2810 replies to this topic

[The Shadow]

Some hope for the Venezuelan driver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/19508127

I therefore retract my calls for his banning from F1.

[Insider]

pabloh20, on 06 September 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Ermmm, I know you're getting on old chap, but really ???

I was talking in general terms, not season-specific. You can whistle all you like

[pabloh20]

Insider, on 07 September 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

I was talking in general terms, not season-specific. You can whistle all you like

Oh come on Seany baby, you can't post something like that in the middle of the 2012 season after Jenson has just won a race, criticise Lewis' behaviour this season and then say you only meant up to the end of the 2011 season.  You're not getting away with that one

Besides, I would have thought being 'much more dependable' in F1 would mean being on it virtually every race?  Something like Schumi first time around, Alonso now, perhaps?

[Senna's Ghost]

As time goes on I get more and more tired of Hamilton's attitude and actions out of the car.  When he's driving he is still one of the most, if not the most, exciting driver on the grid.  However out of the car I find him to be an irritating, immature prima donna who is in love with the celebrity lifestyle as much as the racing and who can allow the happenings off the track effect his performance on it.  The incident at Spa with the tweets is another example where Hamilton apears to believe that he is above and beyond the procedures, rules and code of conduct that applies to everyone else within McLaren.  I hope that behind closed doors the incident was dealt with more seriously than the team implied publically.  In a team of any description you can't have an individual operating to different rules to the rest, it will eventually be the team's downfall and overall performace will suffer.  Ultimately bad feeling creeps in and destroys relationships within.  You can have superstars in a team, but it is important for those superstars to understand their postion within the team and to act as the cement that binds all the individual blocks together, rather than just another block that's better than the rest.

I've noticed over time that the radio messages we hear from the team to Hamilton are always praising him in some way, telling him that he's doing a good job, he's done a good lap. When things aren't going so well in a race we often hear radion messages where Hamilton is crticising the car, or the strategy, or a pit stip, or some failing in the team. It leads me to believe that Hamilton is a bit fragile mentally, I'm sure that it is a weakness the other drivers have noted and will look to exploit.  After Alonso left the team at the end of 2007 Hamilton was the McLaren No1 up until Button's arrival last year.  Only in 2010 was he put under sustained pressure in the championship race (he was still quicker than Button in the majority of the races themelves).  Hamilton was also having this on, off, on back off again, public/private relationship termoil with his girlfriend which completely distracted him from his work (Alonso was getting divorced at the same time and that didn't seem to effect his performaces). The result was that Hamilton was beaten in the championship for the first time in his career by his team mate.  He started this year very well, saying he had turned a corner and was not going to repeat 2011 again.  He was a consistent points scorer and lead the championship at one stage, but I think Valencia was a turning point when he has battling with Maldonado on tyres that were way past their best.  Came away with no points when he could of picked up a 4th place finish.  Since then he's falling further back in the championship battle (not all his fault to be honest).

I still think his lifestyle is a huge distraction for him.  Not sure XIX is the best management group for his racing career either.  They certainly appear to be limiting their options and their time in this particular contract negoiation.  If I were in charge of McLaren I would be prepared to let him go providing I've got Hulkenburg signed up (I don't think di Resta is as good).

I think Hamilton needs a reality check and a change of team might be what he needs to change his attitude and focus more on his racing career.

[dribbler]

https://lh6.googleus...g/s497/gif4.gif

[pabloh20]

Senna, on 07 September 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

As time goes on I get more and more tired of Hamilton's attitude and actions out of the car.  When he's driving he is still one of the most, if not the most, exciting driver on the grid.  However out of the car I find him to be an irritating, immature prima donna who is in love with the celebrity lifestyle as much as the racing and who can allow the happenings off the track effect his performance on it.  The incident at Spa with the tweets is another example where Hamilton apears to believe that he is above and beyond the procedures, rules and code of conduct that applies to everyone else within McLaren.  I hope that behind closed doors the incident was dealt with more seriously than the team implied publically.  In a team of any description you can't have an individual operating to different rules to the rest, it will eventually be the team's downfall and overall performace will suffer.  Ultimately bad feeling creeps in and destroys relationships within.  You can have superstars in a team, but it is important for those superstars to understand their postion within the team and to act as the cement that binds all the individual blocks together, rather than just another block that's better than the rest.

I've noticed over time that the radio messages we hear from the team to Hamilton are always praising him in some way, telling him that he's doing a good job, he's done a good lap. When things aren't going so well in a race we often hear radion messages where Hamilton is crticising the car, or the strategy, or a pit stip, or some failing in the team. It leads me to believe that Hamilton is a bit fragile mentally, I'm sure that it is a weakness the other drivers have noted and will look to exploit.  After Alonso left the team at the end of 2007 Hamilton was the McLaren No1 up until Button's arrival last year.  Only in 2010 was he put under sustained pressure in the championship race (he was still quicker than Button in the majority of the races themelves).  Hamilton was also having this on, off, on back off again, public/private relationship termoil with his girlfriend which completely distracted him from his work (Alonso was getting divorced at the same time and that didn't seem to effect his performaces). The result was that Hamilton was beaten in the championship for the first time in his career by his team mate.  He started this year very well, saying he had turned a corner and was not going to repeat 2011 again.  He was a consistent points scorer and lead the championship at one stage, but I think Valencia was a turning point when he has battling with Maldonado on tyres that were way past their best.  Came away with no points when he could of picked up a 4th place finish.  Since then he's falling further back in the championship battle (not all his fault to be honest).

I still think his lifestyle is a huge distraction for him.  Not sure XIX is the best management group for his racing career either.  They certainly appear to be limiting their options and their time in this particular contract negoiation.  If I were in charge of McLaren I would be prepared to let him go providing I've got Hulkenburg signed up (I don't think di Resta is as good).

I think Hamilton needs a reality check and a change of team might be what he needs to change his attitude and focus more on his racing career.

I agree with some of the points. I said at the time he split from his Dad as a manager that it might not be a good thing, but a lot of people on here said it would be much better for him, his Dad was holding him back.  Hmmm............................

Regarding the radio transmissions, unless you get a completely different feed to what I hear, most team radio is praising the driver and I don't think Lewis criticises his team as much as some other drivers do over the radio, to be honest.

Regarding the Maldonado incident, I said at the time that he probably should have let him go.  However, that would be ignoring the fact that you should be able to battle on track, even with worn tyres (after all, the drivers at that time may not know when somebody else's tyres may go 'off the cliff'), without being punted off.  In fact with worn tyres you would expect to have a less chance to be involved in an incident because you are much easier to pass.

[Ikyrotz]

Kimi on closed c#ckpits, quite spot on, imo

"I think this sport is dangerous and if you are not happy to take the risk then you should do something else. I am sure there are plenty of drivers who are willing to take the risk driving a Formula One car as it is now."

[Massa]

In a dream world, closed cockpits would mean the cars would be able to get faster, as they would be able to go faster more safely than the current cars.  And to go faster, the FIA would let them get even more high-tech, and even more innovative, and even more diverse.

But that definitely won't happen.

[Quiet One]

Massa, on 09 September 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

In a dream world, closed c#ckpits would mean the cars would be able to get faster, as they would be able to go faster more safely than the current cars.  And to go faster, the FIA would let them get even more high-tech, and even more innovative, and even more diverse.

But that definitely won't happen.

In a deam world, closed c#ckpits merely means less accidents and (probably) more aerodynamic efficiency. I don't know what's the big fuss except for the teams who have obvious considerations of cost vs benefits. For me, is as inconsequential as a safety belt. I can't see what's with the whole "true men don't use closed canopies" or anything else beyond that.
If it helps the reducing risks then it's a welcome addition. Talking about "traditions" in a sport like F1 is a tricky thing, at best.
As for safe meaning faster...modern history of F1 proves otherwise as it has gotten a lot safer but certainly not faster.
How is this different than the HANS device?

[freaky2]

Well, there will always be a physical limit to the speed they can reach and as you righly point out there is a safety obsession not a "more safety, faster pinnacle of motorsport" obsession. F1 seems to be less dangerous overall than other motorsports thanks to this, so maybe closing the c#ckpit is bringing it too far with little effect. Unless they've brought up Massa's accident as the reason, it's still one in a million but they're right.

[JHS18]

Quiet One, on 09 September 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

In a deam world, closed c#ckpits merely means less accidents and (probably) more aerodynamic efficiency.

I tend to disagree with that.

Visibility in an F1 car is bad anyway, and I think it'd only get worse with a closed c#ckpit. Grosjean said he thought he'd cleared Hamilton off the start. Look at Le Mans prototypes - the last two years at Le Mans there has been two big accidents with a closed c#ckpit car coming into contact with another unsighted car.

If anything, it'll only make things worse.

Edited by JHS18, 11 September 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Massa]

A few points about visibility, though:

1. An LMP1's closing rate on a GTE is a lot faster than an F1 car on another F1 car.

2. Is it possible that the extra cockpit protection on the side impedes visibility, and if so, could a closed cockpit make that protection go away and be replaced by clear protection (i.e. make that part of the canopy)?

That said, I don't think it'd have a big impact on the number of accidents, just limiting the potential for injury within accidents.  They've had a close call in an official session (Massa), a close call in an unofficial session (de Villota), and now they were close to a close call in an official session.  The potential for injury is severe and while you can go years without it and need 1,000,000,000 variables for it to happen, it's better to prevent it before it ever does.  NASCAR spent years saying "well we haven't had a basilar skull fracture" so they saw no need to mandate the HANS device and no need to mandate full-face helmets.  They forget a "yet" in their logic and killed Dale Earnhardt because of it.

Is that sensationalizing it a bit?  Yeah.  But I think you can see how it's not actually as hard as people might think for another car or object from a car to strike a driver in the head during a multi-car crash so there's a reason to do it.  It will never be fully safe, ever.  And there it will never eliminate fatality, ever, even as we approach 20 years since the last one.  But you can eliminate key vulnerabilities and sleep at night knowing anything that happens in a Grand Prix will be just as freak as something happening sitting on your front porch.

Maybe the closed cockpits will look cool, too.  I think they might.

[Quiet One]

You didn't disagree with me because I didn't speak in favor or against closed c#ckpits, actually I have no idea if they are a perfect or even working solution. All I said is IF they are a safer solution, then I don't see why it would be such a crime against everything is scared in F1 to place them. I can understand if the closed c#ckpits are dropped because they don't work or are more dangerous, but I think is very shortsighted to think in terms of "oh...but what would Von Trips/Jim Clark/Fangio think of that?!" "Where's the feeling of the wind at 330 km/h on your cheeks?" and such irrelevant pseudo nostalgic claims.

NOTHING in F1 is sacred, except Alonso.

[Peeweev]

Quiet One, on 11 September 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

NOTHING in F1 is sacred, except Alonso.

Not sure that can be true since he attempted to grow a "beard" i bet massa could beat him in that!

[Rainmaster]

Good discussion, which will I try to add to with just a general post about safety, because I'm bored and you should be too I agree that this decision needs to be, like you would hope all decisions at such a level are, a decision based on the facts and the relevant factors. As plenty of people said, the question to me is not "is F1 still F1 with closed c#ckpits" but "will closed c#ckpits reduce the potential for serious injury without introducing other significant dangers (i.e. visibility, escape from the car, etc)"? If the regulators can make that answer "yes" then I don't see any fundamental change to F1 by having a closed c#ckpit; it will still be a bunch of people driving around corners quickly in what are effectively prototypes owned by teams. That's what F1 is, to me. It's a shame not to see the driver properly but that's been gradually diminishing for a long time.

On safety generally, first of all, I think it's worth saying that sometimes people talk about danger nostalgically. Two problems with doing this are 1) not nostalgic at all for the people who suffered loss, witnessed the events, etc. Let's not create a selfish, unrealistic, nostalgic bubble around what I will call the "pre-safety" era where drivers regularly died. There are plenty of reasons to feel nostalgic about an era of motor-sport, but the fact drivers were regularly killed and seriously injured is not one of them. You don't need the deaths to sustain the nostalgia, in fact they should serve to undermine it, if anything. 2) Sometimes people talk about danger nostalgically as if it were something that was designed into F1. No, danger was never designed into F1. It was the result of lack of understanding. It just happens that with increased knowledge danger is something that usually (and certainly in F1) happens to decrease. There was never a meeting where everyone said "let's design unsafe cars and tracks so we can really test the drivers courage". They just had unsafe cars and tracks and therefore innocent people died: no magic there.

Now, on the idea that "if you don't like the risk don't take it", expressed by Kimi, I think you will always be able to make that remark. With that attitude, you would never get progress in the area of safety at all. Some would say we have made enough progress. The problem there is that it is very difficult for anybody in the present moment to ever accurately judge whether something is safe enough. It's a bit like trying to judge whether you are a competent driver (or a competent anything). An incompetent driver can never know they are incompetent because the thing that makes you incompetent prevents you from realising you are incompetent. The point is you don't know what you don't know. In the same way, we don't know what unforeseen dangers there are in F1, until we know them and then (hopefully) react to them. Don't agree? Why did nobody consider to strengthen wheel tethers until a few years ago, could wheels not come off cars before? What about raising the c#ckpit sides, was that not a danger before DC's attack on Wurz in Aus? How about the HANS device? Think about any safety initiative, then think about why it wasn't introduced earlier where the danger was always present. Now it's possible to understand that we are hopeless at accurately judging in the present how safe F1 is, and how we must react when safety issues are identified.

Point being, our understanding of safety comes from reference to the past, which is not a measure of how safe things are now but how safe they are in comparison, a completely different thing. That's why we say F1 is safer but not safe. Why was it that the initial safety drive by Stewart took so long and had so much resistance (and not just by circuit owners concerned with cost)? Perhaps it was because people's understanding of safety and risk came from past references, all of which were terrible (i.e. people dying). It's counter-intuitive but if all the past references on something are the same, even if they are extremely bad experiences, then it becomes increasingly harder to imagine a different result. Once you get your first new reference you can then make a comparison "oh that new fence seems to have saved that driver a serious injury, maybe we should put them in more places" - that's why it took off so quickly once it started happening. But it also explains why other important changes in different areas with different references still take a very long time i.e. the HANS device, wheel tethers, c#ckpit canopies, etc. Thinking about it like this, in terms of references, also tells us something important about today: that since all of our recent "references" about accidents are relatively positive (i.e. no driver deaths and drivers surviving huge accidents) we are now in a position to easily become almost as blind to positive change as they were in the Stewart days. Success, they say, has always been a great liar.

All of which brings us back to Kimi's comment. Try a thought experiment: imagine asking half the F1 drivers to drive without a HANS device and consider whether any of them would do it? They would probably say you were insane and it would never happen. Why? Because our understanding of the danger changed. It's our new understanding of danger why it would be ridiculous to expect a modern driver to forego safety measures and why we don't consider them all pussies for having a proper crash helmet, HANS, whatever.  It also leads us to some other truths. Drivers in the "pre-safety" era weren't necessarily any "braver" than today's drivers, and spectators weren't terrible people for watching a sport that killed so many of its stars, but like today's drivers and spectators, they just couldn't truly understand the risk and the danger; they had no other references. Drivers today do understand those past dangers and so they would never dream of driving something without the corresponding safety measures, and the majority of spectators would never expect them to, or follow a series which was unnecessarily dangerous.

[Quiet One]

Bravo!

I agree with everything the little twerp here said.

[Rainmaster]

You're too kind, Andres! But thank you for recognising what a beautiful post I made there. I still absolutely despise you, of course, and if I needed a wee and you were on fire I would hold it in.

[Insider]

pabloh20, on 07 September 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Oh come on Seany baby, you can't post something like that in the middle of the 2012 season after Jenson has just won a race, criticise Lewis' behaviour this season and then say you only meant up to the end of the 2011 season.  You're not getting away with that one

Besides, I would have thought being 'much more dependable' in F1 would mean being on it virtually every race?  Something like Schumi first time around, Alonso now, perhaps?

Perhaps

[BradSpeedMan]

Ikyrotz, on 08 September 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Kimi on closed c#ckpits, quite spot on, imo

"I think this sport is dangerous and if you are not happy to take the risk then you should do something else. I am sure there are plenty of drivers who are willing to take the risk driving a Formula One car as it is now."

Kimi is going to give me a heart attack!!!
http://www.totalf1.c..._in_Zoom_photo/

[Massa]

Rumors (not credible ones yet) are out there that Gravity will align Simona de Silvestro with Lotus for next year as a reserve, while she moves from IndyCar to WSR or GP2.  She has one previous GP2 test, straight out of Formula BMW USA (as in a HUGE jump) where she was 1.5 seconds off the pace (as in not that horrible considering her lack of experience).  She's shown a lot of potential but has nothing to back that up but an "almost" championship against a weak field in Formula Atlantic's dying days and a fastest lap in an IndyCar race.  To be fair, she's been in absolute junk her whole career, especially this year with a Lotus engine that was so poor both Loti were black-flagged before lap 10 of the Indy 500 for being too slow.  She'd also be one of the biggest drivers on the F1 grid, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way at all, just that I assume most F1 drivers are small because it's advantageous to be (her IndyCar medical record says 1.70 m and 72 kg).

I like Simona's work ethic, I like how tough she is (2011 Indy 500...her hands were absolutely destroyed in a fiery wreck, and she was able to put the slowest car all month into the field of 33 out of 39 cars attempting to qualify shortly after), I like her attitude about not leveraging her gender to get ahead, and I like that she won't let anyone call her "Swiss Miss" when "Swiss Missile" is more appropriate.

But F1 would really eat her alive, and F1 would force her into the "publicity stunt" and even if she believes all drivers are the same with the helmets on, as she's said before, plenty of people unfortunately aren't going to buy that.  I think her level of talent and her attitude are just going to work better in IndyCar where, with the right team, she could definitely be an infrequent podium finisher on the right days.  In F1, I'm not sure she'd be able to achieve that without 21 competitor retirements, and I say that as a fan.

[Quiet One]

Massa, on 12 September 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Rumors (not credible ones yet) are out there that Gravity will align Simona de Silvestro with Lotus for next year as a reserve, while she moves from IndyCar to WSR or GP2.  She has one previous GP2 test, straight out of Formula BMW USA (as in a HUGE jump) where she was 1.5 seconds off the pace (as in not that horrible considering her lack of experience).  She's shown a lot of potential but has nothing to back that up but an "almost" championship against a weak field in Formula Atlantic's dying days and a fastest lap in an IndyCar race.  To be fair, she's been in absolute junk her whole career, especially this year with a Lotus engine that was so poor both Loti were black-flagged before lap 10 of the Indy 500 for being too slow.  She'd also be one of the biggest drivers on the F1 grid, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way at all, just that I assume most F1 drivers are small because it's advantageous to be (her IndyCar medical record says 1.70 m and 72 kg).

I like Simona's work ethic, I like how tough she is (2011 Indy 500...her hands were absolutely destroyed in a fiery wreck, and she was able to put the slowest car all month into the field of 33 out of 39 cars attempting to qualify shortly after), I like her attitude about not leveraging her gender to get ahead, and I like that she won't let anyone call her "Swiss Miss" when "Swiss Missile" is more appropriate.

But F1 would really eat her alive, and F1 would force her into the "publicity stunt" and even if she believes all drivers are the same with the helmets on, as she's said before, plenty of people unfortunately aren't going to buy that.  I think her level of talent and her attitude are just going to work better in IndyCar where, with the right team, she could definitely be an infrequent podium finisher on the right days.  In F1, I'm not sure she'd be able to achieve that without 21 competitor retirements, and I say that as a fan.

Yeah yeah...what kind of comment was that? Who gives a Sh#t about Whats-Her-Name record in whats-its-name American series?

Straight to the point, kiddo: is she hot or not?

If she is, then I fully back her into F1 for the sake of equality among genders and fight against considering women as mere sexual objects.

[Massa]

Not my cup of tea personally...

...which is fine because allegedly men aren't hers.  Though I guess now I'm moving from stupid rumors to dangerous ones.

[Quiet One]

Massa, on 12 September 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Not my cup of tea personally...

...which is fine because allegedly men aren't hers.  Though I guess now I'm moving from stupid rumors to dangerous ones.

Oh, ok.

Next candidate?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

I think Eric is being a little coy here, he fancies her really....

Here is a recent picture of her all dressed up for an evening out....

http://tinyurl.com/9mx4swq

Fwoooooarrr!

[Massa]

A masculine-looking character wearing green...I can see how you confused the two.

[Massa]

Back to closed cockpits...was there ever a particular reason for designing the Grand Prix cars with open ones?  I realize today it's done because "that's the way we do it," but why did they do it in the first place?  Purely curious.

[Ikyrotz]

Massa, on 13 September 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Back to closed c#ckpits...was there ever a particular reason for designing the Grand Prix cars with open ones?  I realize today it's done because "that's the way we do it," but why did they do it in the first place?  Purely curious.

I wonder if that's because cars, in general, were somewhat "open c#ckpit" those days (meaning early '20s).

[Massa]

Ikyrotz, on 13 September 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

I wonder if that's because cars, in general, were somewhat "open c#ckpit" those days (meaning early '20s).

Damn...didn't even think of that.

I guess a better question would be...has there ever been a motion to move to enclosed vehicles before in F1's history?  I assume not until 2009.

[Quiet One]

http://www.totalf1.c...ternator_issue/

Alternator issues on Pirelli's test cars (Renaults 2010)

According to a Renault spokesperson, they are fully within specifications: "These get broken only every other race. Hence, the name 'alternators'!"

*drumfill*

Ok, I'll take my leave now...

[The Shadow]

Quiet One, on 14 September 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

http://www.totalf1.c...ternator_issue/

Alternator issues on Pirelli's test cars (Renaults 2010)

According to a Renault spokesperson, they are fully within specifications: "These get broken only every other race. Hence, the name 'alternators'!"

*drumfill*

Ok, I'll take my leave now...

My question is, why now? Whats causing these alternators to fail suddenly? With the engine development freeze one would not naturally think that this would be a problem that would arise. Unless those alternators were made in bulk back in 2007 and left in storage in a plastic bag behind the sheds.

Did they develop a new, more powerful KERS system that is messing with the alternator? Seems like it.