Grand Prix Rejects

novitopoli wrote:Apparently there are rumours floating around that Hartley is going to be sacked after Monaco.

Source (in Dutch)

There were a few people mentioning in Barcelona that Hartley might be replaced, but not that the axe might fall quite that soon. It would be a shame if it did happen, though it would be in keeping with Red Bull's usual behaviour and it has to be said that Hartley hasn't exactly had a great start to the season.

Hartley being dropped would be a disappointment but in keeping with Red Bull's instant gratification approach to drivers. Look at Sauber, Le Clerc looked to be a big disappointment in the first few races... They ignored the negativity and helped him iron it out to two points finishes the car had absolutely no right of bagging.

...why do people use "OT" as an abbreviation for "off-topic" when it can just as easily mean "on-topic"?

Simtek wrote:...why do people use "OT" as an abbreviation for "off-topic" when it can just as easily mean "on-topic"?

I think it is because the default assumption when commenting in a thread is that you're staying "on-topic"

How come a fat chance and a slim chance are the same level of chance?

Simtek wrote:...why do people use "OT" as an abbreviation for "off-topic" when it can just as easily mean "on-topic"?

Oh. I thought it meant Occupational Therapist.

dr-baker wrote:

Simtek wrote:...why do people use "OT" as an abbreviation for "off-topic" when it can just as easily mean "on-topic"?

Oh. I thought it meant Occupational Therapist.

You mean it doesn't refer to Estonian rally driver Ott Tanak? (funnily enough, this thread is going further and further OT...)

This Could Be You wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Simtek wrote:...why do people use "OT" as an abbreviation for "off-topic" when it can just as easily mean "on-topic"?

Oh. I thought it meant Occupational Therapist.

You mean it doesn't refer to Estonian rally driver Ott Tanak? (funnily enough, this thread is going further and further OT...)

And further ironically enough I can't quite tell whether you mean on-topic or off-topic

Rob Dylan wrote:How come a fat chance and a slim chance are the same level of chance?

I think in this instance "fat chance" is supposed to be delivered in a sarcastic tone (which seems to be the most common usage), but its usage is vulnerable to misinterpretation in much the same way that it's common for people to say "I could care less" in contexts where they really should be saying "I couldn't care less".

For 1,049 internet points, who can tell me and everyone else here what's wrong with the following post?* https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _the_1950/

*Answers to the tune of "it's Reddit" will not be accepted, although it is a place I have mixed feelings about at the best of times.

Simtek wrote:For 1,049 internet points, who can tell me and everyone else here what's wrong with the following post?* https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _the_1950/

*Answers to the tune of "it's Reddit" will not be accepted, although it is a place I have mixed feelings about at the best of times.

Oooooooh, I'm gonna guess that it wasn't called the "British Grand Prix", or something along those lines?

Simtek wrote:For 1,049 internet points, who can tell me and everyone else here what's wrong with the following post?* https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _the_1950/

*Answers to the tune of "it's Reddit" will not be accepted, although it is a place I have mixed feelings about at the best of times.

Well, I don't think there's actually anything-- WAIT A MINUTE

SINCE WHEN DID THEY HAVE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS IN 1950!?

(j/k, actually those aren't Alfa Romeos at all - at least, not the ones that raced in the 1950 British GP)

Salamander wrote:
Well, I don't think there's actually anything-- WAIT A MINUTE

SINCE WHEN DID THEY HAVE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS IN 1950!?

(j/k, actually those aren't Alfa Romeos at all - at least, not the ones that raced in the 1950 British GP)

Yes, i look that french flag and it's look odd...

Aguvazk wrote:

Salamander wrote:
Well, I don't think there's actually anything-- WAIT A MINUTE

SINCE WHEN DID THEY HAVE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS IN 1950!?

(j/k, actually those aren't Alfa Romeos at all - at least, not the ones that raced in the 1950 British GP)

Yes, i look that french flag and it's look odd...

At the 1950 British Grand Prix, Fangio had the number 1 while Farina had 2. And it was then known as the World Championship for Drivers, in the fourth year of the FIA running races for Formula 1 cars.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Oooooooh, I'm gonna guess that it wasn't called the "British Grand Prix", or something along those lines?

This is correct, if not what I was looking for. That year the RAC was awarded the "European Grand Prix" title, although by that stage it didn't really mean much.

