Rantbox

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
User avatar
Spectoremg
Posts: 513
Joined: 27 Dec 2014, 21:39
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

Re: Rantbox

Post by Spectoremg »

I voted out. I don't dislike foreigners. I don't have a desire to 'pull up the drawbridge.' I consider myself British AND European. The EEC started out as an economic agreement - a far cry from what it became. We'll continue as part of a European and global economy because trade deals are being done already. It'll be business as usual, because at the end of the day money talks.
And if anyone's wondering why (maybe) the xenophobic vote swayed the day, ask yourself how easy it is to be racist in a country where Rotheham's allowed to happen because successive authority figures were sh!t scared of the political correctness that's been allowed to pervade every section of British society.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by DemocalypseNow »

This Brexit talk is heading in a very bad direction. Let's just wrap it up with a final remark and move on.

The only person with a real plan for Brexit was Roy Hodgson. :glasses:
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

Biscione wrote:This Brexit talk is heading in a very bad direction.

So it appears.
Just For One Day...
User avatar
Rob Dylan
Posts: 3477
Joined: 18 May 2014, 15:34
Location: Andy Warhol's basement

Re: Rantbox

Post by Rob Dylan »

I accidentally started my rant in the British Grand Prix thread but I'll continue it here.

I find it so irritating that the qualities of promising midfield drivers and sometimes even those in backmarker teams are left entirely up to conjecture nowadays. And the reason for that is that top teams aren't even giving them a shot. On occasions we have seen drivers vastly outperform their machinery over the course of a season - Kovalainen in 2011, Hulkenberg in 2013 and now Perez last/this year - and we have asked the question as to whether these drivers have race-winning potential, or even championship winning potential. With Kovalainen we already knew in 2008/9 that he didn't really have the qualities to fight at the front. But with drivers such as Hulkenberg and Perez, who are now both locked into their seats at Force India for yet another year, we don't actually know whether they have race-winning or even championship-winning potential, because we haven't seen them in cars good enough to make these judgments.

Grosjean, Perez and Hulkenberg have had great seasons in the past, but they have also had bad seasons. But could one not argue that the closeness of the midfield often highlights the poorer performances far more than if those drivers were fighting fewer cars at the front? And have Vettel (2014), Hamilton (2011), Raikkonen (2009/2014) etc. not also had at least one notable poor season in front-running cars? When people judge and put down drivers like Hulkenberg this season, it really grinds my gears. We don't know their potential for success because they've barely been able to experience it in their situations. And that's because they've never been given a chance!

I remember our founders did a particularly bleak opinion piece on Ferrari's signing of Raikkonen in late 2013, and I agreed with it then. It was an uninspired decision then, and he'll be on to his fourth straight year at Maranello as of 2017. And how many midfield drivers have shone in that time but moved nowhere?
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!
User avatar
rachel1990
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Oct 2012, 20:21

Re: Rantbox

Post by rachel1990 »

I must admit I whinged a bit about Ferrari in the 2017 thread but I am going to let rip here.

Once again Ferrari are out of touch with f1. Re-Signing a driver who CANNOT do the job when your lead driver is out is a joke. Kimi's lap times are not good enough anymore and there needs to be a change.

However knowing Ferrari they would re-sign Alonso or Massa even though Massa is also showing signs that his time is over (and if he is going to Renault then I will rip into them more) and Alonso must be winding down his career.

Plus Italy must be furious that Ferrari have looked nowhere near good enough and having a driver good at developing the car must be a huge bonus

Sorry Iceman but you time is over.
Benetton of 1992. Never a reject
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Ataxia »

Completely disagree here. Raikkonen's stepped it up a lot this year, and he's been closer to Vettel in qualifying (he's even outqualified him a few times, so go figure!). He's been far less passive in the races as well; he just seems to have turned a corner.

It's no secret that Raikkonen struggled with the pullrod suspension arrangement in the previous Ferraris, and now he's got a car that he can work with he's looking strong.

