Rate the race: Korea

What did you think of the Korean Grand Prix? Rate the race out of ten and leave a comment below:

Rate the 2010 Korean Grand Prix out of ten

  • 1 (4%)
  • 2 (2%)
  • 3 (3%)
  • 4 (3%)
  • 5 (5%)
  • 6 (7%)
  • 7 (15%)
  • 8 (25%)
  • 9 (17%)
  • 10 (19%)

Total Voters: 3,790

Loading ... Loading ...

1 = ‘Terrible’, 10 = ‘Perfect’

F1 Fanatic holds polls on each race to find out which fans thought were the best and worst races during a season. Please vote based on how entertaining and exciting you thought the race was, not on how your preferred driver or team performed.

See the results for past seasons here:

2010 Korean Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 Korean Grand Prix articles

Advert | Go Ad-free

215 comments on Rate the race: Korea

1 4 5 6
  1. MATEUSZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ said on 24th October 2010, 16:43

    Damn it was a great race!
    Poor Vitaly! bad luck again

  2. Wonderful track and the race itself was great. I still marked it as four though because of the drivers behaviour in making the safety car stay out 20 minutes longer than it needed to.

  3. DannyJ said on 24th October 2010, 18:24

    All in all, an entertaining enough race, although Alonso for all his merits, still can’t overtake.

    • Maciek said on 24th October 2010, 19:26

      Out of everything that’s been said about Alonso, I’ve never heard anything so divorced from reality.

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 24th October 2010, 20:38

        Actually his overtaking hasn’t been that great this season, aside from the races where he started right at the back. He hasn’t won a single race this year from passing a rival (okay he couldn’t in Singapore!).

        • BillHicks said on 24th October 2010, 21:43

          @mMaciek: “Alonso is Faster, Filipe”.

          Oh yeah! Overtake then!!! What, you can’t, Fernando? Not even when your team mate has had has his engine turned down? Still can’t do it?

          Anyone but Alonso. No-one likes a cheat…

          • Maciek said on 25th October 2010, 8:36

            I’m pretty sure that one incident in one race is nowhere near enough to decide that Alonso can’t overtake, especially with so much evidence that he can. Indeed he just may be the most talented overtaker on the grid. Seriously, try not to sound like a three year old when you make your arguments.

    • Astonished said on 24th October 2010, 22:16

      In wet, in the “impossible to overtake Hungary” to the probably best gatekeeper MSC, in a Renault….. Not bad for one who cannot overtake.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L02sfAVMFxI

      This might have actually influenced the first retirement of the kaiser…

      • baracca said on 25th October 2010, 0:39

        Oh and the Suzuka ’05 move at the 130 R was even better… but Hungary 06 was the race were Magic Alonso got from 15th to 3rd position in the first lap after a grid penalty.

        12 overtakes in a single lap, not bad for one who just can’t overtake.

        • Astonished said on 25th October 2010, 9:18

          Wasn’t that penalty for impeding Massa who was several seconds behind? They were not in the same time though (Renault vs. Ferrai), it was only at McLaren that he was penalised in Hungary because of his own team. Funny to see how fast things, friends and foes change…(Lewis was extraordinarily friendly to Fernando yesterday, apparently he is maturing in and out the track)

          Re Suzuka 05, I agree, it was even better but I thought that wet conditions suited the moment (and would avoid smart remarks “it was dry” type)

          Off topic (somewhere in the tread, and from 2 weeks ago) it looks as if the notion that team orders at McL and RBR are now ok (even mandatory, perhaps less at RBR because there is an unfortunate shake up in their desired ranking) is gaining ground. I would like to point out that regarding “disrepute for the sport” “unfairness to a driver” (A grand prix victory is something always very valuble, specially for 2nd drivers) “stealing emotions to fans” is as bad (or as good, as you preffer) as at the principle of the year, even race 1. It is called risk management by the team. Some hedge stronger and some bet stronger. If you bet and get it your way double reward, if you hedge a higher likelihood of a good outcome. We all know how it is. I think.

