Ponderbox

[Waris]

Another thing popped up that I'm wondering about. F1 teams are bound by the Concorde Agreement, right? But those Concorde Agreements only get made once every few years (I think the last two were in 1997 and 2010). So does that means that teams who join the sport after a new Concorde Agreement has been signed (like Haas in 2016) have to sign up to the pre-existing terms of the Concorde Agreement?

[yannicksamlad]

Another thing popped up that I'm wondering about. F1 teams are bound by the Concorde Agreement, right? But those Concorde Agreements only get made once every few years (I think the last two were in 1997 and 2010). So does that means that teams who join the sport after a new Concorde Agreement has been signed (like Haas in 2016) have to sign up to the pre-existing terms of the Concorde Agreement?

I think the multilateral Concorde agreement ended a while back, since when teams sign individually. Each sign a bilateral agreement. But all these are supposed to end in 2020 ( I believe) . This means that Liberty's offer of shares in the F1 rights owning company hasnt gone down a storm because teams are working out whether they'll even want to commit beyond 2020 ( or be able to )...and importantly whether Merc and Ferrari and McLaren etc will commit. Because if they don't- the shares wont be worth much .

I think in recent years Bernie was beginning to think a multilateral Concorde was desirable - to tie in people and maybe also get them to buy into the rights-owning companies so that a 'breakaway' would be less likely.

[Wallio]

While watching the 2009 season review during the blizzard here, I had forgotten that Fisi's Force India podium was indeed the team first points period. That got me wondering, did any other team (not counting 1950 of course) pull that off?

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

[novitopoli]

While watching the 2009 season review during the blizzard here, I had forgotten that Fisi's Force India podium was indeed the team first points period. That got me wondering, did any other team (not counting 1950 of course) pull that off?

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

Apart from Brawn, Stewart is the first one springing to mind.

[Wallio]

While watching the 2009 season review during the blizzard here, I had forgotten that Fisi's Force India podium was indeed the team first points period. That got me wondering, did any other team (not counting 1950 of course) pull that off?

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

Apart from Brawn, Stewart is the first one springing to mind.

I watch the bloody '09 review and Brawn doesn't even spring to mind. God I'm an idiot sometimes.

[Ciaran]

While watching the 2009 season review during the blizzard here, I had forgotten that Fisi's Force India podium was indeed the team first points period. That got me wondering, did any other team (not counting 1950 of course) pull that off?

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

I just checked now, Johansson finished 5th in the 1989 French GP.

I thought Force India may have picked up a point during 2008, but it turns out I fell for the Mandela Effect.

I'll add Wolf to the list of teams to score their first points with a podium (if you ignore their early efforts with Frank Williams) when Scheckter won the 1977 Argentinian GP. Funnily enough, only two of their 15 points finishes were off the podium!

[Bobby Doorknobs]

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

Oh yes we can: https://web.archive.org/web/20131018003 ... index.html

I would also add Mercedes, Ferrari and Alfa to that list.

[Nuppiz]

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

Oh yes we can: https://web.archive.org/web/20131018003 ... index.html

I would also add Mercedes, Ferrari and Alfa to that list.

And even without the archived version, Onyx's results are widely available on the internet. Wikipedia, for example.

[Wallio]

Ah, the internet archive had not been working for me lately, glad to see it was an error of my doing and we still can get in.

Crazy stats about Wolf, makes their demise seem more surprising.

[mario]

While watching the 2009 season review during the blizzard here, I had forgotten that Fisi's Force India podium was indeed the team first points period. That got me wondering, did any other team (not counting 1950 of course) pull that off?

I would say maybe Onyx, but of course we still cannot access the team profile......

Apart from Brawn, Stewart is the first one springing to mind.

I watch the bloody '09 review and Brawn doesn't even spring to mind. God I'm an idiot sometimes.

I suppose that Lancia would qualify, although it was the case that when they did finally score points they scored multiple points all in one go (in the 1955 Monaco GP, they picked up both 2nd and 5th place in the same race).

[Nessafox]

March in 1970, the privately run car of Stewart (him again) scored 3rd place in the first race. That is of course if we do not count the F2 march-BMW's that have run in Germany the previous years.
The March works team also had a 2nd place from Amon as their first points score.

Also Hesketh's first point score as a full constructor in 1974 was a podium finish.

[Spectoremg]

That Liberty Media guys eyebrows!!

[AustralianStig]

I was thinking after qualifying that Ricciardo is one of the least accident-prone drivers. I can't even remember the last time he had to retire in a race or quali due to an unforced error. Can anyone think of other times? I remember he binned it at Baku last year but that was in practice.

Which other drivers have the reputation of being near-perfect?

[pasta_maldonado]

I was thinking after qualifying that Ricciardo is one of the least accident-prone drivers. I can't even remember the last time he had to retire in a race or quali due to an unforced error. Can anyone think of other times? I remember he binned it at Baku last year but that was in practice.

Which other drivers have the reputation of being near-perfect?

Michael Shumacher? Quick to go over the limit in practice, but rarely would make a mistake in the race. Well, in his first career anyway!

[Rob Dylan]

In his BMW years, Heidfeld was superbly consistent. He obviously had that run of straight grand prix finishes, and had results on track to add to it.

[girry]

I was thinking after qualifying that Ricciardo is one of the least accident-prone drivers. I can't even remember the last time he had to retire in a race or quali due to an unforced error. Can anyone think of other times? I remember he binned it at Baku last year but that was in practice.

Which other drivers have the reputation of being near-perfect?

Danny is probably the least accident prone indeed, but Bottas has got a pretty good record too

[AustralianStig]

Danny is probably the least accident prone indeed, but Bottas has got a pretty good record too

No doubt now that we've said this, we'll jinx both drivers into having crashes in the next dozen or so races...

[Wallio]

This seems almost in poor taste, but Kubica was a rock in his heyday. This gets overshadowed by his Canada shunt (not his fault) and of course THAT rally crash.

[andrew]

I was thinking after qualifying that Ricciardo is one of the least accident-prone drivers. I can't even remember the last time he had to retire in a race or quali due to an unforced error. Can anyone think of other times? I remember he binned it at Baku last year but that was in practice.

Which other drivers have the reputation of being near-perfect?

Danny is probably the least accident prone indeed, but Bottas has got a pretty good record too

I think Bottas has only crashed out of one race in his career, and that was when Kimi drove into the side of him.

[Bleu]

Ricciardo has had only one completely self-inflicted DNF in his F1 career: Singapore crash in his STR days.

[mario]

I was thinking after qualifying that Ricciardo is one of the least accident-prone drivers. I can't even remember the last time he had to retire in a race or quali due to an unforced error. Can anyone think of other times? I remember he binned it at Baku last year but that was in practice.

Which other drivers have the reputation of being near-perfect?

Danny is probably the least accident prone indeed, but Bottas has got a pretty good record too

I think Bottas has only crashed out of one race in his career, and that was when Kimi drove into the side of him.

Checking back, there was another incident where he and Hamilton had a coming together during the 2013 Brazilian GP when Hamilton was lapping Bottas that put Bottas out of the race.

In his BMW years, Heidfeld was superbly consistent. He obviously had that run of straight grand prix finishes, and had results on track to add to it.

If you go back from that retirement in the 2009 Singapore GP (where Sutil took him out of the race), you have to go back to the 2006 Brazilian GP to find a race where Heidfeld retired due to an accident on track (he had three retirements in 2007, but all of them were due to mechanical faults with the car).

[good_Ralf]

If you go back from that retirement in the 2009 Singapore GP (where Sutil took him out of the race), you have to go back to the 2006 Brazilian GP to find a race where Heidfeld retired due to an accident on track (he had three retirements in 2007, but all of them were due to mechanical faults with the car).

IIRC that Brazil shunt was caused by... suspension failure.

[dinizintheoven]

Something has occurred to me while making my dinner.

I remember buying the BBC Grand Prix season guide for 1991. In it, each circuit for the upcoming season was reviewed by Derek Warwick, John Watson gave us a technical insight, and "Racing Memories" were provided by Jackie Stewart - then 52 years old and retired from all forms of motorsport for 17 years plus a close season. Having only been watching F1 since midway through 1990, I'd been told of the name and the legend, but in my 11-year-old eyes he seemed like an ancient driver from a time so far back into the past I could barely visualise it. And the black-and-white (deliberately) grainy picture they'd used of him when he was in his heyday only reinforced that.

Who is now in that same position, 17 and a half years after the end of his career, but is a few years older than Wee Jackie was in 1991?

Damon Hill. Whose F1 career I watched from car-imposed inauspicious start at Brabham, to World Championship at Williams, to self-imposed inauspicious end at Jordan.

Time marches on.

[Aislabie]

I wish to preface this by saying that I actually quite like the modern engine sounds, and don't particularly want to revert to the old screaming ones not least because it's nice not to need earplugs to watch a race in person. However...

I can't help but wonder if the reason for people not enjoying modern Formula One so much has a lot to do with the sound of F1. I've been watching some old 1997 Grands Prix on YouTube and I'm absolutely loving them despite the abject lack of overtaking. I think a lot of why I'm loving them has to do with the fact that Murray Walker is clearly loving them, so I catch on. Love him or not, his enthusiasm for Formula One was incredibly infectious, and it really spread on to the viewer; the same cannot be said of the current commentary team, and I can't help but wonder if that isn't a rather large problem. Similarly, that's what I always enjoyed when Jake Humphreys used to host the show - as well as clearly being knowledgeable, he just looked like he loved being there.

Similarly, the engines always sounded like the cars were operating on the ragged edge, even if they weren't. That isn't really the case with the modern engines, which are so efficient that they don't really waste energy on making lots of noise. As a result, they always sound like they have power to spare, even if they don't.

With both of these things, they make no difference to the on-track action, but a considerable difference to the product of F1.

Some other realisations:
* Neither McLaren, nor Williams has won a Constructors' Championship in the 21st Century.
* I miss Minardi.
* Hell, I miss Caterham too.
* The jeopardy of unreliable cars meant that even the most processional of races was never a done deal. Nowadays, if two Mercedes cars happen to occupy the top two places, you know that they'll stay there whether there are four laps, forty laps or four hundred laps left because their cars just don't break down. Possible solutions: ban teams from using the same power unit for consecutive Grands Prix, and ban engine suppliers from raising prices for the next three years. This would ensure that engines are built to blow up again.

[Wallio]

I wish to preface this by saying that I actually quite like the modern engine sounds, and don't particularly want to revert to the old screaming ones not least because it's nice not to need earplugs to watch a race in person. However...

I can't help but wonder if the reason for people not enjoying modern Formula One so much has a lot to do with the sound of F1. I've been watching some old 1997 Grands Prix on YouTube and I'm absolutely loving them despite the abject lack of overtaking. I think a lot of why I'm loving them has to do with the fact that Murray Walker is clearly loving them, so I catch on. Love him or not, his enthusiasm for Formula One was incredibly infectious, and it really spread on to the viewer; the same cannot be said of the current commentary team, and I can't help but wonder if that isn't a rather large problem. Similarly, that's what I always enjoyed when Jake Humphreys used to host the show - as well as clearly being knowledgeable, he just looked like he loved being there.

Similarly, the engines always sounded like the cars were operating on the ragged edge, even if they weren't. That isn't really the case with the modern engines, which are so efficient that they don't really waste energy on making lots of noise. As a result, they always sound like they have power to spare, even if they don't.

With both of these things, they make no difference to the on-track action, but a considerable difference to the product of F1.

Some other realisations:
* Neither McLaren, nor Williams has won a Constructors' Championship in the 21st Century.
* I miss Minardi.
* Hell, I miss Caterham too.
* The jeopardy of unreliable cars meant that even the most processional of races was never a done deal. Nowadays, if two Mercedes cars happen to occupy the top two places, you know that they'll stay there whether there are four laps, forty laps or four hundred laps left because their cars just don't break down. Possible solutions: ban teams from using the same power unit for consecutive Grands Prix, and ban engine suppliers from raising prices for the next three years. This would ensure that engines are built to blow up again.

One that that I think most people don't get about the noise, is that its not just the scream that was missed. The current motors do actually kind of scream, but its all turbo. As you rightly point out, it was all the sounds together that made the experience. I personally miss the barking of the V10s on the overrun back in the TC days. Or the V8s literally spitting fire while hot blowing the diffuser. The V6s don't do any of that, AND they are quiet. That's where my bitch is.

[CoopsII]

Reliability.

It's a bugger really, isn't it? I'm not sure if the cars are simply easier to run and maintain these days or that the teams have just achieved a level of technical excellence where issues are headed off at the pass during development or simply manageable during races. What we want is for the cars to be a bit shite sometimes to throw up exciting results but the teams actively strive for that not to happen. How do you regulate that?

[dr-baker]

Reliability.

It's a bugger really, isn't it? I'm not sure if the cars are simply easier to run and maintain these days or that the teams have just achieved a level of technical excellence where issues are headed off at the pass during development or simply manageable during races. What we want is for the cars to be a bit shite sometimes to throw up exciting results but the teams actively strive for that not to happen. How do you regulate that?

By stating that no engine or gearbox may be used in a race until it has already covered a minimum of 1500 to 2000 miles or something?

[mario]

Reliability.

It's a bugger really, isn't it? I'm not sure if the cars are simply easier to run and maintain these days or that the teams have just achieved a level of technical excellence where issues are headed off at the pass during development or simply manageable during races. What we want is for the cars to be a bit shite sometimes to throw up exciting results but the teams actively strive for that not to happen. How do you regulate that?

If you look at the way in which reliability was improving prior to the introduction of the first engine life regulations in 2004, engine failures were already on a downward trend in part because of advances in production quality, as well as major advances in finite element analysis software and computational power that allowed for more sophisticated models to be applied.

Mechanical issues happen, but these days the opening up of the ECU software and engine maps means that, quite often, software and electrical issues tend to cause more issues. A good example would be how Hamilton and Rosberg suffered from software issues in Baku last year when the latest ECU software that Mercedes brought had an unknown software glitch that could cause the drivers to become stuck in a lower power mode (in the case of Hamilton it seems he became stuck in a "race start" mode, which Rosberg also accidentally triggered later in the race).

It is, in many ways, something of a contradiction in terms - part of the prowess of the sport comes from the fact that it sells itself on seeking technical perfection, yet at the same time we want a certain amount of chaos and technical imperfection within the sport to provide points of interest. Mechanical failures as a result of pushing the limits would be accepted as something of a price to pay for performance - see some of Newey's previous fast and fragile cars - but the introduction of randomised failures for the sake of simply introducing a random element would almost certainly be received poorly by the fans as being "too artificial".

Reliability.

It's a bugger really, isn't it? I'm not sure if the cars are simply easier to run and maintain these days or that the teams have just achieved a level of technical excellence where issues are headed off at the pass during development or simply manageable during races. What we want is for the cars to be a bit shite sometimes to throw up exciting results but the teams actively strive for that not to happen. How do you regulate that?

By stating that no engine or gearbox may be used in a race until it has already covered a minimum of 1500 to 2000 miles or something?

Surely that measure in itself would simply mean that the engine manufacturers changed their engines to have the minimum required lifespan plus the extra 2000 miles - furthermore, I think that such a move would be poorly received as a cheap gimmick.

The other issue is whether costs could simultaneously be kept in check, especially for the smaller teams. A major engine or transmission problem is not much of a financial burden for a larger team, especially since they are usually the ones with the resources to iron out most of those reliability issues, but for a smaller team the potential financial impact of an engine failure is much more significant.

A couple of unexpected engine failures and unscheduled engine changes for a team like Ferrari might be an inconvenience, but not financially crippling and unlikely to have a huge impact on prize money. However, for customers like Haas or Sauber, those same failures could potentially have a more significant impact on points finishes (the midfield battles tending to turn on a comparatively small number of points) and on their budgets if a few blowouts hit them at the wrong time.

[AndreaModa]

Perhaps one way you could do it is by completely removing the restriction on engine and gearbox usage, but at the same time imposing a price cap on each unit, say £100,000 per engine, £50,000 per gearbox?

[pasta_maldonado]

Another way to do it would be that you have to run an engine/gearbox until it expires.

[CoopsII]

It's a pity we are where we are in this respect and any rule implementation would be rightly criticised as interfering and artificial. Meh. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. We wanted F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport and it now appears the engineers have only gone and made it so.

[Aislabie]

It's a pity we are where we are in this respect and any rule implementation would be rightly criticised as interfering and artificial. Meh. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. We wanted F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport and it now appears the engineers have only gone and made it so.

The trouble with being the pinnacle of motorsport is that the better everyone is, the more marginal the performance gains are that can still be made. And that's when the whole weekend comes down to qualifying and pit strategy.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Ever notice how on other F1 websites you find people who only ever refer to drivers by their three letter abbreviations?

Anyone else find that really annoying?

[Rob Dylan]

yeah, SIM, I also find that really annoying.

[CoopsII]

Ever notice how on other F1 websites you find people who only ever refer to drivers by their three letter abbreviations?

Anyone else find that really annoying?

Um. I often use MSC for, well, MSC because it's a real time saver. I've taken up numerous hobbies in the time it's freed up.

Plus it's like a pet name I have for him now.

[dr-baker]

Ever notice how on other F1 websites you find people who only ever refer to drivers by their three letter abbreviations?

Anyone else find that really annoying?

I like to refer to Yuji Ide by his three letter acronym. And does Pedro de la Rosa ride on the Docklands Light Railway? Bet he sits at the front, pretending to drive!

But honestly, I dislike TLAs.

[Waris]

So I have this theory that Alonso's bad luck with being in the wrong car at the same time is kind of meant to be, destiny if you will.

Why?
Well, it's pretty clear to me now that given any car, Alonso will absolutely drive the balls off of that car every single time. So when you give him the best car, he just keeps winning all the time and that's boring. But you put him in a bad car and he's spectacular, a joy to watch. I feel sad for the guy, but I also think it allows him to show off what an amazingly good racer he is. I hope McLaren-Honda comes good sooner rather than later so he can at least seal some podiums with cunning drives.

[girry]

Whilst I think Alonso is pretty special in difficult cars in general, especially this year's McLaren - I don't think anyone could beat him in that car in the form he is in, really - on the other hand, I don't think he would be that dominant in a dominant car. For example someone like Vettel tends to get frustrated and then be patently average when his car is average, but when the car has winning potential Seb tends to step up a notch too.

Therefore don't think Alonso would *dominate* him (or the Red Bull guys, or even either of the Mercedes guys) in a Mercedes or a Ferrari, even if he would most probably be superior in this year's McLaren. On the contrast to his great drives in weak equipment, he's rarely ever had a clean field-dominating streak - even if his Renaults/McLarens of 05-07, and even the 2010 Ferrari at times, were at least the joint best cars on the grid.

---

I can't help but think Hülkenberg is a slightly bit less impressive version of Alonso in this sense, given how he's beaten Palmer and Gutiérrez, but struggled with slightly quicker teammates...

[Meatwad]

Ever notice how on other F1 websites you find people who only ever refer to drivers by their three letter abbreviations?

Anyone else find that really annoying?

I have nothing against that. They're easy to remember (thanks to their appearance in the TV broadcasts) and the best solution for lazy people. I hate it when people use two letter acronyms, though. It takes more time for me to realize who EO or LS is than for the other person to write their proper names or even the three-letter versions.

[Fred Mayo]

Well, after two races I'm still confused by VER now meaning Verstappen instead of Vergne. I still do the occasional double-take.

I thought the TLAs were for life, since Michael Schumacher kept on being MSC despite Ralf no longer being in the field.

Oh well, I'll get used to it, I suppose