Ponderbox

[Wallio]

With this weekend's driver changes being a sportscar driver with no F1 experience in a decade, and a driver with (very little) FP1 experience, it really makes me wonder why Loeb was denied a few years back? He podiumed at Le Mans and tested a Torro Rosso a few times, and while off the pace, I don't remember him being embarrassed.

[Salamander]

With this weekend's driver changes being a sportscar driver with no F1 experience in a decade, and a driver with (very little) FP1 experience, it really makes me wonder why Loeb was denied a few years back? He podiumed at Le Mans and tested a Torro Rosso a few times, and while off the pace, I don't remember him being embarrassed.

He was in fact 2 seconds off the pace and last in a GP2 test.

[Shizuka]

Loeb simply fits better to the closed wheel cars. He was excellent in WRC, he was good in Le Mans and now he's doing alright in WTCC too (I mean, being third in his first season is no mean feat, although I agree he's third out of the three at Citroen!).

[mario]

With this weekend's driver changes being a sportscar driver with no F1 experience in a decade, and a driver with (very little) FP1 experience, it really makes me wonder why Loeb was denied a few years back? He podiumed at Le Mans and tested a Torro Rosso a few times, and while off the pace, I don't remember him being embarrassed.

He was in fact 2 seconds off the pace and last in a GP2 test.

Another aspect could have been his physical fitness - I recall that Loeb gave an interview the following year where he admitted that not being able to gain a superlicence was perhaps a blessing in disguise, because he was not sure in retrospect that he would have had the stamina required to compete in F1.

[Wallio]

With this weekend's driver changes being a sportscar driver with no F1 experience in a decade, and a driver with (very little) FP1 experience, it really makes me wonder why Loeb was denied a few years back? He podiumed at Le Mans and tested a Torro Rosso a few times, and while off the pace, I don't remember him being embarrassed.

He was in fact 2 seconds off the pace and last in a GP2 test.

Right, but for being a tin-top guy that's pretty good. Rossi (the other, bike riding one) was like 4-5 seconds off at Fiorano, which is quite short. I don't know, we'll have to see how this weekend plays out, but I can't help thinking Loeb got the shaft. Could be a case of rose-colored glasses though.

[dr-baker]

With this weekend's driver changes being a sportscar driver with no F1 experience in a decade, and a driver with (very little) FP1 experience, it really makes me wonder why Loeb was denied a few years back? He podiumed at Le Mans and tested a Torro Rosso a few times, and while off the pace, I don't remember him being embarrassed.

He was in fact 2 seconds off the pace and last in a GP2 test.

Another aspect could have been his physical fitness - I recall that Loeb gave an interview the following year where he admitted that not being able to gain a superlicence was perhaps a blessing in disguise, because he was not sure in retrospect that he would have had the stamina required to compete in F1.

Wasn't he being lined up for just a one-off in Abu Dhabi initially? Not that that would have made it any easier, but...

[Wallio]

Wasn't he being lined up for just a one-off in Abu Dhabi initially? Not that that would have made it any easier, but...

I believe so.

[dinizintheoven]

Here's a thought. Why aren't F1 cars given an official "B" spec these days? I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw one so named on track.

For instance, now that Caterham have updated the chisel-and-dildo nose on the CT05 to something with (presumably) much less horrific drag, why isn't it known as a CT05B? Why wasn't the CT03 called CT03B when the step-nose was removed (temporarily) last year? Maybe the change in the McLaren MP4-29 wasn't quite so drastic as to be worthy of a B, or maybe it was too early in the year, but this on the Caterham is a huge change.

[Ataxia]

Here's a thought. Why aren't F1 cars given an official "B" spec these days? I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw one so named on track.

For instance, now that Caterham have updated the chisel-and-dildo nose on the CT05 to something with (presumably) much less horrific drag, why isn't it known as a CT05B? Why wasn't the CT03 called CT03B when the step-nose was removed (temporarily) last year? Maybe the change in the McLaren MP4-29 wasn't quite so drastic as to be worthy of a B, or maybe it was too early in the year, but this on the Caterham is a huge change.

