Ponderbox

Gerudo Dragon · Post by **Gerudo Dragon** » 23 Jan 2014, 17:30

My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change since 1994

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 23 Jan 2014, 18:08

My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change ever!

Post by **Ataxia** » 23 Jan 2014, 18:44

No no, aggregate qualifying was FAR worse.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 23 Jan 2014, 19:02

Cynon wrote:My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the Monaco GP

SgtPepper wrote:My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the entire rest of the calendar.

Dark77 wrote:My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change since 1994

roblomas52 wrote:My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change ever!

My only issue with it is that Sgt. Pepper has neglected to bring Miss. Watson into the equation.

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 23 Jan 2014, 21:39

Jocke1 wrote:
Cynon wrote:My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the Monaco GP

SgtPepper wrote:My only issue with it is that it removes a lot of prestige from the entire rest of the calendar.

Dark77 wrote:My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change since 1994

roblomas52 wrote:My only issue with it is that it's the worst rule change ever!

My only issue with it is that Sgt. Pepper has neglected to bring Miss. Watson into the equation.

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 24 Jan 2014, 07:58

I notice that the teams havent made any effort to overturn this rule and do you know why? Because the teams are stupid. Because each and every one of them, despite making noises in the media about the obvious ridiculousness of it all, probably thought "hang on, at the last race those double points might come in handy for us".

Sigh.

Benetton · Post by **Benetton** » 24 Jan 2014, 08:09

I don't like the "double points" rule at all but at the end of the day the scoring system is the same for everyone and an equal opportunity to succeed has been provided. I mean it is better than the "Only X scores of Y rounds count toward the championship" scoring system that made Prost lose a world title! That was IMO even more ridiculous system!

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 24 Jan 2014, 10:52

Benetton wrote:I don't like the "double points" rule at all but at the end of the day the scoring system is the same for everyone and an equal opportunity to succeed has been provided. I mean it is better than the "Only X scores of Y rounds count toward the championship" scoring system that made Prost lose a world title! That was IMO even more ridiculous system!

I was thinking about that last night. They ended up quietly scrapping it soon after that ludicrous travesty, if a similar thing happens in the next couple of years I suspect they would do the same again.

Post by **mario** » 24 Jan 2014, 19:36

CoopsII wrote:I notice that the teams havent made any effort to overturn this rule and do you know why? Because the teams are stupid. Because each and every one of them, despite making noises in the media about the obvious ridiculousness of it all, probably thought "hang on, at the last race those double points might come in handy for us".

Sigh.

Or, alternatively, that they are unwilling to actually take the fight to FOM given that FOM are the ones who control the purse strings of the sport.

The other issue is whether the teams could actually get enough support to overturn the measure - given that the Strategy Commission votes are split three ways (six for the teams, six for the FIA and six for FOM) and decisions require a majority vote to be approved, it would have required all six teams and at least four other officials voting with them to have the rule changed. Now, FOM would use all of its six votes for the motion so, assuming that all of the teams were to vote against the measure (something that is not assured), you would need four of the FIA's officials to vote against the measure for the rule to be amended.

The main issue is that I cannot see the FIA voting against FOM in this situation - I would expect that, with FOM having recently offered them a bigger cut of the revenues of the sport, that the FIA would vote with FOM given the commercial incentive to do so. I would not be surprised that the teams chose not to raise the issue because they knew that they would be defeated anyway, and probably risk jeopardising their relationship with FOM if they went against the measure.

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 24 Jan 2014, 22:21

mario wrote:
CoopsII wrote:I notice that the teams havent made any effort to overturn this rule and do you know why? Because the teams are stupid. Because each and every one of them, despite making noises in the media about the obvious ridiculousness of it all, probably thought "hang on, at the last race those double points might come in handy for us".

Sigh.

Or, alternatively, that they are unwilling to actually take the fight to FOM given that FOM are the ones who control the purse strings of the sport.

