Ponderbox

Post by **tommykl** » 27 May 2013, 17:18

Now here's something I've always wondered. Does any footage of Keke Rosberg's stonking pole lap at Silverstone actually exist?

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 29 May 2013, 14:52

Now, who would have thought that, after 6 races, Rosberg would be 3-3 in qualifying and 2-2 in races against Hamilton with only the points deficit being explained by two mechanical failures. What is more, Rosberg took Mercedes first victory when it was expected Hamilton to drag Mercedes to the top instead and this happened at Monaco where Hamilton usually does well. Also, he has 3 poles against one from Hamilton when it is thought that Hamilton would be stronger although I suspect some set up compromises relating tyre wear might be setting Hamilton back. If Rosberg manages to beat Hamilton at Canada (Lewis best circuit), I will be hugely impressed.

Alextrax52 · Post by **Alextrax52** » 29 May 2013, 15:01

What could Jean Alesi have done if he'd chosen Williams instead of Ferrari in the early 1990's?

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 29 May 2013, 15:09

Kimi-ICE wrote:What could Jean Alesi have done if he'd chosen Williams instead of Ferrari in the early 1990's?

That question is more appropriate for the "What if?" thread we have in the Eric van de Poele forum. Go check it out and see if someone already made it!

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 29 May 2013, 16:24

DanielPT wrote:
Kimi-ICE wrote:What could Jean Alesi have done if he'd chosen Williams instead of Ferrari in the early 1990's?

That question is more appropriate for the "What if?" thread we have in the Eric van de Poele forum. Go check it out and see if someone already made it!

I'm sure it's been asked, since looking at all the drivers in F1 history, Jean Alesi is one of the most loved on this site.

PT8475 · Post by **PT8475** » 29 May 2013, 23:18

andrew2209 wrote:With everyone saying that Monaco is a procession, where would they be able to adjust the track to maybe create an overtaking spot?

They could probably move the chicane out of the tunnel close to Tabac by moving the barrier. It'd make a good overtaking spot, albeit a risky one.

PT8475 · Post by **PT8475** » 29 May 2013, 23:24

DonTirri wrote:Now for some more unpopular opinions:

Great Britain hasn't had a worthy champion since Jackie Stewart.
no, seriously. Let's look at the British champions since Sir Jackie and the years they won the title.

James Hunt 1976: Yes, Hunt was a good driver. But let's face it, If Lauda didn't have his Nurburgring crash, he wouldn'tve had won the title. After all, it took a messy rain-race and Lauda's early retirement for him to win it in the first place.
Nigel Mansell 1992: What can be said about the 92 Williams that hasn't been said before? Anybody could've won the title on that particular car. Yes, Mansell was good, but he wasn't a championship-grade driver.
Damon Hill 1996: Again, the car and the weakness of the opposition contributed a LOT to Hill's title. I mean, he ALMOST got beat by Jacques Effin Villeneuve in the canucks debut season driving the same car. Again, a good driver, but not really Championship Grade.
Lewis Hamilton 2008: When your closest opposition is Felipe Massa, can you say you were really challenged for the title? And even then, the title was open until the last corner of the last lap of the last race.
Jenson Button 2009: He lucked into a worldbeater of a car and took the title. Nuff said.

Yes, Great Britain has had a lot of good drivers since Jackie, drivers who can win and be quick. But none of the Brits since him have been Championship Grade. None of them have been the kind who challenge consistently for the championship or who can fight on regardless of their machinery on a consistent level. It is very telling that after Jackie there has been 8 drivers who have won more than 1 championship (9 if you count Emmo) and none of them have been brits. And if you look at the post-title years of the British champions after Jackie, it is very telling aswell.

Hunt: Managed 5th with 3 wins on his defending year, and didn't have a single win afterwards.
Mansell: Threw his toys out of the pram and left for Indycar. Managed a single win in the entirety of his remaining F1 career before becoming a joke in the paddock.
Hill: Managed a single win the rest of his career. Nuff said.
Hamilton: Has been quick and won races, but hasn't been on the fight for the title since his championship win. Has earned the reputation of being a whiner and a reckless driver. Granted, still has years left on his career, but with the likes of Alonso, Vettel, Räikkönen and whatnot on the field... It is unlikely he can repeat his win.
Button: Joined Macca after his titlewin, was consistently beaten by Lewis outside of 2011 when he was the best of the rest on a year when nobody could touch Vettel. Has some flashes of brilliance but doesn't have the consistency to repeat his title.