          • Astonished said on 25th October 2010, 9:20

            sorry time should have read team. downsides of a non-native speaker…. By the way, what does LOL stand for?? Thanks

          • Baracca said on 25th October 2010, 12:10

            I’m not native, either. LOL is “laughing out loud”.

            It was not Massa this time. Fernando was penalized for allegedly brake-testing Doornbos (after he had been holding up Fernando, with no penalty). The mass-damper had just been banned on the ridiculous grounds that it was an aero device, Michael Schumacher was closing up the gap for the WDC and many people perceived that the FIA was helping him at that.

            Maybe Fernando and Lewis were bitter rivals, but as far as I know they have never spoken against the other. Fernando aired a lot of grievances against McLaren (and please let’s not get again into whether they were justified or not) but never against Lewis, as far as I know. If you want to see murderous hate, try Ayrton Senna against Prost.

            About team orders: it seems almost everybody accepts them in certain circumstances, say: one of the drivers is mathematically off, the other absolutely needs the points, and it’s not blatantly obvious. Like Interlagos 2007, which didn’t make waves, although Felipe deserved the victory and would obviously have relished it. Of course it’s all nonsense from a legalistic point of view. There is a rule forbidding TO since 2002 and it doesn’t make exceptions. Brazil 2007 broke the rule
            exactly as much as Hockenheim 2008, Hockenheim 2010 and any number of occasions you like. Of course the teams use TO whenever they want, but try to be subtle about that. It’s the lack of subtlety what caused the uproar in Hockenheim ’10.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 12:14

            It’s the lack of subtlety what caused the uproar in Hockenheim ’10.

            No it’s not.

            There were no objections over Interlagos 2007 and Shanghai 2008 because they involved drivers who were mathematically out of the championship.

            There were no objections over Montreal 2008 and Hockenheim 2008 because they involved team mates on completely different strategies.

            The objections over Hockenheim 2010 were because Massa had beaten Alonso for 40-odd laps until Ferrari stepped in to fix the race result.

          • Astonished said on 25th October 2010, 14:00

            But Keith, my point is Why is it ok when a driver is out mathematically? You all think that way and I just challenge that.

            You are anyhow contaminating the competition (because a driver from a rival team is going to suffer, isn’t he?

            You are still doing wrong to somebody who bet his money for a 2nd driver making # wins during the session, aren’t you?

            You are taking the joy of a track battle out same way as during the early session.

            Shouldn’t all drivers who are mathematically out, regardless of team affiliation, let pass equally all drivers with title hopes to avoid favouring anyone?

            My point is: If team members can/want team up to have better (whatever they consider better, WDC, CC, #wins/year, you name it) then it is up to the team to decide when. If they can’t, they cannot decide the turning point (being mathematical or whatever else)

            I do not know what is right and what is wrong (and I don’t even want to know, I think) but we have to be consistent…

            Regarding Hockeheim I want to recall that Fernando let himself drop up to 4/5 seconds just to show he could catch up easily (he did). Anyhow, that’s not the point of the discussion, although: If massa were mathematically out would that 40 laps of beating suddenly become irrelevant?

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 14:08

            Why is it ok when a driver is out mathematically? You all think that way and I just challenge that.

            Because you’re not depriving a driver of his right to fight for the title.

          • So say Button leads Hamilton in Brazil with the race result looking like it would leave Button 24 points behind the WDC lead with one race to go, then McLaren ask Jenson to move over.

            I guess by your deifnitions would that be equally as objectionable as what Ferrari did in Hockenheim. Because the only excusing factors you propose are differing strategy or a driver being mathematically out of the title race.

            But the problem is it would certainly be identical as far as any possible regulation could be worded to includ your exceptions. Despite such a decision by McLaren being overwhelming common sense and likely to be understood and supported by most fans it would be illegal under a team orders rule written by Keith Collantine.

            I just think the complexities of differentiating between whats team orders and not team orders and when its acceptable makes it completely inplausable to enforce as the years since 2003 have shown.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 14:37

            I just think the complexities of differentiating between whats team orders and not team orders and when its acceptable makes it completely inplausable to enforce as the years since 2003 have shown.

            The WMSC found Ferrari guilty, they just chose not to punish them (beyond the insignificant fine already handed down). I don’t buy the “it’s too hard to enforce” line.

          • lol Keith I know you think that but the rule hadn’t been written to include your caveats so it would have been wrong for them to suddenly start enforcing it when the rule in its current form had been broken and gone unpunished so many times before. Especially given the inter-team agreement that they could use team orders as long as it was sublte. It was a recipe for the kind of incident that happened at Hockenheim.

            And if the regulation were to include those caveats you mention it would still leave the kind of situations like my example where everyone would think it would be the right thing for McLaren to switch their drivers but it would be illegal to do so.

            Also the point Baracca made about subtlety is important, if Ferrari had been better organised and agreed a plan before the race and Massa had let Alonso past in the braking zone (like Kovalainen in 2008) there would have been conspiracy theories but it would have been completely unprovable.

            If any regulation was brought in teams would, as they have done since 2003, broken the rule but done it with subtelty.

            There’s also the example of Honda in Turkey 2007 whereby Button was faster than Rubens, he was told and moved over. It was for the midflield places so no one cared but in principle it was exactly the same as Hockenheim just nobody cared.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 15:10

            I’m not saying the rule shouldn’t have been enforced in the past. For the Turkey example arguably it should have been.

            I think we should also acknowledge that plenty of other rules have been enforced inconsistently in F1. That’s not desirable, but no-one’s making the case that no rules should be enforced because not all rules are enforced consistently.

          • Maciek said on 25th October 2010, 15:28

            “Why is it ok when a driver is out mathematically? You all think that way and I just challenge that.

            Because you’re not depriving a driver of his right to fight for the title.”

            I just can’t get with that, because in the end you’re splitting hairs. If McLaren were to orchestrate a teammate switch next race, would it be wrong because Button still has a mathematical possibility, or would it be ok because it’s obvious he hasn’t got a chance?

          • Ads21 (@ads21) said on 25th October 2010, 16:13

            no-one’s making the case that no rule should be enforced because not are rules are enforced consistently.

            I’m not either

            I think its a theme with the new administration at the FIA that rule enforcement should be made more consistant. We should all desire fewer not more rules that are applied inconsistantly.

            The only way to have consistancy on team orders would be either to have a team orders rule that would ban it in the circumstances you suggested. But this would make illegal acceptable uses of team order like the hypothetical above whislt it would not eliminate team orders but rather drive the entire practice underground so it is undetecable.

            The other way of having consistancy with team orders is to simply allow them. Then F1 could at least be honest to its fans about the team nature of the sport rather than continue a charade where by we pretend that team orders don’t exist yet they go unpinished or undetected.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 16:23

            drive the entire practice underground so it is undetecable.

            Which I still don’t believe it is. Ferrari were caught red-handed and let off. But of course teams are going to do it if they know their ‘punishment’ is a $100,000 fine.

            What we’re talking about here is the integrity of the drivers’ championship. Right now we have 23 drivers trying to beat 23 other drivers, and one driver who only has 22 to beat. If a team fixes a race between its drivers the punishment should be in the order of magnitude of what McLaren got in 2007.

          • Ads21 (@ads21) said on 25th October 2010, 16:16

            agree Maciek, that was the example I was using to illustrate that point

          • Ads21 (@ads21) said on 25th October 2010, 16:46

            Ferrari were caught red-handed and let off. But of course teams are going to do it if they know their ‘punishment’ is a $100,000 fine.

            What I’m saying is nobody will be as blatent as Ferrari in future. Like I said if Massa had been told before the race and done it in the braking zone they wouldn’t have been caught.

            The problem with the “integrity of the drivers championship” argument is that the best driver doesn’t win the WDC its the best driver/team combination, otherwise we should just give everyone equal machinery.

            But I dont understand how what happened in Hochenheim can undermine the integrity of the WDC whilst what happened in Brazil 2007 didn’t when the ‘fixing’ of the result decided the WDC but was didn’t. The only difference is besides mathematics is that people didn’t like it. If your argument is that it shouldn’t be allowed is because fans are outraged its completely unworkable because rules cannot be enforced on the basis of what fans like/dislike.

            And if you’re concernend with the integrity of the WDC, your argument must be that it distorts the end of season table away from the order of drivers on merit to one thats been interfered with. Brazil 2007 took a race where Kimi Raikkonen should have finished second and put him first taking a WDC away from Lewis Hamilton. How can you support team orders in circumstances where their use decides the outcome of the WDC whist saying you oppose team orders that intefere with “the integrity of the WDC”?

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 25th October 2010, 16:48

            The problem with the “integrity of the drivers championship” argument is that the best driver doesn’t win the WDC its the best driver/team combination, otherwise we should just give everyone equal machinery.

            I don’t see the connection between race-fixing and arguing for a spec series.

          • Ads21 (@ads21) said on 25th October 2010, 17:14

            There isn’t a connection, I was just saying that F1 is a team sport, it isn’t purely a drivers championship so often the best driver doesn’t win the WDC.

            But that was an aside, this was the real question.

            if you’re concernend with the integrity of the WDC, your argument must be that it distorts the end of season table away from the order of drivers on merit, to one that has been interfered with. Brazil 2007 took a race where Kimi Raikkonen should have finished second and put him first taking a WDC away from Lewis Hamilton. How can you support team orders in circumstances where their use decides the outcome of the WDC whist saying you oppose team orders that intefere with “the integrity of the WDC”?

            Perhaps you could explain what you mean by integrity of the WDC? Because the only meaning i can derive from it isn’t consistant with someone supporting ‘race fixing’ in a title deicider

          • Maciek said on 26th October 2010, 9:19

            @Keith
            “Because you’re not depriving a driver of his right to fight for the title.”
            “What we’re talking about here is the integrity of the drivers’ championship. Right now we have 23 drivers trying to beat 23 other drivers, and one driver who only has 22 to beat.”

            For me these arguments only work because of circumstances. If a driver is mathematically out of the championship by mid-season and only helps his teammate from then on, it would be both right and wrong going by your arguments. I don’t mean to be picking at this, but I can’t buy the argument that orders are ok sometimes. They have to be either right or wrong, no matter the circumstances.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 26th October 2010, 9:32

            I don’t see a problem. Whereas the alternative, allowing teams to pick some arbitrary point at which they can deprive a driver of the right to fight for the title, is not desirable.

            Anyway, I’ll be writing more on this later, so until then…

        • Astonished said on 25th October 2010, 14:12

          But you deprive them from the right to win. Very few ever win a title….. and many still drive every Sunday.

          Why does Bruno Senna drive if the only price is WDC??

          • Baracca said on 25th October 2010, 14:57

            Whatever anybody may say, it is absolutely clear that switching drivers breaks the rule about team orders exactly the same regardless of the mathematic possibilities for the WDC of any of them

            “The objections over Hockenheim 2010 were because Massa had beaten Alonso for 40-odd laps until Ferrari stepped in to fix the race result”. Nonsense. Felipe had beaten Kimi for about 50 laps in Brazil until Ferrari stepped in to fix the race result, and there were no objections to speak of.

            It is true that Felipe had no chance for the WDC in 2007 but it’s absolutely clear that:

            -The move was not allowed under the rules, (at risk of sounding like a broken record I’ll repeat that there are no exceptions).

            -Felipe was deprived of a home victory that he had thoroughly deserved (and I’m sure he really wished to get).

            -People in other teams were seriously affected by the move (most of all Lewis, who lost the WDC. Which was the whole point of the move, of course).

            Having said that, I was absolutely ecstatic that Kimi won the race and WDC, although I was sorry for Felipe. But again I have to conclude that if we accept Brazil ’07 (and all the rest) we have to accept Germany ’10, except on aesthetic grounds. Logic is logic.

          • Baracca said on 25th October 2010, 15:12

            “…and many still drive every Sunday”

            I wish it was every Sunday

          • Baracca said on 25th October 2010, 15:29

            “Why does Bruno Senna drive if the only price is WDC??”

            Dunno, just ask him…

            Seriously, I believe that the dream of pretty much every rookie is to win the WDC some day. For most of them it includes spending years in 2nd (or 5th) rate teams trying to shine a little, score the odd point and (most of all), outdo their teammates and get noticed by the bigger teams.