Caterham have only really changed the vanity panel on the car; although it looks different, it's not going to have as much aerodynamic benefit as a new front wing or whatever. The B-specification usually denotes a completely revised version of the car, for example replacing a number of components under the car at once or completely overhauling the aero package. I think the last one was the Toyota TF104B, where Mike Gascoyne came in and tried to iron out the flaws in Gustav Brunner's design.

[Salamander]

Here's a thought. Why aren't F1 cars given an official "B" spec these days? I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw one so named on track.

For instance, now that Caterham have updated the chisel-and-dildo nose on the CT05 to something with (presumably) much less horrific drag, why isn't it known as a CT05B? Why wasn't the CT03 called CT03B when the step-nose was removed (temporarily) last year? Maybe the change in the McLaren MP4-29 wasn't quite so drastic as to be worthy of a B, or maybe it was too early in the year, but this on the Caterham is a huge change.

Caterham have only really changed the vanity panel on the car; although it looks different, it's not going to have as much aerodynamic benefit as a new front wing or whatever. The B-specification usually denotes a completely revised version of the car, for example replacing a number of components under the car at once or completely overhauling the aero package. I think the last one was the Toyota TF104B, where Mike Gascoyne came in and tried to iron out the flaws in Gustav Brunner's design.

I think Spyker came up with a B-spec car midway through 2007...

[Wallio]

Spyker released a B-Spec version of the Midland, which itself was a B-Spec version of the EJ15 but thats the last I remember.

[WeirdKerr]

Spyker released a B-Spec version of the Midland, which itself was a B-Spec version of the EJ15 but thats the last I remember.

that would make it a C spec... lol

[Wallio]

Spyker released a B-Spec version of the Midland, which itself was a B-Spec version of the EJ15 but thats the last I remember.

that would make it a C spec... lol

True, but nothing about the name of that car made any sense. By the end, IIRC it was the F8-VIIIB.

[mario]

Here's a thought. Why aren't F1 cars given an official "B" spec these days? I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw one so named on track.

For instance, now that Caterham have updated the chisel-and-dildo nose on the CT05 to something with (presumably) much less horrific drag, why isn't it known as a CT05B? Why wasn't the CT03 called CT03B when the step-nose was removed (temporarily) last year? Maybe the change in the McLaren MP4-29 wasn't quite so drastic as to be worthy of a B, or maybe it was too early in the year, but this on the Caterham is a huge change.

Caterham have only really changed the vanity panel on the car; although it looks different, it's not going to have as much aerodynamic benefit as a new front wing or whatever. The B-specification usually denotes a completely revised version of the car, for example replacing a number of components under the car at once or completely overhauling the aero package. I think the last one was the Toyota TF104B, where Mike Gascoyne came in and tried to iron out the flaws in Gustav Brunner's design.

I believe that Caterham also tried out a new floor during the practise sessions, but reverted back to the old design afterwards. Either way, you are right that it is only the vanity panel that has changed on the CT05, as changing the crash structure beneath the aero shroud would require a new crash test and permission from the FIA to rehomologate the nose.

To a certain extent, part of the reason for a lack of B spec cars would be the requirement for the chassis design to be homologated before the start of the season, and now we are in a situation where that has expanded to include aspects of the front and rear crash structures too. That makes it a lot harder to change the design of the car after that date, so changes after that point tend to be incremental updates that are usually too small by themselves to warrant being termed a "B" or "C" specification etc.

In some ways though, some earlier cars were more or less "B" spec versions of earlier cars - Newey himself said that, to his mind, the RB8, he thought of the RB8 as really being more of an RB7-B, being an evolution of the previous car, than a truly independent design. However, it seems that the last car to be publicly described as a "B" spec car would have been the STR2B, which was used whilst development of the STR3 was underway back in 2008.

[Shizuka]

I think the last one was the Toyota TF104B, where Mike Gascoyne came in and tried to iron out the flaws in Gustav Brunner's design.

Toyota brought the TF106B to Monaco back in 2006.

[Minardi Man]

This is one of the most varied grids in terms of liveries we've seen for a good while I think

[Klon]

If André Lotterer does not get another spin with the Caterham, he'd be a driver that has only had one start in CART and one in Formula One. Now it'd be interesting to know whether there are others in this category.

[FullMetalJack]

This is one of the most varied grids in terms of liveries we've seen for a good while I think

Definitely better than 2006 in that regard.

[andrew2209]

This is one of the most varied grids in terms of liveries we've seen for a good while I think

2001 was the most varied IIRC.

[AustralianStig]

What would happen if a driver fell ill after qualifying or FP3? Would the reserve driver be able to complete the rest of the weekend?

If not...what is the point of the reserve driver?

[tommykl]

What would happen if a driver fell ill after qualifying or FP3? Would the reserve driver be able to complete the rest of the weekend?

If not...what is the point of the reserve driver?

I know that to take part, a reserve driver has to have done qualifying. I'm not sure about free practice, though.

[DemocalypseNow]

What would happen if a driver fell ill after qualifying or FP3? Would the reserve driver be able to complete the rest of the weekend?

If not...what is the point of the reserve driver?

I know that to take part, a reserve driver has to have done qualifying. I'm not sure about free practice, though.

Certainly it's possible after Free Practises on Friday, given Pedro de la Rosa subbed for Sergio Perez at Sauber in Montreal 2011. As late as FP3 I'm not so sure, but I think if it's possible after FP1 or FP2, it seems reasonable enough for it to be allowed after FP3 too.

[Bleu]

The latest replacement I remember is HWNSNBM stepping in for Firman in Hungary 2003. That year there was 15-minute warm-up session just before Saturday one-lap quali.

These are the mid-weekend replacements which have happened. I put the last one in although not really sure whether it should be counted. Red is due to injury, orange due to illness and green due to finances.
2000 Austria: Burti replacing Irvine
2001 Canada: Zonta replacing Frentzen
2003 Hungary: HWNSNBM replacing Firman
2003 Italy: Gene replacing R.Schumacher
2004 Canada: Glock replacing Pantano
2005 Malaysia: Davidson replacing Sato
2005 USA: Zonta replacing R.Schumacher
2005 Italy: Pizzonia replacing Heidfeld
2011 Canada: de la Rosa replacing Perez
2014 Belgium: Chilton replacing Rossi

[Rob Dylan]

2009 Japan. Glock was ill and so Kobayashi took part in both FP1 and FP2.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be allowed to take part in qualifying alone. Practice is meant to be free after all.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

In Valencia 2012 Glock had food poisoning (actual non-funding-related food poisoning) after FP3 and Marussia went into qualifying and the race with only one car nonetheless.

[tommykl]

In Valencia 2012 Glock had food poisoning (actual non-funding-related food poisoning) after FP3 and Marussia went into qualifying and the race with only one car nonetheless.

True, but I don't recall them even trying to get a third driver in there. Maybe they didn't have one

At least I remember Toyota trying to get Kobayashi into Glock's car in Japan...

[Bobby Doorknobs]

In Valencia 2012 Glock had food poisoning (actual non-funding-related food poisoning) after FP3 and Marussia went into qualifying and the race with only one car nonetheless.

True, but I don't recall them even trying to get a third driver in there. Maybe they didn't have one

At least I remember Toyota trying to get Kobayashi into Glock's car in Japan...

Having just looked into it it turns out that Marussia's only other driver was María de Villota, who unfortunately didn't even have a superlicence.

[DemocalypseNow]

I'm now waiting for the day that CoopsII and DanielPT suddenly break out into song....

[DanielPT]

I'm now waiting for the day that CoopsII and DanielPT suddenly break out into song....

Disappointed to tell you it already happened. I am sure next time around you will be invited!

[CoopsII]

Just call me 'Chocolate Bear'

[mario]

In Valencia 2012 Glock had food poisoning (actual non-funding-related food poisoning) after FP3 and Marussia went into qualifying and the race with only one car nonetheless.

True, but I don't recall them even trying to get a third driver in there. Maybe they didn't have one

At least I remember Toyota trying to get Kobayashi into Glock's car in Japan...

Having just looked into it it turns out that Marussia's only other driver was María de Villota, who unfortunately didn't even have a superlicence.

It's worth noting that, even if they wanted to, Marussia could not have replaced Glock after FP3 - any replacement driver has to have driven in the final practise session before being allowed into qualifying.

That same clause was the reason why Kobayashi was also not allowed to replace Glock, despite efforts from Toyota to persuade the FIA to bend the rules. Although he had taken part in the first practise session on Friday - which were the ground on which Toyota argued Kobayashi had proven his competence to drive an F1 car - he hadn't taken part in the Saturday session or qualifying itself, and therefore was not allowed to replace Glock.