Exactly. Don't piss off Bernie. Ken Tyrrell crossed the line and didn't boycott the 1981 San Marino GP along with all the other members of FOCA and as a result had no support whatsoever from Bernie and his mob in 1984 when FISA disqualified them. Toleman did the same and Bernie didn't help them in 1985 when they didn't have a tyre contract. Bernie never forgets.

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 25 Jan 2014, 20:29

mario wrote:The other issue is whether the teams could actually get enough support to overturn the measure - given that the Strategy Commission votes are split three ways (six for the teams, six for the FIA and six for FOM) and decisions require a majority vote to be approved, it would have required all six teams and at least four other officials voting with them to have the rule changed. Now, FOM would use all of its six votes for the motion so, assuming that all of the teams were to vote against the measure (something that is not assured), you would need four of the FIA's officials to vote against the measure for the rule to be amended.

Pretty much this. Most fans have apparentely not understood just how powerless the teams have become. Bernie took them to the cleaners so badly they shine brighter than the sun. The old man got them so good you can't help but admire it.

Post by **mario** » 25 Jan 2014, 21:23

Faustus wrote:
mario wrote:
CoopsII wrote:I notice that the teams havent made any effort to overturn this rule and do you know why? Because the teams are stupid. Because each and every one of them, despite making noises in the media about the obvious ridiculousness of it all, probably thought "hang on, at the last race those double points might come in handy for us".

Sigh.

Or, alternatively, that they are unwilling to actually take the fight to FOM given that FOM are the ones who control the purse strings of the sport.

Exactly. Don't piss off Bernie. Ken Tyrrell crossed the line and didn't boycott the 1981 San Marino GP along with all the other members of FOCA and as a result had no support whatsoever from Bernie and his mob in 1984 when FISA disqualified them. Toleman did the same and Bernie didn't help them in 1985 when they didn't have a tyre contract. Bernie never forgets.

I think that you mean 1982 rather than 1981 - the other aspect for Tyrrell losing the support from other FOCA teams was the fact that, in the 1982 Brazilian GP, he also helped get both Piquet and Rosberg disqualified from the Brazilian GP for using the "water cooled brakes" trick for running the cars underweight, despite the fact that Tyrrell's own cars were equipped with a similar system for circumventing the rules. Given that Ken had stabbed FOCA's members in the back when it helped him, perhaps it is not surprising that they turned their backs on him in 1984.

Klon wrote:Pretty much this. Most fans have apparentely not understood just how powerless the teams have become. Bernie took them to the cleaners so badly they shine brighter than the sun. The old man got them so good you can't help but admire it.

It's why, in one of the few halfway decent articles written by Benson at the BBC, he commented that whilst Bernie may be in more trouble outside of the sport than ever before, within the world of F1 FOM's power is probably at it's zenith thanks to persistent team infighting and Todt essentially selling off the FIA's influence to FOM in return for more money to fund Todt's projects.

tristan1117 · Post by **tristan1117** » 25 Jan 2014, 23:32

mario wrote:
Klon wrote:Pretty much this. Most fans have apparentely not understood just how powerless the teams have become. Bernie took them to the cleaners so badly they shine brighter than the sun. The old man got them so good you can't help but admire it.

It's why, in one of the few halfway decent articles written by Benson at the BBC, he commented that whilst Bernie may be in more trouble outside of the sport than ever before, within the world of F1 FOM's power is probably at it's zenith thanks to persistent team infighting and Todt essentially selling off the FIA's influence to FOM in return for more money to fund Todt's projects.

What exactly are Todt's grand projects? Formula E? World Endurance Championship? I honestly can't remember a single things Todt has done since he became president. On the other hand, I have a ton of Max Moseley stories I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Post by **mario** » 26 Jan 2014, 08:48

tristan1117 wrote:
mario wrote:
Klon wrote:Pretty much this. Most fans have apparentely not understood just how powerless the teams have become. Bernie took them to the cleaners so badly they shine brighter than the sun. The old man got them so good you can't help but admire it.

It's why, in one of the few halfway decent articles written by Benson at the BBC, he commented that whilst Bernie may be in more trouble outside of the sport than ever before, within the world of F1 FOM's power is probably at it's zenith thanks to persistent team infighting and Todt essentially selling off the FIA's influence to FOM in return for more money to fund Todt's projects.

What exactly are Todt's grand projects? Formula E? World Endurance Championship? I honestly can't remember a single things Todt has done since he became president. On the other hand, I have a ton of Max Moseley stories I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

One of Todt's grander projects is actually outside of motorsport, which is the road safety campaign targeted towards reducing the number of serious and fatal road accidents in the developing world. That, I believe, is the program that Todt wanted more money for and petitioned FOM for a larger cut of the revenues from F1 for, leading to the current deal between FOM and the FIA.

Others relate to FIA backed scholarships for young drivers and attempts to increase female participation in motorsport (a program Michèle Mouton is heading up) - in fact, quite a few of his pet projects are focussed away from the FIA's traditional remit of administering various series.
In terms of either new or reformed series, I guess that Formula E is the only one that really qualifies - the reforms for the WEC seem to have been driven by the ACO rather than the FIA - although we will have to see whether that one really can deliver in the way that he might hope.

Rusujuur · Post by **Rusujuur** » 27 Jan 2014, 12:26

I am preparing questions for a quiz and it occured to me that Karthikeyan is the worst ever classified driver by achieving 24th in Valencia in 2011. Is it so or do you happen to know if there are some obscure Indy 500 races where they had more?

Also the rule x results from y races was logical at the time it was in effect (Well, for the earlier part anyway) because teams/drivers couldn't or wouldn't participate in all the rounds and it was also concidered as an eliminator of "luck" from WDC because of poor reliability. I think the constructors scored from every round?

watka · Post by **watka** » 27 Jan 2014, 13:22

Rusujuur wrote:I am preparing questions for a quiz and it occured to me that Karthikeyan is the worst ever classified driver by achieving 24th in Valencia in 2011. Is it so or do you happen to know if there are some obscure Indy 500 races where they had more?

Also the rule x results from y races was logical at the time it was in effect (Well, for the earlier part anyway) because teams/drivers couldn't or wouldn't participate in all the rounds and it was also concidered as an eliminator of "luck" from WDC because of poor reliability. I think the constructors scored from every round?

I'm pretty sure that Karthikeyan is the record excluding Indy 500 races. Wikipedia (that old reliable chestnut) suggests that 24 drivers were classified in the 1950 Indianapolis 500, with Jim Rathmann in 24th. He went on to win the 1960 Indy 500, which was the last time it formed part of the F1 World Championship.

Rusujuur · Post by **Rusujuur** » 27 Jan 2014, 13:33

watka wrote:
Rusujuur wrote:I am preparing questions for a quiz and it occured to me that Karthikeyan is the worst ever classified driver by achieving 24th in Valencia in 2011. Is it so or do you happen to know if there are some obscure Indy 500 races where they had more?

Also the rule x results from y races was logical at the time it was in effect (Well, for the earlier part anyway) because teams/drivers couldn't or wouldn't participate in all the rounds and it was also concidered as an eliminator of "luck" from WDC because of poor reliability. I think the constructors scored from every round?

I'm pretty sure that Karthikeyan is the record excluding Indy 500 races. Wikipedia (that old reliable chestnut) suggests that 24 drivers were classified in the 1950 Indianapolis 500, with Jim Rathmann in 24th. He went on to win the 1960 Indy 500, which was the last time it formed part of the F1 World Championship.

Thanx, I had a correct hunch then, but I will include the question anyways, none of these people know too much about F1 and they wont know that Indy was part of F1 at all, I hope. The logic behind this question is that they will figure out it can't be a good record as they have never heard of him and go from there. Maybe I will reword it in some way to exclude the Indy if they or anyone listening feel all researchy after the show. :roll:

Aerond · Post by **Aerond** » 27 Jan 2014, 15:57

Call me delusional but I don't think Ricciardo will be happy to be second to Vettel??

If he does then I think his F1 career will be over very soon. Obviously Vettel will have the upper hand and beat him but... don't think Ricciardo will be happy or conformist with that.

