Grand Prix Rejects

As Simtek says, I can appreciate that passions can run high about these things, but I believe that everybody here is capable of a sensible discussion.

DonTirri wrote:... Can we just restrict the designs to a point where the cars look more like late 80's/early 90's cars without all the technical thingamajigs and aerodynamic silliness. To a point where driver skill matters more than design skill and money.

I doubt that you will ever have a formula where raw driver skill is the sole arbiter, as even in spec series a top team is often prepared to spend a lot of money to eke out the tiniest technical advantages.

Just look at NASCAR - a series where the cars are standardised and intended to be relatively simple to drive and operate. A top line team will quite happily throw millions at everything from the finest of fine tunes they can make to the engines through to the shaker rigs for suspension testing - when it comes to trying to find "the unfair advantage", as it used to be called, the largest teams will sink a lot more cask than you might think.

When Haas commented that his initial budget to race in F1 was the same as his NASCAR team, people thought that he must be mistaken - but the team accounts show that his NASCAR team burned through $115 million last year, and his team isn't even in the top 5 when it comes to spending (Hendrick Motorsports, which I believe is the biggest spender in NASCAR, has a budget of around $190 million a year).

When you look at the late 1970's through to the 1990's, raw spending power was just as important as brake horsepower (and often translated into the same thing through the turbo years). When Williams took a leap forward in 1979 and Jones started winning multiple races for the team, kickstarting their golden age in the 1980's, it wasn't just because of his talent - Williams, courtesy of their sponsorship from Saudia and other Middle Eastern investors, had become the richest team in the sport (they were the first team to have a multi-million pound budget), and that money was paying off in the form of extensive wind tunnel testing.

John J. Schmidt was right when he described the world of motorsport in the 1980's as the sport of corporations - with a well filled wallet and a strong car, most other issues were secondary and drivers became something of a plaything for the larger teams, hence Williams's famous quip about drivers being as interchangeable as lightbulbs.

tommykl wrote:The fact of the matter is that the rule is too vague. It says to slow down and be prepared to stop. There is no authority on how much you should slow down. 10km/h? 50? Below 100km/h? A standstill? From the moment Rosberg slowed down noticeably (as confirmed by the telemetry), he was within the letter of the rules.

If the rule in question explicitly defined how slow he should have been going, this would not have been a problem. It wasn't. The logical course of action is allowing it, and subsequently rewriting the rule to prevent this from happening again.

Ostensibly, there is a Technical Directive from Whiting which gave a stronger indication of what drivers were expected to do - it was issued back in March 2014 (i.e. before Bianchi's accident), and that directive stated that, in his opinion, the drivers should show that their sector time was at least 0.2s slower than normal for a single waived yellow and 0.5s for a double waived yellow.

It should be noted that, in this case, a sector isn't one of the three timing sectors that we are used to - race control breaks the lap down into up to 20 sub-sectors, which can be around 10 seconds in length, which is intended to make it easier to pinpoint issues on track (say, a stranded car or a damaged barrier).

It does still leave a fair amount up to the driver, and in some ways it might be better if a harder speed limit was in place (although there might be the question of what happens if, for example, a driver was below that limit but had an accident - say, due to aquaplaning in wet weather).

The problem does seem to be that the decision over Rosberg has encouraged other drivers to take similar liberties - I believe that Vettel has since admitted that he initially approached that corner in a similar way to Rosberg, and Arrivabene appears to have now suggested that, in future, he'll tell his drivers to do what Rosberg did and argue about the consequences with the stewards later.

Rosberg certainly is not the first driver to push his luck under a single or double waived flag - just going back to the Austrian GP, Magnussen and Hulkenberg were investigated for potential yellow flag infringements - although he was probably one of the more high profile drivers to try it on. Still, it feels like the general backsliding on enforcing yellow flags is setting a bad precedent, and one which has the potential to bite quite hard.

Mexicola wrote:You're absolutely right. Blaming just one of the factors for his death is ignorant, it just so happens that's not what I was doing. The tractor didn't cause him to crash, the rain and water were beyond his control. His speed certainly was. And it cannot be denied that he was going too fast. If he slowed down, he wouldn't have crashed, or he wouldn't have crashed at the velocity that he did. It's not that complicated.

Yet at the same time, had there been no tractor it would've been nothing but a harmless spin or at worst a trip to the barricade. Which the cars ARE designed to withstand. Or had there been no standing water or rain he probably would not have even spun. So not slowing down was a contributing factor, but not the factor that made the crash significant. And speeding on wet weather is not exactly comparable to what Nico did. Sure there had been rain, but the circuit was mostly dry at that point with no standing water in the racing line. So the potential risk of something happening was nowhere near Bianchi-levels, neither on the likelyhood of spinning or the consequences of spinning.

You're overreacting in a very ignorant manner.

DonTirri wrote:Yet at the same time, had there been no tractor it would've been nothing but a harmless spin or at worst a trip to the barricade. Which the cars ARE designed to withstand. Or had there been no standing water or rain he probably would not have even spun. So not slowing down was a contributing factor, but not the factor that made the crash significant. And speeding on wet weather is not exactly comparable to what Nico did. Sure there had been rain, but the circuit was mostly dry at that point with no standing water in the racing line. So the potential risk of something happening was nowhere near Bianchi-levels, neither on the likelyhood of spinning or the consequences of spinning.

You're overreacting in a very ignorant manner.

I think you're overlooking a very basic point that I was making which is "Rosberg speeding = bad", but now we're discussing tractors and shite which is not relevant to what we're talking about, frankly. Probably my fault for even typing out the letters "T R A C T O R", my reason for putting that in was to avoid a "wait, hold on a sec wackomexo!" situation but whatever, if we're going to be all dramatic about this I can't really be bothered to be honest. I've grass that needs cutting, or something.

GPRejects spectators right now...

Mexicola wrote:

DonTirri wrote:Yet at the same time, had there been no tractor it would've been nothing but a harmless spin or at worst a trip to the barricade. Which the cars ARE designed to withstand. Or had there been no standing water or rain he probably would not have even spun. So not slowing down was a contributing factor, but not the factor that made the crash significant. And speeding on wet weather is not exactly comparable to what Nico did. Sure there had been rain, but the circuit was mostly dry at that point with no standing water in the racing line. So the potential risk of something happening was nowhere near Bianchi-levels, neither on the likelyhood of spinning or the consequences of spinning.

You're overreacting in a very ignorant manner.

I think you're overlooking a very basic point that I was making which is "Rosberg speeding = bad", but now we're discussing tractors and shite which is not relevant to what we're talking about, frankly. Probably my fault for even typing out the letters "T R A C T O R", my reason for putting that in was to avoid a "wait, hold on a sec wackomexo!" situation but whatever, if we're going to be all dramatic about this I can't really be bothered to be honest. I've grass that needs cutting, or something.

You're the one who insisted on using Bianchi as an argument. I never said Rosberg's speeding wasn't bad. But saying he should have been punished that excessively "because of Bianchi" IS ignorant. The stewards rendered their judgement and that is that. Trying to make a case using an extreme example which you know hits close to home in this audience is not just ignorant, it's downright lame

EDIT: Rephrased to maintain a semblance of civility

CoopsII wrote:What are you talking about? First of all what's the difference between a crash and a collision? Secondly, Rodriguez wasn't killed by a brake failure, he was killed when he crashed/collided (you decide) with a concrete barrier. Finally, we can never know for sure whether or not F1 style safety rules would've saved those drivers from their high-speed impact accidents but several F1 drivers also had high speed impact accidents in that time period and lived to tell the tale.

What I'm saying is: I disagree when you say Cart rules were unsafe in the '90s. The deaths aren't result of unsafe rules, but result of race incidents which could happen everywhere, like a car getting airborne or a mechanical failure which result in a serious crash.

This is a hilarious argument, the one between Mexicola and DonTirri. shame they didn't wait until I got back from work before they started it

roblomas52 wrote:This is a hilarious argument, the one between Mexicola and DonTirri. shame they didn't wait until I got back from work before they started it

Shame that you didn't bunk off work early to get here in time for it.

In fact, it's a shame that it hasn't remained up on the forum so you can catch up with what's going on. Oh wait...

OR
Hey, Mexicola, DonTirri, do you think you could start your argument again? I think Mr RobLomas wants to take part in it this time! He's feeling a little left out, bless him.

dr-baker wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:This is a hilarious argument, the one between Mexicola and DonTirri. shame they didn't wait until I got back from work before they started it

Shame that you didn't bunk off work early to get here in time for it.

In fact, it's a shame that it hasn't remained up on the forum so you can catch up with what's going on. Oh wait...

OR
Hey, Mexicola, DonTirri, do you think you could start your argument again? I think Mr RobLomas wants to take part in it this time! He's feeling a little left out, bless him.

I did read it before dinner so I am up to date!

I should have taken Cooops on his wager, too much shrapnel for the staying power to handle.

Frentzen127 wrote:I should have taken Cooops on his wager, too much shrapnel for the staying power to handle.

It was the result no-one expected, The Finnish Foulmouth takes the belt.

watka wrote:

Aguaman wrote:I think it might be time to move on from Martin Brundle. I know people love him butit seems like he's very hypocritical and saying Alonso was more blantant than 2006 Monaco Schumi. I dunno.

Though guess it doesn't help that Sky Sports and Crofty. Also Ted Kravitz is on my nerve too. He is not a good interviewer.

I don't want Sky Sports, are you saying that Brundle thought Alonso blocking the track was deliberate?

He said it was as blatant as Schumi 2006 Monaco. Di Resta shut him down.

I've decided to have a small rant; F1 - I'm fed up of hearing of drivers running out of brakes, and of drivers having braking issues from 'excessive' wear. This is F1! And I don't think its acceptable. I know there are rules which limit brakes , and I know teams like to take things 'to the limit', and these combine to throw up these issues , but given the technology and expertise available really I think F1 should be able to ensure that no-one ever runs out of brakes except where there has been a completely exceptional circumstance. Someone should ensure there is a wide safety margin - in brake material and cooling .
There will always be failures in systems..but running out of brake material ( from inadequate cooling..insufficient material, whatever) shouldn't happen these days..surely.

yannicksamlad wrote:running out of brake material ( from inadequate cooling..insufficient material, whatever) shouldn't happen these days..surely.

If the powers that be thought it made "great racing" they'd probably send them out with no brakes at all.

CoopsII wrote:

yannicksamlad wrote:running out of brake material ( from inadequate cooling..insufficient material, whatever) shouldn't happen these days..surely.

If the powers that be thought it made "great racing" they'd probably send them out with no brakes at all.

It would massively raise braking distances.

Well, you know what I mean....

I know the two aren't cause and effect, but damn me if that isn't ironic as hell.
Also sorry for weird size, needed to get both on the screen at the same time

What a bunch of idiots. Who the hell approved that?!

This Hamilton penalty malarky is bloody ludicrous. He should serve the full penalty even if it takes several GPs. In effect, he only served a one-place penalty for going three power units over the limit, as he trundled round for 21st just to be inside the 107% time.

It would also add excitement to qualifying if he had to shoot for pole to try to get rid of the maximum possible 21 places of his penalty, but retain the excitement of him fighting through the field - here, but also at Monza and in Singapore where he'd have to start somewhere between 14th and last.

But what do I know?

I completely agree. With the way the rulebook is framed, there's absolutely nothing stopping him from taking on 10 different engines here and having a free fresh engine for every remaining race, and a couple qualifying engines for good measure. All without any further penalty.

Absolutely hate to see the classic "but Senna, and Schumacher, ergo you have to drive dirty to be a true great" defence for dirty driving.

Like F1 started from Ayrton Senna, and the likes of Nuvolari, Fangio, Clark and Prost never existed.

Aislabie wrote:This Hamilton penalty malarky is bloody ludicrous. He should serve the full penalty even if it takes several GPs. In effect, he only served a one-place penalty for going three power units over the limit, as he trundled round for 21st just to be inside the 107% time.

It would also add excitement to qualifying if he had to shoot for pole to try to get rid of the maximum possible 21 places of his penalty, but retain the excitement of him fighting through the field - here, but also at Monza and in Singapore where he'd have to start somewhere between 14th and last.

But what do I know?

If that were the case, McLaren would probably still be paying off the grid penalties that they racked up last year - remember how, in the Mexican GP last year, McLaren did exactly what Mercedes have done now and took on new engines that effectively only had to last for one race weekend?

Equally, Ferrari stated back in Canada, IIRC, that they were going to take strategic engine penalties later this year because their drivers are also short of parts - the only reason they hadn't done it yet is because they were waiting to introduce their final upgrade package, which is coming in at Monza.

I don't see why it makes that much difference for Mercedes to do what other teams were either already planning on doing or had already done. Furthermore, it's been pointed out that Hamilton will be paying a price later in the season for taking engines now.

Mercedes still have six development tokens left and are planning to bring in an updated engine later this year, currently rumoured to be at the Japanese GP. As things stand, only Rosberg will be able to use that performance upgrade without having to take a penalty - the two drivers are going to have different benefits at different times this year, so Hamilton doesn't necessarily have quite as much of an advantage as you might think.

Spot on Mario. It's allowed in the rules, it's been done before and teams will be doing it again. The only thing that's different now is that people aren't happy because they don't particularly like Mercedes and/or Hamilton and so they believe they should somehow be penalised more than others.

mario wrote:

Aislabie wrote:This Hamilton penalty malarky is bloody ludicrous. He should serve the full penalty even if it takes several GPs. In effect, he only served a one-place penalty for going three power units over the limit, as he trundled round for 21st just to be inside the 107% time.

It would also add excitement to qualifying if he had to shoot for pole to try to get rid of the maximum possible 21 places of his penalty, but retain the excitement of him fighting through the field - here, but also at Monza and in Singapore where he'd have to start somewhere between 14th and last.

But what do I know?

If that were the case, McLaren would probably still be paying off the grid penalties that they racked up last year - remember how, in the Mexican GP last year, McLaren did exactly what Mercedes have done now and took on new engines that effectively only had to last for one race weekend?

Equally, Ferrari stated back in Canada, IIRC, that they were going to take strategic engine penalties later this year because their drivers are also short of parts - the only reason they hadn't done it yet is because they were waiting to introduce their final upgrade package, which is coming in at Monza.

I don't see why it makes that much difference for Mercedes to do what other teams were either already planning on doing or had already done. Furthermore, it's been pointed out that Hamilton will be paying a price later in the season for taking engines now.

Mercedes still have six development tokens left and are planning to bring in an updated engine later this year, currently rumoured to be at the Japanese GP. As things stand, only Rosberg will be able to use that performance upgrade without having to take a penalty - the two drivers are going to have different benefits at different times this year, so Hamilton doesn't necessarily have quite as much of an advantage as you might think.

It makes no difference which team it involves; the McLaren incident last year was wrong, the Mercedes incident this year was wrong, and any other team doing it this year would be wrong.

I have no ill-will to Mercedes for making use of a loophole, especially after they were instrumental in trying to close said loophole. It's just a stupid loophole.

The other reason to care more is what's at stake - possibly the World Championship.

I was writing this in the F1 Sold thread, but it's more fitting here.

There's already far too many races this year. 21 is, in my opinion, a ludicrous number of races for a single season, and it devalues the worth of each individual race. Even during the 19-race calendars I was groaning at the fact that previously championship-deciding venues like Spa and Monza are still in the slot around races 11 to 14, but are no longer among the final stages. Because now when such an event as the clash between the Mercedes drivers at Spa 2014, or when Vettel's car broke down at Monza 2012, there are still seven more races in the championship. "Everything is still to play for" is a phrase commentators use that I really hate, because they use it practically every race. And there's a reason for this: there's too many races which make the importance and the jeopardy facing the drivers and the audience diluted.

Imagine Hakkinen binning it at Monza, but it's not 1999, it's 2016. He wouldn't have gone off crying in the woods, because there's not three races left, there's seven. In a 25-race calendar, Hakkinen would have over 10 races left to make up the points he lost, so who cares.

It's certainly not going to keep the costs down, bulking the calendar up to 25. Expect your pay-per-view bills to increase accordingly too. "Your current contract costs X amount but as you're getting another four races per season it will now cost you XXX amount"

Wotevs, F1 will be the domain of the middle classes. They're welcome to it.

I have to say this is all very reminiscent of a girlfriend I had in the nineties. She was heading for Uni and I knew our relationship couldn't survive that. Too many knobbing opportunities, you know what it's like. I was upset. However, as time went on she became so up herself about getting into this particular Uni and getting out of this old town when it came to it I was frigging glad to see the back of her. And I discovered plenty of opportunities of my own.

Anyway, F1 has become like Lisa. Frig off Lisa and frig off F1.

So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Ataxia wrote:So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Rental fan!

Yeah. I think this is a good time to give up watching the sport I used to watch for the past 20 years. I might still look up the results on the internet, but after this year it's no live TV broadcasts for me anymore.

Ataxia wrote:So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Hey, don't make fun. We were together for almost a whole month in 1995.

Ataxia wrote:So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!

and so on...

AdrianBelmonte_ wrote:

Ataxia wrote:So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!

and so on...

That reference completely passed me by. I've Googled it and I still don't remember it.

CoopsII wrote:

AdrianBelmonte_ wrote:

Ataxia wrote:So you don't agree that Lisa needs races?

Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!

and so on...

That reference completely passed me by. I've Googled it and I still don't remember it.

Bullseye!

dr-baker wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

AdrianBelmonte_ wrote:Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!
Dental plan!
Lisa needs races!

and so on...

That reference completely passed me by. I've Googled it and I still don't remember it.

Bullseye!

Thanks, Captain Obvious

Ataxia wrote:Thanks, Captain Obvious

You're welcome!

Nuppiz wrote:Yeah. I think this is a good time to give up watching the sport I used to watch for the past 20 years. I might still look up the results on the internet, but after this year it's no live TV broadcasts for me anymore.

I think I'll probably have to go through a phase of ignoring it. I'm quite happy reading NASCAR or Indycar results and seeing the odd clip on their respective websites but I think that first season when F1 goes to SKY in the UK completely I think I could end up being bitterness personified.

That said, I read somewhere there was some talk of a free to air highlights package for C4 (if they want to buy it). I could probably live with that, depending on what time it aired.

Very sad that people are thinking they might become distanced from F1 and lose interest..essentially because the cost of following it is too high.
SInce a person's interest is likely to vary over time, but the cost of following a pay-to-view sport tends to be significant and increase over time ( doesnt it?) ..whereas when it is free/low cost it is easy to recapture followers, when the cost is significant there is a danger of them never returning. I wonder what sports have a successful strategy for coping with that. Or do they just rely on 'new' followers?
The answer is 'differential' pricing - low enough to allow those less willing/able to pay to still follow the sport, but extracting premium prices from those willing/able to pay. But unlike coffee sellers etc the room to implement this is apparently limited for F1..or at least it doesnt seem to have been done before. ( Or has it?)
I wonder if the new owners will come up with something

F1 should follow the example of WWE and create their own F1 network.

The WWE network is brilliant. For ten dollars a month, you get access to everything they've ever produced - every episode of Raw, Heat, Smackdown etc, every pay per view, all PPV's are streamed live, and you get tonnes of non wrestling content (reality shows, interviews, archive stuff, discussions, podcasts etc)

They really should do this with F1. They have a massive back catalogue of stuff just sitting on the shelf, they need to monetize it.

Izzyeviel wrote:F1 should follow the example of WWE...

You scared me for a second there.

Well, i had to get a digicorder only to receive the RTBF footage. If RTBF quits broadcasting, i only have RTL Luxembourg as an alternative, and if both of them decide to quit broadcasting, then F1 is simply over for me.

And another idea that would make F1 more attractive. Make playable official toys. You know, like the early nineties toys Matchbox made? This at least makes the next generation get interested in F1! The occasional Bburago Red Bull model or Lego McLaren or Ferrari isn't going to win over enough souls. Especially not when Lego's Porsche models are significantly better (that's just an opinion though)

Idea 2: Anime.
You just need a Prost vs. Senna like story, and it will work out just fine. Really. People've been waiting for a proper motorsport anime (that isn't about drifting) for a while now. I'm sure Honda would totally be won over for the idea. Plenty of product placement opportuinities....