The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
by Fetzie 22 Apr 2017, 21:43
This wrote:
DemocalypseNow wrote:
Meatwad wrote:Too bad it will probably be his last race (unless Alonso leaves mid-season as some suspect).

I'm not so sure it'll be his last - they'll need a new driver in 2018 after Alonso buggers off to Renault... :vergne:
Well technically De Vries has enoug license points, but it would probably not be the wisest thing to have 2 inexperienced drivers.

As if it matters how much experience your drivers have when the car can't even get to the end of the pitlane on race day without breaking down...
by Butterfox 23 Apr 2017, 02:53
Fetzie wrote:
This wrote:
DemocalypseNow wrote:I'm not so sure it'll be his last - they'll need a new driver in 2018 after Alonso buggers off to Renault... :vergne:
Well technically De Vries has enoug license points, but it would probably not be the wisest thing to have 2 inexperienced drivers.

As if it matters how much experience your drivers have when the car can't even get to the end of the pitlane on race day without breaking down...

Well right now, they still believe development is possible.

I don't know what i want and i want it now!
by mario 24 Apr 2017, 18:04
This wrote:
Fetzie wrote:
This wrote:Well technically De Vries has enoug license points, but it would probably not be the wisest thing to have 2 inexperienced drivers.

As if it matters how much experience your drivers have when the car can't even get to the end of the pitlane on race day without breaking down...

Well right now, they still believe development is possible.

That is probably because there is now talk that the Strategy Group are looking at possible ways to assist Honda, perhaps through easing some development restrictions in order to help them get back on par with the other teams. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... 97438/?s=1

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 25 Apr 2017, 15:25
mario wrote:That is probably because there is now talk that the Strategy Group are looking at possible ways to assist Honda, perhaps through easing some development restrictions in order to help them get back on par with the other teams. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... 97438/?s=1


So it's Indycar all over again. What a joke. Honda threatened to up and leave if bodykits weren't ditched. I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same here. Sad. They whine more than any other car maker.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by Ataxia 25 Apr 2017, 17:02
Wallio wrote:Sad.


Cool it, Donald.

Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
by Wallio 25 Apr 2017, 20:35
Ataxia wrote:
Wallio wrote:Sad.


Cool it, Donald.


Ouch lol.

I'm still bitter over them holding Indycar hostage. Chevy made the better aerokit and instead of developing theirs they just force the series to go spec. Admittedly Chevy didn't help by flat out refusing to supply the whole series, but still.

It's Honda's MO. Lose then pull out abruptly if they aren't helped. But it is what it is.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 26 Apr 2017, 06:33
Wallio wrote:
Ataxia wrote:
Wallio wrote:Sad.


Cool it, Donald.


Ouch lol.

I'm still bitter over them holding Indycar hostage. Chevy made the better aerokit and instead of developing theirs they just force the series to go spec. Admittedly Chevy didn't help by flat out refusing to supply the whole series, but still.

It's Honda's MO. Lose then pull out abruptly if they aren't helped. But it is what it is.

Mind you, weren't Honda also hit during the 2015 season when it turned out that the aero kit Chevrolet introduced for the Indy 500 caused extreme rear end instability (the rear bodywork being badly designed and causing the rear wing to stall)? As I recall, Honda had the better aero kit for that race, but despite not having any problems with their kits, they had to install the same measures that Chevrolet did to their aero kit.

Back on topic, the talk earlier in the season was more of McLaren being the one that wanted to get rid of Honda (with rumours they had approached Mercedes about a supply of customer engines). It would also seem to be somewhat contradictory given that all the signs are that Honda has been increasing their investment in the sport - they've expanded their factory to increase production, and now there is talk that they've edged closer to signing a deal with Sauber as well. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/saub ... 97554/?s=1

It feels to me more likely that the Strategy Group are looking at intervening in this situation to stave off a potential threat to quit. I also wonder if this is perhaps a way for the Strategy Group to advertise to potential newcomers that, if they were to enter, the sport would consider making it easier for them to catch up, particularly with negotiations over the 2021 engine regulations taking place in the background.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 26 Apr 2017, 14:14
mario wrote:Mind you, weren't Honda also hit during the 2015 season when it turned out that the aero kit Chevrolet introduced for the Indy 500 caused extreme rear end instability (the rear bodywork being badly designed and causing the rear wing to stall)? As I recall, Honda had the better aero kit for that race, but despite not having any problems with their kits, they had to install the same measures that Chevrolet did to their aero kit.