Salamander wrote:(j/k, actually those aren't Alfa Romeos at all - at least, not the ones that raced in the 1950 British GP)

They are Alfas, but you are right that they are not the same ones from the Grand Prix. These ones have smaller radiator grilles, which I suspect was a choice made because this was a shorter distance race and cooling was less of an issue than it would be in a 500km Grand Prix.

dr-baker wrote:At the 1950 British Grand Prix, Fangio had the number 1 while Farina had 2. And it was then known as the World Championship for Drivers, in the fourth year of the FIA running races for Formula 1 cars.

And this is also correct (well, except for the FIA running races part). Fangio and Farina have the wrong numbers, there seems to be no garage space for Fagioli and Parnell, and Archie Butterworth (love the redundant acronym in the sign) is at the race when he wasn't even an entrant.

This is all because it's not the British Grand Prix, but the BRDC International Trophy three months later: The same race where the BRM disaster began, and the first Formula 1 race where Stirling Moss was a participant (I think) albeit in a Formula 2 HWM-Alta (did fantastically well to finish 6th ahead of a bunch of other F1 cars).

I know it's Reddit and all, but I'm kind of surprised not a single person seemed to notice the discrepancy at the time it was posted.

Simtek wrote:For 1,049 internet points, who can tell me and everyone else here what's wrong with the following post?* https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _the_1950/

Round 2: For 1,050 internet points, who can tell me the unusual thing about the photo of these hypersoft tyres?

Isn't that the 2017 Mercedes that those hypers are on?

It is, so it's "that race they had pink ultrasoft tyres for some reason I forgot".

dinizintheoven wrote:It is, so it's "that race they had pink ultrasoft tyres for some reason I forgot".

Correct, 2017 US Grand Prix to raise awareness for breast cancer research, and probably the only race ever with pink tyres and no halo.

Why wasn't Herbert on Ferrari's radar when they were picking a second driver to partner Schumacher in 1996? To me, who's almost finished watching the 1995 season, it would seem logical to me to bring Herbert over with the star driver, and do a complete swap between Benetton and Ferrari. Herbert was a perfectly dependable number two, and wasn't nearly as far behind Schumacher as Irvine in 1996. In hindsight you can see Irvine improve in comparison to Schumacher, but it seems strange in context that Ferrari didn't want Johnny alongside Schumacher for at least a season or two.

Rob Dylan wrote:Why wasn't Herbert on Ferrari's radar when they were picking a second driver to partner Schumacher in 1996? To me, who's almost finished watching the 1995 season, it would seem logical to me to bring Herbert over with the star driver, and do a complete swap between Benetton and Ferrari. Herbert was a perfectly dependable number two, and wasn't nearly as far behind Schumacher as Irvine in 1996. In hindsight you can see Irvine improve in comparison to Schumacher, but it seems strange in context that Ferrari didn't want Johnny alongside Schumacher for at least a season or two.

For all we know they did, but I seriously doubt Johnny would have wanted to go from being de facto number two at Benetton to contractual number two at Ferrari. He always lacked Irvine's... unique mindset.

EDIT: Grandprix.com to the rescue again:

Herbert, who is also having discussions with Jordan-Peugeot and a third team, which is probably Tyrrell, says he will not join Ferrari next year even if they asked him because he does not want to have play second fiddle to Michael Schumacher for another year.

Rob Dylan wrote:Why wasn't Herbert on Ferrari's radar when they were picking a second driver to partner Schumacher in 1996? To me, who's almost finished watching the 1995 season, it would seem logical to me to bring Herbert over with the star driver, and do a complete swap between Benetton and Ferrari. Herbert was a perfectly dependable number two, and wasn't nearly as far behind Schumacher as Irvine in 1996. In hindsight you can see Irvine improve in comparison to Schumacher, but it seems strange in context that Ferrari didn't want Johnny alongside Schumacher for at least a season or two.

Because Herbert is as fun as a pack of flour. If you hire a designated number two driver, you either hire someone with the potential to eventually become a number one driver (e.g. Rubens Barrichello in 2000, Felipe Massa in 2006) or someone who is entertaining (e.g. Mark Webber ever since 2011, Eddie Irvine in 1996).

It's fair enough if he didn't want to do it---looking back on it from a modern perspective (I wasn't very old around then) I'm thinking Herbert would be the prime driver to partner Schumacher at Ferrari in the coming year. I would argue Ferrari were worse off for failing to convince him.

What if F1 only had a single race per season? Teams would have an entire year to get cars ready so they'd have much less to complain about. If you've had a year to prepare and you can't get the wheels to not fall off, you won't find any sympathy. There wouldn't be any complaints about too many races diluting the points system and races not being as important. The greatest benefit of them all? All of the funding for all those different tracks could go into funding one single track and making it actually safe to use...

