In today’s round-up: F1 drivers appear in a “get well” video message for Robert Kubica.
Links
Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:
Video – Formula One stars wish Kubica a speedy recovery (F1)
“Amongst the famous faces featured on the ‘get well soon’ video are Williams’ Rubens Barrichello, Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber, Mercedes GP’s Michael Schumacher, Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso and McLaren’s Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button. Several teams and drivers had already sent their best wishes to Kubica by running messages of support on their helmets and car liveries.”
Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button admit to car worries (BBC)
“We left it [unveiling the car] a bit later… and perhaps it’s not played right into our hands.”
“Pirelli say they will now announce the tyre marking system for their tyres at the Australian Grand Prix.”
Via the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app
“If he is to be replaced by one of the growing number of senior executive women in world motorsport, there are six likely candidates for the role, and one of them is an Aussie.”
Hakkinen: If you’re ready to cope, age will not affect you (F1 Pulse)
“All the reports that you saw linking me and my management to Lewis [Hamilton] have been purely speculation. We have known Lewis for many years and he knows us. So he knows that if he needs something, we will be there. For the rest, it is entirely his choice.”
“Very happy how things were yesterday at Lotus all in schedule and updates coming for the next test already! Now off to interval training.”
Via the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app
Formula 1 Motorsport (F1) Race Strategy Engineer (Jobs Today)
There’s a job going at Red Bull…
Thanks to Paul Melton for the tip
Racing your grandfather?? (Joe Saward)
“The recent announcement that IndyCar is offering $5 million for a non-regular if they can win the season finale in 2011 in Las Vegas has got people thinking – not least Mario Andretti, the 1978 Formula 1 World Champion, who is considering having a go at the money in one of his son Michael’s cars, racing his grandson Marco.”
Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.
Comment of the day
Hardly anyone had a positive word for the ‘mandatory pit stops’ rule in yesterday’s poll. Todfod’s take summed up many people’s feelings on the subject:
This one pit stop rule definitely reduced the chances of running alternate tyre strategies. And with the quickly degrading Pirrellis this season, there wont be any need for this rule anyways. So might as well drop it.
Todfod
From the forum
The statistics pages are getting a complete overhaul for 2011 with lots of new data in them. Much of the work on this has already been completed.
One area I was asked for data on several times last year was overtaking, and that’s something I plan on having in the statistics section this year. But I’m going to need the help of some F1 Fanatics to do it.
If you’d like to help out, head over to this forum thread for more information:
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
Happy 50th birthday to Perry ‘Original Stig’ McCarthy, formerly an F1 driver with the notoriously dreadful Andrea Moda team.
Image © Renault/LAT
sam
3rd March 2011, 0:06
I agree with Hamilton on this one, McLaren obviously thought that the L shaped sidepods were going to be a huge thing for them that made they’re car a front runner and everyone would want to copy them, so they left it as late as possible to reveal the car, sacrificing a test. Since then, they have struggled to get the setups right and the performance doesn’t appear to be that great, with both drivers complaining about aspects of the car. I think they went in overconfident about the package and now they are playing catch up to teams like Ferrari who went with the ‘basic car, lots of miles’ approach.
However it could also be smokes and mirrors, with McLaren putting a spin on things and sandbagging, and telling the drivers to be negative to throw people off the scent, but we won’t truly know until Melbourne!
f1yankee
3rd March 2011, 0:10
exactly. don’t believe anything until the green flag…sorry, lights go out.
Scribe (@scribe)
3rd March 2011, 0:24
Don’t think McLaren are really guiley like that. The right approach was there, they had a fairly succsessfull platform and are reknowned developers. Ferrari copied their sidepods for goodness sakes there where good things about last years car. Next years suspected front runners are both doing what McLaren did so succsessfully in 07 and 08 following on from 06. Take a good concept and perfect it. Baffles me that McLaren can’t follow the path that brought them into front running contention two years in a row, after blowing hot and cold since 2000. Uuuuh, other teams are now doing what McLaren do best while we attempt needless radicalism.
They’ve genuinley messed up and it’s biting them, I hope there competative this season but I doubt it.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:11
Did you see that article they posted on their website about the first McLarens with wings?
Seems someone there at McLaren thinks they are going for the more high tech, instead of simply looking at what works and keeping it simple.
I fear they are doing just that right now as well. Great innovative car, but will it work? If it works (more or less), please McLaren do not start a completely new concept again for 2012, just improve on what you have and take some ideas from the others.
tcmn
3rd March 2011, 4:34
Problem is McLaren alternate their design team each year. The odd-years are weak, the even-years very strong. And with the reg changes in odd-years, they can’t keep up.
Feynman
3rd March 2011, 9:35
Problem is, like all gross over-simplifications, it’s unfortunately plain wrong.
Pat Fry whose turn it was to engineer this car is now at Ferrari, this years car is ostensibly by Tim Goss, as last year.
All cars odd or even are overseen by Oatley and Lowe. The cars are also not developed in isolation there is a phased movement from one years car to next, with resources and people gradually transitioning as the year progresses.
And even when the odd/even nugget happened by chance to kinda line up with championship position, it flipped-over, with the 23 being better than the 22 and winning a WDC, and the 25 being far superior to the 24. So all told, we should probably let that numerological nugget fade away.
McLaren took a decision to maintain engineering continuity from Bridgestone to Pirelli, running Paffet in the young driver test (old-car/old tyres), Paffet in the Winter Pirelli test (old car/beta version tyres), Paffet in the first test (old car/new spec Pirelli tyres), before bringing the new car/new tyres to test a week later than everyone else.
It probably would have worked well, had the Pirellis not been changing specs so much between tests, and I get the feeling much of the value of maintining an unbroken thread to previous years tyre data has been washed away in the most recent updates to tyre spec.
On reflection they have got better value with another week of set-up on the tricky new aero concepts they are developing … but it’s easy to wise after the fact, and it certainly looked a good and logical plan going in.
There is another 4-day test, new wings and floors, and then a convenient Bahrain sized gap for further simulation and analysis. Assuming it stays dry next week, they might just get away with it.
Feynman
3rd March 2011, 9:37
edit:
On reflection they could have got …
BS
3rd March 2011, 10:11
Smoke and Mirrors? Sandbagging? This always sounds like extremely wishful thinking. What possible benefit does McLaren have from sandbagging by running a fraction of the laps of their competitors, slowly?
Are they afraid some other team might see the genius of their radical design and to stall copycats they’re running an intentionally botched program, then have both their drivers perpetually lie about performance.
Lewis tends to be the most fun to watch in a slightly underperforming car though (which I care more about than championships), but let’s hope they have a productive period until melbourne, so it’ll be closer from the start.
I’m supporting Kobayashi either way though. :D
BBT
3rd March 2011, 10:52
Mclaren = confusing right now.
I don’t know what to think. All the pundits at the track say its got no traction, they are having to wait to get on the throttle, looks like a car on cold tyres etc.
I’ve also heard reports that people inside Mclaren have said that they suspect they are between 1.2 and 1.5 seconds off the pace, although they think they will get half of this back once the exhaust system is sorted out and no longer melts the back of the car, the source is word of mouth (although I seen it on the web as well) but not very trust worthy.
However Hamilton and Button didn’t seem to concerned at the last test when interview, I got the impression Hamilton in particular hiding something, he seemed to be laughing about the performance problem. Also Mclaren did seem to be very confident before testing.
Who knows? I don’t think they do themselves.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
3rd March 2011, 12:09
It’s worth nothing that in the Dictionary of F1 Phrases, “sandbagging” is defined thus:
sand.bag, v. To travel slowly for reasons the team isn’t prepared to admit to.
Example: “That McLaren is two seconds off the pace. They must be sandbagging.”
tharris19
5th March 2011, 3:36
Come on! This is three years in a row that McLaren has produced a car that is crap as far as down force is concern. I’m no engineer, but I believe that to go this long with the same problem with the car at the start of the season there needs to be a serious review of the teams engineering and design practices. For a team like McLaren to allow a car to the grid and not be able to compete let alone win races should be unacceptable. As fans, all we can do is set in the stands or in front of the tele and be p o.
Let’s not sugar coat it and try and make the car what it’s not. When both drivers say the car sucks, the car sucks.
f1yankee
3rd March 2011, 0:08
can’t say i’ve heard of any of those ladies.
anyone else?
verstappen
3rd March 2011, 8:46
I read at James Allen about Mrs Woodward Hill and knew Monisha from Sauber already. The rest I don’t know. Still, I think for the Capo di tutti capi-role it will be Bernie’s daughters.
briatore=bernie's 'heir'
3rd March 2011, 19:58
bernie’s succesor will be briatore. It’s already set.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
3rd March 2011, 0:09
I felt kind of bad for Heidfeld in that Kubica video. I definitely got the impression that there may be some bad blood between him based on those comments, which surprises me, ’cause they both seem like genuinely nice guys.
As for Andretti racing in the Indy finale, that would be fantastic! Would be great to see him school the youngsters. Even better would be all three generations of Andrettis lined up on the grid. That would certainly bring Indy some high ratings.
Polishboy808 (@polishboy808)
3rd March 2011, 0:53
Wow, your right. Heidfeld seemed almost embarrassed but strangely happy about it. Like “Hehe, look at this, I’m in YOUR suit, in YOUR car doing YOUR job while you can’t do anything about it”. It felt so awkward, but at the same time it felt like the realest interview (Second to Alonso’s).
On a side note, I loved the part when they interviewed the STR Drivers. Its easy to see why red bull chose them. They actually seem like cool guys to hang around, and they seem genuinely nice. They act like kids actually xD
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 1:37
I think that Heifeld handled that very well.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
3rd March 2011, 2:09
Yeah, he handled it well, but I definitely got the impression that there may be some bad blood. It made me wonder if that didn’t play a part in why Heidfeld didn’t get the second seat over Petrov in the first place.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 3:14
My only thinking as to why Pet kept that seat is money. There are many drivers out there I rate much higher than Pet who deserve that seat, and if your speculation about bad blood is true then I doubt that Kubica cared much who landed that drive as long as it wasn’t Heidfeld.
It was a win win situation for both Renault and Kubica.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:12
I had pretty much the same thoughts, it does fit with Kubica naming both Tonio and Nick but rather seeing the first in his car.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 9:51
Well Quick Nick has that seat now… Let’s see if he can earn that nickname of his.
andrewh
3rd March 2011, 3:47
Barachello calling Roberts manager every 5 minutes seemed pretty real. Heidfeld feels awkward because he is the guy in Roberts “place” for now in his “gear” none of the other drivers have to feel the guilt of benefiting from Roberts misfortune by taking his ride, somebody has to do it, because they were team mates fans read things into it.
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
3rd March 2011, 19:16
That’s how I remember Liuzzi as a cool young gun at Red Bull about five years ago. Interesting comparison now; you wouldn’t expect the STR drivers to want that old guy hanging out with them.
Robert
3rd March 2011, 1:37
I felt kind of bad for Heikki in that video as he had to tell Kubica how much his girlfriend was missing him.
sato113 (@sato113)
3rd March 2011, 0:10
on the COTD- i disagreed and thought the pit stop rule was good for last year (we dont need it this year of course because of the degradation.) the reason is that you could drive a whole race on a single set of tyres. even the ‘softs’ were pretty tough.
ok maybe some circuits would have worn the softs enough, but without the rule, we’d risk having a few complete bore fests.
(imagine Monza 2010 without the rule- no but/alo pitstop battle and like Vettel showed, no need to change tyres anyway)
gDog (@gdog)
3rd March 2011, 2:42
Monza 2010 is the perfect example of why the rule should not exist. It was tough racing between Button and Alonso, with Button only just able to stay ahead with his advantage in the lesmos and Alonso clawing back on the straights. Then the climax to the race was completely spoiled by Ferrari pulling out a faster pitstop.
It could have been an epic race with the two leaders in cars with completely opposing setup strategies. The first time a high downforce setup has been taken to Monza. The climax to the race should have been decided on the track, not in the mandatory pit stop.
sato113 (@sato113)
3rd March 2011, 2:57
yes but with the difficulty of overtaking, that seems like wishful thinking rather than a realistic case. so many times i’ve waited for an intense battle to lead to some overtaking, but alas it usually never does…
gDog (@gdog)
3rd March 2011, 3:00
does there have to be an actual overtake that is stuck for the racing to be exciting enough for you to be on the edge of your seat?
Todfod (@todfod)
3rd March 2011, 6:03
Think about it this way. If Jenson were to run the entire race distance on his only set of tyres, at the end of the race, we would have had Jenson battling with completely worn out tyres against Fernando on a relatively fresh set. That would definitely set us up for more overtaking possibilities as compared to both drivers on equally degraded tyres.
Thanks for the COTD Keith, only my 2nd one so far.. not like im keeping count or anything.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:16
That might have been interesting to see, Alonso doing a “Kobayashi” in front of the Italian public. The crowd would have gone completely crazy!
Alternatively, Ferrari could have had Massa pushing Button while Fernando went for the stop, or Alonso pushing Button right to the finish, both on badly worn tyres with Massa behind them on new tyres.
