Grand Prix Rejects

1. Aston Martin. A pathetic double retirement and the only team not to get either car home.

2. Nicholas Latifi. De Vries has nailed the coffin shut on his F1 career.

Honourable mention to Daniel Ricciardo's car for breaking down at the worst possible place on the track.

1. Race control
2. Ricciardo

1. Aston Martin Double Retirement
2. Ricciardo’s Retirement

DM: Latifi

1 Nicholas Latifi. F1 Career over. Beaten by someone who came into the car on Saturday and he got points while Latifi came second last (quite frankly that Williams had a huge amount of pace and Albon would have got points as well)

2 Aston Martin- no pace and double Dnf.

1 - The Safety Car procedure at the end of the race
Regardless of whether you think the race should have been restarted or not, that was not handled well. Made even worse by the fact the SC picked up the wrong car for a long time too

2 - Aston Martin
Nowhere even with the penalties in front of them, and then a double DNF

DHM - Latifi
De Vries has definitely put paid to any hopes Latifi has of staying in F1

1. Aston double DNF
2. Latifi, getting beaten by a guy who jumped in just before FP3
3. Alonsos engineer, for letting him think there is nothing wrong with the engine a few minutes before the eventual retirement.

Everyone except Ferrari, Red Bull & Mercedes
4 out of 6 drivers from those teams copped a penalty and they still locked out the top 6 pretty easily. Formula 1.5 is now Formula 1.9.

Engine penalties
Only 11 drivers didn't take one. Absolute pisstaking territory.

Complaints about Race Control (not limited to here)
Unlike Abu Dhabi, they implemented the rules correctly today.

1. Race Control for calling a full safety when a virtual would have sufficed and turning the whole thing into a damp squib.
2. Danny Ric for stopping in a daft place.

Latifi: If his F1 career prospects were only slim before today they’ll have been killed stone dead after this weekend. Beaten by a man who was apparently expecting to be a co-host on F1 Official’s pre-qualifying show on Saturday morning. In a car that was just as quick as Spa he finished 2nd last

Aston Martin: Simply horrific showing. No pace all weekend and made up 2 of the 3 DNF’s. Why are British Racing Green teams so rubbish whenever they try F1?

HM’s

Bottas: This guy was supposed to be a team leader for Alfa right?

Race Control: Ridiculously slow to get that race restarted. I think that’s just the 3rd in history to finish under SC

1. Nicholas Latifi - It's bad enough Albon makes him look expendable but now we can wonder how many points Williams left on the table with De Vries looking better than him after two days in the car and scoring that 9th place. If it wasn't for the money Latifi could have been easily fired after this weekend. That coffin is being shipped back to Canada as we speak.

2. Aston Martin - Double DNF to cap off another miserable weekend.

HM: I assume Race Control couldn't predict Ricciardo's car being stuck in gear but six laps to remove a single car on a 5.8 km race track is shite. Not to mentioned they wasted three laps behind SC to pick up the race leader.

Enforcer wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 14:35Complaints about Race Control (not limited to here)
Unlike Abu Dhabi, they implemented the rules correctly today.

I will also nominate this. For once the racing stewards, against all the odds, chose the safe and sensible option that didn't break all the rules of common sense and actual sportsmanship (even with many people saying that things wouldn't change after Masi), yet people complain that we didn't have an artificially-concocted race to the finish (the very decisions that made people go so sour on 2021), with or without a stationary digger on the track.

1. Nicholas Latifi, he's seriously run out of excuses now, faded to the tail of the field while Nyck de Vries scores 2 points on his impromptu F1 debut. Enough said.

2. Daniel Ricciardo, you wouldn't think he qualified on the 2nd row, never mind won this race last year though McLaren have every right to be disappointed with their performance full stop.

DM: Ferrari, if they don't end up as ROTY, they will certainly be on the podium.

Nicholas Latifi: Completely embarrassed by De Vries. It took just one race (where he missed most of the practice sessions) for him to score two points while Latifi doesn't have any. Doesn't deserve a seat next year.

Dishonorable mention to Aston Martin for a double DNF.

1. Aston Martin - Double DNF in today's F1 is an automatic ROTR unless something goes spectacularly wrong elsewhere

2. Haas - Just painfully slow, and the overall trajectory of their performance doesn't suggest Monza is an outlier. Aston Martin and AlphaTauri are likely to surpass them in the championship by the end of the year.

HM. Race Control - I won't nominate race control for the SC finish. They don't make the rules, they enforce them. They did their job right today. It is up to the rulemakers to prevent a repeat in the future. However, the end of the F3 race was an utter mess unworthy of a championship decider so they can't escape an honourable mention.