Back on topic, the talk earlier in the season was more of McLaren being the one that wanted to get rid of Honda (with rumours they had approached Mercedes about a supply of customer engines). It would also seem to be somewhat contradictory given that all the signs are that Honda has been increasing their investment in the sport - they've expanded their factory to increase production, and now there is talk that they've edged closer to signing a deal with Sauber as well. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/saub ... 97554/?s=1

It feels to me more likely that the Strategy Group are looking at intervening in this situation to stave off a potential threat to quit. I also wonder if this is perhaps a way for the Strategy Group to advertise to potential newcomers that, if they were to enter, the sport would consider making it easier for them to catch up, particularly with negotiations over the 2021 engine regulations taking place in the background.


Very true about the 500.

Mind you to me the working group has done enough, they ditched the token system specifically to help Honda (and to an extent Renault). As you mention, Honda has invested big time in the last 12 months, why wouldn't unlimited development help them the most?

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 29 Apr 2017, 10:40
Wallio wrote:
mario wrote:Mind you, weren't Honda also hit during the 2015 season when it turned out that the aero kit Chevrolet introduced for the Indy 500 caused extreme rear end instability (the rear bodywork being badly designed and causing the rear wing to stall)? As I recall, Honda had the better aero kit for that race, but despite not having any problems with their kits, they had to install the same measures that Chevrolet did to their aero kit.

Back on topic, the talk earlier in the season was more of McLaren being the one that wanted to get rid of Honda (with rumours they had approached Mercedes about a supply of customer engines). It would also seem to be somewhat contradictory given that all the signs are that Honda has been increasing their investment in the sport - they've expanded their factory to increase production, and now there is talk that they've edged closer to signing a deal with Sauber as well. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/saub ... 97554/?s=1

It feels to me more likely that the Strategy Group are looking at intervening in this situation to stave off a potential threat to quit. I also wonder if this is perhaps a way for the Strategy Group to advertise to potential newcomers that, if they were to enter, the sport would consider making it easier for them to catch up, particularly with negotiations over the 2021 engine regulations taking place in the background.


Very true about the 500.

Mind you to me the working group has done enough, they ditched the token system specifically to help Honda (and to an extent Renault). As you mention, Honda has invested big time in the last 12 months, why wouldn't unlimited development help them the most?

I agree that they should, in principle, have been one of the larger gainers from the change to the token system, though helping Renault is likely to have been a major consideration too. Mind you, at the moment the team that seems to have gained the most from the changes in the power unit regulations looks to be Ferrari...

There is, however, the caveat that whilst the development restrictions may have been relaxed, the penalty system hasn't - so although Honda can make changes more freely, the engine regulations are still set up in such a way that it disincentives making too many changes too often to the power unit before penalties start kicking in.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 29 Apr 2017, 15:01
http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/0 ... ne-supply/

Well regardless of whether they get help or not it looks like Honda will be powering 2 teams next year.
The bit about Sauber is interesting. It DOES make sense to get current spec engines, and the Hondas would have to be cheaper, but it could very well kill the team if 2018 is like this year. Very high risk/high reward.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by Ciaran 30 Apr 2017, 00:01
It's just depressing thinking about Sauber's new home on the brink of bankruptcy. I honestly can't think of any new teams who could come into F1 right now just so that there'd still be 20 cars if Sauber collapse. There's no way any manufacturers would want to join unless the engine regulations were simplified, independent teams saw what happened to Manor/Virgin/Marussia, Faux-tus/Caterham & HRT, and do you really think Fiat-Chrysler want to spend $100m a year bestowing the Alfa Romeo name upon a backmarker?