  4. Alonso won – perfect race :)

  5. Forgettable really. Gave it a 4.
    Lots of things happened for the Championship, but it wasn’t through racing, it was through climatic conditions, politics and reliability.
    Not much overtaking to see either, only wild, uncontrolled lunges down the inside.
    I enjoyed seeing them finish in low light, on the last strings of rubber on their tyres and covered in dirt, real dramatic, nit and gritty stuff.

    As for the track, don’t really know what to think of it. It looks sterile, cold, full of shiny new windows and polished floors, almost flat, lacking any kind of character as most modern tracks do but also combines that with the main fault of old tracks: lack of run off. Petrov’s crash was scary and it tooks ages to get any of the cars cleared. I don’t like the fact it was designed as just a small part of a big architectural project with hotels, shops, huge paddock area etc. I miss the older, less organized projects where they just focus on building a cracking track and then just cram the other bits however they fit.

  6. schooner said on 24th October 2010, 22:28

    I’m sorry that Rosberg became an innocent victim of Webber’s shunt. It appeared as though he might have been able to provide some actual racing entertainment up near the pointy end. All the spins and crashes made for some fun stuff to watch, but in terms of the championship contenders doing battle amongst themselves, the race was pretty boring. I gave it a 6. That said, the points shakeup will no doubt provide some extra drama over the last two races, and that’s a good thing :)

  7. Nine, good race. A shame that Vettel had the engine failure…

  8. Guelph35 said on 25th October 2010, 2:12

    I had to give it a 4.

    First off, we only got 2/3 of a race (so that’s 3 points right there), and outside Sutil’s divebombing into the corners there wasn’t a whole lot of good racing.

    Yes there were wrecks, but very few position battles that were settled completely on-track.

    I wish the FIA were to require all non-desert tracks have lighting installed so in cases like today they could just wait for the rain to stop instead of running 1/3 of the race behind the safety car.

  9. RobR (@robr) said on 25th October 2010, 3:27

    That was quite a race. We haven’t seen that much filth and mud smeared all over F1 since that certain News of the World story in 2008…….

    Shame about the fact that it took a whole bloody hour to get going though. For the frustration of the delays, I’m afraid I can only give it an 8. Seems a lot of other people felt the same way.

  10. Voted 9.

    Yeah, the opening laps were a joke.
    But the midfield action and particularly Vettel’s car blowing up made my day. I was hooting and hollering loud enough to wake my whole street surely.

    The championship’s looking much better than after another RB 1-2 procession.

  11. Must say this was one very exciting race.
    Got up early in the morning and once race got going I couldn’t stop watching it (normally I fall a sleep in my couch halfway through).
    I feel many modern tracks are some what boring where you see cars just going round and round but this was quite exciting race.
    Korea did well to deliver what they have delivered (after all that drama).
    Though I admit that some of the excitement may have benefited by rain and slippery surface. Also I feel I have been cheated for missing out on proper start.
    Hope to see few more exciting race to finish off this year.

  12. Edge of the seat stuff, a 10. Race Control did an OK job – we got past the 75%, should have started earlier but I was enthralled.

  13. PeriSoft said on 25th October 2010, 15:53

    You know, the general consensus is that F1 fans are more thoughtful and analytical than other race fans, but seeing the domination of “OMG UR DRIVER SUX LOL MY DRIVER IS BETTER” comments here makes me think otherwise.

    To the guys saying stuff like “1st, “cagonso” won the race” and “\would have been an 8 if Lewis won” and “smug face Alonso” and “Alonso won, so I instantly took two points off.” – you’re an embarrassment to the sport. Perhaps you’d be better off watching football and throwing things out of spite when it doesn’t go ‘your’ way?

  14. The race would have been great if…….
    1)My DVR would have recorded the whole race!
    2)The race would have started way sooner!
    3)It would have been a better day for RBR!

    If F1 tweaks their rules and stuff anymore when it comes to rain…. they can rename it soon to NASCAR1

1 4 5 6

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.