HandyNZL

Senior Members
  • Content count

    5,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HandyNZL


  1. I think he could have beaten Hakkinen at Japan. Of course the rumour mill at the time was "if he couldn't win for Ferrari, then no-one would"....who knows the truth? It was an exciting race though; I remember being on the edge of my seat towards the end (or maybe that was the girlfriend at the time elbowing me in the back???).

    At the end of the day, Mika won the championship, and whether you look at it sideways, from behind, in front, or up its nostrils, he deserved the title that year.


  2. The key to the Merc engine is the placment of the turbo. It's a unique solution, and is providing enough of a power gain over the other two marques. The Merc hasn't always been the fastest in a straight line, but it does seem to get off the corners a touch faster, therefore it must be carrying more speed through the corner than others. The aero package on the Merc is sublime, in the way that RedBull was for the last few seasons - never fastest on the straights, but quicker through the corners, where race winning cars need to be. Merc has the exact same formula.

    Williams is fast in a straight line, but losing ground in the corners to Merc. If they were able to fix that, then they would be right on Merc's tailpipes, consistently.

    Danny-boy has won twice this year, and yes, one would say a little inherited (especially Canada), but the Redbull is NOT slow. The step up for Renault will not be huge, and they will most likely deliver for next season. Honda is making no promises about supplying other teams after next season, so RBR isn't going to stitch up a 2016 deal with them this year or next.

    Honda the team performed poorly as, like Toyota, the team was board run. As an engine supplier though, you can still operate under that management style as it doesn't affect the team you are supplying the engines to. McLaren is more than able to run the team, and there will be little if any interference from Japan, other than the "why did you not win, Ron-San?".

    And we all know just how impressive Honda was the last time it was solely an engine supplier.

    I hope Renault remains, as F1 needs at least four engine suppliers. In reality, it could do with a five or six, so that the team/engine ratio is the same for each manufacturer. If Honda performs competetively by the end of 2015, look for Toyota to start testing the water as an engine supplier...or even Hyundai...


  3. DC had three shots at it though, if not for the first corner, you first Sir, agreement. Eddie only ever had the one shot - always a rear gunner for Mike, and when it came time to repay the favour, Mike just goes out there and screws him over, basically. Eddie could have won in 99 - it would have been close, but had Mike not returned, Salo sure would have given Eddie all the help he could to win the title for Ferrari and Eddie.


  4. This can only end badly. He's going to be waaaaay out of his depth. Survive the year, maybe return in 2016, still be out of his depth, and then F1 career over before his 19th birthday. Completely stupid managment move. If Jos is managaing him, he's doing a p**s poor job.

    Half the GP2 field, and a quarter of the GP3 field would eat Max up, and spit him out....he would be weighed and measured and be found wanting. If anyone deserves a seat in F1 at the moment it's Coletti, quickly followed by Palmer and Nasr.

    Bad, bad, bad. Dumb, dumb, dumb.


  5. Aww, Grabbers...you got me all excited that it was some schexy pics of you and your Mrs, old chum :P Or you and whatsherface from Spice Girls. Your other wife.... :P

    Do you think maybe Mikey-boy was off to fine tune the Launch Control? whistling.gif


  6. You sit next to a smoker and breathe in his/her exhaled poisons and you get lung cancer.

    You sit next to a drinker and, well, nothing much happens.

    You drive next to a smoker, he/she flicks his/her ciggie butt out the window, it floats in the airstream and flies back through your open rear window where it rests on your shopping on the back seat, smouldering until it catches alight, and burns your car to the rims.

    You drive next to a drinker and take them home safe and sound. Bloody legend.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIYvD9DI1ZA&list=PL5825E7CC81DC14E3

    PS Monique thinks Andres' dumb.....spacehead...


  7. A return of a Trulli train? I can't honestly see that happening...and if it does (or any of the other three), then Haas would lose all my respect in a millisecond.