The Nurburgring.

I'm trying not to imagine what utterly butchered horrorshow would result as soon as Hermann "a series of short straights and a long one with a hairpin at the end" Tilke put his knife to it. Look at the two versions of Fuji for 1976 and 2007 and tell me I'm wrong.

On a completely different historical note: have Williams finally reached the point of no return? With Charles Leclerc continuing to put that Sauber in places it doesn't deserve to be, I think we can call it now that Williams will finish last in the Constructors' Championship, and they look about as likely to add to their score as Caterham once did. It'd be even worse than the disastrous 2011 season with two more races and three fewer teams to contend with - and most worryingly of all is the parallel with Brabham. Seven years after Brabham's last win (coincidentally at Paul Ricard) in 1985, the team was in its dying throes and turned up to only three more races. The miserable BT58 in 1989 managed to fluke its way to the team's final podium; you could just about say last year's Williams FW40 is the equivalent of that with Lance Stroll's turn of fortune in Baku, but the FW40 was a better car (with one better driver) than the BT58. This time round, the FW41 looks to be the equivalent of the BT59, obviously minus the DNQs. Next year the Martini sponsorship money will vanish and at this rate, they're going to splutter to a halt some time in mid-2020 while using an updated version of last year's car in a similar way to Manor as well as Brabham.

I am not saying for a minute that I welcome this future. Only yesterday during the qualifying session I heard someone who's a recent convert to F1 wondering out loud how Williams and McLaren used to be all-conquering teams back in the day; I started watching F1 in 1990 and initially couldn't get my head round how Brabham used to be frontrunners. It'd be much the same for Lotus.

dinizintheoven wrote:I'm trying not to imagine what utterly butchered horrorshow would result as soon as Hermann "a series of short straights and a long one with a hairpin at the end" Tilke put his knife to it. Look at the two versions of Fuji for 1976 and 2007 and tell me I'm wrong.

On a completely different historical note: have Williams finally reached the point of no return? With Charles Leclerc continuing to put that Sauber in places it doesn't deserve to be, I think we can call it now that Williams will finish last in the Constructors' Championship, and they look about as likely to add to their score as Caterham once did. It'd be even worse than the disastrous 2011 season with two more races and three fewer teams to contend with - and most worryingly of all is the parallel with Brabham. Seven years after Brabham's last win (coincidentally at Paul Ricard) in 1985, the team was in its dying throes and turned up to only three more races. The miserable BT58 in 1989 managed to fluke its way to the team's final podium; you could just about say last year's Williams FW40 is the equivalent of that with Lance Stroll's turn of fortune in Baku, but the FW40 was a better car (with one better driver) than the BT58. This time round, the FW41 looks to be the equivalent of the BT59, obviously minus the DNQs. Next year the Martini sponsorship money will vanish and at this rate, they're going to splutter to a halt some time in mid-2020 while using an updated version of last year's car in a similar way to Manor as well as Brabham.

I am not saying for a minute that I welcome this future. Only yesterday during the qualifying session I heard someone who's a recent convert to F1 wondering out loud how Williams and McLaren used to be all-conquering teams back in the day; I started watching F1 in 1990 and initially couldn't get my head round how Brabham used to be frontrunners. It'd be much the same for Lotus.

You could even argue that Williams have already had the experience of using evolutions of older cars, since their 2015 and 2016 cars were effectively just refinements of their 2014 concept (and ultimately the reason why they slipped down the running order over time).

I agree that the parallels are not promising - you get the feeling that the team are staking a lot on Liberty Media's proposal to introduce some sort of budget cap in the future, though whether the team will still be there when it is introduced is now looking questionable.

There does still seem to be that stubborn insistence on doing things the same way they've always done it, but eventually there have to be questions over whether that effort is being misdirected. For example, Williams insist on developing their own gearbox, whereas rivals such as Force India buy those parts in from other teams - now, whilst it is true that buying those parts in from another team does constrain your design choices in some ways, on the other hand it does beg the question of whether the resources that are being dedicated to that are really giving sufficient return on that investment, or if the resources of the team are being stretched too thin and nothing is really being developed to its full potential.

Although Martini do not seem to have been putting a huge amount into the team, it is nevertheless painful for Williams to lose them and makes them even more dependent on somebody like Stroll. If he starts getting tired of subsidising Williams so heavily, the team will have a major crisis to contend with - and, in some ways, you sense that there is a sizeable chunk of the fan base that might derive a bit of a sadistic thrill in seeing Williams being screwed over because they are bitter about Kubica not being there, to the point where they might be happy to see the team go down in flames (even with the damage it would cause to so many people).

Here's a ponder for you.

Would an F1 car with the hybrid system "unlimited" and with the right tyres for a single lap be able to beat the Porsche 919 Evo lap record round Spa?

I was thinking about it because the Evo had to be heavily modified from WEC regulations to enable it to break the record. And as much as I love the Evo, and it is a stunning looking car, it seems like it has opened a new area of cars unchained from their respective series regulations gunning for outright track records.

So maybe we could see a heavily tuned Formula E car try and break the lap record at Monaco and the aforementioned F1 vs WEC competition for pretty much every other track!

And you know what else would be amazing? A series with 919 Evo spec cars racing for Grand Prix distances. Just flat out and very fast with better than normal WEC cars.

BigG80 wrote:Here's a ponder for you.

Would an F1 car with the hybrid system "unlimited" and with the right tyres for a single lap be able to beat the Porsche 919 Evo lap record round Spa?

I was thinking about it because the Evo had to be heavily modified from WEC regulations to enable it to break the record. And as much as I love the Evo, and it is a stunning looking car, it seems like it has opened a new area of cars unchained from their respective series regulations gunning for outright track records.

So maybe we could see a heavily tuned Formula E car try and break the lap record at Monaco and the aforementioned F1 vs WEC competition for pretty much every other track!

And you know what else would be amazing? A series with 919 Evo spec cars racing for Grand Prix distances. Just flat out and very fast with better than normal WEC cars.

Given that, at some circuits, we've seen teams make quite large improvements in lap time, we might see teams dip below that time in qualifying for the Belgian GP this year - the difference was about eight tenths, and at some circuits we've seen the pole times improve by more than a second between 2017 and 2018. With that in mind, it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of work to make an F1 car that could beat the 919 Evo's time over a single lap if you were allowed to make unlimited modifications - you might even see that time being beaten with a car that does fully comply to the regulations.

As for running a full race distance, I'm not sure if that would be possible with the way that the car was modified. I have a recollection that, since it only had to do a handful of laps, Porsche blanked off some of the radiators to streamline the front of the car. It's therefore possible that the car would overheat if you tried to run it for an extended stint.

mario wrote:

BigG80 wrote:Here's a ponder for you.

Would an F1 car with the hybrid system "unlimited" and with the right tyres for a single lap be able to beat the Porsche 919 Evo lap record round Spa?

I was thinking about it because the Evo had to be heavily modified from WEC regulations to enable it to break the record. And as much as I love the Evo, and it is a stunning looking car, it seems like it has opened a new area of cars unchained from their respective series regulations gunning for outright track records.

So maybe we could see a heavily tuned Formula E car try and break the lap record at Monaco and the aforementioned F1 vs WEC competition for pretty much every other track!

And you know what else would be amazing? A series with 919 Evo spec cars racing for Grand Prix distances. Just flat out and very fast with better than normal WEC cars.

Given that, at some circuits, we've seen teams make quite large improvements in lap time, we might see teams dip below that time in qualifying for the Belgian GP this year - the difference was about eight tenths, and at some circuits we've seen the pole times improve by more than a second between 2017 and 2018. With that in mind, it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of work to make an F1 car that could beat the 919 Evo's time over a single lap if you were allowed to make unlimited modifications - you might even see that time being beaten with a car that does fully comply to the regulations.

As for running a full race distance, I'm not sure if that would be possible with the way that the car was modified. I have a recollection that, since it only had to do a handful of laps, Porsche blanked off some of the radiators to streamline the front of the car. It's therefore possible that the car would overheat if you tried to run it for an extended stint.

and the damn thing gone wild.... its done a 5min 19 lap of the nordschleife beating a record set in the 80s by Stefan Bellof (though it wasn't done in race or qualifying conditions)

BigG80 wrote:Here's a ponder for you.

Would an F1 car with the hybrid system "unlimited" and with the right tyres for a single lap be able to beat the Porsche 919 Evo lap record round Spa?

With no restrictions on fuel flow, hybrid deployment (beyond what can be harvested) and no need to conserve the engine, I'd fully expect a 2018 spec F1 car to be able to beat the time.

As Mario said, based on times so far this season they might beat it at the Belgian Grand Prix under Official F1 rules and with the demands of a full race weekend and season anyway.

Now that I've returned from the (steaming hot...?!) Baltic lands and caught up with the Austrian Grand Prix, I wonder...