Thing is though, who else could do a better job? Hulkenberg's star, sadly, is fading whilst Perez is too inconsistent and Grosjean might not be quite as accepting of a #2 role in the team. Kimi produces the results Ferrari need, gets on well with Vettel and appears to have strong technical feedback.
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...
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Rantbox

Post by WeirdKerr »

Ataxia wrote:Completely disagree here. Raikkonen's stepped it up a lot this year, and he's been closer to Vettel in qualifying (he's even outqualified him a few times, so go figure!). He's been far less passive in the races as well; he just seems to have turned a corner.

It's no secret that Raikkonen struggled with the pullrod suspension arrangement in the previous Ferraris, and now he's got a car that he can work with he's looking strong.

Thing is though, who else could do a better job? Hulkenberg's star, sadly, is fading whilst Perez is too inconsistent and Grosjean might not be quite as accepting of a #2 role in the team. Kimi produces the results Ferrari need, gets on well with Vettel and appears to have strong technical feedback.


It's a case of better the devil you know here.... though I do wish they could of signed someone new
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Rantbox

Post by mario »

Ataxia wrote:Completely disagree here. Raikkonen's stepped it up a lot this year, and he's been closer to Vettel in qualifying (he's even outqualified him a few times, so go figure!). He's been far less passive in the races as well; he just seems to have turned a corner.

It's no secret that Raikkonen struggled with the pullrod suspension arrangement in the previous Ferraris, and now he's got a car that he can work with he's looking strong.

Thing is though, who else could do a better job? Hulkenberg's star, sadly, is fading whilst Perez is too inconsistent and Grosjean might not be quite as accepting of a #2 role in the team. Kimi produces the results Ferrari need, gets on well with Vettel and appears to have strong technical feedback.

We will have to see how the full season plays out, but I am not really that convinced that he is that much better in qualifying trim. The time delta has reduced slightly, but Vettel is still the faster driver on average and the current qualifying ratio of 7-2 in Vettel's favour is pretty much the same as in 2015 (when it finished 15-4 in Vettel's favour). The current points total is also a little flattering given Vettel's higher retirement record at the moment, which does seem to have eliminated the points deficit I'd have expected him to otherwise have.

In terms of points scored, whilst it is true that Kimi has scored more points than the equivalent point last year (he had 76 points after 9 races in 2015, as opposed to 96 points now), I'm not convinced that is necessarily because Kimi is doing a better job. To me, it feels more like he has gained slightly from Williams slipping down the field, even if Red Bull have somewhat replaced them as a threat, and from reliability problems for his rivals (both within and outside his own team), rather than purely on his own merit.

With regards to his technical feedback, the picture there is quite mixed - some sources indicate that he is reasonably good, but some suggested that he was not particularly strong in that area (for example, I believe that some mechanics at McLaren felt that Kimi sometimes tried to drive around handling issues rather than trying to tackle them head on, ultimately hurting his outright performance).

WeirdKerr is right that this move feels like a very conservative one, and one which feels like it was dictated in part because most alternative drivers were already under contract. Rather than being the best driver they could get, it felt more like he was a driver that was "good enough" for the team.
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"
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Ataxia »

mario wrote:
WeirdKerr is right that this move feels like a very conservative one, and one which feels like it was dictated in part because most alternative drivers were already under contract. Rather than being the best driver they could get, it felt more like he was a driver that was "good enough" for the team.


Well, he's certainly the best driver available; Ferrari have been there and done that with Alonso, and Ricciardo, Sainz and Verstappen are locked down for the forseeable future. Bottas doesn't seem to be much of a step up, along with Hulkenberg, Perez and Grosjean. Ferrari don't "do" rookie drivers, so that rules out throwing a newbie straight in, and nobody else on the grid is good enough.

So what do you do? Drop Raikkonen, spend a year or so bedding a new driver who may or may not be better than Raikkonen when you have no intention of keeping them when Ricciardo's contract elapses? Or do you keep the harmony in the team and retain some familiarity (remember Vettel's only been at Ferrari for a year and a half, they don't need to go chopping and changing)? Kimi's got a year or two left anyway before he decides to call it a day, and by then the currently stagnant driver market might look a bit different.