Almost tempted to say the whole field bar Max - they just have no answer. But in truth, Aston Martin did have a shocker.

Rob Dylan wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 15:07

Enforcer wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 14:35Complaints about Race Control (not limited to here)
Unlike Abu Dhabi, they implemented the rules correctly today.

I will also nominate this. For once the racing stewards, against all the odds, chose the safe and sensible option that didn't break all the rules of common sense and actual sportsmanship (even with many people saying that things wouldn't change after Masi), yet people complain that we didn't have an artificially-concocted race to the finish (the very decisions that made people go so sour on 2021), with or without a stationary digger on the track.

I'll make Rob's word my own. I think there's a single ROTR candidate for this race: Everyone who complains about race control. I don't get it: do people want Abu Dhabi v2.0? The rules were followed. Are the rules correct? I don't know - I prefer to end a race behind the SC as that can be viewed as the right circunstance, but I can understand why a rule changed to, I don't know, red flag, no tyre change, if a SC is deployed in the last 10 laps. But other than that, the rules were followed - why is everyone complaining? Bloody WTF1.

Other than that, Latifi is a good lad, but yeah - getting beaten by De Vries was the last nail in his F1 career coffin.

1) Nicholas Latifi: Comprehensively outshone by a driver that only knew he was starting the race on Saturday. Easily the worst driver on the grid.

2) The race itself: Are we entering the VERSTAPPENWINSLOL era? Nobody really looked like keeping up.

3. The holier than thou brigade who think that race control were right.

Miguel98 wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 17:02

Rob Dylan wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 15:07

Enforcer wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 14:35Complaints about Race Control (not limited to here)
Unlike Abu Dhabi, they implemented the rules correctly today.

I will also nominate this. For once the racing stewards, against all the odds, chose the safe and sensible option that didn't break all the rules of common sense and actual sportsmanship (even with many people saying that things wouldn't change after Masi), yet people complain that we didn't have an artificially-concocted race to the finish (the very decisions that made people go so sour on 2021), with or without a stationary digger on the track.

I'll make Rob's word my own. I think there's a single ROTR candidate for this race: Everyone who complains about race control. I don't get it: do people want Abu Dhabi v2.0? The rules were followed. Are the rules correct? I don't know - I prefer to end a race behind the SC as that can be viewed as the right circunstance, but I can understand why a rule changed to, I don't know, red flag, no tyre change, if a SC is deployed in the last 10 laps. But other than that, the rules were followed - why is everyone complaining? Bloody WTF1.

Yeah, I’m going to solely nominate those whinging about race control. Whatever the rules, they were followed and applied correctly - if the final three laps being neutralised (and made artificially close) negates the excitement from the prior 50 laps of racing, you’re watching the wrong sport.

I'm going to join the group nominating Race Control here.
That they didn't resume the race when not all the lapped cars had unlapped themselves? Cool, glad to see they're actually following the rules this time.
That some cars didn't manage to unlap themselves due to a communications failure, though? That would seem to absolutely be on race control and the main reason I'm nominating them.

I'm going to nominate anyone who forgot that Nyck de Vries isn't the first driver to have gone from Formula E to Formula 1. That honour goes to another supersub, for when Sébastien Buemi was required to not drive around the streets of Brooklyn at the behest of his WEC employers, and was replaced with a pre-F1 Pierre Gasly. You all forgot that, didn't you?

Well, dr-baker probably didn't forget. I certainly didn't. I am sharp.

Dishonourable mention goes to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about Race Control. The people responsible for sacking the people who have been sacked, have been sacked.

I guess it has to be Latifi.

Was thinking maybe K-Mag because of him cutting and not giving spots back but then he had a damaged car after Bottas punted him. Race control is what it is. AM weren't looking good since FP, so it was expected that they would have a bad race and quali too.

I was thinking Aston Martin very much, double Q1 elimination and double mechanical retirement is a very bad result. But on a flip side of obvious IIDOTR I put the team-mate on top. So:

1. Nicholas Latifi
2. Aston Martin

SammiRei wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 22:42 I'm going to join the group nominating Race Control here.
That they didn't resume the race when not all the lapped cars had unlapped themselves? Cool, glad to see they're actually following the rules this time.
That some cars didn't manage to unlap themselves due to a communications failure, though? That would seem to absolutely be on race control and the main reason I'm nominating them.

But the lapped cars did NOT unlap themselves? Some cars were allowed past the safety car, yes, but these were not lapped runners. It's because the safety car did not have the race leader immediately behind him but rather George Russell. So he was actually allowing those already on the lead lap to go round.

dr-baker wrote: ↑12 Sep 2022, 06:36

SammiRei wrote: ↑11 Sep 2022, 22:42 I'm going to join the group nominating Race Control here.
That they didn't resume the race when not all the lapped cars had unlapped themselves? Cool, glad to see they're actually following the rules this time.
That some cars didn't manage to unlap themselves due to a communications failure, though? That would seem to absolutely be on race control and the main reason I'm nominating them.

But the lapped cars did NOT unlap themselves? Some cars were allowed past the safety car, yes, but these were not lapped runners. It's because the safety car did not have the race leader immediately behind him but rather George Russell. So he was actually allowing those already on the lead lap to go round.

It appears I was working on a bad assumption, so fair enough.
In that case, I will withdraw my nomination for Race Control and instead change it to the channel 4 commentary team, who were the source of the faulty information in question.

Aston Martin...they had a pretty poor weekend.

Commentators for trying to create huge controversy despite the rules and practices having been around for ages , and having no real constructive suggestions. And desperately wanting to 'spice it up' so they can get excited.

It does sound like Channel 4 mucked up. And to their disgrace, their coverage is highlight, not live, thereby having time to correct any mistakes made…

Was debating whether this post was more suitable for the Rantbox rather than this thread (because my main nomination is Nicholas Latifi without any hesitation) but I'm going to also nominate the discourse surrounding the safety car which has probably frustrated me more than it should have.

I mean yeah, big deal; some people have a different opinion from mine, but it is extremely disheartening to hear the increase of folks calling for cheap, manufactured excitement at the expense of substance and sport. It's even more depressing to hear this nonsense pushed by folks like Chandhok or Alex Jacques who really, really should know better, especially when if they look at NASCAR doing similar chicanery. And if that is the direction this sport wants to move in, I may actually consider if this is something I want to spend my time investing in.

Considering this about people saying what should have happened rather than what actually did happen this may be an overreaction, but nevertheless it's an increasingly worrying trend. There's also the issue of statements made regarding the further cheapening of the sport by Domenicali, but for now I'm going to put it down to Ecclestone-esque trolling and hope for the best.

Understandable points, I want to address this one first.

noiceinmydrink wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 17:11Considering this about people saying what should have happened rather than what actually did happen this may be an overreaction, but nevertheless it's an increasingly worrying trend. There's also the issue of statements made regarding the further cheapening of the sport by Domenicali, but for now I'm going to put it down to Ecclestone-esque trolling and hope for the best.

The bold part is the correct way to look at this. Yes, maybe FOM/Liberty would nascar-ify the sport if they could, but there is a lot of inertia and it will be hard for them to bathplug everything all at once. Additionally, anything they do bathplug-up can be reversed in relatively short order. That said, another points-paying session wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Honestly, pole deserves a point way more than fastest lap does, and I believe it was so in the dim and distant past. I don't love the sprint races and I kind of hope they start to fizzle out at some point, but I don't feel strongly enough about them to sign an online petition, to say nothing of some sort of boycott.

noiceinmydrink wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 17:11I mean yeah, big deal; some people have a different opinion from mine, but it is extremely disheartening to hear the increase of folks calling for cheap, manufactured excitement at the expense of substance and sport. It's even more depressing to hear this nonsense pushed by folks like Chandhok or Alex Jacques who really, really should know better, especially when if they look at NASCAR doing similar chicanery. And if that is the direction this sport wants to move in, I may actually consider if this is something I want to spend my time investing in.

I understand that part of your point here is focussing on the people who should know better (like Chandhok), but I feel like some of them are just trying to represent the newer fans that have come in with DTS. The thing is, I interact with a number of these new fans on non-motorsport sites and by and large, they don't want to change F1, they just want to understand it. Online it may come off like they want more Abu Dhabi '21s, but I don't think they do. That finish was exciting, even to me, and it was natural to find it exciting, and if one had no other reference point, it would be easy to think it was normal too. My thought is that next time you're in the off-topic section of a woodworking, or anime, or golf website and Drive to Survive comes up (or you bring it up), that is a good time to engage. I've had a lot of luck with this type of thing. No gatekeeping or indoctrinating, but just facilitating and trying to get across a little bit of the depth of history that exists and why I like the sport. And of course answering any questions that I can as they come up.

I've also been brewing some thoughts on this subject, and seeing as the discussion is here I might as well post here. Much of the discourse that we're engaging with has been and was started by the commentators on Sky. It was they who throughout the final laps were discussing about how the rules could or should be changed to accommodate this suggestion of fake late-race excitement to negate any and all previous parts of Sunday's grand prix.

Commentators can say what they like, but is it really their place to openly question rules of the sport willy-nilly like they did in the final laps of Monza? There was something about the tone in which Crofty and Chandhok (the latter of which I, like many of you, respect more than the former) were just openly taking the time out of the closing laps of that race, not discussing safety, but discussing these very concepts of fake late-race excitement. After all, the commentators' positions of power are given to them by the TV channel, not by the FIA or any governing body of Formula 1. They are there to explain to the people at home what's happening, and they don't necessarily always do a very good job of it considering the amount of information they have given to them. Something about it irked me.

Rob Dylan wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 19:28 They are there to explain to the people at home what's happening, and they don't necessarily always do a very good job of it considering the amount of information they have given to them. Something about it irked me.

A number of good points, but the quoted part really hit home to me. And it highlights how some of that attitude can have a disproportionate effect on the newer fans. See, you and I and most everyone on this site would know the reason(s) that the late safety car was done in the way that it was, just through past experience. But a viewer who is new this season now only has Croft's and Chandhok's weird take on it without any of the context. Yeah, that is a problem. They needed to be explaining why the rules are the way they are, not some mythical way they think they should be.

Thinking to other sports, you rarely hear the commentators/announcers question the validity of the rules of the sport they're commentating on. At most someone will comment that a given rule was different in the past and what the new rule is. I feel like if Martin had been in the booth during the safety car, we would have gotten a far more measured and accurate reflection of things. As it was, he'd already left in order to perform the post-race interviews.

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 20:18

Rob Dylan wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 19:28 They are there to explain to the people at home what's happening, and they don't necessarily always do a very good job of it considering the amount of information they have given to them. Something about it irked me.

A number of good points, but the quoted part really hit home to me. And it highlights how some of that attitude can have a disproportionate effect on the newer fans. See, you and I and most everyone on this site would know the reason(s) that the late safety car was done in the way that it was, just through past experience. But a viewer who is new this season now only has Croft's and Chandhok's weird take on it without any of the context. Yeah, that is a problem. They needed to be explaining why the rules are the way they are, not some mythical way they think they should be.

Thinking to other sports, you rarely hear the commentators/announcers question the validity of the rules of the sport they're commentating on. At most someone will comment that a given rule was different in the past and what the new rule is. I feel like if Martin had been in the booth during the safety car, we would have gotten a far more measured and accurate reflection of things. As it was, he'd already left in order to perform the post-race interviews.

Actually it happens a lot. Cricket, tennis, basketball, football, rugby etc, etc. I think it's healthy that commentators see the problems with the sport and question it and I think Brundle would have done the same.

I guess you can argue that in this case it wasn't too healthy for the sport but it was confusing in what was happening and why there was a delay.

Batty wrote: ↑14 Sep 2022, 03:23

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 20:18

Rob Dylan wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 19:28 They are there to explain to the people at home what's happening, and they don't necessarily always do a very good job of it considering the amount of information they have given to them. Something about it irked me.

A number of good points, but the quoted part really hit home to me. And it highlights how some of that attitude can have a disproportionate effect on the newer fans. See, you and I and most everyone on this site would know the reason(s) that the late safety car was done in the way that it was, just through past experience. But a viewer who is new this season now only has Croft's and Chandhok's weird take on it without any of the context. Yeah, that is a problem. They needed to be explaining why the rules are the way they are, not some mythical way they think they should be.

Thinking to other sports, you rarely hear the commentators/announcers question the validity of the rules of the sport they're commentating on. At most someone will comment that a given rule was different in the past and what the new rule is. I feel like if Martin had been in the booth during the safety car, we would have gotten a far more measured and accurate reflection of things. As it was, he'd already left in order to perform the post-race interviews.

Actually it happens a lot. Cricket, tennis, basketball, football, rugby etc, etc. I think it's healthy that commentators see the problems with the sport and question it and I think Brundle would have done the same.

I guess you can argue that in this case it wasn't too healthy for the sport but it was confusing in what was happening and why there was a delay.

As I understand it, part of the problem is that the TV coverage gave a bit of a misleading impression of when the safety car came out and what the other cars were doing, which perhaps means that the commentators were making comments based on misleading footage.

That said, there is an indication that Sky does have a fairly significant impact on the sport, and they seem to be pushing for quite a few of those changes. After all, Sky pays a disproportionately large percentage of the total revenue that the sport earns from TV rights, giving them considerable influence over Liberty Media.