I know this will probably be taken very pointedly by many, but that is the way I see things.

I strongly disagree regarding Nigel Mansell. He should have won the title barring failures/injury in 1986 and 1987, as well as having run Senna close in 1991, so its unfair to say he shouldn't have won that title in '92 as his car was fast. Yes, he was demanding, but he was also bloody quick. Probably the quickest Brit ever barring Clark.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 30 May 2013, 00:02

PT8475 wrote:I strongly disagree regarding Nigel Mansell. He should have won the title barring failures/injury in 1986 and 1987, as well as having run Senna close in 1991, so its unfair to say he shouldn't have won that title in '92 as his car was fast. Yes, he was demanding, but he was also bloody quick. Probably the quickest Brit ever barring Clark.

I'd say Jackie Stewart, Stirling Moss, and probably Graham Hill were quicker, as well as Lewis Hamilton (when he can be bothered). Also, there was no way in hell Mansell would've beaten Piquet to the '87 title. Especially not with Honda favouring Piquet.

Post by **mario** » 30 May 2013, 08:12

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
PT8475 wrote:I strongly disagree regarding Nigel Mansell. He should have won the title barring failures/injury in 1986 and 1987, as well as having run Senna close in 1991, so its unfair to say he shouldn't have won that title in '92 as his car was fast. Yes, he was demanding, but he was also bloody quick. Probably the quickest Brit ever barring Clark.

I'd say Jackie Stewart, Stirling Moss, and probably Graham Hill were quicker, as well as Lewis Hamilton (when he can be bothered). Also, there was no way in hell Mansell would've beaten Piquet to the '87 title. Especially not with Honda favouring Piquet.

That is actually something I have wondered about - why were Honda so politically active and interfering with the internal policies of their customers when supplying engines at that time? Asides from being accused of interfering on Piquet's behalf at Williams and trying to pressure the team into taking on Nakajima in return for their engines, they were also accused of intervening at McLaren on Senna's behalf in 1989 (were there accusations in later years of pressure from Honda towards a favoured driver).

takagi_for_the_win · Post by **takagi_for_the_win** » 30 May 2013, 08:26

mario wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
PT8475 wrote:I strongly disagree regarding Nigel Mansell. He should have won the title barring failures/injury in 1986 and 1987, as well as having run Senna close in 1991, so its unfair to say he shouldn't have won that title in '92 as his car was fast. Yes, he was demanding, but he was also bloody quick. Probably the quickest Brit ever barring Clark.

I'd say Jackie Stewart, Stirling Moss, and probably Graham Hill were quicker, as well as Lewis Hamilton (when he can be bothered). Also, there was no way in hell Mansell would've beaten Piquet to the '87 title. Especially not with Honda favouring Piquet.

That is actually something I have wondered about - why were Honda so politically active and interfering with the internal policies of their customers when supplying engines at that time? Asides from being accused of interfering on Piquet's behalf at Williams and trying to pressure the team into taking on Nakajima in return for their engines, they were also accused of intervening at McLaren on Senna's behalf in 1989 (were there accusations in later years of pressure from Honda towards a favoured driver).

Well in 1987, Honda favoured Piquet because, with Piquet moving to Lotus-Honda and with Williams losing their Honda powerplants, they wanted the number 1 to appear on a car powered by them, as opposed to powering the title winning car, only to see Judd have the number 1 instead.

I'm guessing the Senna favoritism was somewhat down to his demi-God status in Japan at the time, and the fact that he was regarded very highly by the Japanese mechanics; as opposed to Prost, who never visited Honda (or if so, very rarely) and was seen as less of a nice guy

Post by **Londoner** » 30 May 2013, 09:13

The Life of Senna book states that the reason why Piquet went to Lotus was down to Peter Warr. He knew that Senna was gonna leave the team in the near future, but he didn't want to wait until Senna left, as the driver market would have already been mostly sorted out. So ergo, Lotus sign Piquet before Senna joins McLaren, they retain Honda's support, and Senna is furious.

The same book also says the reason Honda fell out with Williams was down to the lost of the 1986 championship and, perhaps more offensively, Honda felt that Frank Williams was no longer capable of running an F1 team after his accident. How wrong they would turn out to be half a decade later...