What's the point of a number 2 driver anyway? To support the lead driver, and to be the man to get results when his team-mate falls by the wayside. Kimi's doing his job. He still seems to be motivated. Ferrari have played it safe, yes, but clearly Kexit was not the way to go at this stage.
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...
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Rantbox

Post by mario »

Ataxia wrote:
mario wrote:
WeirdKerr is right that this move feels like a very conservative one, and one which feels like it was dictated in part because most alternative drivers were already under contract. Rather than being the best driver they could get, it felt more like he was a driver that was "good enough" for the team.


Well, he's certainly the best driver available; Ferrari have been there and done that with Alonso, and Ricciardo, Sainz and Verstappen are locked down for the forseeable future. Bottas doesn't seem to be much of a step up, along with Hulkenberg, Perez and Grosjean. Ferrari don't "do" rookie drivers, so that rules out throwing a newbie straight in, and nobody else on the grid is good enough.

So what do you do? Drop Raikkonen, spend a year or so bedding a new driver who may or may not be better than Raikkonen when you have no intention of keeping them when Ricciardo's contract elapses? Or do you keep the harmony in the team and retain some familiarity (remember Vettel's only been at Ferrari for a year and a half, they don't need to go chopping and changing)? Kimi's got a year or two left anyway before he decides to call it a day, and by then the currently stagnant driver market might look a bit different.

What's the point of a number 2 driver anyway? To support the lead driver, and to be the man to get results when his team-mate falls by the wayside. Kimi's doing his job. He still seems to be motivated. Ferrari have played it safe, yes, but clearly Kexit was not the way to go at this stage.

Given that Ricciardo is locked into his current contract until the 2019 season - and I believe that Red Bull might have options to extend his contract beyond that if they want to - Ferrari would have to wait for at least two years to hire him if they wanted to. Furthermore, Perez might have been attractive given that Carlos Slim has hinted that, if Ferrari did hire Perez, he would be prepared to provide more sponsorship to Ferrari.
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"
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Rantbox

Post by WeirdKerr »

mario wrote:
Ataxia wrote:
mario wrote:
WeirdKerr is right that this move feels like a very conservative one, and one which feels like it was dictated in part because most alternative drivers were already under contract. Rather than being the best driver they could get, it felt more like he was a driver that was "good enough" for the team.


Well, he's certainly the best driver available; Ferrari have been there and done that with Alonso, and Ricciardo, Sainz and Verstappen are locked down for the forseeable future. Bottas doesn't seem to be much of a step up, along with Hulkenberg, Perez and Grosjean. Ferrari don't "do" rookie drivers, so that rules out throwing a newbie straight in, and nobody else on the grid is good enough.

So what do you do? Drop Raikkonen, spend a year or so bedding a new driver who may or may not be better than Raikkonen when you have no intention of keeping them when Ricciardo's contract elapses? Or do you keep the harmony in the team and retain some familiarity (remember Vettel's only been at Ferrari for a year and a half, they don't need to go chopping and changing)? Kimi's got a year or two left anyway before he decides to call it a day, and by then the currently stagnant driver market might look a bit different.

What's the point of a number 2 driver anyway? To support the lead driver, and to be the man to get results when his team-mate falls by the wayside. Kimi's doing his job. He still seems to be motivated. Ferrari have played it safe, yes, but clearly Kexit was not the way to go at this stage.

Given that Ricciardo is locked into his current contract until the 2019 season - and I believe that Red Bull might have options to extend his contract beyond that if they want to - Ferrari would have to wait for at least two years to hire him if they wanted to. Furthermore, Perez might have been attractive given that Carlos Slim has hinted that, if Ferrari did hire Perez, he would be prepared to provide more sponsorship to Ferrari.


