Grand Prix Rejects

I think my main misconception was that there would always be so many cars on the grid that we'd need pre-qualifying for ever...

...also that any drivers whose nationality wasn't obvious was Brazilian, and I couldn't spell their names anyway at that age. JJ Lehto and Satoru Nakajima were two who still stick out in my mind.

I remember being a kid and thinking that Montoya was an American team. I don't know how I thought that.

One misconception I had back in the days I started watching formula 1 was thinking that Ferrari was the best team. I still remember asking my father the reason why Ferrari didn't win more. I am sure (but can't remember) that his answer was along these lines: "they're s*** now son, but they are still Ferrari!"

DanielPT wrote:One misconception I had back in the days I started watching formula 1 was thinking that Ferrari was the best team. I still remember asking my father the reason why Ferrari didn't win more. I am sure (but can't remember) that his answer was along these lines: "they're s*** now son, but they are still Ferrari!"

That's ironic because I had a conversation with my lad about F1 and at one point I was explaining about how Ferrari are the oldest team in F1 to which he asked "Why aren't they better at it then?"

From the mouths of babes...

The mention of Jos Verstappen reminded me of another misconception I had. My very first faint memories of F1 are from 1994, specifically JJ Lehto driving for Benetton (although for some time I mistook him with Mika Salo) and Verstappen's car catching fire in Germany. As I was barely three years old at the time I didn't understand the concept of replays and rebroadcasts yet, so every time the Verstappen incident was shown on TV I thought "gee, those Benetton cars sure do catch fire often!". I even said that to my dad once.

Izzyeviel wrote:

novitopoli wrote:What were your misconceptions about Formula One when you started following this sport?

I watched my first race in 2003, thus I thought for a long time single-lap qualifying had always been the norm before the (now again) current knockout system.

I started watching in 1989, I always thought Mclaren would win everything, every year and that Ferrari's were shite. Also that no car would ever be as pretty as the Leyton House... the Jordan came close... but nah.

Now there's a car colour scheme that could be revived - the Leyton House bluey-greeny. Sorry though, the Jordan 191 was the prettier car.

First misconception I remember was 1990 when Warwick had is big crash at Monza I remember the commentary talking about Nannini (don't know why), and he became my favourite driver as his name was funny (I was 5), and then after his helicopter crash I thought he'd crashed not Warwick and he'd lost it then.

novitopoli wrote:What were your misconceptions about Formula One when you started following this sport

I started following F1 in 1982 as a 10 year old, and I assumed that the pecking order between teams had been about the same for years - in particular, I had trouble grasping just how successful and influential Lotus and Tyrell had been in the past. I also assumed that the atmo vs turbo war would continue for years because the turbo cars would keep catching on fire or otherwise breaking down far more than DFV powered cars - not to mention being firmly convinced that a Japanese powerplant would never be any good...

I remember getting a 2001 Season Review book for Christmas 2001 as a 6 year old, and being totally unable to comprehend that Jacques Villeneuve had been World Champion and had won races. "But he drives for BAR and he's always in the middle of the field, how can he be a World Champion?!"

This was the same a few months later when I played F1 1999 for the first time, and had no idea who this "Damon Hill" character was driving for Jordan, when Frentzen was so obviously better in my eyes.

East Londoner wrote:This was the same a few months later when I played F1 1999 for the first time, and had no idea who this "Damon Hill" character was driving for Jordan, when Frentzen was so obviously better in my eyes.

I played F1 2002 on my first console (a GameBoy Advance) and I couldn't understand what that strange team with the orange livery was...

novitopoli wrote:

East Londoner wrote:This was the same a few months later when I played F1 1999 for the first time, and had no idea who this "Damon Hill" character was driving for Jordan, when Frentzen was so obviously better in my eyes.

I played F1 2002 on my first console (a GameBoy Advance) and I couldn't understand what that strange team with the orange livery was...

When I played F1 2000 for the first time, I thought "who is this Jenson Button wasting a Williams seat by qualifying on the back row of the grid". Turns out, he was a good rookie, even though in 2001 you can say the 2000 assesment was quite on pace...

I remember watching Formula 1 every now and again from the late 90s, when Jordan were seen as a big deal. It confused me slightly when I started to seriously get into the sport in 2004 as to why they were not at all quick.

Also, I watched a qualifying session in late 2003, Indianapolis I think. Panis qualified very high up, and the following year I was puzzled as to why he was so slow in comparison.

I used to hope that the Birmingham Superprix would host a f1 race. it was quite a big deal back in late 80's, early 90's.

RE: misconceptions

one of the first formula 1 race I watched was the 1987 Hungarian GP and 2 things from the race I thought were that the circuits were called after the country EG Hungaroring OstereichRing and was confused when Monza came up and the other thing I thought was Pascal Fabre's name was actually Pascal Farnbourgh (Murray Walker's fault)

I've never understood why they build narrow race tracks

I started watching in 2001, so mine was each team made their own engine. So Williams made their own BMW engines instead of BMW making them.

Nuppiz wrote:I thought in-race refuelling had always been part of the sport. How wrong was I...

That too.

My misconception actually came a little further down the line, almost. I vaguely remembered Panis being a well rated driver in the late 90s (when I was still in single digits age-wise); so when Cristiano da Matta rocked up to Toyota as his team-mate, and was pretty much on a par with him, I was utterly dismayed people weren't talking about da Matta as a driver with a great future in F1...

Biscione wrote: I vaguely remembered Panis being a well rated driver in the late 90s (when I was still in single digits age-wise);

I remember Jonathon Palmer telling me that after winning Monaco twenty years ago Panis would go on to win lots of races, something along the lines of 'now he knows what it takes to put a race win together' or something. He also said it about Alesi the previous year which yielded a similar lack of clairvoyancy too.

What can I say? In them days you believed what the commentators told you.

CoopsII wrote:

Biscione wrote: I vaguely remembered Panis being a well rated driver in the late 90s (when I was still in single digits age-wise);

I remember Jonathon Palmer telling me that after winning Monaco twenty years ago Panis would go on to win lots of races, something along the lines of 'now he knows what it takes to put a race win together' or something. He also said it about Alesi the previous year which yielded a similar lack of clairvoyancy too.

What can I say? In them days you believed what the commentators told you.

I think that's a favourite old chestnut at the commentators academy - 'once you've won a race...'

Panis was brilliant until Canada '97... he was never the same after.

Anyway, for 2017, F1 cars should look like '96 CART cars.

https://youtu.be/cBthxGThBkc

Edit: Boy am i glad you didn't notice i'd posted the wrong video!

solarcold wrote:Thank you both!

CoopsII wrote:

solarcold wrote:Hey guys, I really didn't know where to post this, so I've chosen this pretty neutral thread. I'm leaving to army for a year this Monday, so wish me luck! I'm looking forward to swallowing the 2015 season recordings when I return.

Right. Now he's gone, let's all talk about him behind his back....

Ooh youu....

Everything went fine. I wasn't bullied and I didn't invade anyone. Even though army in such a country is one of the least enjoyable places possible, I've even had some fun, mostly because I was involved with military orchestra playing tuba, though still undergoing all the army routines like the rest of guys.

All in all, I was extremely lucky. The bad stories you've heard did not appear from nowhere, but in my particular case, they did not apply.

G'day solarcold, I've just caught up with this post. Good to see you made it back to us and that things went reasonably well for you in your time away.

I used to think Jarno Trulli was black. I have a drawing somewhere from 1998 to prove it.

Waris wrote:I used to think Jarno Trulli was black. I have a drawing somewhere from 1998 to prove it.

Out of curiousity, what led you to this conclusion?

WeirdKerr wrote:RE: misconceptions

one of the first formula 1 race I watched was the 1987 Hungarian GP and 2 things from the race I thought were that the circuits were called after the country EG Hungaroring OstereichRing and was confused when Monza came up and the other thing I thought was Pascal Fabre's name was actually Pascal Farnbourgh (Murray Walker's fault)

On the subject of 1987 and Fabre, I remember seeing a video of the Austrian GP pile-up (not when it actually happened as I'd have been four, but a few years later when I was getting into the sport, think it was on a VHS of all of Nigel Mansell's wins), and with the quality of the picture on my little TV, what I now know to be a "14" on the rear engine cover kind of looked like an "H" with the horizontal bar of the letter lower than usual - so I spent ages wondering who the third Honda-powered team were in 1987 and why they hadn't done much with such a great engine

EDIT: To be honest I can still make it out now:

dr-baker wrote:

Waris wrote:I used to think Jarno Trulli was black. I have a drawing somewhere from 1998 to prove it.