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 30 May 2013, 18:55

mario wrote:That is actually something I have wondered about - why were Honda so politically active and interfering with the internal policies of their customers when supplying engines at that time? Asides from being accused of interfering on Piquet's behalf at Williams and trying to pressure the team into taking on Nakajima in return for their engines, they were also accused of intervening at McLaren on Senna's behalf in 1989 (were there accusations in later years of pressure from Honda towards a favoured driver).

Apparently Keke Rosberg was also was given inferior Honda engines after he informed the Williams team he was leaving them back in 1985. See the final paragraph of the below article. IMO Keke & Prost are as straight and honest as they come;

Dear Nigel,
I am interested in your opinion of Prost’s allegations of Honda bias during the ’88 and ‘89 seasons. The extent of Senna’s advantage in qualifying was extraordinary, but re-watching some old Grand Prix tapes recently I heard James Hunt in the commentary state as fact that the speed traps showed Senna to have a higher performing engine than Prost.
This would seem pretty vital considering the extent to which Senna’s legend is based on his great dominance in single lap pace in these years. Do you have any clear recollections as to the validity of these claims?

Simon

Dear Simon,
It all seems so long ago now – 25 years, after all – and probably I’m inclined to remember the situation more from Prost’s point of view than Senna’s for the simple reason that I was much closer to him than I was to his team-mate. That said, I did believe that the evidence pointed to Ayrton’s getting preferential treatment from Honda, and certain McLaren personnel have quietly confirmed to me that that was their feeling, too. As Alain puts it, “I was a McLaren driver with a Honda engine – and Ayrton as a Honda driver with a McLaren chassis…”

In 1988 the McLaren pair had a staggering season, Prost scoring more points (105, from seven wins, and seven second places) than Senna (94, from eight wins, and three second places), but Ayrton taking the title, 90 to 87, by virtue of the ‘11 best scores’ rule which then applied.

“I really wasn’t too upset that Senna won the title in ’88,” Alain said, “because I’d won it twice already by then. For ‘89, though, I was worried about Honda – I never had the relationship with them that Ayrton did, and the way they handled the situation was difficult for me, because Senna and I had very different driving styles. Before the season began I had dinner with Mr Kawamoto, the Honda chairman, and he admitted that Honda was more for Ayrton than for me – because they thought he was more the samurai, and I was more the computer!

“So that was an explanation, and I was happier, because part of my problem had been that Ayrton was so bloody quick, it wasn’t easy to know how much was that, and how much was Honda helping him… Of course people said I was paranoid – but I used to notice, for example, that at the French Grand Prix – my home race – I always seemed to get a very good engine, and there I would win without problem…

“By Monza in ‘89 I was about 10 points ahead of Senna in the championship, but I was leaving the team to go to Ferrari, and by then Honda was really hard against me: in qualifying Ayrton was nearly two seconds quicker – OK, he was certainly a better qualifier than I was, but two seconds… that was a joke!”

As a footnote, all I would add is that when, in 1985, Keke Rosberg informed Frank Williams he would be leaving Williams-Honda for McLaren-TAG (Porsche), he had not the slightest doubt that thereafter he had inferior engines from Honda, relative to Nigel Mansell: “I’m not stupid,” he said to me, “and I’m always honest with myself. I’ve been in this business long enough to know when I’m getting equal equipment, and when I’m not…” When Prost later began to say the same thing, Rosberg never doubted him.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... t-mclaren/

Back to the question of why were Honda so politically active and interfering with the internal policies of their customers when supplying engines at that time? In addition to what takagi_for_the_win has already stated. I would just like add in a quote from Prost, from a previous post I made last year;

Where Ferrim kindly posted a great interview with Prost about this experiences with Honda & they pretty much admitted they had favoured Senna over him.

The full interview can be found here; http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20073

In it Prost says this of Honda; "I think the Japanese just work differently. In a team, they always favour someone over the rest. I've heard it said about their motorcycle teams as well".

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1257&p=139468&hilit=monza+1989#p139468

takagi_for_the_win wrote: as opposed to Prost, who never visited Honda (or if so, very rarely)

I’ve never previously heard this before? I was always under the impression that the main reason Honda favored Senna over Prost was because they thought "Ayrton was more the samurai, and Alain was more the computer!". Also Honda had worked with Senna in 1987 & apparently the quality of Senna’s feedback was always very very good for the Honda engineers. I'm sure Prost's feedback was equally as good, however when you have someone like Senna giving such precise detailed feedback all the time, how important does Prost's feedback to Honda then become? This is of course in addition to the small matter of Senna staying on as a Honda driver in 1990, whereas Prost was moving to one of their main rivals. As you correctly alluded to, in 1987 Honda had previous 'form' in this respect.

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 30 May 2013, 19:15

Here’s one I’ve been wondering for a while now? When Michele Alboreto stalled his engine on the grid at the 1986 French GP. Why didn't they stopped or delay the start?

I mean he was waving his arms to indicate he had stalled his engine for at the very least 12 seconds prior to the start of the race. Even Murray Walker spotted it well before the green lights had come on. Yet no one seemed to do anything about it. Which I find highly surprising given the tragic events that befell Elio de Angelis at that very track just months prior. As well as the nature of how Riccardo Paletti was killed, at that point the last fatality during a GP weekend.

The start of the 1986 French GP can be found here at around 02:10...

http://www.f1archives.com/blog/archives/ricard86

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 04 Jun 2013, 19:21

Jocke1 wrote:What race was it when Vettel radioed in:
"I mean what the hell are we doing here, are we racing or are we....."

That's all I remember, he was angry because he felt he was endangered by another driver. I have forgotten when and where it was, though.

Klon wrote:I got it. It was indeed Sebastian Vettel and it was at Spa 2010 when he battled against Robert Kubica and didn't like his defensive driving.

http://www.mototube.pl/film/8655/vettel ... lgii-2010/

Jocke1 wrote:Yep, that's the one. Thanks

I just watched this again, it's hilarious.

But now I'm trying to find the radio messages between LH and his engineer during Monaco? when LH says "I know the stewards love me, really."
I come up short on youtube. Any ideas?
I have the season reviews, but can't remember if it's on there.

lgaquino · Post by **lgaquino** » 05 Jun 2013, 12:43

Something I've been wondering for a while, given how low the driver seats, how can he stop the car at precisely the right place on the grid?
It's easy enough on karts because you can see the track and the tyres. But in a F1 car, you only see far ahead and the upper part of the tyres! :?:

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 05 Jun 2013, 14:33

lgaquino wrote:Something I've been wondering for a while, given how low the driver seats, how can he stop the car at precisely the right place on the grid?
It's easy enough on karts because you can see the track and the tyres. But in a F1 car, you only see far ahead and the upper part of the tyres!

Experience? And perhaps help from the race engineer via radio?
They don't always get it right, though. I remember Hakkinen stopping too late a few times and the tyres went over the line.

Anyway, your question reminded me of this interesting video, which shows the drivers seating position/point of view:
http://youtu.be/_Wn1EFLa2C8

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 05 Jun 2013, 14:44

If you look at the grid slots painted onto the tarmac, there's a long yellow line that extends out perpendicular to the front of the slot so the driver can see it.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 05 Jun 2013, 14:48

Nico Rosberg explains how much he is able to see in front of the car:
http://youtu.be/NsvWnGgT7Ok

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 05 Jun 2013, 16:11

Well, in closed cars they have the race engineer tell the drivers when to stop as evidenced by many a DTM team radio.

andrew2209 · Post by **andrew2209** » 05 Jun 2013, 19:49

lgaquino wrote:Something I've been wondering for a while, given how low the driver seats, how can he stop the car at precisely the right place on the grid?
It's easy enough on karts because you can see the track and the tyres. But in a F1 car, you only see far ahead and the upper part of the tyres!

Well it's not like this (go to 0:37)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EzAA_4XNiA

lgaquino · Post by **lgaquino** » 06 Jun 2013, 12:35

This video offers, I think, the closest perspective I've seen so far.
a helmet cam, with Kubica driving [much better positioned than the one used by vettel last year]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLjvkh4hQE

Still not sure if it's level with the driver's eye, but it's certainly closer than others. I believe the driver would in fact be able to see the yellow perpendicular lines on the grid slot

good_Ralf · Post by **good_Ralf** » 06 Jun 2013, 14:29

It may not be totally related to this thread, but can anyone guess this code I have produced?

19-8-9-14-10-9

14-1-11-1-14-15

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 06 Jun 2013, 17:37

good_Ralf wrote:It may not be totally related to this thread, but can anyone guess this code I have produced?

19-8-9-14-10-9

14-1-11-1-14-15

shinji nakano

Try something better than alphabet cypher next time

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 06 Jun 2013, 20:48

I thought the answer was 10-49.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 08 Jun 2013, 19:54

Has Lewis Hamilton's dad stopped coming to Grand Prix's?
I haven't seen him in the pits for a long time.

Lewis usually wouldn't be able to blink his eyes before the FOM producer chose to film Anthony's reaction.
And it got really old, that's why it's nice it doesn't happen anymore.

pasta_maldonado · Post by **pasta_maldonado** » 09 Jun 2013, 19:01

Given Mercedes tyre woes, why don't they go all-out, and drive as fast possible on every set of tyres? Obviously there'd be more stops involved, and perhaps they could conserve the middle stint tyre or something, but I don't see why they don't at least try to go for out and out pace which they know they have - instead of backing off and conserving, who doesn't really work unless it's a narrow circuit or everyone else is doing the same.

Dan B · Post by **Dan B** » 09 Jun 2013, 21:08

Here's a question;

If there an equivalent site to Autosport? Their constant paywalling of articles is getting more and more obnoxious, yet I still find them the best site for F1 news as well as most other motorsports news. I know there's GP Update but I'm not a fan of their web layout.

Shadaza · Post by **Shadaza** » 09 Jun 2013, 23:23

Just how fast is this years Toro Rosso? It is clearly a better package than Sauber and Williams but where is the line, today Vergne had the beating of Lotus and McLaren and was just a little slower than Force India (poor grid for Di Resta and wacky day for Sutil masked it) but Ricciardo was slower than pretty much all the above mentioned teams.

Toro Rosso are currently behind McLaren in the constructors but should they be ahead? What would happen, say, if a Vettel, Hamilton or a Raikkonen was stuck in the car?

the Masked Lapwing · Post by **the Masked Lapwing** » 10 Jun 2013, 00:01

Shadaza wrote:Just how fast is this years Toro Rosso? It is clearly a better package than Sauber and Williams but where is the line, today Vergne had the beating of Lotus and McLaren and was just a little slower than Force India (poor grid for Di Resta and wacky day for Sutil masked it) but Ricciardo was slower than pretty much all the above mentioned teams.

Toro Rosso are currently behind McLaren in the constructors but should they be ahead? What would happen, say, if a Vettel, Hamilton or a Raikkonen was stuck in the car?

They'd be miles ahead of McLaren because those drivers are consistent.

Ricciardo and Vergne have both shown flashes of brilliance, but seem unable to string more than two good races together. This is only the second time that either driver has scored points twice in a row (the other being Ricciardo's 3-straight from Singapore to Korea last year, which could have been 5 if not for fuel issues at Monza). The car is clearly quick, but seems to depend a lot on qualifying. At the moment, it seems that if one of them starts from the top 10, points are almost certain, but if they miss Q3 at most they might get 1 or 2 points. Add in bad luck - Ricciardo had exhaust problems in Melbourne and Sepang, Vergne's collision with Webber in China, his puncture in Bahrain, his collision with the Hulk in the pits at Spain, Ricciardo being taken out by Grosjean at Monaco, and I'm willing to bet Ricciardo had a car problem at Canada based on his relative poor pace after his first stop, and there's probably a few more points gone missing (Ricciardo might have nabbed 10th at Monaco, maybe at Canada although I doubt that, Vergne could have nabbed a point China and Spain. OK, so only 3-5 points, but still, every point counts). I wouldn't be willing to bet they could close down McLaren, but if they can get both drivers firing on all cylinders at once, and they've both proved they can run in the top 8, they could come pretty close (and in the process save both their jobs).

pi314159 · Post by **pi314159** » 10 Jun 2013, 16:46

Why don't they just get rid of the "use both tyre compounds" rule? It made sense in 2010, because otherwise everyone would've run the whole race on one set of soft tyres, but since Pirelli took over from Bridgestone, it seems to be quite obsolete.

lgaquino · Post by **lgaquino** » 10 Jun 2013, 18:50

pi314159 wrote:Why don't they just get rid of the "use both tyre compounds" rule? It made sense in 2010, because otherwise everyone would've run the whole race on one set of soft tyres, but since Pirelli took over from Bridgestone, it seems to be quite obsolete.

yeah..i'd like that too!