Perez is still tainted with his slightly medicore year at McLaren so not an option as he may or may not be a risk....
User avatar
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Londoner »

I for one am sick to death of the over-regulation of the sport we all follow. The rulebook needs to be shredded and rewritten. Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: Rantbox

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

East Londoner wrote:I for one am sick to death of the over-regulation of the sport we all follow. The rulebook needs to be shredded and rewritten. Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Number of 1990s CART references Londoner has made in recent weeks: 433.

:P
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Londoner »

Simtek wrote:
East Londoner wrote:I for one am sick to death of the over-regulation of the sport we all follow. The rulebook needs to be shredded and rewritten. Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Number of 1990s CART references Londoner has made in recent weeks: 433.

:P


Well last year I was making Grange Hill references all the time as I worked my way through 25 years of the show, so at least my binge watching choice this year is relevant to the forum. :P
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.
Just For One Day...
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Rantbox

Post by mario »

CoopsII wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.

Furthermore, aren't there those who argue that those rules contributed to the series going into bankruptcy in the early 2000's, ultimately paving the way for its demise?
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"
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Rantbox

Post by WeirdKerr »

CoopsII wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.

only 1 more than f1 :roll:
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

WeirdKerr wrote:
CoopsII wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.

only 1 more than f1 :roll:

True but as we know that rulebook was changed extensively post-94 with great success.
Just For One Day...
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Rantbox

Post by AndreaModa »

Exactly. And it's not like people are saying, "oh, I really wish we'd go back to the mid-90s when drivers were completely exposed from the shoulders upwards."
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: Rantbox

Post by dr-baker »

AndreaModa wrote:Exactly. And it's not like people are saying, "oh, I really wish we'd go back to the mid-90s when drivers were completely exposed from the shoulders upwards."

[Devil's advocate] Although they would have had better visibility of what was alongside the car then... [/Devil's advocate]
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
User avatar
Aguaman
Posts: 669
Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 15:16

Re: Rantbox

Post by Aguaman »

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

Though guess it doesn't help that Sky Sports and Crofty. Also Ted Kravitz is on my nerve too. He is not a good interviewer.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Klon »

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


Just one more piece of proof for my theory that former drivers as colour commentators and TV experts become useless once their own F1 driving career is 15+ years in the past.
User avatar
watka
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 4097
Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 19:04
Location: Chessington, the former home of Brabham
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by watka »

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

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


I don't want Sky Sports, are you saying that Brundle thought Alonso blocking the track was deliberate?
Watka - you know, the swimming horses guy
User avatar
Rob Dylan
Posts: 3477
Joined: 18 May 2014, 15:34
Location: Andy Warhol's basement

Re: Rantbox

Post by Rob Dylan »

Waiting with fingers crossed that when Button retires he'll take up commentating and kick Brundle or Coulthard out of their seats.
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!
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: Rantbox

Post by dr-baker »

Rob Dylan wrote:Waiting with fingers crossed that when Button retires he'll take up commentating and kick Brundle or Coulthard out of their seats.

He would be great on Top Gear, I reckon.
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
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Rantbox

Post by WeirdKerr »

Just allow the teams to tell the drivers whatever the bathplug they want to say to them.... the radio rules are in danger of becoming reject of the year.... when I think about it I think it was better when they didn't broadcast team radio so let's go back to that, team radio always seems to interrupt the commentary :facepalm:
User avatar
Dj_bereta
Posts: 1513
Joined: 30 Aug 2009, 15:55

Re: Rantbox

Post by Dj_bereta »

CoopsII wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.


One death caused by a collision (Krosnoff), brake failure (Rodriguez) and a crash (Moore). The rules had little impact in the incidents which claimed their lives.
Waiting for Lotus hiring Johnny Cecotto jr.
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

Dj_bereta wrote:
CoopsII wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Either that, or just import the rulebook that CART used in the 1990s.

Three CART drivers lost their lives in the 1990s. Not sure that rulebook is all it's cracked up to be.


One death caused by a collision (Krosnoff), brake failure (Rodriguez) and a crash (Moore). The rules had little impact in the incidents which claimed their lives.

What are you talking about? First of all what's the difference between a crash and a collision? Secondly, Rodriguez wasn't killed by a brake failure, he was killed when he crashed/collided (you decide) with a concrete barrier. Finally, we can never know for sure whether or not F1 style safety rules would've saved those drivers from their high-speed impact accidents but several F1 drivers also had high speed impact accidents in that time period and lived to tell the tale.
Just For One Day...
BigG80
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Dec 2009, 12:07

Re: Rantbox

Post by BigG80 »

Totally agree Coops. The rules determine the safety structure of the car and also of the circuits and so could have played a part in causing those deaths.

I still think the Halo is bloody awful though and I don't want to see it in F1.
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Rantbox

Post by tommykl »

I, for one, understand that East Londoner was only referring to the sporting regulations, ie. regarding overtaking etiquette, radio communications, etc.

I certainly wouldn't want to return to the past in terms of safety or even in terms of technology. I'm sick of people telling me that F1 cars these days are rubbish because "they don't look or sound like real F1 cars". But what does make a real F1 car? Is it the chassis?

If so, then when did they stop being "real F1 cars"?
In 2009, when most aero gadgets were banned?
In 1998, when cars were narrowed?
In the early 1990s when raised noses first appeared?
In 1983, when ground effects were banned?
In 1977, when ground effects first appeared?
In 1970, when side radiators made their appearance?
In 1967, when wings first appeared?
In 1962, with the first monocoque?
In 1957, when Cooper started putting their engines at the back of their F1 cars?

Oh, maybe it's the engine that's making it "not F1".

Like the turbos! Turbos have never been in F1...except they were, from 1977 to 1988.
Well, the smaller displacements then! Again, back to the turbos. Also, the 1961-1965 regulations with 1.5 litre engines. People complained about them then, but oddly enough, they're now considered "real F1" again.

The technical aspect of Formula 1 is not about nostalgia. It never was. It's about constantly developing new technologies in the name of increased performance, with the only limiting factor being safety. Good-looking, good-sounding cars are only a by-product of this. Not the main objective.
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Londoner »

tommykl wrote:I, for one, understand that East Londoner was only referring to the sporting regulations, ie. regarding overtaking etiquette, radio communications, etc.


Indeed. I should have clarified this in my original post. The sporting regs used by CART in the 1990s were wonderfully simple and clear, whilst in all honesty, the safety regs were...lacking somewhat throughout the decade.

Totally agree with the rest of your post. I was originally against closed cockpits, but the tragedies of Bianchi and Wilson changed my mind. I've already had a number of arguments on Twitter regarding this. I don't think the halo is the best solution, but it's a good starting place for something better.
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

I don't like the Halos and I don't like the idea of canopies either. But I don't like drivers getting killed at all. Perhaps F1 has reached the point where it has to decide what it is; a civilised 21st century sport or an extreme sport. If it's the first then maximum driver safety is a priority, by whatever means necessary. If it's the second then I think that's at odds with the way it's trying to sell itself and it's involvement with the FIAs road safety campaigning.

I sometimes wonder if my age has changed my viewpoint. When Senna was killed it was kind of cool. Bear with me. Senna, to my 21 year old eyes, died a heroic death, he died doing what he wanted to do, he died doing what he loved, he died in combat. He died the same year as Kurt Cobain and both deaths seemed to me at the time as Rockstar deaths. Guys at the limit, guys that pushed the envelope too far too often.

And so on. Poetic bollocks essentially. Two sons lost when they didn't need to be. Two guys who should've continued making the world a better place through their respective arts.

Fast forward to any recent death you like, Wheldon, Wilson, Bianchi and I find little comfort in the nonsense I spouted before. Just guys, kids even, dying and me wishing they hadn't.

Rambling nonsensical rant over, I think I need a drink (oh yes, I can't have one because of the meds I'm on :facepalm: )
Just For One Day...
User avatar
DonTirri
Posts: 1177
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 22:12
Location: Herttoniemi, Helsinki, Finland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way.

