Rantbox

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 01 Jan 2014, 23:53

AdrianSutil wrote:I always thought the 'live' part in Rocks signature was about Brabham being a team brimming with good humour and personality and that Lotus were too cold a team, run by a bunch of faceless nobodies. If you know what I mean. Had no idea it was about actually staying alive!

That's how I always interpreted it as well.

watka · Post by **watka** » 02 Jan 2014, 00:05

This wrote:
Rocks with Salt wrote:Somebody call my name? Anyway, I don't even remember where I first heard that quote anymore, but even if Bernie was concerned about safety, wasn't he a leader of the Brabham team at this point? Or was that later? Otherwise, this sounds more like a plea for Rindt to join the team instead out of his concern for his safety.

No, it was only in 72 or 73 that Bernie bought Brabham, if the quote is from 69, then it's probably more objectively. Brabham did have a reputation for being the safest team, though.

My two cents is that Lotus under Chapman were recklessly dangerous and I lose a lot of respect for Chapman despite his genius. I think the most obvious instance of this was the strut wings, which were clearly flimsy but it took an outright ban for Lotus to actually remove them. Perhaps I would have had a different view if I was watching F1 at the time.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 03 Jan 2014, 00:47

watka wrote:
This wrote:
Rocks with Salt wrote:Somebody call my name? Anyway, I don't even remember where I first heard that quote anymore, but even if Bernie was concerned about safety, wasn't he a leader of the Brabham team at this point? Or was that later? Otherwise, this sounds more like a plea for Rindt to join the team instead out of his concern for his safety.

No, it was only in 72 or 73 that Bernie bought Brabham, if the quote is from 69, then it's probably more objectively. Brabham did have a reputation for being the safest team, though.

My two cents is that Lotus under Chapman were recklessly dangerous and I lose a lot of respect for Chapman despite his genius. I think the most obvious instance of this was the strut wings, which were clearly flimsy but it took an outright ban for Lotus to actually remove them. Perhaps I would have had a different view if I was watching F1 at the time.

I agree. Colin Chapman was a genius, but his design philosophy was incredibly reckless and quite irresponsible when you consider how dangerous Formula 1 in the 60s and 70s was already.

watka · Post by **watka** » 03 Jan 2014, 13:35

Wow, its unusual for us to agree Salamander! :lol:

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 07 Jan 2014, 23:28

What the hell was the point of the 2012 FR2.0 Italia season? None of the top drivers went anywhere!

Aerospeed · Post by **Aerospeed** » 07 Jan 2014, 23:33

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:What the hell was the point of the 2012 FR2.0 Italia season? None of the top drivers went anywhere!

Never even heard of the series until now. That's probably why nobody's made their break from there. (At least from that season.)

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 08 Jan 2014, 01:25

Aerospeed wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:What the hell was the point of the 2012 FR2.0 Italia season? None of the top drivers went anywhere!

Never even heard of the series until now. That's probably why nobody's made their break from there. (At least from that season.)

For 2013, it somewhat ceased to exist by merging into FR2.0 Alps, which you may or may not have heard of. Kevin Gilardoni, who won eight of the twelve rounds including the last seven, ended up in that FR2.0 Alps season and came 21st overall, being dropped by his team for the last two rounds because money. His career is probably Frijnsed.

Said team's website looks like this. I hate them.

Hound55 · Post by **Hound55** » 08 Jan 2014, 02:43

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
Aerospeed wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:What the hell was the point of the 2012 FR2.0 Italia season? None of the top drivers went anywhere!

Never even heard of the series until now. That's probably why nobody's made their break from there. (At least from that season.)

For 2013, it somewhat ceased to exist by merging into FR2.0 Alps, which you may or may not have heard of. Kevin Gilardoni, who won eight of the twelve rounds including the last seven, ended up in that FR2.0 Alps season and came 21st overall, being dropped by his team for the last two rounds because money. His career is probably Frijnsed.

Said team's website looks like this. I hate them.

Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 08 Jan 2014, 16:38

Hound55 wrote:Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

The webpage looked so 2000s, with the Enter page, GIFs, and marquee. As a self-proclaimed FrontPage scrub I can do better than that... oh wait :lol:

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 09 Jan 2014, 10:52

This is the worst part of the year now, IMHO. I dont mind the end-of-season period; its nice to reflect on the season and the good and bad of the year. Then its Christmas and, providing you celebrate it, who doesnt like Christmas? Now, however, its the painfully agonising wait to see the new cars which seems to take the longest with teams drip-feeding images and teasers designed presumably just to piss me off. Then we get images from whatever pre-season testing is allowed and we scrabble around to devour and interpret what, if anything, we can from lap-times and feedback.

I'm bored, basically.

watka · Post by **watka** » 09 Jan 2014, 13:49

CoopsII wrote:This is the worst part of the year now, IMHO. I dont mind the end-of-season period; its nice to reflect on the season and the good and bad of the year. Then its Christmas and, providing you celebrate it, who doesnt like Christmas? Now, however, its the painfully agonising wait to see the new cars which seems to take the longest with teams drip-feeding images and teasers designed presumably just to piss me off. Then we get images from whatever pre-season testing is allowed and we scrabble around to devour and interpret what, if anything, we can from lap-times and feedback.

I'm bored, basically.

Pre-season testing lap times are a notoriously bad guide as well. There has been occasions where Red Bull has been off the pace, likewise Ferrari in their heyday. At the other end of the scale, we have seen Sauber and Toro Rosso set the fastest times previously, and in general teams doing low fuel runs to attract sponsorship.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 09 Jan 2014, 14:45

watka wrote:Pre-season testing lap times are a notoriously bad guide as well. There has been occasions where Red Bull has been off the pace, likewise Ferrari in their heyday. At the other end of the scale, we have seen Sauber and Toro Rosso set the fastest times previously, and in general teams doing low fuel runs to attract sponsorship.

The trick seems to be reading into the lap times of the longest runs and/or similar runs between teams that are significantly long. Autosport and James Allen usually help with this and for the last two years they have been getting the pecking order mostly right.

Post by **mario** » 09 Jan 2014, 18:57

DanielPT wrote:
watka wrote:Pre-season testing lap times are a notoriously bad guide as well. There has been occasions where Red Bull has been off the pace, likewise Ferrari in their heyday. At the other end of the scale, we have seen Sauber and Toro Rosso set the fastest times previously, and in general teams doing low fuel runs to attract sponsorship.

The trick seems to be reading into the lap times of the longest runs and/or similar runs between teams that are significantly long. Autosport and James Allen usually help with this and for the last two years they have been getting the pecking order mostly right.

It is true that the best information does come from the longer runs rather than short stints to set headline times - it was the longer runs last year that highlighted Lotus's ability to protect their tyres and Red Bull's strong core pace, as well as showing that McLaren were in more trouble than they initially let on that they were. It does also help that the spectators now find it easier to tell what tyres the drivers are on these days - the teams can still pull off certain tricks to disguise some of their performance, but there is less of an incentive to do so now that testing mileage, being restricted, is a more valuable commodity.

andrew2209 · Post by **andrew2209** » 09 Jan 2014, 19:27

FMecha wrote:
Hound55 wrote:Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

The webpage looked so 2000s, with the Enter page, GIFs, and marquee. As a self-proclaimed FrontPage scrub I can do better than that... oh wait

That's not even 2000's, more mid 90's, a bit like this http://www.pacificgrandprix.com/

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 09 Jan 2014, 23:18

andrew2209 wrote:
FMecha wrote:
Hound55 wrote:Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

The webpage looked so 2000s, with the Enter page, GIFs, and marquee. As a self-proclaimed FrontPage scrub I can do better than that... oh wait

That's not even 2000's, more mid 90's, a bit like this http://www.pacificgrandprix.com/

That website is so cool

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 10 Jan 2014, 00:28

andrew2209 wrote:
FMecha wrote:
Hound55 wrote:Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

The webpage looked so 2000s, with the Enter page, GIFs, and marquee. As a self-proclaimed FrontPage scrub I can do better than that... oh wait

That's not even 2000's, more mid 90's, a bit like this http://www.pacificgrandprix.com/

What an absolute find of a website.