[Meatwad]

It's worth noting that, even if they wanted to, Marussia could not have replaced Glock after FP3 - any replacement driver has to have driven in the final practise session before being allowed into qualifying.

Chandhok was allowed to qualify for the Bahrain GP in 2010 even though he failed to complete a single lap in any of the practice sessions. Apparently this was due to the FIA rules using the term "qualifying practice". Perhaps the rules have been changed or it's different depending on whether the driver in question is on the entry list.

I remember reading that Marussia had made an agreement with Lotus to use D'Ambrosio in case Glock wasn't able to participate. Glock claimed that he would be able to race, which he wasn't. This made Marussia quite unhappy.

[DanielPT]

Just call me 'Chocolate Bear'

That's ridiculous. Turk would never call JD 'Chocolate Bear'.

[tommykl]

I know that due to legal reasons this can never happen, but I'd like for a path to F1 to be clearly defined, with feeder series being assigned a particular tier on the ladder and with permission to drive on a particular tier depending on results in lower tiers. This would make it easier to follow lower tiers for everyone involved and would give more relevance to dwindling series like British F3 for example.

[mario]

It's worth noting that, even if they wanted to, Marussia could not have replaced Glock after FP3 - any replacement driver has to have driven in the final practise session before being allowed into qualifying.

Chandhok was allowed to qualify for the Bahrain GP in 2010 even though he failed to complete a single lap in any of the practice sessions. Apparently this was due to the FIA rules using the term "qualifying practice". Perhaps the rules have been changed or it's different depending on whether the driver in question is on the entry list.

I remember reading that Marussia had made an agreement with Lotus to use D'Ambrosio in case Glock wasn't able to participate. Glock claimed that he would be able to race, which he wasn't. This made Marussia quite unhappy.

That isn't quite the same thing as Chandhok was the intended driver from the very start of the race weekend, whereas Marussia were trying to get a new driver nominated for that session.

I know that due to legal reasons this can never happen, but I'd like for a path to F1 to be clearly defined, with feeder series being assigned a particular tier on the ladder and with permission to drive on a particular tier depending on results in lower tiers. This would make it easier to follow lower tiers for everyone involved and would give more relevance to dwindling series like British F3 for example.

It's true that the FIA is not allowed to specify a particular path into F1, but the FIA can use certain mechanisms that outline which routes they prefer drivers to come though. The process of issuing a superlicence is one mechanism - the FIA is due to reform that process, but it is geared up in such a way that it makes it easier for a driver to come through a national Formula 3 series and GP2 than for other routes, which gives drivers a push towards certain series.

I'd agree, though, that having a more clearly structured path to higher racing series - not just for F1, but in other areas such as sportscar racing (most of the factory teams in the LMP1 class seem to be basing their recruitment strategies around which ex-F1 drivers are becoming available rather than recruiting from lower series).

[tommykl]

Considering how much Hamilton loves to compare himself to Senna and likens his relationship with Rosberg to the Senna-Prost rivalry, I think that with all the public "attacks" and remarks, it's turning more and more into a Piquet-Mansell type of rivalry

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Considering how much Hamilton loves to compare himself to Senna and likens his relationship with Rosberg to the Senna-Prost rivalry, I think that with all the public "attacks" and remarks, it's turning more and more into a Piquet-Mansell type of rivalry

Which would mean that Ricciardo will win this year for sure

[DonTirri]

Considering how much Hamilton loves to compare himself to Senna and likens his relationship with Rosberg to the Senna-Prost rivalry, I think that with all the public "attacks" and remarks, it's turning more and more into a Piquet-Mansell type of rivalry

Which would mean that Ricciardo will win this year for sure

That's the pipedream. I'd mark out like crazy if that happened.

[CoopsII]

Can you actually get banned from here for posting an endless stream of ever more ridiculous and non-F1 related silliness?

Because if you can then goodbye DanielPT

[DanielPT]

Can you actually get banned from here for posting an endless stream of ever more ridiculous and non-F1 related silliness?

Because if you can then goodbye DanielPT

I am not going alone, CoopsII!