Manager of Calsonic Team Impul in Formula E, K-Apex in PES & Eurasian F3 and Mitsuoka in Alt-F1 '76.
My career mode thread - 1988: AGS (19pts, 9th) // 1989: Arrows (25pts, 8th, 1 win!)
You'll never DNF if you always DNPQ. #RollSafe
by mario 30 Apr 2017, 13:54
Wallio wrote:http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/04/29/honda-in-talks-with-various-f1-teams-over-2018-engine-supply/

Well regardless of whether they get help or not it looks like Honda will be powering 2 teams next year.
The bit about Sauber is interesting. It DOES make sense to get current spec engines, and the Hondas would have to be cheaper, but it could very well kill the team if 2018 is like this year. Very high risk/high reward.

It may be that Honda have done something else to sweeten the deal - I would not be surprised if Honda may even be putting money into the team to make the terms more attractive, which could be something Sauber badly need.

I agree that it is a risky strategy from their point of view, but on the other hand the team knows that they'll probably finish last or second to last in the WCC anyway and probably can't fall any further back.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Spectoremg 30 Apr 2017, 22:14
Ben Edwards. Stop telling us about poor old Palmer's awful weekend. He's sh1t ok!
by Wallio 02 May 2017, 17:32
mario wrote:
Wallio wrote:http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/04/29/honda-in-talks-with-various-f1-teams-over-2018-engine-supply/

Well regardless of whether they get help or not it looks like Honda will be powering 2 teams next year.
The bit about Sauber is interesting. It DOES make sense to get current spec engines, and the Hondas would have to be cheaper, but it could very well kill the team if 2018 is like this year. Very high risk/high reward.

It may be that Honda have done something else to sweeten the deal - I would not be surprised if Honda may even be putting money into the team to make the terms more attractive, which could be something Sauber badly need.

I agree that it is a risky strategy from their point of view, but on the other hand the team knows that they'll probably finish last or second to last in the WCC anyway and probably can't fall any further back.



Indeed, many race reviews this weekend mention Sauber "looking forward to free engines in 2018" so it appears they were be a semi-works team of some type. Smart move for them, I hope it works.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 02 May 2017, 20:19
Wallio wrote:
mario wrote:
Wallio wrote:http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/04/29/honda-in-talks-with-various-f1-teams-over-2018-engine-supply/

Well regardless of whether they get help or not it looks like Honda will be powering 2 teams next year.
The bit about Sauber is interesting. It DOES make sense to get current spec engines, and the Hondas would have to be cheaper, but it could very well kill the team if 2018 is like this year. Very high risk/high reward.

It may be that Honda have done something else to sweeten the deal - I would not be surprised if Honda may even be putting money into the team to make the terms more attractive, which could be something Sauber badly need.

I agree that it is a risky strategy from their point of view, but on the other hand the team knows that they'll probably finish last or second to last in the WCC anyway and probably can't fall any further back.



Indeed, many race reviews this weekend mention Sauber "looking forward to free engines in 2018" so it appears they were be a semi-works team of some type. Smart move for them, I hope it works.

From Honda's point of view, it's probably a price they are prepared to pay in an effort to get additional information.

Whilst Ron Dennis wanted his team to be the sole focus of Honda, that has left Honda with a significant shortfall in data acquisition compared to their rivals. Having a second team would give them the chance to compare their installation with McLaren to see if there are issues that are particular to McLaren's car, or if there are common issues that can be identified from the larger data set that can then feed into resolution of that issue.