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 13 Jan 2014, 04:08

andrew2209 wrote:
FMecha wrote:
Hound55 wrote:Oh lord that is an abysmal website. And their factory looks kind of like a re-purposed gymnasium. You'd think that they would do a better job making a website for a professional racing team.

The webpage looked so 2000s, with the Enter page, GIFs, and marquee. As a self-proclaimed FrontPage scrub I can do better than that... oh wait

That's not even 2000's, more mid 90's, a bit like this http://www.pacificgrandprix.com/

I APPROVE

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 13 Jan 2014, 08:54

It has been doing the rounds of the forums for quite a while now.

It's nice that other people can enjoy the Holy Grail of F1 Rejectdom™, though!

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 15 Jan 2014, 20:19

I just read, 5 engines per driver this year? Down from 8 last year, which was already ridiculous.
This is outrageous! What are they thinking?

good_Ralf · Post by **good_Ralf** » 15 Jan 2014, 21:24

Jocke1 wrote:I just read, 5 engines per driver this year? Down from 8 last year, which was already ridiculous.
This is outrageous! What are they thinking?

If the turbos are as unreliable as Martin Brundle's Silverstone 1994 motor, then towards the middle/end of the year, a lot of drivers will start getting 10-place grid penalties or worse. I get what you mean. BTW is that Edward Norton punching himself in that clip?

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 15 Jan 2014, 21:35

good_Ralf wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:I just read, 5 engines per driver this year? Down from 8 last year, which was already ridiculous.
This is outrageous! What are they thinking?

If the turbos are as unreliable as Martin Brundle's Silverstone 1994 motor, then towards the middle/end of the year, a lot of drivers will start getting 10-place grid penalties or worse. I get what you mean. BTW is that Edward Norton punching himself in that clip?

I really have an opposition to that rule, 8 engines was not ridiculous; it punished those who could not make reliable engines. But 5 engines for the whole year when they may be as unreliable as hell? No, I don't buy it, no matter what pathetic excuse is given. The fuel flow rules are also pathetic, they should have done what Group C was all about in the 80s, developing good engines and aerodynamics while only having so much fuel to use, to a larger extent of fuel being allowed to be used. With the way the 2014 regs are written, it seems as the races could be fuel economy runs. WHY??? That'll make the action boring as everyone will slow down and people won't overtake as much! Crikey, I could go on forever about some of the new rules that don't make sense. Bugger.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 15 Jan 2014, 22:27

go_Rubens wrote:
good_Ralf wrote:
Jocke1 wrote:I just read, 5 engines per driver this year? Down from 8 last year, which was already ridiculous.
This is outrageous! What are they thinking?

If the turbos are as unreliable as Martin Brundle's Silverstone 1994 motor, then towards the middle/end of the year, a lot of drivers will start getting 10-place grid penalties or worse. I get what you mean. BTW is that Edward Norton punching himself in that clip?

I really have an opposition to that rule, 8 engines was not ridiculous; it punished those who could not make reliable engines. But 5 engines for the whole year when they may be as unreliable as hell? No, I don't buy it, no matter what pathetic excuse is given. The fuel flow rules are also pathetic, they should have done what Group C was all about in the 80s, developing good engines and aerodynamics while only having so much fuel to use, to a larger extent of fuel being allowed to be used. With the way the 2014 regs are written, it seems as the races could be fuel economy runs. WHY??? That'll make the action boring as everyone will slow down and people won't overtake as much! Crikey, I could go on forever about some of the new rules that don't make sense. Bugger.

Me and a friend were chatting on the phone spme time ago and we said that we may only watch the first race and none others just to see if the rule changes are moderatly ok. He has watched f1 since 2007 and I have since mid 2004 and we both hate the new rules. I think go-Rubens has summed it up pretty damn well though.

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 15 Jan 2014, 22:31

go_Rubens wrote: Crikey, I could go on forever about some of the new rules that don't make sense. Bugger.

this ^

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 15 Jan 2014, 22:56

Well, to be clear, I think a regulation change like this was on the cards and needed. But with the rules that I think are good, there are just as many or more that are just not cool. I don't see why double points has been gotten rid of yet. Permanent numbers are at a medium. Most of the other kneejerk rules are pathetic. We had such a promising set of new regulations that can be liked one way, but downright hated the other way. The way it balances out creates something I only 40% agree on.

Post by **Ataxia** » 16 Jan 2014, 08:20

I've got a crazy idea, guys...how about, before commenting on what will/won't happen, we actually WATCH the races when the season starts.

Or is that too left-field?

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 16 Jan 2014, 08:54

I'm pretty much convinced that we won't see more than 5 engines blowing up in the first race, and the number will go down quite fast. I also don't expect economy runs to be an issue - they will use like 70% the fuel they were using with more powerful engines which were developped nearly 10 years ago, it's not that dramatic.

It will all be fine in the end, I expect, unless certain teams don't like the rules because they are not winning and start doing politics. Which, on the other hand, is quite likely I guess.

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 16 Jan 2014, 14:03

Ferrim wrote:I'm pretty much convinced that we won't see more than 5 engines blowing up in the first race, and the number will go down quite fast. I also don't expect economy runs to be an issue - they will use like 70% the fuel they were using with more powerful engines which were developped nearly 10 years ago, it's not that dramatic.

It will all be fine in the end, I expect, unless certain teams don't like the rules because they are not winning and start doing politics. Which, on the other hand, is quite likely I guess.

This is more or less what I'm expecting. If last year is any indication, Mercedes (because they're not Red Bull or Ferrari -- just keep reading dammit) will do well, but since Red Bull and especially Ferrari are doing poorly, and Bernie has some "noise concerns" (you want noise? Ask any "tuner" with a loud as hell Civic in these parts... they'll tell you how to make a quiet engine LOUD), they will whinge up a storm and by 2016 we will be going back to V8s.

Ataxia wrote:I've got a crazy idea, guys...how about, before commenting on what will/won't happen, we actually WATCH the races when the season starts.

Or is that too left-field?

BURN THE WITCH

Boomstick · Post by **Boomstick** » 20 Jan 2014, 11:28

go_Rubens wrote:
....The fuel flow rules are also pathetic, they should have done what Group C was all about in the 80s, developing good engines and aerodynamics while only having so much fuel to use, to a larger extent of fuel being allowed to be used. With the way the 2014 regs are written, it seems as the races could be fuel economy runs. WHY??? That'll make the action boring as everyone will slow down and people won't overtake as much! Crikey, I could go on forever about some of the new rules that don't make sense. Bugger.

Well if you didn't have a fuel flow limit you could crank up the boost in Quali and have a monster. --> The turbo era in the 80's.

It kind of defeats the point of all the new energy recovery systems and the like. Plus it looks pretty stupid saying we are all green on Sunday, but fire breathing monsters on Saturday....

My first race I went to was a turbo race in the late 80's, they sounded plenty cool enough then for this particular 5 year old. Hell some of the old blokes at the pubs (and quite a few who still volunteer for fire duty at Melbourne) still rave on about the sound of waste-gates and the like...

Yes I will be a Melbourne...don't worry I'll report on the sound ;-)

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 20 Jan 2014, 14:49

Boomstick wrote: Plus it looks pretty freakin awesome saying we are all green on Sunday, but fire breathing monsters on Saturday.

correcteded

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 25 Jan 2014, 15:58

Is it just me or has moaning about the new nose cones and comparing them to animals got really boring really quickly. Everyone has started sounding like Andrew Benson, have a word with yourselves :lol:

wsrgo · Post by **wsrgo** » 25 Jan 2014, 16:07

CoopsII wrote:Is it just me or has moaning about the new nose cones and comparing them to animals got really boring really quickly. Everyone has started sounding like Andrew Benson, have a word with yourselves

Yeah, true, same here. It feels I've strayed back into Zoology class even on Saturday evening

Post by **mario** » 25 Jan 2014, 18:58

wsrgo wrote:
CoopsII wrote:Is it just me or has moaning about the new nose cones and comparing them to animals got really boring really quickly. Everyone has started sounding like Andrew Benson, have a word with yourselves

Yeah, true, same here. It feels I've strayed back into Zoology class even on Saturday evening

Well, we've got to find ways of amusing ourselves whilst we wait for the first test session to kick off...