...will the A1/Red Bull Ring ever be lapped by an F1 car in under a minute?

dinizintheoven wrote:Now that I've returned from the (steaming hot...?!) Baltic lands and caught up with the Austrian Grand Prix, I wonder...

...will the A1/Red Bull Ring ever be lapped by an F1 car in under a minute?

I think it will be decades (or maybe just one decade) before we see that happen. It seems that F1 is now in a cyclical loop of taking downforce away to improve either safety or racing, before giving in to the chorus of voices who say these cars have a God-given right to be the fastest on Earth. Then the quality of racing is sacrificed and we go back to lower downforce levels.

I wonder how much machinery Kvyat smashed up compared to the Dutch golden child?

Spectoremg wrote:I wonder how much machinery Kvyat smashed up compared to the Dutch golden child?

I dunno, but I can tell you who's won infinitely more GPs.

Salamander wrote:

Spectoremg wrote:I wonder how much machinery Kvyat smashed up compared to the Dutch golden child?

I dunno, but I can tell you who's won infinitely more GPs.

I dunno either, but I can tell you who’s finished ahead of Ricciardo in the championship.

I keep hoping for the day that Hartley gets fired and replaced by the third fourth next grand return of Daniil Kvyat! Not that I want Hartley fired, it's that after the greatest drought in their junior driver history, it would be great schadenfreude for them to ask Daniil to come back yet again.

I'd love Kvyat to return ..and in a Toro Rosso would be quite something.
But actually I'd just like to see him back, and going well. He's slipped away , but he should still be in the frame for a drive ( if ever one comes up) . See also Giovinazzi etc

If Dan Ticktum wins the F3 championship , he still wouldnt have enough superlicence points apparently , although Autosport report that Red Bull arent apparently sweating too hard on that technicality and have indicated they'd like him in a Toro Rosso...

Would be good for Kvyat now that he's had a bit of time away from F1 and the constant negativity around him, and had a chance to have a reboot of sorts.

To extend a discussion kevinbotz and I had in the chat, we are pondering a question: Are the late 80s the period of F1 with the least fulfilled talent influx?

Look at guys who had their first appearances in the five-year period 1986-1991, who really had noteworthy potential and can be considered to have somewhat fulfilled it. Really, it's only Jean Alesi, Michael Schumacher and Mika Häkkinen. There were a few others with potential who either got shafted with awful cars (Eric van de Poele, it's a crime what they've done to you ) or had other circumstances prevent their breakthrough (Karl Wendlinger).

This could be a historically bad time for rookies, as we went through other periods after 1986-1991 and pretty much every other 5-year period has better influx. Hell, even the most recent stretch 2013-2018 can be considered better and most of the drivers who debuted during this time haven't even grown up enough to truly be evaluated - but Valterri Bottas and Max Verstappen have already delivered on a healthy bunch of their promise, Esteban Ocon and Carlos Sainz, Jr. could be on the edge of a breakthrough and that's not even getting into Charles Leclerc and Pierre Gasly, who also have shots at being the next big thing.

That dry period of talent is obviously relevant, as it helps explain the driver drought of the mid-90s that led to such hilarious scenarios as Johnny Herbert being a legitime option for a race-winning car, in combination with a number of retirements by the old guard with nobody except Schumacher really ready to take up the mantle (Hill pretty much learned to take the mantle by being thrown in the ocean).

Has anyone an idea what other times in the sport were bad in terms of the talent coming in and the fulfillment of its potential?

Also, the related question comes to mind: with mostly very boring racing and mostly disappointing rookie pools, are the late 80s the worst period of the sport's history?

I think the issue for most young drivers since the late 2000s has been that a number of rookies came in who got promoted to top-class machinery within a few years, and half of them are still taking up those seats *cough Raikkonen cough*. The new blood, whilst it has come to the front in recent years, had to take its bloody time because of certain drivers like Massa, Webber and Raikkonen hogging the front seats well after their best-by date. It was cool in the early decade having six world champions on the grid, but I found much of 2013-15 or so very stale, simply because the teams have been very reluctant to hire new drivers.

The question I have is whether Rosberg would still be driving for Mercedes had he not chosen to quit after his championship? That would have made for even less movement if he didn't!



But the people I feel most sorry for, not in Formula 1, are the pro-tennis players who in the last ten years have come up and failed to win a grand slam event, even though in any other era they would have won multiple titles. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, and also partly Murray, have taken almost all the titles in the last ten years. They're all very talented and tennis is very meritorious in that sense, but it does get a little stale after a decade.