 or 7 days I forget, while the GP was of course only 3, but the festival's total blew away the races. I'd say it is true, since they mention it on the F1 review for the race......

I can't believe all those people choose to see ostriches over the likes of a Life / Coloni Subaru / Claudio Langes trying to pre qualify. What a sad world we live in

Anyway onto another rejectful moment how about when Alan Jones won his first race and the organisers didn't have the Australian national anthem. So they had to play happy birthday instead. Incidentally has there been a podium when the drivers couldn't open the champagne bottle? I recall seeing a photo some years ago of the podium finishers at IIRC one race around 1988 / 1989 where the top 3 (I think Prost & Nannini were amongst them) appeared to be struggling to open the champs. But don't know if they managed it in the end. Reckon that's worth a mention here if they didn't.

Posted: **16 Apr 2014, 18:56**

ibsey wrote:Incidentally has there been a podium when the drivers couldn't open the champagne bottle? I recall seeing a photo some years ago of the podium finishers at IIRC one race around 1988 / 1989 where the top 3 (I think Prost & Nannini were amongst them) appeared to be struggling to open the champs. But don't know if they managed it in the end. Reckon that's worth a mention here if they didn't.

You are correct!

Posted: **23 Apr 2014, 01:46**

For me is the Giacomelli time t the 1990 San Marino GP :lol:

Posted: **23 Apr 2014, 12:47**

Normal32 wrote:For me is the Giacomelli time t the 1990 San Marino GP

Nevermind the 107% rule, he was almost outside the 140% rule.

Posted: **23 Apr 2014, 13:02**

watka wrote:
Normal32 wrote:For me is the Giacomelli time t the 1990 San Marino GP

Nevermind the 107% rule, he was almost outside the 140% rule.

Actually his time was over 5x the best prequal (let alone quali!) time, so he's technically outside the 500% rule!

Posted: **09 May 2014, 07:48**

Zolder 1981. (Both the Reutemann and the Patrese/Stohr crash along with the idiotic, frantic parade lap and the inability to show a bathplug red flag) It marked complete unprofessionalism and idiocracy.

Posted: **09 May 2014, 12:36**

GerhardTalger wrote:Zolder 1981. (Both the Reutemann and the Patrese/Stohr crash along with the idiotic, frantic parade lap and the inability to show a bathplug red flag) It marked complete unprofessionalism and idiocracy.

Not aware of the goings on in this race so I will have to check it out. Although I do know of the reject qualities of Zolder; if Gilles Villeneuve had known he was going to die in a racing accident, he wouldn't have picked Zolder as the circuit.

Posted: **09 May 2014, 15:23**

ibsey wrote:
Wallio wrote:The ostrich festival was for either 5 or 7 days I forget, while the GP was of course only 3, but the festival's total blew away the races. I'd say it is true, since they mention it on the F1 review for the race......

I can't believe all those people choose to see ostriches over the likes of a Life / Coloni Subaru / Claudio Langes trying to pre qualify. What a sad world we live in

Anyway onto another rejectful moment how about when Alan Jones won his first race and the organisers didn't have the Australian national anthem. So they had to play happy birthday instead. Incidentally has there been a podium when the drivers couldn't open the champagne bottle? I recall seeing a photo some years ago of the podium finishers at IIRC one race around 1988 / 1989 where the top 3 (I think Prost & Nannini were amongst them) appeared to be struggling to open the champs. But don't know if they managed it in the end. Reckon that's worth a mention here if they didn't.

On Alan Jones and his first victory, I am fairly sure that I have seen a video clip on this website that proved that in fact they did play the Australian national anthem and that the "Happy Birthday" tune was an urban legend.

Grand Prix Rejects

The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

Re: The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion