Grand Prix Rejects

W12 wrote:

East Londoner wrote:I don't really want Sauber to score any points this season, simply so that Marussia get to keep that 9th place in the WCC. Sauber have been so awful this season that they don't deserve to beat Marussia in the standings.

I reckon this opinion might go down like a lead balloon, but hey ho...

Not unpopular at all. That would be awesome

I agree. It's a shame for Sauber but I personally feel they're pissing in the wind these days and that Marussia deserve the opportunity to develop and progress. Sauber, in my opinion, are a little bit the architects of their own demise, sadly. Now that may prove unpopular.

I would add to that that Caterham would score one point so the order at the back would be:

9) Marussia
10) Caterham
11) Sauber

Bleu wrote:I would add to that that Caterham would score one point so the order at the back would be:

9) Marussia
10) Caterham
11) Sauber

At the moment, one 11th place or two 12th places would be enough for Caterham. That mostly says a lot about Sauber.

CoopsII wrote:

dr-baker wrote:I would like to see IndyCar and F1 have races on the same weekend together at Austin, Texas and Montreal, Quebec.

Why? Because logistical nightmares viewed from afar make you happy?

Logistical nightmares? F1 races at those venues already, and IndyCar is a North America-based series. It's only Bernie that likes to make things as awkward as possible. I would be equally as happy to see IndyCar on the same race programme as F1 (I wouldn't see either as a support series, but rather equal headlining status) in Europe: Monza, Hockenheim, Silverstone... Maybe even Monaco! IndyCar do like their street circuits...

dr-baker wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

dr-baker wrote:I would like to see IndyCar and F1 have races on the same weekend together at Austin, Texas and Montreal, Quebec.

Why? Because logistical nightmares viewed from afar make you happy?

Logistical nightmares? F1 races at those venues already, and IndyCar is a North America-based series. It's only Bernie that likes to make things as awkward as possible. I would be equally as happy to see IndyCar on the same race programme as F1 (I wouldn't see either as a support series, but rather equal headlining status) in Europe: Monza, Hockenheim, Silverstone... Maybe even Monaco! IndyCar do like their street circuits...

Well considering the Concorde agreement (or maybe the Treaty of Rome, I forget) specifically bans any F1 venue from hosting Indycars........

Wallio wrote:Well considering the Concorde agreement (or maybe the Treaty of Rome, I forget) specifically bans any F1 venue from hosting Indycars........

Well, there was an CART race at Montreal in 2003.

W12 wrote:

Wallio wrote:Well considering the Concorde agreement (or maybe the Treaty of Rome, I forget) specifically bans any F1 venue from hosting Indycars........

Well, there was an CART race at Montreal in 2003.

Correct, I remember they had to get a waiver for it, and they never went back. I also remember Indy had to have a line put in the old USGP contract about the road course being a "separate circuit" or something to that effect, to get around the ban. Indy still lists Jeff Gordon, AJ Foyt et al, as the track leaders in wins despite Schumis 5, because of this.

Wallio wrote:

W12 wrote:

Wallio wrote:Well considering the Concorde agreement (or maybe the Treaty of Rome, I forget) specifically bans any F1 venue from hosting Indycars........

Well, there was an CART race at Montreal in 2003.

Correct, I remember they had to get a waiver for it, and they never went back.

Actually, no, they did go back. CART visited Montreal between 2002 and 2006. It still wasn't on the same weekend, however, as the CART race was held in August, while the Grand Prix was held in June.

Wallio wrote: I remember they had to get a waiver for it, and they never went back. I also remember Indy had to have a line put in the old USGP contract about the road course being a "separate circuit" or something to that effect, to get around the ban. Indy still lists Jeff Gordon, AJ Foyt et al, as the track leaders in wins despite Schumis 5, because of this.

See DB? That sort of logistical nightmare

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote: I remember they had to get a waiver for it, and they never went back. I also remember Indy had to have a line put in the old USGP contract about the road course being a "separate circuit" or something to that effect, to get around the ban. Indy still lists Jeff Gordon, AJ Foyt et al, as the track leaders in wins despite Schumis 5, because of this.

See DB? That sort of logistical nightmare

Yeah, 'cos that is soooooo big a deal...

dr-baker wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

Wallio wrote: I remember they had to get a waiver for it, and they never went back. I also remember Indy had to have a line put in the old USGP contract about the road course being a "separate circuit" or something to that effect, to get around the ban. Indy still lists Jeff Gordon, AJ Foyt et al, as the track leaders in wins despite Schumis 5, because of this.

See DB? That sort of logistical nightmare

Yeah, 'cos that is soooooo big a deal...

Well, on top of that, you've got the slight problems of paddock space and scheduling. If you give preference to one of them, you'd be shafting the other.

tommykl wrote:Well, on top of that, you've got the slight problems of paddock space and scheduling. If you give preference to one of them, you'd be shafting the other.

Nah, just give the pit garages to Penske, Andretti, Ganassi, McLaren, Williams and Ferrari. Other teams to the support paddock!

CoopsII wrote:

W12 wrote:

East Londoner wrote:I don't really want Sauber to score any points this season, simply so that Marussia get to keep that 9th place in the WCC. Sauber have been so awful this season that they don't deserve to beat Marussia in the standings.

I reckon this opinion might go down like a lead balloon, but hey ho...

Not unpopular at all. That would be awesome

I agree. It's a shame for Sauber but I personally feel they're pissing in the wind these days and that Marussia deserve the opportunity to develop and progress. Sauber, in my opinion, are a little bit the architects of their own demise, sadly. Now that may prove unpopular.

Sauber seems to have lost its soul since Peter Sauber departed from the team. The car isn't daring and neither is the driving line up. I thought at the start of the season that Sutil was an OK choice, sometimes fast but not reliable, but he's proved slow and unreliable. And Gutierrez, well the less said the better. I feel sorry for those who helped the team over-achieve back the 2000s but I feel nothing for the new establishment.

dr-baker wrote:

tommykl wrote:Well, on top of that, you've got the slight problems of paddock space and scheduling. If you give preference to one of them, you'd be shafting the other.

Nah, just give the pit garages to Penske, Andretti, Ganassi, McLaren, Williams and Ferrari. Other teams to the support paddock!

And, of course, Bernie will be ever so generous with everything to do with the financial side of things..

If F1 races are to be completely fair in the incidences of race interruptions, there should be no safety car. Instead, they should be red flagged and the race result based on aggregate time of the multiple races.

Discuss.

watka wrote:If F1 races are to be completely fair in the incidences of race interruptions, there should be no safety car. Instead, they should be red flagged and the race result based on aggregate time of the multiple races.

Discuss.

While it would be fairer technically speaking, it would be very difficult to convince the armchair supporter that the man in third is actually leading.

The racing this year is some of the best and most entertaining we've seen in F1.

Don't forget, everyone was expecting Hungary to be a snooze-fest (granted the rain helped!)

watka wrote:If F1 races are to be completely fair in the incidences of race interruptions, there should be no safety car. Instead, they should be red flagged and the race result based on aggregate time of the multiple races.

Discuss.

Personally I agree completely with this, not only is it fairer but can also give the possibility of a Suzuka 1994-esque nailbiting finish.

Probably the best of all worlds (in terms of fairness, avoiding race interruption, keeping the order on-the-road) would be the WEC's slow zone system that they are trying, (and then stopping the race for when an incident is serious enough to require a fully clear track for the marshals). I get the feeling that wouldn't be "entertaining" enough for the safety car standing restarts brigade running the sport however

Jean Denis-Deletraz deserved to win a world title.
Ayrton Senna was a useless driver who should have worked in a coffee shop instead and was totally outshone by Michael Andretti in 93.
Andrea Moda was expertly and professionally managed.
The best possible driver line-up would be Al Pease and Jean Denis-Deletraz in a 1997 Lola.
Pastor Maldonado is the most reliable and error prone in F1 history and he should have won multiple titles by now.
All other F1 teams should have pulled out in the middle of 97 to spend the money on sponsoring Forti.