Re: Rantbox

Post by DonTirri »

To quote a post I made at the Hungarian GP thread (which in retrospect belonged here"
Can we really just get the monsoon tires? This is goddamn silly.

Actually, can FIA start fiddling the rulebook so that the cars wouldn't be so goddamn sensitive to non-optimal circumstances?
Overtaking is hard because the cars can't stay close.
Rain racing is hard because the cars aquaplane so easily.
Radio rulings are restricted because the cars are too technical for the driver to handle it on his own when a problem arises.
Going maximum attack for extended periods of time is hard because the brakes/tires/gearboxes/engines can't stand the stress.

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

Can be go back to RACING!

Seriously. I am sick and tired of the current form of F1 where races are constantly affected by the stewards, where the very basic principle which the cars operate make the races into processions, make the races stop when weather changes.

The cars look ugly. 2009 was a step in the right direction (06-07-08 cars were GODWAFUL) But now were right back at cars without a single straight line in sights.
And no matter how many cost cutting measures are taken, the big teams with more money STILL dominate. Merc got the turbo-formula right and has been able to use their monetary advantage to maintain that spot.

Simplify the cars. Strip the electronics the hell away. Remove 99% of the dials and gauges on the steering wheel. Limit the aerodynamics even more. Force the cars to have actual straight lines and smooth surfaces instead of intendations, curves, winglets, protrusions etc.

Make driver skill matter. Make money matter less. Make it so that we'll never have to see another undeserving champion who lucked into a car miles better than anybody else's
I got Pointed Opinions and I ain't afraid to use em!
F1rejects no.1Räikkönen and Vettel fan.
BTW, thats Räikkönen with two K's and two N's. Not Raikonnen (Raikkonen is fine if you have no umlauts though)
User avatar
noiceinmydrink
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Sep 2012, 15:40
Location: ziggurat

Re: Rantbox

Post by noiceinmydrink »

I know it's probably old news but I'm still pissed that Nico was not penalised for speeding under double yellows during Q3.

The rule should be black and white; if you do not slow down sufficiently under double yellows, you're getting smacked. End of story. Rosberg barely lifted, and got away scot-free. Not slowing down under double yellows is what caused Bianchi's accident (Yes, Bianchi screwed up. That's a fact, you may stop your internal dialogue. "but mexi the rain and the water and the tractor amd he had no chanc"-shut up. You're wrong. Kay? Kay.) and people still think that this kind of thing is acceptable even after Suzuka 2014.

Legitimately, genuinely and sincerely furious with this, actually. Rosberg should have had his time disallowed, a grid penalty, and penalty points on his license. Letting him get away with this sends completely the wrong message to other drivers, allowing them to think that this kind of thing is okay. It's not, and it shouldn't be.

"Thank you for making that statement, Lewis". Do me a favour, Nico.
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Rantbox

Post by tommykl »

Mexicola wrote:I know it's probably old news but I'm still pissed that Nico was not penalised for speeding under double yellows during Q3.

The rule should be black and white; if you do not slow down sufficiently under double yellows, you're getting smacked. End of story. Rosberg barely lifted, and got away scot-free. Not slowing down under double yellows is what caused Bianchi's accident (Yes, Bianchi screwed up. That's a fact, you may stop your internal dialogue. "but mexi the rain and the water and the tractor amd he had no chanc"-shut up. You're wrong. Kay? Kay.) and people still think that this kind of thing is acceptable even after Suzuka 2014.

Legitimately, genuinely and sincerely furious with this, actually. Rosberg should have had his time disallowed, a grid penalty, and penalty points on his license. Letting him get away with this sends completely the wrong message to other drivers, allowing them to think that this kind of thing is okay. It's not, and it shouldn't be.

"Thank you for making that statement, Lewis". Do me a favour, Nico.

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

If the rule in question explicitly defined how slow he should have been going, this would not have been a problem. It wasn't. The logical course of action is allowing it, and subsequently rewriting the rule to prevent this from happening again.
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
DonTirri
Posts: 1177
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 22:12
Location: Herttoniemi, Helsinki, Finland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way.