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 27 Jan 2014, 16:02

Aerond wrote:Call me delusional but I don't think Ricciardo will be happy to be second to Vettel??

I think he is going to have to, whether he likes it or not. Vettel has the immediate upper hand in regards to the team - the 2014 car will have been built around him and him alone, and he is already bedded down in the team as well. Ricciardo has no choice, and I suspect he hopes to just hang on until Vettel either moves to another team or (I think more likely) retire.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 27 Jan 2014, 16:31

tristan1117 wrote: I have a ton of Max Moseley stories I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Mosley has wrapped his other 'head' around lots of things...

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 27 Jan 2014, 16:54

Klon wrote:
mario wrote:The other issue is whether the teams could actually get enough support to overturn the measure - given that the Strategy Commission votes are split three ways (six for the teams, six for the FIA and six for FOM) and decisions require a majority vote to be approved, it would have required all six teams and at least four other officials voting with them to have the rule changed. Now, FOM would use all of its six votes for the motion so, assuming that all of the teams were to vote against the measure (something that is not assured), you would need four of the FIA's officials to vote against the measure for the rule to be amended.

Pretty much this. Most fans have apparentely not understood just how powerless the teams have become. Bernie took them to the cleaners so badly they shine brighter than the sun. The old man got them so good you can't help but admire it.

Stand up everyone.
I have come to believe that it was in fact the Team Principals who collectively ordered the mugging of Ecclestone back in November 2010.
They wanted him 'out' then, did not succeed, and they want him out now. Only a matter of time before they employ the services of the four cowardly robbers again.

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 12 Feb 2014, 17:27

I still don't fully understand why Larrousse lost their points for not mentioning Lola. I've seen things listing them (retroactively of course) as Larrousse-Lola or Lola Larrousse (Like Venturi Larrousse) but HRT weren't HRT-Dallara, and BAR weren't BAR-Reynard. And the old Hondas were Lolas and no one cared. And Team Haas were ORCE cars listed as Lolas, so what the crap?? Lol :lol:

fbjim · Post by **fbjim** » 14 Feb 2014, 08:13

Benetton wrote:I don't like the "double points" rule at all but at the end of the day the scoring system is the same for everyone and an equal opportunity to succeed has been provided. I mean it is better than the "Only X scores of Y rounds count toward the championship" scoring system that made Prost lose a world title! That was IMO even more ridiculous system!

This is going back a bit, but no, it isn't better. Best X out of Y is arbitrary (but then again, so is deciding that a win is worth 9, 10, or 25 points), but the "intent" is good- it's a rule that tries to lessen the effect of bad luck and mechanical failures on a driver's season. At the risk of attributing human characteristics to a mathematical formula, the points system still "intends" to name the best driver of the season- it's just that it's deciding to weigh mechanical faults (and, arguably, mechanical sympathy) as a less important criterion to judge a driver on.

Double points for the last race, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do at all with deciding who the best driver of the season was. There is no possible criterion you can name that rationalizes the idea that the last race of the year is twice as important as every other race. The points system is no longer trying to reward the best driver of the season- and once that's no longer true, the meaning of the championship is irrevocably tainted. Just ask NASCAR fans.

madmark1974 · Post by **madmark1974** » 14 Feb 2014, 10:02

With the ~shock~ news that Daniel Abt will be driving for his father's team in the inagural Formula E season, I was thinking about drivers who have been run by their parents or relations in major motorsport championships.
It's pretty clear that in lower formulae, with go-karts being the most obvious example, you will end up driving a car owned and run by your Dad, but what about in the higher leagues?

In America of course you've got the likes of the Andrettis, Foyts, Earnhardts and Pettys, and in BTCC the likes of Matt Neal with Team Dynamics, but I can't think of many in F1 besides Emerson Fittipaldi driving for his
brother's team from 1976-1980.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 14 Feb 2014, 10:43

madmark1974 wrote:With the ~shock~ news that Daniel Abt will be driving for his father's team in the inagural Formula E season, I was thinking about drivers who have been run by their parents or relations in major motorsport championships.
It's pretty clear that in lower formulae, with go-karts being the most obvious example, you will end up driving a car owned and run by your Dad, but what about in the higher leagues?

In America of course you've got the likes of the Andrettis, Foyts, Earnhardts and Pettys, and in BTCC the likes of Matt Neal with Team Dynamics, but I can't think of many in F1 besides Emerson Fittipaldi driving for his
brother's team from 1976-1980.

David Brabham in 1990, since he drove (somewhat slowly) for Brabham.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 14 Feb 2014, 12:26

FullMetalJack wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:With the ~shock~ news that Daniel Abt will be driving for his father's team in the inagural Formula E season, I was thinking about drivers who have been run by their parents or relations in major motorsport championships.
It's pretty clear that in lower formulae, with go-karts being the most obvious example, you will end up driving a car owned and run by your Dad, but what about in the higher leagues?

In America of course you've got the likes of the Andrettis, Foyts, Earnhardts and Pettys, and in BTCC the likes of Matt Neal with Team Dynamics, but I can't think of many in F1 besides Emerson Fittipaldi driving for his
brother's team from 1976-1980.

David Brabham in 1990, since he drove (somewhat slowly) for Brabham.

Brabham hadn't been run by Jack Brabham for decades by that point though.

pi314159 · Post by **pi314159** » 14 Feb 2014, 12:34

In 1959, Tim Parnell attmpted to qualify for the British GP. The team was run by his father Reg.

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 14 Feb 2014, 13:51

Lewis Hamilton drove at McLaren for his father Ron Dennis. I'll get my coat.......

Post by **tommykl** » 14 Feb 2014, 17:30

Aldo Gordini did his only race for his daddy Amédée's team back in 1951

Post by **mario** » 14 Feb 2014, 17:43

madmark1974 wrote:With the ~shock~ news that Daniel Abt will be driving for his father's team in the inagural Formula E season, I was thinking about drivers who have been run by their parents or relations in major motorsport championships.
It's pretty clear that in lower formulae, with go-karts being the most obvious example, you will end up driving a car owned and run by your Dad, but what about in the higher leagues?

In America of course you've got the likes of the Andrettis, Foyts, Earnhardts and Pettys, and in BTCC the likes of Matt Neal with Team Dynamics, but I can't think of many in F1 besides Emerson Fittipaldi driving for his
brother's team from 1976-1980.

I am surprised that nobody has brought up one of the more high profile drivers who did that, which is Sterling Moss. His father paid for a Maserati 250F and ran an entire team, Equipe Moss, on behalf of his son in 1954 as a way of garnering the attention of Mercedes. Then there was also BRP, another team co-founded by Moss's father and manager, which Moss happened to do a one off race for in 1959.

watka · Post by **watka** » 14 Feb 2014, 19:35

Wallio wrote:Sebastian Vettel drives at Red Bull for his father Helmut Marko. I'll get my coat.......

Fixed.

Aerospeed · Post by **Aerospeed** » 15 Feb 2014, 01:57

Is it just me, or does Autosport shelve every single one of their good articles in Autosport plus???

Take this article for example. Just think, maybe an opportunity to give Vettel some reprieve, perhaps? No, only those who paid for the article can read the article. That's probably about 10% of the people who read Autosport on a regular basis. (I could be wrong, but I digress...)

Add the fact that they tease you with two paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and it's very annoying. Hence why I tend to read Eurosport a lot.

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 15 Feb 2014, 05:32

Aerospeed wrote:Is it just me, or does Autosport shelve every single one of their good articles in Autosport plus???

Take this article for example. Just think, maybe an opportunity to give Vettel some reprieve, perhaps? No, only those who paid for the article can read the article. That's probably about 10% of the people who read Autosport on a regular basis. (I could be wrong, but I digress...)

Add the fact that they tease you with two paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and it's very annoying. Hence why I tend to read Eurosport a lot.

It's a business. If you'd hand out the good stuff for free, it's a bad business decision. Although paying for dirtsheets is not a good idea anyway.

Aerospeed · Post by **Aerospeed** » 15 Feb 2014, 12:59

Klon wrote:
Aerospeed wrote:Is it just me, or does Autosport shelve every single one of their good articles in Autosport plus???

Take this article for example. Just think, maybe an opportunity to give Vettel some reprieve, perhaps? No, only those who paid for the article can read the article. That's probably about 10% of the people who read Autosport on a regular basis. (I could be wrong, but I digress...)

Add the fact that they tease you with two paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and it's very annoying. Hence why I tend to read Eurosport a lot.

It's a business. If you'd hand out the good stuff for free, it's a bad business decision. Although paying for dirtsheets is not a good idea anyway.

Hmm... There's a rule I have, either you make everything free, or not at all. None of this "two-tier" business. In hindsight, I guess it is a bit of a dirtsheet anyways :lol:

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 15 Feb 2014, 13:07

Aerospeed wrote:Is it just me, or does Autosport shelve every single one of their good articles in Autosport plus???

Just think, maybe an opportunity to give Vettel some reprieve, perhaps?

>Reprieve

No in all seriousness, there is a real conflict going on with media and reporting in general since the advent of the internet when news can be gleaned for free and at great ease, different reporting outlets tend to try a variety of forms of maintaining their profitability. It's never nice to have those pay blocks on websites I suppose if it's deemed necessary to the survival of that paper (pretty sure The Times did the same thing) then it's better than the place being forced to fold. Hmm.

Post by **mario** » 15 Feb 2014, 13:22

Aerospeed wrote:
Klon wrote:
Aerospeed wrote:Is it just me, or does Autosport shelve every single one of their good articles in Autosport plus???

Take this article for example. Just think, maybe an opportunity to give Vettel some reprieve, perhaps? No, only those who paid for the article can read the article. That's probably about 10% of the people who read Autosport on a regular basis. (I could be wrong, but I digress...)

Add the fact that they tease you with two paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and it's very annoying. Hence why I tend to read Eurosport a lot.

It's a business. If you'd hand out the good stuff for free, it's a bad business decision. Although paying for dirtsheets is not a good idea anyway.

Hmm... There's a rule I have, either you make everything free, or not at all. None of this "two-tier" business. In hindsight, I guess it is a bit of a dirtsheet anyways

If the additional material that is being provided expands upon the default content (such as historical retrospectives, in depth technical reviews and so forth), then I can understand the logic behind a two tier system.
However, it is a delicate balance in making that additional content worthwhile purchasing - if you keep all of the better quality material behind the pay wall, most people will never bother with the subscription articles because the free articles will not do a good job of advertising the more expensive articles. Providing occasional access to that material as a taster, as it were, might do more good in the longer term if it convinces more people that it is worth paying for those articles - people don't want to buy into something completely blind, as it were.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 15 Feb 2014, 14:16

SgtPepper wrote:

Emma Watson has really let herself go. What a shame. And she was such a looker, too. What happened?

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 15 Feb 2014, 17:11

Jocke1 wrote:
SgtPepper wrote:

Emma Watson has really let herself go. What a shame. And she was such a looker, too. What happened?

Post by **Ataxia** » 15 Feb 2014, 20:10

Jocke1 wrote:
SgtPepper wrote:

Emma Watson has really let herself go. What a shame. And she was such a looker, too. What happened?

Her judgement of hairs for Polyjuice Potions leaves much to be desired...

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 16 Feb 2014, 08:16

Will China ever lose their number one spot in the list of countries by population?
And will Russia move past Bangladesh in the not so distant future?

1 China ----------- 1,360,720,000
2 India ------------ 1,240,380,000
3 United States -- 317,541,000
4 Indonesia ------ 249,866,000
5 Brazil ---------- 201,032,714
6 Pakistan ------ 185,649,000
7 Nigeria -------- 173,615,000
8 Bangladesh --- 152,518,015
9 Russia -------- 143,657,134
10 Japan ------- 127,220,000
82 Somalia ---- 10,496,000