That could, perhaps, produce races like Jerez-86 8-)

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 10 Jun 2013, 18:51

pi314159 wrote:Why don't they just get rid of the "use both tyre compounds" rule? It made sense in 2010, because otherwise everyone would've run the whole race on one set of soft tyres, but since Pirelli took over from Bridgestone, it seems to be quite obsolete.

I for one would love to see someone put on some primes and try out a 0-stopper.

Post by **mario** » 10 Jun 2013, 19:32

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
pi314159 wrote:Why don't they just get rid of the "use both tyre compounds" rule? It made sense in 2010, because otherwise everyone would've run the whole race on one set of soft tyres, but since Pirelli took over from Bridgestone, it seems to be quite obsolete.

I for one would love to see someone put on some primes and try out a 0-stopper.

I would have to agree that, in some senses, the "two compounds per race" rule is rather obsolete and yet, despite that, the penalties for not complying became harsher when Pirelli came in (being instantly disqualified from the race - I believe that, under Bridgestone, there was no explicit threat of disqualification).

We have seen that, for most weekends, the performance difference between the two tyres is such that the teams will sometimes actively seek to avoid using a certain tyre as much as possible. If the sport is keen to cut costs further, having a single compound for each event and therefore cutting down on the number of sets of tyres needed could be one way of doing so.

As for drivers trying a non stop race, with the current performance of the tyres that would be quite difficult to achieve. That said, di Resta might just have been able to pull it off in Canada if the regulations permitted it - his lap times at the end of that stint on the primes in Canada were still improving (the team told him to stay out for as long as he felt was possible), so he probably could have held on until the end of the race.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 10 Jun 2013, 20:22

mario wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
pi314159 wrote:Why don't they just get rid of the "use both tyre compounds" rule? It made sense in 2010, because otherwise everyone would've run the whole race on one set of soft tyres, but since Pirelli took over from Bridgestone, it seems to be quite obsolete.

I for one would love to see someone put on some primes and try out a 0-stopper.

I would have to agree that, in some senses, the "two compounds per race" rule is rather obsolete and yet, despite that, the penalties for not complying became harsher when Pirelli came in (being instantly disqualified from the race - I believe that, under Bridgestone, there was no explicit threat of disqualification).

We have seen that, for most weekends, the performance difference between the two tyres is such that the teams will sometimes actively seek to avoid using a certain tyre as much as possible. If the sport is keen to cut costs further, having a single compound for each event and therefore cutting down on the number of sets of tyres needed could be one way of doing so.

As for drivers trying a non stop race, with the current performance of the tyres that would be quite difficult to achieve. That said, di Resta might just have been able to pull it off in Canada if the regulations permitted it - his lap times at the end of that stint on the primes in Canada were still improving (the team told him to stay out for as long as he felt was possible), so he probably could have held on until the end of the race.

IIRC Alonso once did 77 laps on a set of tyres in Monaco after pitting on lap 1

Gerudo Dragon · Post by **Gerudo Dragon** » 10 Jun 2013, 20:22

Why did Peter Warr hate Mansell so much?

lgaquino · Post by **lgaquino** » 10 Jun 2013, 20:44

he didn't really hate him, but according to his book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Team-Lotus-View-Pit-Wall/dp/085733123X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370897028&sr=1-2&keywords=lotus] , Mansell was rather difficult to work with.
I'll quote a few segments once I get home. Really nice reading

good_Ralf · Post by **good_Ralf** » 11 Jun 2013, 08:24

In the end, though, Warr did say some discouraging things about Mansell.

1) "That kid will never win a Grand Prix as long as I have a hole in my a** (1938-2010)"
2) When Mansell led for the first time ever, in the wet in Monaco 1984 - "He's going to crash, he's going to f***ing crash!" Then he did just that. :lol:

Apologies if you had those quotes in mind.

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 11 Jun 2013, 23:34

What has happened to the F1 Slate? There's been nothing new since Malaysia. Did they run out of bawdy innuendos for Jenson Button to use?

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 12 Jun 2013, 00:27

dinizintheoven wrote:What has happened to the F1 Slate? There's been nothing new since Malaysia. Did they run out of bawdy innuendos for Jenson Button to use?

I've been busy, sorry.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 12 Jun 2013, 11:45

dinizintheoven wrote:What has happened to the F1 Slate? There's been nothing new since Malaysia. Did they run out of bawdy innuendos for Jenson Button to use?

A blonde walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre. So the barman gave her one... :oops: