Grand Prix Rejects

Well, if someone like Vettel or Alonso would be saying this, it would have more meaning. Trulli's just upset because he finished behind a HRT.

Waris wrote:Most of all, though, I guess, I miss the time when F1 was more compatible with other types of racing, especially IndyCar (or should I say "American open-wheel racing", since the name IndyCar didn't exist back then). From 1950-1960, the Indianapolis 500 counted for the World Championship. When I first found out about that, I thought it was so bizarre and cool. (I'll never forget first taking a look at the 1950 drivers and teams and wondering why there were so many Americans...) Sadly, they took it off the calendar just when those worlds were beginning to mix a little. In 1952, Alberto Ascari entered the Indy 500 in a specially designed Ferrari. In 1959, Roger Ward (that year's Indy 500 winner, I think) entered the United States Grand Prix at Sebring with a Kurtis Kraft midget car. Then in the sixties, there was Brabham, Stewart, Hill, Clark... taking part in the Indy 500, with Hill and Clark even winning. Brabham, McLaren, March all designed cars for Indy, at some point March was even the sole chassis supplier, I think.
I'd love to see F1 cars go round on an oval, WITHOUT nasty accidents...

USAC, my friend, if we're talking pre-1979, although it still sanctioned the Indy 500 until 1997, IIRC. As much as I feel much closer to American open-wheel now, the Indy 500 as part of the World Championship was just a rubbish way to try and include that other part of the world in the World Championship. The Americans never really took it seriously, like you said, Ward brought his Kurtis Kraft under the impression that it was a superior car through the corners, even boasting that he would win, of course he was blasted away. The 60s was really the Golden Era of the Europeans at Indy, and to this day, from memory, the only post-60s European winners are Franchitti, Wheldon and Brack (and only because Gordon ran out of gas, although that's not to say Brack was untalented). In addition to March, don't forget Lola, who were far more competitive than their F1 disasters, and Penske was very British if you talked about their design team (Nigel Bennett, and I think they were based in Poole or somewhere). I don't think March ever supplied the sole chassis in the series, but I know that they certainly held a monopoly on the market for a short period in the 80s. I certainly would like to see F1 at either Indy, Michigan, Fontana and some other ovals, but the F1 cars are way too light to survive an oval race. I would love an F1 oval race when the turbos return, because seriously, the current IndyCars sound nothing as good as during the peak of American open-wheel, 1991-2001, as our good friend Cynon has explained previously.

If only motorsport was part of the school syllabus, damnit...

EDIT: Just remembered Arie Luyendyk. Considering you're Dutch, I'm sorry I didn't remember at first sight.

Old Hockenheim. Seriously why did it have to go? The lap wasn't stupid long like the old Nurburgring or old Spa!!!

(And I agree about Imola too - they had to change it post-1994 tragedies but could have made Tamburello one slow corner and eliminated the Villeneuve kink by just making that section a straight, similar to what they did at Montreal).

James1978 wrote:Old Hockenheim. Seriously why did it have to go? The lap wasn't stupid long like the old Nurburgring or old Spa!!!

I loved the old Hockenheim. The problem there was the circuit owner couldn't build stands along the flat-out sections that ran through the forest and there were only so many spectators that could be crammed into the stadium section. I guess they just decided that more stands were needed so they got Hermann Tilke to redesign the track and in the progress completely destroyed the character of the place. The old Hockenheim was quite challenging, trying to handle a car with very little downforce at the slow-speed chicanes after the flat-out straights, as well as the stadium section that called for more downforce. Having another high-speed track, along with Monza, made it worthwhile for the teams to develop low-downforce packages to suit the tracks. Such a shame. Someone posted some photos here a while ago that showed the forest straight sections all overgrown with weeds and trees, because the circuit owner had to dig up the tarmac.

James1978 wrote:Old Hockenheim. Seriously why did it have to go? The lap wasn't stupid long like the old Nurburgring or old Spa!!!

(And I agree about Imola too - they had to change it post-1994 tragedies but could have made Tamburello one slow corner and eliminated the Villeneuve kink by just making that section a straight, similar to what they did at Montreal).

Time to clarify some things:

Many people blame Bernie for the destruction of the old Hockenheimring. While Bernie indeed demanded renovations on the circuit, he didn't demand something like that. Initial plans suggested that the rebuild circuit turns right on the first chicane (So no right-left, but just right. From there, the circuit would go right to where the Ayrton Senna-Chicane was. Long story short, Bernie only demanded a new layout that would ensure shorter laptimes and more laps, which would have meant just shorter straights. But local politicians needed a penis enlargement, and completely screwed up the place.

Ferrarist wrote:
Time to clarify some things:

Many people blame Bernie for the destruction of the old Hockenheimring. While Bernie indeed demanded renovations on the circuit, he didn't demand something like that. Initial plans suggested that the rebuild circuit turns right on the first chicane (So no right-left, but just right. From there, the circuit would go right to where the Ayrton Senna-Chicane was. Long story short, Bernie only demanded a new layout that would ensure shorter laptimes and more laps, which would have meant just shorter straights. But local politicians needed a penis enlargement, and completely screwed up the place.

Fair enough, but the circuit would have been mutilated anyway with that solution. But what was the politicians stance about this? Was it something related to environmentalism, or what?

"Hockenheim is a place that I detest. There are three chicanes, two of which you have to take in second gear, but since the rest of it is comprised of straights you have to take all your downforce off, which results in a very nervous car. It's horrible to drive as you have no grip and the car is twitchy. When you enter the stadium after Agipkurve it's particularly difficult here and drivers take a lot out of their tyres through this section. It is impossible to find a rhythm on this track, and as so much time is spent on the straights, you can lose concentration. Driving in the wet is also difficult, as you have little downforce and, therefore, not as much grip. If it's raining, thre trees act as filters and cause mist to hang in the air."

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who came up with this diatribe?

dinizintheoven wrote:Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who came up with this diatribe?

Ayrton Senna?

Alain Prost, surely...

dinizintheoven wrote:"Hockenheim is a place that I detest. There are three chicanes, two of which you have to take in second gear, but since the rest of it is comprised of straights you have to take all your downforce off, which results in a very nervous car. It's horrible to drive as you have no grip and the car is twitchy. When you enter the stadium after Agipkurve it's particularly difficult here and drivers take a lot out of their tyres through this section. It is impossible to find a rhythm on this track, and as so much time is spent on the straights, you can lose concentration. Driving in the wet is also difficult, as you have little downforce and, therefore, not as much grip. If it's raining, thre trees act as filters and cause mist to hang in the air."

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who came up with this diatribe?

Giovanni Lavaggi

Maybe Pironi?

Four attempts, all wrong. Though one of the drivers mentioned did drive for the same team as the man whose words of vitriol I have quoted had just driven for the previous season from the quote. Though not at the same time.

Is anyone still with me...?

Berger? Tambay?

Was it Martin Brundle?

Warwick? Mansell?

I also miss team principals with character, especially Flavio believe it or not.

I mean think...

Ron Dennis --> Martin Whitmarsh
Jean Todt --> Stefano Domenicali
Flavio Briatore --> Eric Boulier
Eddie Jordan ---> Vijay Mallya
Paul Stoddart ---> Someone at STR
Jackie & Paul Stewart ---> Christian Horner & Helmut Marko

If the quality of the driver's has improved the quality of the team principals (atleast the entertainment factor) has decreased radically.

Benetton wrote:I also miss team principals with character, especially Flavio believe it or not.

I mean think...

Ron Dennis --> Martin Whitmarsh
Jean Todt --> Stefano Domenicali
Flavio Briatore --> Eric Boulier
Eddie Jordan ---> Vijay Mallya
Paul Stoddart ---> Someone at STR
Jackie & Paul Stewart ---> Christian Horner & Helmut Marko

If the quality of the driver's has improved the quality of the team principals (atleast the entertainment factor) has decreased radically.

we now have colin kolles, that makes up for everything

dinizintheoven wrote:Four attempts, all wrong. Though one of the drivers mentioned did drive for the same team as the man whose words of vitriol I have quoted had just driven for the previous season from the quote. Though not at the same time.

Is anyone still with me...?

Shumacher?

Benetton wrote:Paul Stoddart ---> Someone at STR

I believe the name you are looking for is Franz Tost. The young drivers nightmare. He sacks quicker than his shadow!

DanielPT wrote:Warwick? Mansell?

The first of those.

It was from the BBC's official guide to the 1991 season; Derek Warwick was there to provide an overview of the tracks, hence the vitriolic comments about Hockenheim. That he'd been driving for an ever-more-failing Lotus in 1990 could have had something to do with it...

Incidentally, there were also technical insights from Jonathan Palmer, and "racing memories" from Jackie Stewart, which is probably the first time I'd ever seen, heard or read about Formula One in the 1960s and 1970s.

dinizintheoven wrote: That he'd been driving for an ever-more-failing Lotus in 1990 could have had something to do with it...

Interestingly, it seems Donnelly has been reunited with the deathtrap.

http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/92725

This Fella

ADx_Wales wrote:

This Fella

Glen Dicks isnt it?

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:Interestingly, it seems Donnelly has been reunited with the deathtrap.
http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/92725

Ye gods. If I wasn't in the middle of a cashflow crisis, I'd go to see that. I'd just got into watching F1 when he had that crash, and there was the one Derek Warwick had (as you've implied), and Alessandro "coffee and fags" Nannini's helicopter crash...

Although, they could at least put the right number on the car!

Parmalat as a sponsor.

midgrid wrote:Parmalat as a sponsor.

Are you suggesting the comeback of Diniz??

Aerond wrote:

midgrid wrote:Parmalat as a sponsor.

Are you suggesting the comeback of Diniz??

Or even Niki Lauda?

midgrid wrote:Camel as a sponsor.

Fixed.

dinizintheoven wrote:

DanielPT wrote:Warwick? Mansell?

The first of those.

It was from the BBC's official guide to the 1991 season; Derek Warwick was there to provide an overview of the tracks, hence the vitriolic comments about Hockenheim. That he'd been driving for an ever-more-failing Lotus in 1990 could have had something to do with it...

Incidentally, there were also technical insights from Jonathan Palmer, and "racing memories" from Jackie Stewart, which is probably the first time I'd ever seen, heard or read about Formula One in the 1960s and 1970s.

Just since I am curious about this, was Hockenheim that popular amongst the drivers?

After all, we've seen Warwick's description, and there have been a number of other drivers who have said that they disliked the venue (I recall that Brundle recently said that he disliked it for two reasons - firstly, because it was terrifying (which he admits was probably because he drove some of the weakest, and presumably less stable, cars on the grid), and secondly because he felt that the role of the driver was diminished, and that of the car exaggerated, because of the circuits configuration.
On top of that, we had a podcast where Hunt criticized the venue, complaining that it produced dull races (the one where he complained that the top 10 cars were all in pairs, like a sort of F1 Noah's Ark). Thinking further back, too, in the olden days the track didn't seem all that popular, with drivers like Jim Clark saying that they couldn't wait to get out of there (which probably only increased after Clark's fatal accident).

So, I'm curious, were there that many drivers who enjoyed racing at the old Hockenheim venue, compared to those who criticized the venue?

With the benefit of hindsight, Hockenheim in it's original form was a quick & daunting place. Originally it was (basically) just an extremely fast oval about 5 miles in length with no chicanes or stadium section. A new version was built in the mid 60s incorporating the stadium section but still without the chicanes. Two were added in the late 60s after Jimmy's accident & the Oestkurve chicane following Depailler's crash in 1980. It was still a high speed track & some drivers didn't like it; plus teams found set up difficult because of the combination of high speed straights & twisty stadium part. The far end of the track was remote & made life difficult in the event of an accident or breakdown. There were stories (possibly apochryphal) of drivers becoming hopelessly lost in the forested infield, trying to get back to the pits on foot .
However the decision to move the German GP there, basically came about as a result of Lauda's Nurburgring accident & it was seen as a safer (or less dangerous) alternative.

Think it was unpopular for its extreme set up difficulties, either you set up for the stadium and got hammered on the straights, or set up low downforce and frightened yourself to death at the stadium and chicanes. Teams hated it because it was a real car breaker. especially as was in late summer and often v hot. In the early days after the move from the Nurb there seemed to be an extraordinary number of tyre failures as well, which must have been butt clenching to say the least, I remember Rene Arnoux I think have a tyre blow there in 79 and it blew off the entire rear suspension like a bomb, but iron head AJ won his first Williams GP there racing on a deflating tyre for 25 laps or so, real scary.
That said it was often a race I looked forward to on the calender because it was so different from anywhere else, they threw the baby out with the bath water when they changed it and turned into a fiddly little Mickey mouse track.

eagleash wrote:With the benefit of hindsight, Hockenheim in it's original form was a quick & daunting place. Originally it was (basically) just an extremely fast oval about 5 miles in length with no chicanes or stadium section.

It reminds me of many of those pre-war circuits, which seemed to be made to the strengths of the cars of the period, which ended up being extremely fast in a straight line, but had terrible suspension, atrocious brakes and aerodynamics set up, if at all, for streamlining. The same sort of fast track with few braking points seemed to be common among pre-war tracks, with the notable exception of Monaco and the Nurburgring. Few would offer exciting racing today.

RAK wrote:

eagleash wrote:With the benefit of hindsight, Hockenheim in it's original form was a quick & daunting place. Originally it was (basically) just an extremely fast oval about 5 miles in length with no chicanes or stadium section.

It reminds me of many of those pre-war circuits, which seemed to be made to the strengths of the cars of the period, which ended up being extremely fast in a straight line, but had terrible suspension, atrocious brakes and aerodynamics set up, if at all, for streamlining. The same sort of fast track with few braking points seemed to be common among pre-war tracks, with the notable exception of Monaco and the Nurburgring. Few would offer exciting racing today.

Indianapolis begs to differ.

Moments like these.

Also drivers like Mika Hakkinen. Talented yet funny, not one or the other.

Drivers testing for their new team before the end of the season.

Like Alesi testing for Ferrari 1990, even just like Alonso at McLaren for that test at end of 2006

That wont happen any more with strict contracts, sponsors agreements and testing banned til the new year

The thing I miss is unreliability. Going an entire season without a single failure is far too easy now, and is a long way from when you saw a bonfire in the back of cars just about every race. It also made for some great championships as failures could turn the tide around, and led to some surprise results. Panis winning in Monaco '96 was due to Hill's engine blowing to name but one.

Hopefully the v6 turbos will allow the engine manufacturers to push the limits and bring back that element of unpredictability which is sorely lacking nowadays.

Drivers trying to complete a whole race without pitting.

midgrid wrote:Parmalat as a sponsor.

the Parmalat that robbed money from thousands of italians?

I'll keep it relatively contemporary to say, the last 15-20 years as it would be easy to get too misty eyed and bemoan the loss of Rouen-les-Essarts, Clermont-Ferrand, Montjuich Park, Matra and BRM. That and most of us would never have been watching long enough to experience how awe inspiring any of that looked and must've been, much less miss it...

- V10 engines... V12s before that too but would be happy if we at least kept the former
- Emasculations of great circuits and corners - specifically Hockenheim pre-2002, Monza before the Lesmos and Monaco was always better with the tighter entries to Sainte Devote and La Rascasse and the closer walls on either side at the Swimming Pool
- Toyota and Honda... sure, Toyota didn't stir the emotions of many and Honda have come and gone before but the sport is poorer for the loss of the two Japanese powerhouses and the recent struggles of (admittedly lower budget) Lotus, Virgin and HRT to be competitive demonstrate just what Toyota were achieving at the top echelon of the sport.
- Less tarmac run-off areas and more grass or gravel. No one wants to see drivers hurt and gravel traps have been a proven launching pad for cars in the past but the tarmac option too easily allows mistakes to go unpunished and the swathes of black tarmac give tracks a cold and soul-less feeling.
- High levels of attrition. It's mighty impressive that a grid of 24 current Formula 1 cars can all complete a Grand Prix distance as they did in Valencia recently... but the completely uncertainty of who would fill the points placings - if not the podium - as was the case 20 years ago is gone now and with it the appeal of different names and new faces enjoying success once in a while.
- Imola and Magny-Cours... it's a travesty that the birthplace of Grand Prix and motor racing is without a Grand Prix while some countries that shall remain nameless do
- On that note... a French/Italian presence. Go back to an Autocourse annual or race programme from the 1990s and the entrants reveal a cornucopia of charismatic names synonymous with F1 - Ligier, Minardi, Larrousse, Osella, Elf, Agip, Gitanes, Fondmetal and then there are the drivers. I appreciate that the origin of teams, drivers and sponsors is totally irrelevant but it's a shame that two of the greatest motor racing nations in history are shadows of their former selves within modern F1.