Out of curiousity, what led you to this conclusion?

I think I thought at the time that the name "Trulli" sounded like a black guy's name. I had never seen most of the drivers out of their helmets/race overalls, except the ones that finished on the podium regularly, because I was just getting into F1. What can I say, I was 8

Did anyone buy that Bernie Edition book? I don't even remember what it was a special edition of.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Did anyone buy that Bernie Edition book? I don't even remember what it was a special edition of.

I believe you would be referring to the Bernie Edition of the Formula 1 Opus. The pricetag was a cool million dollars, and they were only selling a single 'copy'. Though if anything, you were paying for the extra features aside from the book itself.

If it didn't sell, they did a decent job of covering it up as a failure! Though I imagine a Sheikh of some kind splurged on it.

I wonder if Maldonado would have made a better job with that Renault.

Aguaman wrote:I wonder if Maldonado would have made a better job with that Renault.

He at least would have tried to facelift it, pursuing other aerodynamic paths.


Seriously though, no. Magnussen should be at least as fast as Maldonado without being as inconsistent as the Venezuelan. As for Palmer, well, yes, I reckon Pastor would be better than him at the moment.

DanielPT wrote:

Aguaman wrote:I wonder if Maldonado would have made a better job with that Renault.

He at least would have tried to facelift it, pursuing other aerodynamic paths.


Seriously though, no. Magnussen should be at least as fast as Maldonado without being as inconsistent as the Venezuelan. As for Palmer, well, yes, I reckon Pastor would be better than him at the moment.

I do agree that Palmer doesn't seem to be showing that much more potential than Maldonado did, save in making sure his sponsors can pay on time.

On a different note, one thing that has struck me in the past few races is how quick Manor's current car is down the straights (we heard the Sauber drivers complaining that the Manors were "like a rocket" down the straights in Bahrain, and other drivers did struggle to get past Wehrlein, even with DRS, in China) - the MRT05 has been cropping up fairly far up the speed traps (I think that Wehrlein was around 4th or 5th fastest in the speed trap in China).

Does anybody else think that, in the MRT05, Manor have produced something similar to the VJM02 (i.e. an extremely "slippery" car, for want of a better word)? It is probably too much to expect the same shock level of competitiveness in Span and Monza, but does anybody think that those two races might be ones where we see Manor potentially punching above their weight?

mario wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

Aguaman wrote:I wonder if Maldonado would have made a better job with that Renault.

He at least would have tried to facelift it, pursuing other aerodynamic paths.


Seriously though, no. Magnussen should be at least as fast as Maldonado without being as inconsistent as the Venezuelan. As for Palmer, well, yes, I reckon Pastor would be better than him at the moment.

I do agree that Palmer doesn't seem to be showing that much more potential than Maldonado did, save in making sure his sponsors can pay on time.

On a different note, one thing that has struck me in the past few races is how quick Manor's current car is down the straights (we heard the Sauber drivers complaining that the Manors were "like a rocket" down the straights in Bahrain, and other drivers did struggle to get past Wehrlein, even with DRS, in China) - the MRT05 has been cropping up fairly far up the speed traps (I think that Wehrlein was around 4th or 5th fastest in the speed trap in China).

Does anybody else think that, in the MRT05, Manor have produced something similar to the VJM02 (i.e. an extremely "slippery" car, for want of a better word)? It is probably too much to expect the same shock level of competitiveness in Span and Monza, but does anybody think that those two races might be ones where we see Manor potentially punching above their weight?

I agree.

The Manor was the fastest car in the speed traps at Bahrain and at Melbourne IIRC, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Manor beeing high at Monza specially, since I imagine the sector 2 at Spa would hamper them quite a bit.

mario wrote:It is probably too much to expect the same shock level of competitiveness in Span and Monza, but does anybody think that those two races might be ones where we see Manor potentially punching above their weight?

I had been thinking the same thing recently, that those two events would be the two that Manor would have their best crack at getting points on the board. But what worries me greatly is how late in the year both are on the calendar.

Renault have the money to attempt spending their way out of the hole Genii dug them into, Force India can't be expected to make a total hash of their race weekends every Grand Prix between now and the end of the season, and who knows, maybe even Sauber will pull off a miracle and find a new backer, allowing them to develop the C35 a little bit.