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 27 Jan 2014, 00:00

To address the issue of the Monaco GP's prestige being reduced as well as the drivers not pushing as much there, the FIA have come up with this:

"At Monaco, three points will be given for fastest lap, as well as one point for the fastest time in each sector."

Ridiculous. Did you believe that?

Post by **Nuppiz** » 27 Jan 2014, 00:07

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:To address the issue of the Monaco GP's prestige being reduced as well as the drivers not pushing as much there, the FIA have come up with this:

"At Monaco, three points will be given for fastest lap, as well as one point for the fastest time in each sector."

Ridiculous. Did you believe that?

Well at the rate FIA (or should I say FOM) is going forward with these ridiculous rule changes, I could've easily believed it.

The next thing you know they'll start awarding bonus style points for the cars and driver helmets, and each car's performance is controlled by the amount of votes they receive on Twitter.

go_Rubens · Post by **go_Rubens** » 27 Jan 2014, 00:43

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:To address the issue of the Monaco GP's prestige being reduced as well as the drivers not pushing as much there, the FIA have come up with this:

"At Monaco, three points will be given for fastest lap, as well as one point for the fastest time in each sector."

Ridiculous. Did you believe that?

What the hell?! That's easily believable!

The solution is just to do away with bathplugged gimmicks and actually use a half decent points system! If someone wins the championship before the last race, let it God dang be! Idiots galore today, not just the monkeys in race control at the Rolex 24 earlier today.

SgtPepper · Post by **SgtPepper** » 27 Jan 2014, 10:57

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:To address the issue of the Monaco GP's prestige being reduced as well as the drivers not pushing as much there, the FIA have come up with this:

"At Monaco, three points will be given for fastest lap, as well as one point for the fastest time in each sector."

Ridiculous. Did you believe that?

I actually believed this (and thought the double points idea was a big joke when I first heard it).

Ugh. Their behaviour is getting out of hand when I can't quite tell farce from reality.

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 27 Jan 2014, 12:17

This is all just one big joke at our expense that began when they changed the points system to give points to the saps that finished 10th. They should revert back to giving points no lower than 6th and stop rewarding so-so but not outstanding achievement.

watka · Post by **watka** » 27 Jan 2014, 13:38

A couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned here, but were raised on the podcast, are 5 second time penalties and cumulative grid penalties.

The FIA seemingly want to use 5 second time penalties in instances where a drive through is deemed too harsh. Now, I agree that the penalties for some minor misdemeanours have been harsh in the past (e.g. Hulkenberg at Singapore, Grosjean at Hungary, if you consider either of those worthy of a penalty at all), so in that way it is fairer. However, I agree more with the guys' view on the podcast that it will make the race pretty difficult to watch if you constantly have to keep track of whether a driver in 5 seconds in front of such & such other driver - it's pretty much as bad as the incidents being investigated after the race business.

The cumulative grid penalties will mean that if a driver gets say a 10 place grid penalty and if they qualify less than 10 spots in front of the back of the grid, say 18th, they will serve part of their penalty that race and then part in the next (in this case, 4 grid spots). This shouldn't affect the top teams (I think the talk of massive reliability problems is all just hot air, the teams are too clued up and also too conservative to allow this to happen), I will get ridiculous for the small teams to the extent that they may as well not bother going out for qualifying at all. Why waste resources setting a lap when you know you'll always be condemned to the back of the grid because of your penalty? We'll not get the glory moments like Spa in wet qualifying any more, which is essentially what the sponsors of these teams are really hoping for. I think I can be quoted as having said in the past that applying penalties to Caterham and Marussia is pointless and they need to find another way of punishing them, but I should be rebuked for going against the F1 Rejects spirit!

Alextrax52 · Post by **Alextrax52** » 27 Jan 2014, 17:17

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:To address the issue of the Monaco GP's prestige being reduced as well as the drivers not pushing as much there, the FIA have come up with this:

"At Monaco, three points will be given for fastest lap, as well as one point for the fastest time in each sector."

Ridiculous. Did you believe that?

The dumb klutzes certainly would believe that

Jocke1 · Post by **Jocke1** » 27 Jan 2014, 18:19

CoopsII wrote:Is it just me or has moaning about the new nose cones and comparing them to animals got really boring really quickly.

Don't get antsy.