Rate the race: Spanish Grand Prix

{democracy:14}

Advert | Go Ad-free

24 comments on Rate the race: Spanish Grand Prix

  1. Rabi said on 27th April 2008, 15:01

    A very poor Grand Prix. With only 2 overtaking manouveres (not counting the opening lap) it could never be interesting or good. Heidfeld was screwed over a rule that shouldn’t exist, Alonso proved that Renault have the pace but with the stupid aerodynamics on these cars they can never overtake. Well done Max!

  2. Robert McKay said on 27th April 2008, 15:29

    2/10, rubbish – my vote.

    I’m going to say it till everyone gets bored: let’s put the F1 drivers in the GP2 chassis and go have a proper race.

    Failing that, flood the track at Catalunya next year.

  3. Architrion said on 27th April 2008, 15:43

    who was the insane guy that rated this massive boredom "perfect"????? he’s sick

  4. Journeyer said on 27th April 2008, 15:51

    10?  Must’ve been a Kimi fan.  Hahaha!

    If F1 races in GP2 cars, what will make them different from GP2 then?

  5. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th April 2008, 15:52

    OK GP2 cars but with bigger engines then :-)

  6. Wish I could vote on this, but my Recording Device failed, and I missed everything except the press conference at the end!  Looking at the comments here, it appears I didn’t miss much.

  7. Architrion said on 27th April 2008, 16:11

    I have my TV under repair right now….  I was a bit angry cause I had to watch the "show" on TVU Player and Speed TV (that hurts), but having seen this torture it seems I’ve recovered my smile again….

  8. Chas said on 27th April 2008, 16:29

    interested in your thoughts if they were to standardise the F1 chassis?

  9. Sush said on 27th April 2008, 16:37

    very poor show.

    it shows how bad the race was when afterwards I was wondering why steve ryder holds his mike like that.

    tell me Steve, why do you use your fingertips to hold stuff with?, I’m dying to know.

  10. Robert McKay said on 27th April 2008, 16:54

    I don’t think they need to be massively different from GP2 cars. I think most people, if you snuck in one night and painted all th GP2 chassis in F1 liveries, would struggle to notice the difference (ok, we would).

    In the F3 world there’s a system of "hand-me-downs" with the chassis. The top series like Brit F3/Japanese F3/F3 Euroseries use the newest chassis, "middle" countries use the chassis these series used 2-3 years ago, and the newest countries to th game use the chassis that Britain etc. used 4-6 years ago (numbers approximate). Keeps costs down – the teams can sell their old chassis on to another team and put that money towards buying a newer chassis. GP2 followed suit a bit by using the new chassis for the regular series and the old chassis for GP2 Asia – every 3 years they intend to buil a new chassis (and shuffle things down presumably). F1 could use a "GP1"-type chassis, a bit more advanced than the GP2 one but nothing so complex as F1. They finish the 3 year cycle with that, give it to GP2, who give their old chassis to GP2 Asia etc…If the FIA wants road-relevant technology in it, they can research it themselves from some contributed fund and put it on the car.

    Keeps costs (significantly) down – allows more teams (and more collaborations between GP2/F1 teams). Makes it easier for new teams to come up from lower formulae. Should improve the racing. Look, I think GP2 is a good series. All that F1 really needs is to be a more professional, more widely publicised version of that. Not stuck up its own backside with KERS and CFD and round-the-clock windtunnel testing, which when you analyse the quality of the racing, is fiddling while Rome burns in my book. Manufacturers will probably hate the fact they are getting less technology out: maybe they can stick to their own hyper-techy, hyper-dull Formula 1 and leave GP1 to do the racing. But surely they’d love to get the benefits of being in a formula that few recognise as massively different but costs a tenth as much? They can keep their homologated engines, they seem happy enough with that.

    I suppose we’ve got to (a) give the rest of this season the benefit of the doubt, because Spain is always rubbish and (b) give the 2009 technical changes the benefit of the doubt, because the FIA might get it right (don’t hold your breath). But someone should be thinking about this. In my view, anyway.

    The hardcore might hate the fact the teams no longer waste two hundred million dollars to build a chassis that’s a tenth of a second faster.

  11. Sumedh said on 27th April 2008, 17:06

    All of you people here seem to think F1 is just racing.

    Guys, F1 is not just racing, it is supposed to showcase the cutting edge technology that is available in the automobile market. It is supposed to show us, what all improvements might come in the road cars of the future. It is an insight into the future of technology.
    Ferrari FXX, Ferrari Enzo, Mclaren F1 – where do you think the inspiration & technology for building these road cars comes from.

    F1 is a source of livelihood for so many talented engineers. It is not just bread and butter, but the temple for the extremely passionate ones among them.

    Look at this year’s F1 standings : The difference between the points of top 3 constructors is just 2 points (before Spain), but the difference between cars is colossal. Isn’t all of this exciting to you guys ??

    Being a Mechanical Engineering student myself, I believe that removing aerodynamic updates from F1 car is like taking a toy from the small child.

  12. It was a good race but we needed more overtakens, more more more… Will it be true the Renault jump??

    I thought a while about it?

    Holds
    Fla

  13. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th April 2008, 17:10

    Sumedh that’s fine in theory and I agree with you (I don’t seriously think swapping the GP2 cars in is viable!) but there has to be a balance between technology and racing. These days it’s 100% technology – 0% racing. And it has been for a long time.

    The championship situation by itself is not exciting. It would be if this were the penultimate race of the season, but it’s not. The closeness in the championship is not borne out on the track, because the cars run a second apart and you know there is zero chance of one passing the other unless, as we saw today, a BMW is behind a Force India.

    Here’s a few previous discussion on the topic: Overtaking: too much or too little?

  14. Robert McKay said on 27th April 2008, 17:16

    "Guys, F1 is not just racing, it is supposed to showcase the cutting edge technology that is available in the automobile market."

    That’s a fair opinion. I’d never seek to totally remove technology from F1. But is KERS really more important than seeing drivers being able to fight on-track with each other? Is technology really the main feature of Formula 1? If it is, then surely at best there would be room for a series that was the cream of technology and a series that was the cream of driver talent/professionalism, i.e both F1 and "GP1".

    "The difference between the points of top 3 constructors is just 2 points (before Spain), but the difference between cars is colossal. Isn’t all of this exciting to you guys ??"

    Tables aren’t exciting. Sorry.

    Wheel to wheel racing is. I’d take a driver to win the WDC by 50 points if he had to battle and make a couple of passes each race, every race, any day of the year, over a dull season decided by 1 point. Last year was decided by a point, and was exciting – on paper. In reality, it was a lot of very dull races and a couple of very exciting wet races.

  15. if it wasnt for the mass retirements, this race would have been the definition of a procession.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.