    Trulli is 40 this year (like all good folk msn-wink.gif ), hasn't been in F1 since the end of 2011, and wouldn't bring anything to the table about new cars. Probably too busy playing with his karts than thinking about lacing up his F1 boots again

    JV - are you serious??? Well, I guess he kind of is by racing the Indy 500 this year, but I can only think he will be about as good as Jean Alesi. But then, I guess he can tell Haas that he has recent Dallara chassis experience.....

    Fisichella is off racing sports cars (and doing quite well) but has been out of F1 even longer than Trulli (2009 was the last time). Again would bring nothing to the table for Haas to learn from about the new cars.

    Liuzzi, last seen in 2011, is now off racing Super GT cars. Still reasonably young, but again zero experience with the new cars.

    I think the main thing is that none of those four, or ANY driver that is not active this season, will be of much value to Haas. The new formula is very different to 2013 or older cars, and if you go down the track of following a driver that, whilst experienced in F1, as are the four above, without having driven the cars, then the wrong path in development can be taken quite easily (eg Lotus / Ferrari (to a lesser extent)).

    If you break it down to pure engineering, then it really is a no brainer to utilise the leading open wheeler manufacturer in the world to design and build your chassis. Going at it on your own with un-heralded or "failed" F1 designers is more of a risk. Haas needs to come to the grid with a car that is reliable. It doesn't need to be a race winner, nor does it need to mix it with the upper mid grid. All they need is to make it out of Q3 more often than not, and from there you build onwards and upwards, gaining the top personnel as you go, and as you prove to be more viable both in financial terms and in worth to an engineer as a "next challenge" you will attract the next Newey**. Do not forget that it was not that long ago that RBR struggled to score points, let alone win anything.

    **Tehnically unlikely to ever happen again, as engineers these days have not had the grounding that Newey had, or Brawn, or Head, etc for that matter. Once the Aldo Costa's, the Newey's, and the Head's resign, I think you are actually going to see a levelling of the field, as the next generation of designers are all of a muchness; schooled the same way/think the same way. Mike Gascoyne was supposedly the best of the next generation, but frankly, it always looked like he took his inspirations from a brick...


  8. RBR were well within their rights to appeal since alot of this came down to "recommendations" and wording of the actual rules. From what I've read RBR despite using their own sensor readings where still within the "rules" so to speak. But it gets very murky due to Whiting and the technical delegations recommendations. For instance if Whiting says do this because I think you should, but the rules don't necessarily state either for or against, what does a team do? Charlie should not be judge, jury and executioner, but on races days in a way he is. And he's been wrong I've felt on quite a few occasions.

    He's approved many car innovations for the teams over the years, only to do the usual backflip and then state X or whatever innovation at the time was now illegal. How does that help cost cutting when a team runs something past Whiting, he approves it, they continue to develop it, test it, and then start to race with it, and them bam! oh no, you can't do that it's illegal!! It's reeks of unprofessionalism and of a person who doesn't have his act together.

    I'm bummed RBR lost their appeal, but knew from the get go, the FIA were going to do whatever it took to not rule in their favour. I mean how dare anyone question one of the weekend stewards who has not been to the tests, seen the issues, been to the different races and so on. Oh no, thus pro turns up for one weekend a year, and yet can dictate how a multi billion dollar sport is run. It's crazy.

    Stewards aren't exactly just picked up off the street (unless of course, it is a hooker with Steward as her surname, and then that would infact be true...)

    Stewards operating at F1 level have come up through the ranks of motorsport officaildom, many will have been club racers or drivers that had talent but not the means back in their day.

    But I do get your point.

    Point got, however, does not detract from the fact that you enter motorsport races and in so by doing, accept that the Steward on the day is indeed jury and judge and that you obide by their rulings and interpretations of the rule book (or books). The Stewards, on the opposite side of the coin, know that any ruling that they make, outside of judge-of-fact decisions (i.e those penalised whilst racing e.g. for speeding in the pitlane), that their rulings can be appealed against. RBR did this, and RBR's case was thrown out.