(In fact being F1 rejects these are probably actually popular)

deletraz wrote:Jean Denis-Deletraz deserved to win a world title.
Ayrton Senna was a useless driver who should have worked in a coffee shop instead and was totally outshone by Michael Andretti in 93.
Andrea Moda was expertly and professionally managed.
The best possible driver line-up would be Al Pease and Jean Denis-Deletraz in a 1997 Lola.
Pastor Maldonado is the most reliable and error prone in F1 history and he should have won multiple titles by now.
All other F1 teams should have pulled out in the middle of 97 to spend the money on sponsoring Forti.

(In fact being F1 rejects these are probably actually popular)

There's unpopular, and then there's trolling, and you sir are the latter.

AustralianStig wrote:

deletraz wrote:Jean Denis-Deletraz deserved to win a world title.
Ayrton Senna was a useless driver who should have worked in a coffee shop instead and was totally outshone by Michael Andretti in 93.
Andrea Moda was expertly and professionally managed.
The best possible driver line-up would be Al Pease and Jean Denis-Deletraz in a 1997 Lola.
Pastor Maldonado is the most reliable and error prone in F1 history and he should have won multiple titles by now.
All other F1 teams should have pulled out in the middle of 97 to spend the money on sponsoring Forti.

(In fact being F1 rejects these are probably actually popular)

There's unpopular, and then there's trolling, and you sir are the latter.

This is not even trolling, because nobody is going to fall for this. Please tell me nobody is going to fall for this?

I like DRS despite sometimes got disappointed by it (too easy to pass)
Kerbs are fun. Cutting kerbs looks beautiful (as in Interlagos)
Monaco race should be increased to 300 km with 3 hours limit (I feel I have said this once)
We should do a F1-GP2 race, with F1 cars ERS-K limited to have same HP as GP2 or less, depends on the circuit. I don't see an issue racing 48 cars on track
If that is not enough, put the whole IndyCar grid (drivers who started Indy 500+some non-participate like EJ Viso and Mike Conway) with F1-GP2. That would make 83 cars.
Now the issue is which track can host 83 cars.

AxelP800 wrote:We should do a F1-GP2 race, with F1 cars ERS-K limited to have same HP as GP2 or less, depends on the circuit. I don't see an issue racing 48 cars on track
If that is not enough, put the whole IndyCar grid (drivers who started Indy 500+some non-participate like EJ Viso and Mike Conway) with F1-GP2. That would make 83 cars.
Now the issue is which track can host 83 cars.

Knowing that 56 cars compete at Le Mans, presumably the only track long enough would be the Nurburgring Nordschleife. Ballaugh Bridge would prevent low-slung single-seaters from getting around the Manx TT.

AxelP800 wrote:Monaco race should be increased to 300 km with 3 hours limit (I feel I have said this once)

We should do a F1-GP2 race, with F1 cars ERS-K limited to have same HP as GP2 or less, depends on the circuit. I don't see an issue racing 48 cars on track

Put those 2 together, and epicallity will ensure

Romain Grosjean deserves more of a reputation for being an appalling driver in the rain, he crashes or spins off virtually every time it gets wet (think of Malaysia 2012, Brazil 2012 or Hungary this year).

AxelP800 wrote:Kerbs are fun. Cutting kerbs looks beautiful (as in Interlagos)

Imola was the best for that with its bish-bosh chicanes.

I've gone a bit off Kobayashi. I know it's not his fault we rarely see him on the coverage but I just didn't expect him to be quite so anonymous this year.

CoopsII wrote:I've gone a bit off Kobayashi. I know it's not his fault we rarely see him on the coverage but I just didn't expect him to be quite so anonymous this year.

Me neither, but in truth it is difficult to be noticed in a Caterham as almost all of their current and former drivers can tell you.

DanielPT wrote:

CoopsII wrote:I've gone a bit off Kobayashi. I know it's not his fault we rarely see him on the coverage but I just didn't expect him to be quite so anonymous this year.

Me neither, but in truth it is difficult to be noticed in a Caterham as almost all of their current and former drivers can tell you.

They barely ever show anything below 8th nowadays, even when it's a very quiet race. I still reckon they should have some sort of legal requirement to give the the teams further back a certain proportion of air-time, but hardly see that happening any time soon.

Sochi circuit is another bad track made by Tilke.

Dj_bereta wrote:Sochi circuit is another bad track made by Tilke.

You may end up being correct but I think you'd be best saving this unpopular opinion, oh I don't, maybe until there's been a frigging race at least It could be the best track. EVER!

I'd like to see Bruno Senna back in Formula 1.

The slow zones idea is total rubbish.

Mexicola wrote:The slow zones idea is total rubbish.

And your alternative solution is...? Classic Mexicola, always complaining but never willing to come up with ideas himself.

Mexicola wrote:The slow zones idea is total rubbish.

Total agree.

They need to do what Villeneuve said. If a crash happens, bring the safety car, slow down asap all drivers and start the procedure of rescue of the driver and the removal of the car and the debris. It still dangerous to bring a crane to the track, even with slow zones.

CoopsII wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Sochi circuit is another bad track made by Tilke.

You may end up being correct but I think you'd be best saving this unpopular opinion, oh I don't, maybe until there's been a frigging race at least It could be the best track. EVER!

Well, after the race... I really don't know if my opinion stills unpopular.

Dj_bereta wrote:

Mexicola wrote:The slow zones idea is total rubbish.

Total agree.

They need to do what Villeneuve said. If a crash happens, bring the safety car, slow down asap all drivers and start the procedure of rescue of the driver and the removal of the car and the debris. It still dangerous to bring a crane to the track, even with slow zones.

Nobody said having slow zones solves every problem with recovering stopped cars. Or if they did, then they obviously didn't put any thought into it beyond that. It's not as easy as simply implementing it, but surely you can agree that limiting drivers to a specific speed that everyone is aware of is safer than having the drivers guess for themselves?

Ataxia wrote:

Mexicola wrote:The slow zones idea is total rubbish.

And your alternative solution is...? Classic Mexicola, always complaining but never willing to come up with ideas himself.

Oi, this is the "unpopular F1 opinions" thread, not the "you don't like something provide an alternative, jackass" thread. Usually I'd say my obligatory "don't like it, piss off" response, but seeing you're so interested in what I post all the time, I'll bite.

Safety Car. Use it.

(Unpopular non-F1 opinion)

Formula Renault 3.5 sucks. It sucks a lot. It sucks like hell. Nothing in this universe can be worse than a FR3.5 race.

Also, the qualify of the field is far from remarkable. Carlos Sainz Jr. winning the championship so easily and Roberto Merhi, in spite of driving for the worst team in the championship, having made zero kilometers of pre-season testing and having been out of single-seater competitions for two years, running just behind him prove that there's not really much to expect from the other guys.

(I don't want to sound unfair. I like Merhi, but he shouldn't be competing at such a high level right from the word go)

I know lots of people will say many things about GP2 and Jolyon Palmer as a reply, but c'mon, most of the current GP2 field would be fighting easily for top 5 in FR3.5 (yeah, Sorensen isn't doing this currently, but he's been struggling a lot with a team that lost a big part of its personnel over the winter). Even journeymen like Quaife-Hobbs and Haryanto would be up front.

I don't mind the 1992 Brabham livery

TheFlyingCaterham wrote:I don't mind the 1992 Brabham livery

The only thing i dislike about it is that baby blue and baby pink don't fit together. But apart, both colours just work fine.

Another unpopular livery opinion: i actually love the 2000 Minardi livery. I guess i like things that are different. Instead of all things being white, red, blue and gray, meh.
One thing i dislike though are football teams that play in green, because i can't bathplug see the difference between them and the grass