Honda may also see an opportunity to use Sauber as a way of bringing drivers into the sport, with Matsushita a potential candidate. He is already working for McLaren as a development driver, but they are unlikely to want to drop their driver programme to accommodate Honda's favoured candidates (especially with Norris putting in some promising results in Formula 3) - Sauber might be more biddable though.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 19 May 2017, 14:16
So the tyre choices for Silverstone are out, and if I'm reading the thing on F1.com right, the supersofts will be for qualifying only? What's the bloody point then? Can we please drop the two compounds rule? You're allowing teams to divide up 15 sets of tyres across 3 compounds. Ok, but go whole hog and let them pick 15 Supersofts if they want.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 20 May 2017, 12:14
Wallio wrote:So the tyre choices for Silverstone are out, and if I'm reading the thing on F1.com right, the supersofts will be for qualifying only? What's the bloody point then? Can we please drop the two compounds rule? You're allowing teams to divide up 15 sets of tyres across 3 compounds. Ok, but go whole hog and let them pick 15 Supersofts if they want.

That is a surprise given that it would seem to run counter to the normal tyre regulations, which do not seem to have been modified for that race - I've not seen any other site confirm that the teams are restricted to using the supersofts in qualifying only.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 20 May 2017, 14:11
mario wrote:
Wallio wrote:So the tyre choices for Silverstone are out, and if I'm reading the thing on F1.com right, the supersofts will be for qualifying only? What's the bloody point then? Can we please drop the two compounds rule? You're allowing teams to divide up 15 sets of tyres across 3 compounds. Ok, but go whole hog and let them pick 15 Supersofts if they want.

That is a surprise given that it would seem to run counter to the normal tyre regulations, which do not seem to have been modified for that race - I've not seen any other site confirm that the teams are restricted to using the supersofts in qualifying only.


https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... relli.html

That's what I thought too. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But this line is what throws me: "Drivers will be obliged to use the soft and the medium during the race"

Or are they expecting people to 3 stop?

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by RonDenisDeletraz 02 Jun 2017, 01:53
Not sure if this has already been posted but...

Reds under the bed.

aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either :P

tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
by Wallio 02 Jun 2017, 13:55
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 1-payments

Translation: But how will I embezzle more? :D

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by Wallio 02 Jun 2017, 14:04
Wallio wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129897/mallya-hits-back-at-haas-over-f1-payments

Translation: But how will I embezzle more? :D



All joking aside, I don't understand why VJ would be opposed. His team is top 4 again, he's going to make bank for the next 2 years (since payments come the following year). Sauber I could see being mad, but FI? nah.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by Klon 02 Jun 2017, 14:34
Wallio wrote:
Wallio wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129897/mallya-hits-back-at-haas-over-f1-payments

Translation: But how will I embezzle more? :D


All joking aside, I don't understand why VJ would be opposed. His team is top 4 again, he's going to make bank for the next 2 years (since payments come the following year). Sauber I could see being mad, but FI? nah.


Performance comes and performance goes as far as midfield teams are concerned. Just look at the team that Force India was originally. Secure the best odds of getting fair funding whilst you are good so you don't crash and burn when things go south.

by mario 02 Jun 2017, 17:20
Klon wrote:
Wallio wrote:
Wallio wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129897/mallya-hits-back-at-haas-over-f1-payments

Translation: But how will I embezzle more? :D


All joking aside, I don't understand why VJ would be opposed. His team is top 4 again, he's going to make bank for the next 2 years (since payments come the following year). Sauber I could see being mad, but FI? nah.


Performance comes and performance goes as far as midfield teams are concerned. Just look at the team that Force India was originally. Secure the best odds of getting fair funding whilst you are good so you don't crash and burn when things go south.

The other aspect is that, under the current payment structure, Force India are still arguably getting a bit of a rough deal. I suspect that one of Mallya's big grievances would be with the additional bonus payments that a number of teams get for their "historic" status or because they have won the constructors championship in the past.

They might have finished just one place lower than Red Bull last year, but earned less than half what they did ($72 million versus $161 million) - in fact, those additional bonuses meant that Williams and McLaren, despite finishing lower than Force India, received more in payments than them ($79 million and $97 million respectively), meaning that they will receive only the 6th largest payout this year.

Even if McLaren finish last in the WCC this year - a distinct possibility - those bonus payments might mean that they still get a bigger share of the prize fund than Force India could get for finishing 4th. It effectively caps Force India's progression up the grid, as they are arguably not reaping a significantly better reward for their success now than they were in the past.

That gulf in payments means that they cannot hope to compete with the financial resources of Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes, and in the longer term you would expect Renault's greater resources to enable them to leapfrog Force India too. If McLaren eventually get their act together, then Force India could soon be staring down the barrel of finishing 7th in the WCC or worse - as Klon notes, better to ensure that, if there is the risk of being driven back down the grid in the future, to try and do something now to cushion the blow soon (just look at the pain that Sauber is going through at the moment).

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by watka 30 Sep 2017, 18:56
The whole set up of junior teams is completely at odds with the superlicence points system and its peeing me off.

We're in a situation where there's a seat at Toro Rosso and currently no one to fill it. Honda's choice would clearly be Nobuharu Matsushita, but the points requirement is a big hurdle for him. The Red Bull Junior Team has no one with anywhere near enough points either. Sean Gelael, who they've been testing, doesn't have the results either.

Red Bull are probably too stubborn to let Toro Rosso take on a driver from another team's programme, so that rules out Charles Leclerc (Ferrari), Oliver Rowland (Renault), Nicolas Latifi (Renault), Nyck de Vries (McLaren), Lando Norris (McLaren), George Russell (Mercedes), Antonio Fuoco (Ferrari) and possibly Luca Ghiotto (Williams). A lot of those names I'd like to see in F1 even if it might be a bit early for them.

So basically, you get back to square one and you are left with Daniil Kvyat or another out of contract, current driver.

Watka - you know, the swimming horses guy
by mario 30 Sep 2017, 19:07
watka wrote:The whole set up of junior teams is completely at odds with the superlicence points system and its peeing me off.

We're in a situation where there's a seat at Toro Rosso and currently no one to fill it. Honda's choice would clearly be Nobuharu Matsushita, but the points requirement is a big hurdle for him. The Red Bull Junior Team has no one with anywhere near enough points either. Sean Gelael, who they've been testing, doesn't have the results either.

Red Bull are probably too stubborn to let Toro Rosso take on a driver from another team's programme, so that rules out Charles Leclerc (Ferrari), Oliver Rowland (Renault), Nicolas Latifi (Renault), Nyck de Vries (McLaren), Lando Norris (McLaren), George Russell (Mercedes), Antonio Fuoco (Ferrari) and possibly Luca Ghiotto (Williams). A lot of those names I'd like to see in F1 even if it might be a bit early for them.

So basically, you get back to square one and you are left with Daniil Kvyat or another out of contract, current driver.

Looking through the list of drivers in Red Bull's Junior team, they have Neil Verhagen, Dan Ticktum, Niko Kari and Richard Verschoor - to be honest, none of those drivers have stood out in the respective series that they've been racing in, so even if they wanted to, I don't think that Red Bull really would want to put one of those drivers into their team.

That said, it's possible that Red Bull would, if they were determined enough, simply hire a driver who wasn't part of their junior team (it's what they did with Verstappen, after all) - they might not like doing it, but they might be prepared to do it as a stopgap measure.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Ataxia 30 Sep 2017, 19:23
It's a situation completely of Red Bull's own making.

Rather than harp on about the less-than-acceptable treatment of Kvyat, it's probably easier to mention that they dropped Callum Ilott for the less-than-impressive Kari. Luca Ghiotto's done some simulator work with them, but they've not bothered with him (although I'm told Ghiotto's management team isn't exactly doing him any favours). Had they kept interest in Dean Stoneman, he'd be a solid option too.

But it seems that Red Bull's focus is on five years' time, hence the trio of Eurocup drivers on the roster. They're either going to have to keep Kvyat for another three-or-so-years (which I don't see happening like, at all) or sign someone else up. Maxi Gunther will have enough points at the end of the year, as will Joel Eriksson. Would Dr. Marko take that plunge?

Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
by Butterfox 30 Sep 2017, 20:25
Maybe take a chance on Markelov? If they want to keep some Russian support (i think they get some Russian support for running Kvyat), that might be a short-term alternative.

I don't know what i want and i want it now!
by Rob Dylan 01 Oct 2017, 12:21
Dumb question, but does Friday Practice testing not count at all for superlicence points? Surely they should be worth something, you know, for actually driving the F1 cars. Even if it were like 4 points or something earned for an F1 test, that could be used to get a driver who had 30 points, for example, to get them the relevant experience in the car to get a superlicence.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by TomWazzleshaw 01 Oct 2017, 22:13
Rob Dylan wrote:Dumb question, but does Friday Practice testing not count at all for superlicence points? Surely they should be worth something, you know, for actually driving the F1 cars. Even if it were like 4 points or something earned for an F1 test, that could be used to get a driver who had 30 points, for example, to get them the relevant experience in the car to get a superlicence.


I'd imagine it'd count under the "300km in an F1 car" clause that's included in the superlicence criteria

Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
by Londoner 08 Dec 2017, 19:58
You may have heard that the FIA have appointed a new, young representative to their Women's Commission today, spearheading the fight for equality in motorsport.

So, who have the FIA chosen? Is it a young up and coming driver like Sophia Floersch or Jamie Chadwick, or someone who's achieved success in motorsport, such as Simona de Silvestro, Christina Nielsen or even Danica Patrick? You'd be completely wrong.



To say this appointment hasn't been warmly received in the motorsport world would be an understatement frankly. Jorda is on record as saying women are inferior to men, and must have their own gender segregated series. She pretty much embodies old, outdated views about the role of women in motorsport, and worse still is an active proponent of said views. That she now holds such an important position is really rather depressing.

Beyond the damage this will do for aspiring women in motorsport, it also illustrates that the FIA haven't got a clue what they're doing. :facepalm:

mario on Michael Masi wrote:The popular opinion seems to be that Masi would be out of his depth in a paddling pool
by Aislabie 08 Dec 2017, 21:11
I'm a little confused. Have they literally just given her the position because she looks nice?
by Ataxia 08 Dec 2017, 22:38
Aislabie wrote:I'm a little confused. Have they literally just given her the position because she looks nice?


I think the FIA has a distinct agenda to push...(warning: obvious plug)

Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
by mario 08 Dec 2017, 23:12
East Londoner wrote:You may have heard that the FIA have appointed a new, young representative to their Women's Commission today, spearheading the fight for equality in motorsport.

So, who have the FIA chosen? Is it a young up and coming driver like Sophia Floersch or Jamie Chadwick, or someone who's achieved success in motorsport, such as Simona de Silvestro, Christina Nielsen or even Danica Patrick? You'd be completely wrong.



To say this appointment hasn't been warmly received in the motorsport world would be an understatement frankly. Jorda is on record as saying women are inferior to men, and must have their own gender segregated series. She pretty much embodies old, outdated views about the role of women in motorsport, and worse still is an active proponent of said views. That she now holds such an important position is really rather depressing.

Beyond the damage this will do for aspiring women in motorsport, it also illustrates that the FIA haven't got a clue what they're doing. :facepalm:

The continued persistence of Carmen Jorda in the senior ranks of motorsport is perplexing to say the least, especially when you consider that Renault - a team that isn't really in need of a pay driver, and which also recently recruited a female kart racer (Marta García) into their junior race team - wouldn't really need her wallet. Furthermore, you would have thought that they might have been put off by some of the negative publicity that surrounds her as a result of how she is negatively perceived in the world of motorsport.