    Whether or not there were politics behind this, FIA saving face or what not, is not up for debate in this regard. Marko can postulate all he wants, but the fact remains, is that everyone is expected to follow the above simple ways of racing (and not just at F1 level..the only difference is that F1 has an appeals meeting in Monaco, and the local club racer probably goes to some borrowed meeting room in the offices of a volunteer flaggies place of work).

    Now, lets go back to the racing.....(of which Danny is doing bloody fine and is in with a damn good shot of out performing one German, I feel)


  9. So we have a thread here that was started prior to Haas being announced as the 12th team. Eric summed things up nicely on the 4th April (post numero five) and I agree very much with what Eric has to say.

    Over the last week it has been interesting reading what the nay-sayers have to say (in various media) about how it will be a complete flop. Eric covered most of the reasons as to why it wouldn't be a flop, but now that everything has been announced, and more of Haas' plans are being revealed, I thought it would be an opportune time to kick off a thread following the creation of this all new F1 team.

    Topics of discussion early on:

    Will it be a flop? If so, why do you think that?

    Will he succeed? If so, again, why? What is "success" for a new team?

    What drivers should he target - he has mentioned getting an experienced F1 driver on board (Scott Speed, anyone?)

    Can Dallara deliver a good enough chassis?

    Is Ferrari really his only engine option?

    IMHO, I think he will succeed. FIrstly in having a car ready to compete in F1, which is a lot more than can be said for USF1. He is taking the correct route at this juncture in sub-contracting the design out to Dallara. Dallara, at the end of the day, produce the vast majority of single seater cars racing today, not least of all a GP2 car. Considering that the GP2 cars were not all that far off in times with Marussia, HRT and Caterham for most of their formative years, this is a company that, when given extra design scope between GP2 and F1 will be able to build a chassis capable of at least competing with Caterham and Marussia (or whatever name they will have next year).

    This must be considered the definition of success for a "baby" team.

    Haas has the money to pay drivers, not the other way around, which is what Marussia and Caterham are doing. This will mean, and no dis-credit to Marussia and Caterham jockeys, Haas can attract a reasonably skilled driver to fill the plug of "experienced driver". He is looking for someone technical that the whole team can learn off, so the options would have to be someone currently driving, near the end of their contracts, and that has never been a pay driver. So...

    Button: A possibility, but would he want to do another few years like at Honda? He won't be at the pointy end, so he would know that going in, and perhaps being lapped would tarnish his WDC aura...although, that never stopped Schumacher with his Career 2.0. Button has the brains, the vast experience required, and is no slouch in terms of speed.

    Rosberg: A slim to slimmer chance considering that he is now in one of the best cars and is in with a shot of the title. Not sure exactly when he is off contract, but he has an engineering mind, is quick, and is young enough to do a Schumacer/Ferrari-esque job and bring a small team forward.

    Hulkenberg: My pick for the man Haas will actually target. Again young and hungry, but all importantly, keeps getting overlooked by the big name teams. He is fast, and his race craft is also very high. At Bahrain he held everyone behind him in those closing laps considerably down on power, and frustrated the heck out of Hamilton in Korea. He seems to forever be on one-year contracts waiting for that call up to Macca/Ferrari/RBR, but it's just not going to happen, especially at McLaren where van Doorne is likely to replace Button if not in 2015, but in 2016

    Sutil: Ha...yeah right.

    Massa: A bit long in the tooth, and I don't think he is much of a developer of cars. Nothing, at least, has ever been reported in the media that he is, so he would be a target if only for a small pay packet and vast experience.

    Vettel: Massive long shot, but even if the stars aligned, Vettel is in the mould of a Senna - will always want to be where the car is the best, and he has an equal or better shot at winning the WDC.

    Chico: Too young and inexperienced, but does show flashes of brilliance. However, I feel he still is engineered by the team, rather than the other way around. More of a monkey behind the wheel than a professor of motorsport.

    As for engines...well, with the news that Haas may not field a car until 2016, this in my mind might mean he is looking at Honda. And why wouldn't you? You get the benefit of the Honda being in McLaren cars, and McLaren will not accept a Renault-esque hatchet job. Will they be as powerful as the Merc? Who knows. But the extra year Honda has this year to run the engine and systems in mule-chassis and cars means they should be a long way closer to bullet proof than any of the cars this year. Couple to that a possible relaxation of the 100kg fuel load non-sense, and Honda could provide a lightning fast package. For Haas to ride on the coat tail of that after a year of race development at McLaren, would a coup any team on the pitlane would want to have (bar Ferrari and Mercedes of course).

    Just don't paint the car up like a US flag.....


  10. Never said the noise wasn't part of F1. Don't put words onto my screen that aren't what I said.

    Likewise, where did I say that Mike was right and you were wrong?

    All I said was that Mike and I were discussing it. The only reference to you was that he has been to many many many GP, and as such, I hold his opinion in great respect. You seem to value the fact that you have been to GP, and Melbourne 2014 in particular gives you an unbridled belief that your point is the only correct one, and nothing Ric, Eric, Andres or anyone else types can possibly be accurate enough.

    So here we have Mike, whom I was talking to yesterday about F1, and I having not even read this thread until twenty minutes ago, was in the exact same position as you, being trackside at Melbourne. Infact, there were three of them there that I was talking to and that was what they were saying.

    Take it any way you want, but I will stand by my last line in that if you think sound is the be all and end all to F1, then you are missing the point of F1.

    And even though you might think that is directed at you, I am sorry to inform you, but it isn't. And never was. Unfortunately there aren't many other words in the English language that I could use instead of "you" in that sentence.

    But whilst we're on "points", what do you (Apple) think the point of F1 is?


  11. I could help but notice how run down the Malaysian track looked. Even the new turf/sod on come of the corner run off areas was brown. Why do we go to this country anyway?

    Race day will see the stands mostly empty anyway. F1 sure is packing them into the crap circuits isn't it.

    Happy Vettel did well today, but he did stuff it trying to be smart about getting over the line right as the time ran out. Still it's a worry the RBR, it's not free of bugs yet.

    Here's hoping it's a dry race, and we can see some of Kimi's pace from yesterday.

    Why do they go there?

    Peter Sauber was once sponsored by Petronas, as Mercedes is now. Petronas being Malaysian and all goes a long way to explain things. They've been in F1 a long time.

    Also, Bernie needed an Asian race. At the time, going to China or Korea was out of the question, as it would be now to consider Vietnam or Thailand. Malaysia has a car manufacturing industry (Proton to name but one) so this too would play a part.

    And, the track isn't half as bad as F1 makes it look. The F1 cars are half the reason a lot of these Tilke circuits produce flat racing, but as Malaysia was one of his first, this race track has still provided good racing over the years (especially compared to one such as Abu Dhabi).


  12. Ahhh, therein lies the rub...Why do they keep racing at this time of the year, at this time of the day in Malaysia? I don't know but it doesn't seem too smart a thing to do. I woke up 4.50 in the morning to watch this qualy session and I must say I'm not amused! yawn.gif

    Same here, alarm set for 3.55 to watch rain fall.., might explain some of the crankiness on my part ;P.

    You're the reason it is run at this time of the afternoon, and was moved to this laterrace time slot so that you lot didn't have to get up at 1am to watch the race. So blame yourselves :P nur nur

    The race used to be run with a 1pm start just like every other race at the time, but Bernie, most likely at the behest of CVC concluded that the European audience not havng to stay up late, or get up early was more important than having a dry race, or a race starting on time.

    Hence Melbourne being pushed to dusk, Malaysia to monsoon time, Singapore into the night, and Abu Dhabi as a day nighter.


  13. So I'm at the track yesterday, and talking to a fellow driver, whom, like me is presently on pitwall duties thanks to doctor's orders. Mike, along with two other people I race with, went to Melbourne, and as such we were having a discussion on all things motorsport. And I listen to what Mike has to say as he is a walking encyclopedia on all things motorsport, and has attended more GP than Mr Apples will have hot dinners, as well as writing columns for several print magazines, online websites, and is often drafted in to local sports talk back radio, the latter of which he was asked to come in and discuss on air the current state of Formula One fter the Melbourne GP.

    Posed this question by the radio announcer:

    In a rock n' roll sense, what is the difference between today's engines and those from previous seasons?

    Mike replied "if an engine from last year was AC/DC, then this year it's the Eagles"

    This may be correct. But Mike also went on to qualify that to be able hear all the other sounds of the F1 car was new and welcomed, as was the increased level of car control required by the drivers. And....who said that the Eagles were a horrible band anyway?

    The sound is different. The sounds throughout F1 and any race car have changed throughout the years and will continue to do so. But if that is all you think there is to F1, then sadly, you're missing the point of F1.


  14. Pffft...Apple Mac halfwits...sick of them. Wait...that's not what you meant by PC, right?

    Anyways, I didn't say "F1 IS A FARCE WITH ALL THIS BOOING AND NUVOLARI AND THE V12 AND VILLENEUVE VS ARNOUX AND I AM DONE WITH F1 NO, SERIOUSLY, I'M DONE!" I merely pointed out that I didn't like it.

    And I enjoy F1 with a passion as well. Anybody who thinks otherwise is an Apple user neener neener.

    Don't get me started on them Androids!

    R2 fricking D2 is taking over!!


  15. PC nitwits...sick of 'em. So what if the crowd cheered when Vettel missed Q1? It's called...wait for it...passion! You go to a footy match, and there is always boo's, and cheer's etc, yet no one gives a Sh#t because you're all there having fun.

    Kev's doing OK. The kid has a good head on his shoulders and will hopefully have a good season. I still can't understand how Kyvatt is out there. A couple years ago, he was here in NZ getting down-troued by pretty much everyone in the TRS series, including by kids like Mitch Evans. I foresee a revolving door policy at STR over the next few seasons and would not be surprised if Vergne is gone at the end of the season and Kyvatt too, likely replaced by Sainz Jr and someone else with a bit of cash.

    Looking forward to the race. Haven't watched winged motocross bikes racing before....


  16. I've been watching some YouTwitTubeFace videos on YouTube of 1980's races, namely because I just finished reading a book on Gilles Villeneuve and it had some Tube links. But anyways, apart from the quite sexist (for our time) footage of all the laaaaay-dees, F1 of that era is so totally not what today's sport is. Club racing today is more organised than back then.

    So have rules been good or bad?

    Some have been. Bernie's push for more professionalism is not a bad thing, although the paying punter is locked out of most things.

    Car regs are a different matter, but could F1 be sustainable with today's costs if the rule book was open slather? I highly doubt it. Most teams are barely existing now without dreaming up fanciful ways of making downforce and ever larger V100 engines.

    It is what it is. Which is a competition between cars made to a formula. It is not cars from 1990 racing cars from 1970 racing cars from 2013. It is still an engineering formula whereby designers have to eek the most they can out of what the rules allow, including pushing into the boundaries of those rules. Just like in the past.

    I'm lucky I get to go historic racing and work on cars and drive cars and watch cars and all the rest that comes from it. I can appreciate what things were in the past, and I can appreciate what things are today. I am no less enthralled by standing on the pitwall as an F5000 goes past, as I am when a Can-Am snakes around some esses, as I am tuning on a 1000cc screamer F3 engine, as I am driving my Formula Ford, as I am standing at a hairpin watching F1 cars go past, as I am going to a modern day F1 race or watching it on the TV.

    If you can find a way in yourself to remove the negativity and concentrate on what it is that makes motorsport what it is, then who gives a flying about what the rules say this year, last year or next? The goal is still the same as it ever was, and that is to finish first.


  17. There is no issue in that they sound different. Of course they do. A Ford Focus sounds different to a F5000 V8 engine.

    But will a turbo be boring? No. Of course not. They still scream. They're still loud. It's just a different pitch.

    Why engines have to sound the same today as they did thirty years ago, I will never know...