By the time those two events come around, the low drag advantage they hold now may have been eradicated to the point they're no faster in regular trim than the others in low downforce trim. And if a technical issue or midfield argy-bargy removes Wehrlein from the equation at either of those races, there's not much to suggest the other car will get the job done in this golden window of opportunity.

What about Austria could be another opportunity other then SPA and Monza for Manor to be punching above their weight

Manor for points on Monaco, you've heard it here first

Biscione wrote:

mario wrote:It is probably too much to expect the same shock level of competitiveness in Span and Monza, but does anybody think that those two races might be ones where we see Manor potentially punching above their weight?

I had been thinking the same thing recently, that those two events would be the two that Manor would have their best crack at getting points on the board. But what worries me greatly is how late in the year both are on the calendar.

Renault have the money to attempt spending their way out of the hole Genii dug them into, Force India can't be expected to make a total hash of their race weekends every Grand Prix between now and the end of the season, and who knows, maybe even Sauber will pull off a miracle and find a new backer, allowing them to develop the C35 a little bit.

By the time those two events come around, the low drag advantage they hold now may have been eradicated to the point they're no faster in regular trim than the others in low downforce trim. And if a technical issue or midfield argy-bargy removes Wehrlein from the equation at either of those races, there's not much to suggest the other car will get the job done in this golden window of opportunity.

I do agree that, being late in the season, they probably will be at a slight disadvantage with regards to development, which is why in part I don't expect a giant killing performance.

That said, whilst the Renault team now has significantly more resources to devote to development of the RS16, I'm not sure they will actually plough that much effort into anything beyond the power train.

The 2017 aero regulations are thought to be more or less complete by now, and given that very little will be carried over from 2016 to 2017, there isn't a great incentive to do much development work this year on areas outside of the powertrain. Renault have indicated that this year is mainly about restructuring the team and getting it back up to full strength after losing so many experienced staff, so I think that the RS16 probably won't see that many updates over the rest of the season.

Those same issues also apply to Force India and Sauber too - given what has happened in the past, I expect that both of those teams will probably cut back on their usual development work this year in order to concentrate their resources on 2017. Equally, Haas has already admitted that the team only has a handful of updates in the pipeline for this year and most of their attention has already shifted to 2017.

Because I expect most teams will shift their focus to 2017 in the near future, I expect that the development rate of most runners in the midfield pack will probably be markedly slower than in previous years. Therefore, although those two races are late in the season, I expect the slower than usual development rate will probably offset that effect.

peteroli34 wrote:What about Austria could be another opportunity other then SPA and Monza for Manor to be punching above their weight

That is another possibility - it shares some characteristics with Bahrain, where Manor also performed fairly well, so it might be one of their stronger tracks this season.

mario wrote:That is another possibility - it shares some characteristics with Bahrain, where Manor also performed fairly well, so it might be one of their stronger tracks this season.

And, unlike Bahrain, it could also provide wet weather racing. Although come to think of it, if their calling card for an upset is speed, rain would not really help.

Klon wrote:

mario wrote:That is another possibility - it shares some characteristics with Bahrain, where Manor also performed fairly well, so it might be one of their stronger tracks this season.

And, unlike Bahrain, it could also provide wet weather racing. Although come to think of it, if their calling card for an upset is speed, rain would not really help.

Unless incidents galore

Also on another note:

PASTOR LIVES!!!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEqLZ_HH_dF/


HOORRAY!!!

Also wonder what a night race when raining is like. We keep on saying Singapore will rain but it never does.

Klon wrote:

mario wrote:That is another possibility - it shares some characteristics with Bahrain, where Manor also performed fairly well, so it might be one of their stronger tracks this season.

And, unlike Bahrain, it could also provide wet weather racing. Although come to think of it, if their calling card for an upset is speed, rain would not really help.

Silly Klon, F1 doesn't race in anything harder than light rain anymore. I think Bianchi's incident scared them too much.

Cynon wrote:

Klon wrote:

mario wrote:That is another possibility - it shares some characteristics with Bahrain, where Manor also performed fairly well, so it might be one of their stronger tracks this season.

And, unlike Bahrain, it could also provide wet weather racing. Although come to think of it, if their calling card for an upset is speed, rain would not really help.

Silly Klon, F1 doesn't race in anything harder than light rain anymore. I think Bianchi's incident scared them too much.

There hasn't been very much in terms of heavy rain since then, though, has there? I mean, unless I've forgotten a massive thunderstorm that caused a red flag within the past 18 months...