Grand Prix Rejects

Hello all,

So we're here now, and while I'd very much like to get all the old content posted back up on the site again...still waiting for permission from the appropriate copyright holders.

The site looks a bit bare, and in all honesty, I don't really know what to do with it! Having to come up with the entire future content of GPR wasn't originally part of the plan, so I have little more than a few ideas that mostly don't have any real traction.

So, I guess the best people to ask would be the potential consumers of said new content! What would you like to see? Frequent (relevant) news posts? In-depth articles? Brand new profiles? Podcasts from new contributors? Vodcasts? Should there just be one or two contributors or shall the floor be opened up to allcomers? Suggest away.

I would like to see maybe an race review for each race. Of course you have to have the new profiles with one maybe being Nicola Larini.

The podcasts were always a favourite feature of mine, although they will have a different flavour to them from now on for obvious reasons!

A return of reject profiles would be my priority, plus someone taking on responsibility for ROTR and ROTY (unless this becomes a member vote as per IIDOTR). As for the profiles, I know Enoch was going to work on rewriting the Mastercard Lola profile, so if need be, given time, I could work on that?

There are so many F1 news sites around, so I don't think that's important. What made F1 Rejects special were the driver and team profiles, as well as the in-depth articles. I think that everyone should be able to contribute, maybe with the articles reviewed on the forums before being posted on the main site.

HawkAussie wrote:Of course you have to have the new profiles with one maybe being Nicola Larini.

Nope. Not a reject.

However, I would be more than happy to give a punt at a Johnny Claes profile

Maybe there should also be a thread on the Jean-Denis Deletraz forum to coordinate the work on the profiles, so that we don't get five people simultaneously working on their Osella profiles.

I'm not much of a writer but I don't mind being a resident statto if one is desired!

I think long-form articles about F1 history etc. drawn from a pool of confident, capable writers would be an ideal direction to move in. There's definitely a market for that I feel, in the vein of These Football Times or In Bed With Maradona for football. As has been said, there's enough stuff online about current goings-on in F1; to wallow happily in the past would be a nice niche for the site to find.

In addition, adding to the team and driver profiles should remain a focus if possible, there's no reason for it to be only sacrosanct stuff from the old site (if retrieved). Need a serious researcher to stand up alongside what Enoch produced though!

For new articles and profiles, it would be ideal to create a single topic in the JDD or EvdP or maybe even an entirely new subforum where everyone could drop in any information and interesting photos they've found about the subject (with an appropriate list of sources, of course), and at some point someone with good editorial skills would collate it into publishable form.

Knowing the situation quite well, I have my doubts that Enoch will ever allow us to republish any of his articles.

shinji wrote:In addition, adding to the team and driver profiles should remain a focus if possible, there's no reason for it to be only sacrosanct stuff from the old site (if retrieved). Need a serious researcher to stand up alongside what Enoch produced though!

Indeed - I am certainly no researcher! Nor am I a writer - tried that for a while, was really rather horrible at it. As much as I'd like to personally create content for GPR, I simply don't have the talents to do so!

Perhaps an op-ed policy is in order....

Nuppiz wrote:Knowing the situation quite well, I have my doubts that Enoch will ever allow us to republish any of his articles.

I still find this utterly ridiculous. As the copyright holder nobody else on the planet (not even FOM, even if they'd like to think so) has the rights to the articles. On top of that, simply rewriting the existing profiles with the same factual information would consist of content GPR owned.

pi314159 wrote:There are so many F1 news sites around, so I don't think that's important. What made F1 Rejects special were the driver and team profiles, as well as the in-depth articles. I think that everyone should be able to contribute, maybe with the articles reviewed on the forums before being posted on the main site.

Echos my thoughts entirely. I am happy to throw my hat into the ring for content creation or researching a topic alongside someone else who is writing it.

I like the idea of the return of race reviews, that is of course if you have the time for them.

I may consider contributing to any profiles of drivers or preferably teams if I have the time. I agree with pi's idea of reviewing any articles on the forum before going on the main site.

I would certainly like the return of Podcast in a guise of some sort as it was a major component of the old site. Profiles (new or re-posted) will also be needed as it was the main reason for the site existence before everything. As for other articles, op-ed is also my favorite way to go. It was already accepted in the old site since some articles were submitted by users. We just need someone with writing skills to proofreading or even rewrite them.

I suppose first and foremost, would be a list of all F1 Rejects Drivers and Teams, with wikipedia articles linked to them until articles can be researched and wrote. Perhaps if permission is allowed even have the old F1 Rejects articles archives linked as well.
Regarding the site maybe some information on the history of it, so new users can learn how this started.

I'm happy to contribute some articles like season previews and stuff. Some of you have seen the stuff I've written in the PMMF - like the Dofasco article - so you know I are a good writerer. I can also read good.

Ataxia wrote:I'm happy to contribute some articles like season previews and stuff. Some of you have seen the stuff I've written in the PMMF - like the Dofasco article - so you know I are a good writerer. I can also read good.

Yes, you are a doubleplusgood textwriter.

gnrpoison wrote:I suppose first and foremost, would be a list of all F1 Rejects Drivers and Teams, with wikipedia articles linked to them until articles can be researched and wrote. Perhaps if permission is allowed even have the old F1 Rejects articles archives linked as well.

Way ahead of ya! viewtopic.php?f=9&t=419&p=328250#p328250

I agree with pretty much all previous suggestions and would love to contribute if possible.

Simtek wrote:

gnrpoison wrote:I suppose first and foremost, would be a list of all F1 Rejects Drivers and Teams, with wikipedia articles linked to them until articles can be researched and wrote. Perhaps if permission is allowed even have the old F1 Rejects articles archives linked as well.

Way ahead of ya! viewtopic.php?f=9&t=419&p=328250#p328250

I agree with pretty much all previous suggestions and would love to contribute if possible.

Could that thread be put on the main site I wonder? Be nice to display it there I think

gnrpoison wrote:

Simtek wrote:

gnrpoison wrote:I suppose first and foremost, would be a list of all F1 Rejects Drivers and Teams, with wikipedia articles linked to them until articles can be researched and wrote. Perhaps if permission is allowed even have the old F1 Rejects articles archives linked as well.

Way ahead of ya! http://gprejects.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 50#p328250

I agree with pretty much all previous suggestions and would love to contribute if possible.

Could that thread be put on the main site I wonder? Be nice to display it there I think

That, and a section on eligibility criteria - it does seem to be a question that comes up a couple of times a year from those new to the website.

dr-baker wrote:That, and a section on eligibility criteria - it does seem to be a question that comes up a couple of times a year from those new to the website.

Definitely with teams I think, for example the 2010 entrant Lotus and Caterham are effectively the same team, as is Manor/Virgin/Marussia. However how does this apply with Osella and Fondmetal essentially being the same team and Andrea Moda emerging out of the ashes of the Coloni Team. Likewise are Larrousse seperate from the years where officially Lola was the constructor or when it was renamed Venturi for 1992 or when it constructed its own chassis for 93 and 94. I imagine 1986 - 1989 and 1992 March entrant is the same as 1990 - 91 Leyton House but seperate from the originally march team in the 1970s. Are Footwork seperate from Arrows I wonder, is the 1989 - 1992 Brabham team the same as the one running before 1988. I know some of my examples are not rejects as have enough points scored but it can be confusing on do we class it as the Team or the Constructor? For example Dallara built cars for HRT and Scuderia Italia, as did Lola with many teams, are the finishes classed by the chassis maker or the team who I suppose outsourced their car, so is 1993 Lola Scuderia Italia a different team/entry to the years with Dallara. Or is it classed as Lola with the 97 effort and the Larrousse Calmels entries, I know customer cars e.g. privately entered Lotuses, Williams and March cars are not eligiable, but what if those that did formed their own team and made their own car, do we class those years running customer cars as part of the teams results. Likewise if a team is sold but keeps the same name ala AGS in 1991 or Osella, (should 1990 Osella car be classed under Osella or Fondmetal).

I would look at it simply as the owners of the team.

So if a team changes its name but the owner remains the same, I'd keep it as a single profile (Larousse, Lotus/Caterham, Virgin/Manor, etc).

But when a team changes owner when the name change is made, that would warrant separate profiles (Jordan/Midland/Spyker/Force India, etc)

gnrpoison wrote:

dr-baker wrote:That, and a section on eligibility criteria - it does seem to be a question that comes up a couple of times a year from those new to the website.

Definitely with teams I think, for example the 2010 entrant Lotus and Caterham are effectively the same team, as is Manor/Virgin/Marussia. However how does this apply with Osella and Fondmetal essentially being the same team and Andrea Moda emerging out of the ashes of the Coloni Team. Likewise are Larrousse seperate from the years where officially Lola was the constructor or when it was renamed Venturi for 1992 or when it constructed its own chassis for 93 and 94. I imagine 1986 - 1989 and 1992 March entrant is the same as 1990 - 91 Leyton House but seperate from the originally march team in the 1970s. Are Footwork seperate from Arrows I wonder, is the 1989 - 1992 Brabham team the same as the one running before 1988. I know some of my examples are not rejects as have enough points scored but it can be confusing on do we class it as the Team or the Constructor? For example Dallara built cars for HRT and Scuderia Italia, as did Lola with many teams, are the finishes classed by the chassis maker or the team who I suppose outsourced their car, so is 1993 Lola Scuderia Italia a different team/entry to the years with Dallara. Or is it classed as Lola with the 97 effort and the Larrousse Calmels entries, I know customer cars e.g. privately entered Lotuses, Williams and March cars are not eligiable, but what if those that did formed their own team and made their own car, do we class those years running customer cars as part of the teams results. Likewise if a team is sold but keeps the same name ala AGS in 1991 or Osella, (should 1990 Osella car be classed under Osella or Fondmetal).

I remember reading an old thread where a similar discussion regarding the eligibility of teams was held. IIRC Enoch clarified that Larrousse can be considered a reject team because they scored only 5 points with their own chassis in 1993-94 and the list reflects this, the Lola/Venturi years would be ignored. The HRT F110 was run as a HRT and not a Dallara, similar to how the Honda RA300 was designed by Lola and given the "T130" designation by them, but was still run as a Honda, so no need to worry there.

Anyway, just stick with the list, for sanity's sake, at least.

gnrpoison wrote:

dr-baker wrote:That, and a section on eligibility criteria - it does seem to be a question that comes up a couple of times a year from those new to the website.

Definitely with teams I think, for example the 2010 entrant Lotus and Caterham are effectively the same team, as is Manor/Virgin/Marussia. However how does this apply with Osella and Fondmetal essentially being the same team and Andrea Moda emerging out of the ashes of the Coloni Team. Likewise are Larrousse seperate from the years where officially Lola was the constructor or when it was renamed Venturi for 1992 or when it constructed its own chassis for 93 and 94. I imagine 1986 - 1989 and 1992 March entrant is the same as 1990 - 91 Leyton House but seperate from the originally march team in the 1970s. Are Footwork seperate from Arrows I wonder, is the 1989 - 1992 Brabham team the same as the one running before 1988. I know some of my examples are not rejects as have enough points scored but it can be confusing on do we class it as the Team or the Constructor? For example Dallara built cars for HRT and Scuderia Italia, as did Lola with many teams, are the finishes classed by the chassis maker or the team who I suppose outsourced their car, so is 1993 Lola Scuderia Italia a different team/entry to the years with Dallara. Or is it classed as Lola with the 97 effort and the Larrousse Calmels entries, I know customer cars e.g. privately entered Lotuses, Williams and March cars are not eligiable, but what if those that did formed their own team and made their own car, do we class those years running customer cars as part of the teams results. Likewise if a team is sold but keeps the same name ala AGS in 1991 or Osella, (should 1990 Osella car be classed under Osella or Fondmetal).

It's intriguing, because, when I was compiling my info on MasterCard Lola, I had to begin the story with Lola Scuderia Italia, despite considering them a separate entity. Towards the end of 1993, Eric Broadley was saying that he reckoned they could have done better with running the team/chassis than Scuderia Italia did (suggesting an us-and-them scenario). The problem is that, in recent decades, the team and constructor have largely been the same thing. But to illustrate the point further, would anybody consider HRT a continuation of Scuderia Italia because they both used Dallara chassis?

Shite, I accidentally clicked the "quote" button instead of the "edit" button before Baker posted and now I can't delete the double-post.

Simtek wrote:Shite, I accidentally clicked the "quote" button instead of the "edit" button before Baker posted and now I can't delete the double-post.

Sorry!

dr-baker wrote:

Simtek wrote:Shite, I accidentally clicked the "quote" button instead of the "edit" button before Baker posted and now I can't delete the double-post.

Sorry!

No worries, it was my mistake to begin with!

I think more podcasts would be nice because they were as much a part of the site as the amazing content within.

The podcasts idea seems a bit farfetched. Jenoch had the massive advantage of being geographically in the same place to record podcasts together. There's no dynamic duo to replace them with - one key element of the F1R podcast was it had two people playing off each other. Not sure former listeners would enjoy a radically different format...

I would be more than happy to act as an editor to any potential submitted pieces (profiles, articles or otherwise). I have some (limited) experience in that field, have to write a hell of a lot for college and I'm generally a reasonably strong writer, not that you'd know it from my posts on here! So if that's a direction we go down I'd love to help, would be confident I could make anything half-decent into something very publishable.

As regards writing the pieces themselves, I'd have to be inspired with a stormer of an idea!

Producing Podcasts is a very different matter to producing content - you need charisma, broadcasting chops and chemistry between the participants to pull it off in addition to the sufficient knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject matter we could all bring to it I'm sure. A nice pipedream to have perhaps, but probably not something that worth pursuing for the time-being.

shinji wrote:I would be more than happy to act as an editor to any potential submitted pieces (profiles, articles or otherwise). I have some (limited) experience in that field, have to write a hell of a lot for college and I'm generally a reasonably strong writer, not that you'd know it from my posts on here! So if that's a direction we go down I'd love to help, would be confident I could make anything half-decent into something very publishable.

Ditto. (Gotta do something with my language degree!)

Biscione wrote:The podcasts idea seems a bit farfetched. Jenoch had the massive advantage of being geographically in the same place to record podcasts together. There's no dynamic duo to replace them with - one key element of the F1R podcast was it had two people playing off each other. Not sure former listeners would enjoy a radically different format...

Previous F1R podcasts were made using Skype so no need for being geographically in the same place although some members here are close enough to give it a try. Before dismissing the whole idea though, maybe we could give a try with some small segments between different members and even rearranging the pairings. It would be some sort of casting. Some forum members could listen and give an opinion. If a satisfactory result cannot be achieved then we can bin the idea for good.

Biscione wrote:So we're here now, and while I'd very much like to get all the old content posted back up on the site again...still waiting for permission from the appropriate copyright holders.

Now, where is the line between breaching copyright, and preserving original content for the future?

dr-baker wrote:

gnrpoison wrote:

dr-baker wrote:That, and a section on eligibility criteria - it does seem to be a question that comes up a couple of times a year from those new to the website.

Definitely with teams I think, for example the 2010 entrant Lotus and Caterham are effectively the same team, as is Manor/Virgin/Marussia. However how does this apply with Osella and Fondmetal essentially being the same team and Andrea Moda emerging out of the ashes of the Coloni Team. Likewise are Larrousse seperate from the years where officially Lola was the constructor or when it was renamed Venturi for 1992 or when it constructed its own chassis for 93 and 94. I imagine 1986 - 1989 and 1992 March entrant is the same as 1990 - 91 Leyton House but seperate from the originally march team in the 1970s. Are Footwork seperate from Arrows I wonder, is the 1989 - 1992 Brabham team the same as the one running before 1988. I know some of my examples are not rejects as have enough points scored but it can be confusing on do we class it as the Team or the Constructor? For example Dallara built cars for HRT and Scuderia Italia, as did Lola with many teams, are the finishes classed by the chassis maker or the team who I suppose outsourced their car, so is 1993 Lola Scuderia Italia a different team/entry to the years with Dallara. Or is it classed as Lola with the 97 effort and the Larrousse Calmels entries, I know customer cars e.g. privately entered Lotuses, Williams and March cars are not eligiable, but what if those that did formed their own team and made their own car, do we class those years running customer cars as part of the teams results. Likewise if a team is sold but keeps the same name ala AGS in 1991 or Osella, (should 1990 Osella car be classed under Osella or Fondmetal).

It's intriguing, because, when I was compiling my info on MasterCard Lola, I had to begin the story with Lola Scuderia Italia, despite considering them a separate entity. Towards the end of 1993, Eric Broadley was saying that he reckoned they could have done better with running the team/chassis than Scuderia Italia did (suggesting an us-and-them scenario). The problem is that, in recent decades, the team and constructor have largely been the same thing. But to illustrate the point further, would anybody consider HRT a continuation of Scuderia Italia because they both used Dallara chassis?

Exactly, as there can be an example under all definitions, Is Paul Stoddart's European Minardi, the same entry as Giancarlo's Minardi, are BAR,Honda, Brawn, Mercedes realistically Tyrrell. Is Red Bull still a Stewart success, or the modern Lotus still a result of Ted Toleman's work. Likewise are Jordan, Midland, Spyker or Force India all seperate. I think the list does make sense but damn the times when Constructor and Team were not the same thing. Also people buying teams changing their name rather then starting a brand new entrant, damn Bernie and Mosley for the ridiculous entry fees that meant it was easier to do it that way . My apologies for the tangent, perhaps when the profiles are competed we just group them to solve the problem.

Myrvold wrote:

Biscione wrote:So we're here now, and while I'd very much like to get all the old content posted back up on the site again...still waiting for permission from the appropriate copyright holders.

Now, where is the line between breaching copyright, and preserving original content for the future?

If someone were to take all the information in the profiles and simply rewrite it, that would be considered original content. Facts are not copyrighted, only the manner they are presented by the author. If you can cite everything you write and have written the piece from the ground up, it's new content, and therefore a new copyright license.

Speaking of which...I don't want something like this to happen ever again. All new content GPR releases will most likely be released with CC-BY-NC-SA licenses. Anyone who makes a contribution to any future content to GPR must be willing to sign their work over to such a license. This transition has been an enormously messy afair, and if 10 years down the line we have to go through something similar again I don't want people needing copyright clearance and the like to put it back online again.

DanielPT wrote:

Biscione wrote:The podcasts idea seems a bit farfetched. Jenoch had the massive advantage of being geographically in the same place to record podcasts together. There's no dynamic duo to replace them with - one key element of the F1R podcast was it had two people playing off each other. Not sure former listeners would enjoy a radically different format...

Previous F1R podcasts were made using Skype so no need for being geographically in the same place although some members here are close enough to give it a try. Before dismissing the whole idea though, maybe we could give a try with some small segments between different members and even rearranging the pairings. It would be some sort of casting. Some forum members could listen and give an opinion. If a satisfactory result cannot be achieved then we can bin the idea for good.

I like this idea. I'd be interested in trying out for a podcast, should the idea get off the ground - pretty much since my voice dropped I've been told I have a great voice, more so now that I'm doing radio as part of my college course and I've also done Let's Plays for my friend's YouTube channel (then the bastard deleted the videos a year ago. How convenient. ).

Can we bring back the nosecone destruction championship for this season?

At the very least I would like to see a short write up and reject of the race after every race, but the write up only needs to cover the rejectful aspects of the race. E.g if someone's wheel falls off after their pitstop talk about that, if they do a 2.1 second stop then we don't need to know about it.
I would also love for the podcasts to return.

Biscione wrote:Speaking of which...I don't want something like this to happen ever again. All new content GPR releases will most likely be released with CC-BY-NC-SA licenses. Anyone who makes a contribution to any future content to GPR must be willing to sign their work over to such a license. This transition has been an enormously messy affair, and if 10 years down the line we have to go through something similar again I don't want people needing copyright clearance and the like to put it back online again.

Hopefully you won't be going through anything similar again... This is not really a copyright clearance or fear of copyright claim issue. Just at this second in time, Enoch doesn't want his work put online. It's not a legal thing, we're just respecting his wishes for the time being.

Do you know what we - or even just the new head honchos - should do first?

Decide on an absolute and final Reject Of The Year 2014 before the new season starts!

dinizintheoven wrote:Do you know what we - or even just the new head honchos - should do first?

Decide on an absolute and final Reject Of The Year 2014 before the new season starts!

I second this!

shinji wrote:I think long-form articles about F1 history etc. drawn from a pool of confident, capable writers would be an ideal direction to move in. There's definitely a market for that I feel, in the vein of These Football Times or In Bed With Maradona for football. As has been said, there's enough stuff online about current goings-on in F1; to wallow happily in the past would be a nice niche for the site to find.

In addition, adding to the team and driver profiles should remain a focus if possible, there's no reason for it to be only sacrosanct stuff from the old site (if retrieved). Need a serious researcher to stand up alongside what Enoch produced though!

I tend to agree with this also. At first I was like no, we should never try to emulate the old profiles Enoch wrote, since it will never be the same; but then I was like, why would it need to be, we can just honor the old stuff (if we could get it up on the site again that would be great, but apparently this would be difficult) and collaboratively produce new stuff in the spirit of it.

By the way, there are also quite a few publications (maybe more in magazine form than online though, although online there are many blogs) with nostalgic articles about the past of F1. The one thing that would set us a part, IMO, should be the Reject lens through which the past would be viewed. Speaking of which, I think it would also be a great thing if we could get a bit of a nostalgic early-mid 1990s theme going, with pictures, throwback articles, etc.!

Also, I'm all for race reviews and Reject of the Race making a much needed comeback. Those were actually a quite fundamental part of the old site, having been around since about 2000, before even the podcasts IIRC.