Re: Rantbox

Post by DonTirri »

Mexicola wrote: Not slowing down under double yellows is what caused Bianchi's accident (Yes, Bianchi screwed up. That's a fact, you may stop your internal dialogue. "but mexi the rain and the water and the tractor amd he had no chanc"-shut up. You're wrong. Kay? Kay.) and people still think that this kind of thing is acceptable even after Suzuka 2014.


No. YOU'RE WRONG. The Rain and the Water and the Tractor were EXACTLY the reason for Bianchi's crash. NOT speeding on double-yellows. Had any of those 3 factors NOT been there, Bianchi would be alive, even if he speeded under double-yellows. How else can you explain that he was the first to die in such a manner?

His crash was the result of multiple factors that came together in an unfortunate and unpredictable fashion. Blaming just one of the factors for his death is just ignorant.

And the day F1 starts operating on what-ifs, is the day you might aswell stop racing altogether. Because let's face it. A human being was not designed to travel at the excess of 300 km/h. And no matter how safe the cars, tracks or rules become, the possibility of a fatal accident is ALWAYS there. ALWAYS. You can NEVER prepare for every possible outcome and factor.

So the day someone starts seriously thinking "what if that had happened. What if this had happened. what if what if what if what if". Is the day the sport dies.

And you my friend, need a reality check. Just by throwing the Bianchi-card to Nico's offence you showed you're no better than someone who throws around the Nazi-card in the middle of an argument.
I got Pointed Opinions and I ain't afraid to use em!
F1rejects no.1Räikkönen and Vettel fan.
BTW, thats Räikkönen with two K's and two N's. Not Raikonnen (Raikkonen is fine if you have no umlauts though)
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: Rantbox

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Keep it civil, folks...
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: Rantbox

Post by Ataxia »

Mexicola and DonTirri...now this is a match I've been itching to see!

*ding ding*
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...
User avatar
noiceinmydrink
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Sep 2012, 15:40
Location: ziggurat

Re: Rantbox

Post by noiceinmydrink »

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

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

Don't get me wrong, the FIA are to blame for this too for vague wording of rules which, and I say again, should be black and white. But Nico must be held accountable as well, considering he's the guy behind the wheel. Did he slow down? Yes. Did he slow down enough to be able to stop if needed? Absolutely not.

DonTirri wrote:No. YOU'RE WRONG. The Rain and the Water and the Tractor were EXACTLY the reason for Bianchi's crash. NOT speeding on double-yellows. Had any of those 3 factors NOT been there, Bianchi would be alive, even if he speeded under double-yellows. How else can you explain that he was the first to die in such a manner?

His crash was the result of multiple factors that came together in an unfortunate and unpredictable fashion. Blaming just one of the factors for his death is just ignorant.

And the day F1 starts operating on what-ifs, is the day you might aswell stop racing altogether. Because let's face it. A human being was not designed to travel at the excess of 300 km/h. And no matter how safe the cars, tracks or rules become, the possibility of a fatal accident is ALWAYS there. ALWAYS. You can NEVER prepare for every possible outcome and factor.

So the day someone starts seriously thinking "what if that had happened. What if this had happened. what if what if what if what if". Is the day the sport dies.

And you my friend, need a reality check. Just by throwing the Bianchi-card to Nico's offence you showed you're no better than someone who throws around the Nazi-card in the middle of an argument.

You're absolutely right. Blaming just one of the factors for his death is ignorant, it just so happens that's not what I was doing. The tractor didn't cause him to crash, the rain and water were beyond his control. His speed certainly was. And it cannot be denied that he was going too fast. If he slowed down, he wouldn't have crashed, or he wouldn't have crashed at the velocity that he did. It's not that complicated.
User avatar
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

Re: Rantbox

Post by CoopsII »

Ataxia wrote:Mexicola and DonTirri...now this is a match I've been itching to see!

*ding ding*

My moneys on Mexicola. The Don may be a verbal shrapnel grenade but Mexicola has staying power.
Just For One Day...
Post Reply