That said, at the same time her point of view is not entirely dissimilar to some of the other commission members either. Michèle Mouton, who is the president of the Women's Commission, is also on record as doubting that there will ever be a top ranking female F1 driver (here is an example from an interview she gave to Motorsport last year - "We’ve seen women in F1 a long time ago, but personally I’ve never been absolutely sure we’ll see a woman at the top in F1. I think we will see women in the middle of the field, but not at the very front." https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mout ... f1-859989/ )

Given the similarity of some of the views that Mouton has expressed to those of Jorda, I do wonder if perhaps there might be a link between the two (a selection of those with similar views in a self reinforcing circle). I do agree that her views are likely to have a corrosive effect on the efforts of those who want to see female racing drivers being able to compete on merit in the top ranks of major motorsport series, but perhaps in some ways it is worse when it comes from Mouton given the higher esteem she has in the motorsport community.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by dr-baker 09 Dec 2017, 22:11
Pippa Mann is a great spokesmann on this topic in her Twitter feed. Worth checking out.
Last edited by dr-baker on 09 Dec 2017, 23:22, edited 1 time in total.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by This Could Be You 09 Dec 2017, 22:56
dr-baker wrote:Poops Mann is a great spokesmann on this topic in her Twitter feed. Worth checking out.

I assume that's autocorrect's work, otherwise that's one heck of a Freudian slip...

Your Signature Here

Named after HRT, now on HRT
by dr-baker 09 Dec 2017, 23:25
This Could Be You wrote:
dr-baker wrote:Poops Mann is a great spokesmann on this topic in her Twitter feed. Worth checking out.

I assume that's autocorrect's work, otherwise that's one heck of a Freudian slip...

Wow, I really need to check things like that. I had no idea that Pippa wasn't recognised by the tablet's dictionary. :lol: But the double-n in spokesmann was deliberate though...

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by dr-baker 10 Dec 2017, 22:08

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by UncreativeUsername37 25 Mar 2018, 22:31
This is about how anti-anti-halo I am. Not pro-halo, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I'm just annoyed by the arguments everyone is using. The plan here is to lay out all of my halo opinions, so that in future when I see a halo argument, I can look down at everyone from a balcony and laugh at them.

Anthony Davidson said that the real reason we all hate it is that it's ugly, and he's right. All this other crap about the "DNA of Formula One", a phrase which also annoys me but that's tangential even by rant standards, that's a distraction. A red herring. Everything is "not Formula One" until it's done. Besides, F1 is still open cockpit. Look at the top of the cockpit. Is it covered? Mostly not. (And we're all waiting for canopies now anyway, especially people anti-halo.) Same thing with the possible dangers of the halo that don't swing the balance of risks. It doesn't affect the argument and it just shows that you know "it's ugly" isn't enough up against something as big and objective as safety.

Narrow rear wings are ugly. Shark fins are ugly. (By ugly here, I mean popularly called ugly.) And just like what happened with everyone with both of those, I've already kind of stopped noticing the halo. It'll be "supposed to be there" before I realise it. More importantly, whatever the car looks like, good or bad, I'm too distracted by the actual racing. Formula E's front wing looks pretty bad to me, but I'm not constantly bothered by it. LMPs look cool as hell to me, beaten only by 1990s F1, but I'm not lifted up by that when I'm watching them.

Imagine if the halo had been around since the 1960s or '70s, as long as you've been watching is what really matters, as an agreed-upon indispensable safety feature, akin to the roll hoop. Most people think the cars would look better without them, but there's wide agreement it'd be stupid not to have them. Maybe there are some stragglers, North America perhaps, for a few years before they're convinced by a death, career-ending injury, or close call. By this decade, the rare anti-halo (canopy?) sentiment is compared to being against today's relatively high cockpit sides. ("You know when else you can't see the drivers? When they're in a coffin." is an annoying oft-repeated joke in this universe.) Anyway, over the decades, there's a saved life here and there, and a few close calls indistinguishable from saved lives. Then in 2017 or '18, as part of the FIA's intention to make the cars "sexier", the halo/canopy is removed. Removing this element of safety, that we've seen plenty of things bounce off over the years, just to make the cars look better. Would anyone like that?

So try to forget the temporal issue, which isn't really possible but at least try, and ask yourself what's more important: a bit of beauty, or a bit of safety. Safety, right? Duh. That's not sarcastic, it's that easy. As I said, you'll forget it's there anyway, if the racing is what you most care about.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests