Grand Prix Rejects

MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx wrote:If the Dallas track had actually been scheduled for a sensible time of year(spring or autumn) would it have been able to continue successfully for longer than just one year?

I would add Phoenix in as well to this topic.

Well Phoenix moved from June to March and the audience still didn't come in. Austin has been bringing in the crowds so there's obviously Formula 1 interest in that area-or perhaps it's only grown over the last 25-30 years so was it purely the heat that killed off Dallas?

I might have seen some proposal on 1985 calendar which had Dallas as an season-opener. But eventually the race didn't happen for the second time.

So, a wide raft of regulations for 2020 and 2021 onwards have now been formally passed by the FIA, from the introduction of the financial cap through to restrictions on testing. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... l/4797455/

Turning over some of the ideas, there are some aspects that do leave me wondering about their impact. In particular, the aspect that has generated a fair bit of debate is the news that the FIA is introducing an aerodynamic development handicap system, which is intended to penalise the most successful teams and to give performance breaks to the lower ranked teams. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... s/4797678/

The idea is that the number of modelling runs that each team could do per week would be limited, with the scale initially changing in 2.5% increments for 2021, followed by 5% increments from 2022-2025. That latter change makes a large difference - whilst the WCC winner in 2021 may get 90% of the baseline allowance and 10th place 112.5%, from 2022 onwards that goes to 70% for the WCC winner and 115% for 10th place.

It is a mechanism that very much feels like it has Liberty's hands all over it, as it does smack very strongly of the sort of performance levelling mechanisms that sports series in the US use. It does seem to be generating a fair bit of disquiet amongst fans, as some feel that it is a form of handicapping that is somewhat unnecessary if the budget cap is meant to put the teams on an equal level in terms of resources.

It is a viewpoint that I do have some empathy with, in the sense that the budget cap was meant to be a mechanism by which the teams would have a sustainable footing whilst still allowing more efficient and inventive teams to prosper. This sort of performance levelling mechanism, however, feels like it goes against that ethos of rewarding more efficient teams - and does little to dispel the impression that saving money is secondary to Liberty wanting to "spice things up" though manipulation of the rules.

mario wrote:So, a wide raft of regulations for 2020 and 2021 onwards have now been formally passed by the FIA, from the introduction of the financial cap through to restrictions on testing. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... l/4797455/

Turning over some of the ideas, there are some aspects that do leave me wondering about their impact. In particular, the aspect that has generated a fair bit of debate is the news that the FIA is introducing an aerodynamic development handicap system, which is intended to penalise the most successful teams and to give performance breaks to the lower ranked teams. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... s/4797678/

The idea is that the number of modelling runs that each team could do per week would be limited, with the scale initially changing in 2.5% increments for 2021, followed by 5% increments from 2022-2025. That latter change makes a large difference - whilst the WCC winner in 2021 may get 90% of the baseline allowance and 10th place 112.5%, from 2022 onwards that goes to 70% for the WCC winner and 115% for 10th place.

It is a mechanism that very much feels like it has Liberty's hands all over it, as it does smack very strongly of the sort of performance levelling mechanisms that sports series in the US use. It does seem to be generating a fair bit of disquiet amongst fans, as some feel that it is a form of handicapping that is somewhat unnecessary if the budget cap is meant to put the teams on an equal level in terms of resources.

It is a viewpoint that I do have some empathy with, in the sense that the budget cap was meant to be a mechanism by which the teams would have a sustainable footing whilst still allowing more efficient and inventive teams to prosper. This sort of performance levelling mechanism, however, feels like it goes against that ethos of rewarding more efficient teams - and does little to dispel the impression that saving money is secondary to Liberty wanting to "spice things up" though manipulation of the rules.

With Mercedes winning every title to today starting with 2014 I am not surprised in this correction. the FIA did a similar drastic change to end Ferrari's dominance in 2005 by banning tire swaps during a race.

I am not sure how the FIA will enforce the max number of aero runs for each team. Will each F1 team have to have an FIA inspector on-site at all times to make sure they aren't running secret tests? And I don't know if this would be a more effective system than say, a ballast installed for teams that do better (like in Super GT).

Maybe it's a silly question, maybe no one actually knows...

For most teams, their naming is quite obvious and straightforward: the surname(s) of their founder(s) (Jordan, Minardi etc.), a reference to their home base (Force India, Scuderia Italia etc.) or a sponsor name (Red Bull, BAR etc.). But why was Pacific Racing named like that? Was there any connection to the Pacific ocean or some islands? Did Keith Wiggins like holidays in that region?

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but does one ever feel that looking back on it with the power of hindsight that the 2005 US Grand Prix had less of a significant impact on F1 than it could have? I suppose it is the reason for the tyre war ending prematurely (which going by the prevailing trend in motorsports then was bound to end soon enough) and also ruining F1's relationship with Indianapolis Motor Speedway and thus forcing them to find a new home, but it kinda feels like this race could've had more drastic consequences for F1 yet it didn't.

CaptainGetz12 wrote:

mario wrote:So, a wide raft of regulations for 2020 and 2021 onwards have now been formally passed by the FIA, from the introduction of the financial cap through to restrictions on testing. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... l/4797455/

Turning over some of the ideas, there are some aspects that do leave me wondering about their impact. In particular, the aspect that has generated a fair bit of debate is the news that the FIA is introducing an aerodynamic development handicap system, which is intended to penalise the most successful teams and to give performance breaks to the lower ranked teams. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... s/4797678/

The idea is that the number of modelling runs that each team could do per week would be limited, with the scale initially changing in 2.5% increments for 2021, followed by 5% increments from 2022-2025. That latter change makes a large difference - whilst the WCC winner in 2021 may get 90% of the baseline allowance and 10th place 112.5%, from 2022 onwards that goes to 70% for the WCC winner and 115% for 10th place.

It is a mechanism that very much feels like it has Liberty's hands all over it, as it does smack very strongly of the sort of performance levelling mechanisms that sports series in the US use. It does seem to be generating a fair bit of disquiet amongst fans, as some feel that it is a form of handicapping that is somewhat unnecessary if the budget cap is meant to put the teams on an equal level in terms of resources.

It is a viewpoint that I do have some empathy with, in the sense that the budget cap was meant to be a mechanism by which the teams would have a sustainable footing whilst still allowing more efficient and inventive teams to prosper. This sort of performance levelling mechanism, however, feels like it goes against that ethos of rewarding more efficient teams - and does little to dispel the impression that saving money is secondary to Liberty wanting to "spice things up" though manipulation of the rules.

With Mercedes winning every title to today starting with 2014 I am not surprised in this correction. the FIA did a similar drastic change to end Ferrari's dominance in 2005 by banning tire swaps during a race.

I am not sure how the FIA will enforce the max number of aero runs for each team. Will each F1 team have to have an FIA inspector on-site at all times to make sure they aren't running secret tests? And I don't know if this would be a more effective system than say, a ballast installed for teams that do better (like in Super GT).

I don't like handicaps in F1. Ok a budget cap hurts Merc more than Williams, but everyone starts the same under the rules. Here, however, we have a handicap. It's a bit hidden- we don't want to devalue a Ferrari win, do we?- but it's a handicap. Is this the first time in F1 that a team has been told it can't do what other teams are allowed to? (Apart from as punishment for transgressions) ? It's sad news

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but does one ever feel that looking back on it with the power of hindsight that the 2005 US Grand Prix had less of a significant impact on F1 than it could have? I suppose it is the reason for the tyre war ending prematurely (which going by the prevailing trend in motorsports then was bound to end soon enough) and also ruining F1's relationship with Indianapolis Motor Speedway and thus forcing them to find a new home, but it kinda feels like this race could've had more drastic consequences for F1 yet it didn't.

Completely agree with SU25 here..we thought it was cataclysmic, and then by the end of the year we just thought it was 'poor' and then ...everything went on. Teams didn't quit, 'insurance' didn't stop racing , but yes, Michelin did get chucked off F1

As far as events that seemed cataclysmic at the time but ended up being a damp squib in comparison, the collapse of KirchGruppe in 2002 surely has to rank up there in how it ended up being a lot of nothing in the grand scheme of things. With what I've read from motorsport news at the time, it seemed like the sky was falling down but you'd hardly realise it ever happened.

Frogfoot9013 wrote:As far as events that seemed cataclysmic at the time but ended up being a damp squib in comparison, the collapse of KirchGruppe in 2002 surely has to rank up there in how it ended up being a lot of nothing in the grand scheme of things. With what I've read from motorsport news at the time, it seemed like the sky was falling down but you'd hardly realise it ever happened.

What's KirchGruppe?

I know what it actually is since you said in the Discord, I'm just trying to prove a point

Gertrand Bachot wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:As far as events that seemed cataclysmic at the time but ended up being a damp squib in comparison, the collapse of KirchGruppe in 2002 surely has to rank up there in how it ended up being a lot of nothing in the grand scheme of things. With what I've read from motorsport news at the time, it seemed like the sky was falling down but you'd hardly realise it ever happened.

What's KirchGruppe?

I know what it actually is since you said in the Discord, I'm just trying to prove a point

KirchGruppe was a German media empire that got itself into large amounts of debts from its endeavours to buy the rights to sporting events and put them on their pay-TV services. They had been trying to do the same with F1 around the time of its collapse, and the GPMA (remember when they were a thing?) apparently threatened to break away once the then-current Concorde Agreement expired.

My knowledge on their situation is a bit iffy though to be honest, but I'm pretty sure though there's someone here who'd know more on the matter than me.

Am I right in thinking that Kirsch Gruppe had the rights to The Muppets at the time?

dr-baker wrote:Am I right in thinking that Kirsch Gruppe had the rights to The Muppets at the time?

Apparently they had a stake in the company which produced them at the time, going by this article from 2000.

https://money.cnn.com/2000/12/04/europe ... /index.htm

Frogfoot9013 wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Am I right in thinking that Kirsch Gruppe had the rights to The Muppets at the time?

Apparently they had a stake in the company which produced them at the time, going by this article from 2000.

https://money.cnn.com/2000/12/04/europe ... /index.htm

That's it, that's what I remember reading at the time.

dr-baker wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Am I right in thinking that Kirsch Gruppe had the rights to The Muppets at the time?

Apparently they had a stake in the company which produced them at the time, going by this article from 2000.

https://money.cnn.com/2000/12/04/europe ... /index.htm

That's it, that's what I remember reading at the time.

They seemed to have a stake in almost everything at that stage, one wonders if they didn't collapse what'd have happened. I mean, the breakaway series would likely just be Formula Elaborate Bluff but the rump F1 series could be interesting.

Of all years, it went down for 2020, the year the clean sweep of the big three was broken twice. Imagine what the Italian GP thread would've been like. Ah well. The forum's back up, hooray.

I remember going to the backup site, seeing that no one else had posted there, and figuring I was the only one who still remembered it and deciding if I put anything there I'd probably just look stupid when the next person looks at it years from now. And now hearing a few people actually did do things there, I want to know, how many other people had the same thought process as me?? I should've just said something there, dammit.

Anyway, back to what I always did here... I can't remember what that was, actually... probably smartass puns. That's what I do in most discussions I'm a part of.

UncreativeUsername37 wrote:
I remember going to the backup site, seeing that no one else had posted there, and figuring I was the only one who still remembered it and deciding if I put anything there I'd probably just look stupid when the next person looks at it years from now. And now hearing a few people actually did do things there, I want to know, how many other people had the same thought process as me?? I should've just said something there, dammit.
.

To be fair, there were only about three or four or us ever contributing there during the downtime, so it did feel a bit spartan there.

Found a nice wee article on Tora Takagi.

Really hammers home how right I am to intensely fanboy over a man who's F1 career ended while I was still knee-high.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Found a nice wee article on Tora Takagi.

Really hammers home how right I am to intensely fanboy over a man who's F1 career ended while I was still knee-high.

Link??

WeirdKerr wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Found a nice wee article on Tora Takagi.

Really hammers home how right I am to intensely fanboy over a man who's F1 career ended while I was still knee-high.

Link??

Should be in the hyperlink, it's working for me anyways.

Frogfoot9013 wrote:As far as events that seemed cataclysmic at the time but ended up being a damp squib in comparison, the collapse of KirchGruppe in 2002 surely has to rank up there in how it ended up being a lot of nothing in the grand scheme of things. With what I've read from motorsport news at the time, it seemed like the sky was falling down but you'd hardly realise it ever happened.

I do remember the uncertainty: would F1 disappear from TV, did they owe F1 teams money, etc.

I've just had a thought pop into my head, partially inspired by Aidan Millward fantasy booking a world where Senna didn't die (and where Schumacher got exiled to the midfield because loltractioncontrol) - what if he got banned for 1991 following his title-sealing crash with Prost? Who'd step into his McLaren seat for that year? Would McLaren go for a tried-and-tested front-runner like Mansell or Piquet, would they take a punt on an up-and-coming talent like Alesi, would they gift the seat to a test driver like Pirro or McNish, or would they go with a totally left-field choice like, let's just say, Roberto Moreno?

Sounds like a great question for the What If? thread.

https://www.gprejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229

Well I can guess that anyone and everyone would have wanted that seat. Mansell and Prost didn't like each other after being teammates, and seeing as Prost LOVED having clauses in his contracts regarding who his teammate was, I can't imagine more than one of those two being there. So I can imagine Mansell more than Prost moving, especially after Prost's success at Ferrari in 1990. This isn't 1991 of course where things fell out. So if it did happen that Mansell moved to McLaren and Prost stuck with Ferrari, it would have been the dumbest decision of Prost's career to stay BUT of course Prost would have more of a say, and Ron Dennis would question whether he would want more drama from the Frenchman.

Who else would have been suitable? Jean Alesi was a very strong driver in 1990 for example, but McLaren would have wanted a tried and tested front-runner as you say. Would Boutsen be such an unbelievable choice? Or would Boutsen stay at Williams another year into 1991?

Ah, my head hurts now.

The big issue was that most places were already gone for 1991. So presumably McLaren would have had difficulty to find a replacement. Moreno's great race in Suzuka was very timely and AFAIK he got his 1991 Benetton contract only after Adelaide so I say Moreno goes to McLaren.

Of course that leaves a place to be filled at Benetton and I see Nicola Larini going there. That leaves out a place at Lambo but team wasn't good enough so it doesn't matter too much.

Although places were gone, I have a feeling someone would have been able to wiggle their way out of their contract to get the McLaren job and if McLaren were desperate, I'm sure they would be able to help pay the way!

Feel sorry for Larini tbh, his F1 podium is often overlooked, albiet for obvoius reasons

Bleu wrote:Of course that leaves a place to be filled at Benetton and I see Nicola Larini going there. That leaves out a place at Lambo but team wasn't good enough so it doesn't matter too much.

You do remember what forum you're on right? The team not being good enough is precisely why it matters.

Mauro Baldi perhaps? He did test with the team.

BJ McLeod wrote:Feel sorry for Larini tbh, his F1 podium is often overlooked, albiet for obvoius reasons

Most underrated driver I can think of, performed miracles for Osella. It's criminal how no good team gave him a full time drive.

Discussion point that entered my head during the St Pete Indycar race this afternoon/evening:

After 2 races in each series so far, which driver has been more rejectful in 2021, Dalton Kellett in Indycar or Nikita Mazepin in F1 (ontrack action only)?

I can't answer that one, but I have another one:

Monisha Kaltenborn was told to GTFO by the FIA when she tried to get an 18-year-old Sergey Sirotkin into the 2014 Sauber. Now we all know that the 2014 Sauber lineup finished the year pointless and behind Manor, but we also know that Sirotkin is at least half-decent (or at least better than Gutierrez probably!). I'm just wondering your opinions as to whether Sirotkin might have eeked out a points finish in that chassis and saved Sauber the pointless 2014 embarrassment?

Rob Dylan wrote:I can't answer that one, but I have another one:

Monisha Kaltenborn was told to GTFO by the FIA when she tried to get an 18-year-old Sergey Sirotkin into the 2014 Sauber. Now we all know that the 2014 Sauber lineup finished the year pointless and behind Manor, but we also know that Sirotkin is at least half-decent (or at least better than Gutierrez probably!). I'm just wondering your opinions as to whether Sirotkin might have eeked out a points finish in that chassis and saved Sauber the pointless 2014 embarrassment?

Calling back Kamui Kobayashi was probably a better prospect, especially if he was racing at Caterham for pocket change.

Monaco was the only race when there was a realistic chance to score. Would have needed to keep the car off the barriers.

Bleu wrote:Monaco was the only race when there was a realistic chance to score. Would have needed to keep the car off the barriers.

I agree that Monaco, having been fairly attritional, was their best chance to score - that said, it was also the type of race where it would also have been easiest to end up retiring due to an error.

Apart from that, the only other one I think there would have been an outside chance of scoring points at would have been the Hungarian GP, given Sutil finished just a few tenths behind Button - that would have been a rather long shot though.

CaptainGetz12 wrote:

Rob Dylan wrote:I can't answer that one, but I have another one:

Monisha Kaltenborn was told to GTFO by the FIA when she tried to get an 18-year-old Sergey Sirotkin into the 2014 Sauber. Now we all know that the 2014 Sauber lineup finished the year pointless and behind Manor, but we also know that Sirotkin is at least half-decent (or at least better than Gutierrez probably!). I'm just wondering your opinions as to whether Sirotkin might have eeked out a points finish in that chassis and saved Sauber the pointless 2014 embarrassment?

Calling back Kamui Kobayashi was probably a better prospect, especially if he was racing at Caterham for pocket change.

I wonder just in how much dire straits Kaltenborn's Sauber was in financially in that they couldn't bring back Kobayashi, and if rumour is correct couldn't even pay Hulkenberg at the end of 2013. I'm sure almost every advisor was urging her not to lose the massive talent Sauber had 2011-2013 that they lost from then on. It would be really sad if there had truly been no other options than Sutil-Gutiérrez --- but SURELY there must have been other, better options!

Rob Dylan wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:

Rob Dylan wrote:I can't answer that one, but I have another one:

Monisha Kaltenborn was told to GTFO by the FIA when she tried to get an 18-year-old Sergey Sirotkin into the 2014 Sauber. Now we all know that the 2014 Sauber lineup finished the year pointless and behind Manor, but we also know that Sirotkin is at least half-decent (or at least better than Gutierrez probably!). I'm just wondering your opinions as to whether Sirotkin might have eeked out a points finish in that chassis and saved Sauber the pointless 2014 embarrassment?

Calling back Kamui Kobayashi was probably a better prospect, especially if he was racing at Caterham for pocket change.

I wonder just in how much dire straits Kaltenborn's Sauber was in financially in that they couldn't bring back Kobayashi, and if rumour is correct couldn't even pay Hulkenberg at the end of 2013. I'm sure almost every advisor was urging her not to lose the massive talent Sauber had 2011-2013 that they lost from then on. It would be really sad if there had truly been no other options than Sutil-Gutiérrez --- but SURELY there must have been other, better options!

At that rate, gamble on Charles Pic or a Ferrari Academy driver (Kobayashi raced for Ferrari GT, surely there was a path for an engine discount there! Otherwise, Fuoco or if they're lucky, Bianchi)

Rob Dylan wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:

Rob Dylan wrote:I can't answer that one, but I have another one:

Monisha Kaltenborn was told to GTFO by the FIA when she tried to get an 18-year-old Sergey Sirotkin into the 2014 Sauber. Now we all know that the 2014 Sauber lineup finished the year pointless and behind Manor, but we also know that Sirotkin is at least half-decent (or at least better than Gutierrez probably!). I'm just wondering your opinions as to whether Sirotkin might have eeked out a points finish in that chassis and saved Sauber the pointless 2014 embarrassment?

Calling back Kamui Kobayashi was probably a better prospect, especially if he was racing at Caterham for pocket change.

I wonder just in how much dire straits Kaltenborn's Sauber was in financially in that they couldn't bring back Kobayashi, and if rumour is correct couldn't even pay Hulkenberg at the end of 2013. I'm sure almost every advisor was urging her not to lose the massive talent Sauber had 2011-2013 that they lost from then on. It would be really sad if there had truly been no other options than Sutil-Gutiérrez --- but SURELY there must have been other, better options!

If the rumours back then are any indication, then Sauber was in a pretty bad way at the time.

There were already rumours of problems with paying Ferrari for their engines back in 2012, and Kaltenborn did indicate the team was already facing financial problems back then. By 2013, Hulkenberg commented that the team was "in a difficult situation", whilst Peter Sauber confirmed that the financial problems the team had meant they were unable to develop the C32 as planned, with payments to suppliers also being delayed. Later that year, there were also suggestions that Sauber was having problems with paying both Ferrari and Pirelli.

With regards to Kobayashi, the problem there is that, if some reports are to be believed, Hulkenberg wasn't the only one whose wages were overdue - Kobayashi was also reportedly due €2.5 million in missed salary payments by the time he left the team. If the team already owed him a not insignificant amount of money, then it suggests Kobayashi might not have been all that keen to drive for Sauber in 2014.

This here article...
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/tag/ratings/
..very proudly boasts how high SKYs viewing figures were soaring with an average of 1.98 million.

1.98 million? I know I'm an old twat with failing memory but I'm sure 1 hour qualifying on BBC used to get more than that?

CoopsII wrote:This here article...
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/tag/ratings/
..very proudly boasts how high SKYs viewing figures were soaring with an average of 1.98 million.

1.98 million? I know I'm an old twat with failing memory but I'm sure 1 hour qualifying on BBC used to get more than that?

With about 30 seconds of google searches you have been proven right.

Between 2000 and 2012, only two races had lower ratings than that

As mentioned in the article, 2000 French GP qualifying had 1.91 million viewers alone.

So yes, in the last ten years, viewership has plummeted to the lowest it has been...maybe ever, I guess the records don't go that far back.

Well, I guess the numbers are down but the ones that still watch F1 are the important ones, the ones they want, demographics etc.

Plus there's probably other ways of watching that aren't measurable, online highlights clips etc.