All would have made for an even better race.
Cacarella
3rd March 2011, 0:16
According to the Beeb article, Hamilton thinks the MP4-26 has downforce levels close to those of the 2009 (mp4-24?)
car. That’s a far cry from what he said in earlier interviews where they were supposedly targeting 2010 levels of DF.
I hope the MP4-26 isn’t THAT bad!
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 3:19
But according to Autosport’s article (it might be in the BBC’s as well; I haven’t read it), the MP4-26 doesn’t have any of the other problems suffered by the MP4-24. In fact, it sounds like the 26 handles better than the -25 did. It just doesn’t have the downforce.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:18
I also understood that to be the case. Both drivers said, it handles really good and is nice to drive etc. Just lacking downforce compared to last year and to their main rivals.
bosyber (@bosyber)
3rd March 2011, 9:19
Well, that last bit was implied only, Button sort of said he thought (hoped?) others were missing end-of-last-year downforce too :)
CMRacing
3rd March 2011, 0:23
GO MARIO!!! what a story that would be, although it would make the other indy car drivers look bad being beaten by a 71 year old.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 1:57
Paul Newman won in his class at Daytona at age 70. So I guess that it’s remotely possible (read as “really impossible”) for Mario to win an Indy Car race at 71.
It gets headlines and it might be entertaining… but I think that’s about all there is to it.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:19
Exactly, would be lovely if he really gave it a try!
Come on JPM make a gamble and also jump on the bandwagon. And have Virgin Atlanta fly in Glock straight from the Korean GP as well.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
3rd March 2011, 0:27
Lovely video for Robert.
Interesting how the job at Red Bull asks for no prior experience! ;)
RFB
3rd March 2011, 1:14
The job was actually already advertised in November. The guy they picked had no prior experience at all… and resigned after less than 2 weeks.
sato113 (@sato113)
3rd March 2011, 1:47
how do you know this?
RFB
3rd March 2011, 2:51
In the simplest possible way. I work there. Not in the strategy department, but this sort of info propagates quickly.
PeriSoft
3rd March 2011, 6:45
It seems to me that putting “Permanent” on an F1 job listing is rather optimistic.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:26
Isn’t the advertisment meant just to get a work permit for someone from outside the UK/EU?
I work in the Czech Republic and I know companies advertizing like this for jobs they already have someone for from outside the EU but they need to first show there are no locals fit for the job.
RFB
3rd March 2011, 21:46
@PeriSoft, there are still a couple of people from the Stewart F3 days.
@BasCB, The advertisement is genuine, they still haven’t chosen anyone for the role, yet.
Fixy (@)
3rd March 2011, 13:42
Hahaha Rubens’ joke really cracked me up!
andrewh
4th March 2011, 6:53
Does Rubens own a mirror, he’s quite the beauty queen!
RaV
3rd March 2011, 0:32
Anonymous source reports confusion in Santa Corona Hospital as Robert Kubica discovers that his bed has four wheels. Medical staff in panic.
Update: Kubica is complaining that his bed has no grip and has a lot of understeer. Nurses already working on these issues.
sato113 (@sato113)
3rd March 2011, 1:49
the weight distribution was awful apparently. he did report good end of straight speed down the hospital corridors though…
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
3rd March 2011, 1:52
LOL, that’s so good to see that whole F1 paddock have came together,he is such a nice guy that everyone likes him. as they are me too expect that he have a quick recovery.
BBQ2
3rd March 2011, 14:29
Obviously Massa did not appear in the video.
He might be thinking; “A Friend of Alonso is definitely not my friend!” 8)
Also, Trulli considers working on his vineyard as to making devotions on videos …. :)
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 1:57
I see nobody has made too much of Ecclestone suggesting artificial rain simulations during races and Pirelli supporting the idea. While it’s largely reviled by fans, I think that with a few tweaks, the idea could add something to the sport. Rather than set a designated time when circuits will be flooded, make it completely random. Have a computer randomly decide the following:
1) The probability that the circuit will be flooded. Just because the circuit can be flooded, it doesn’t mean it has to be. And entire weekend could go by without a hint of rain, real or artificial. Most importantly, this information would be kept from the teams. If they don’t know the likelihood of the circuit being flooded, it adds an extra element of uncertainty.
2) The time when the circuit will be flooded. Rather than limiting it to the race, this could apply to the entire weekend. So it might “rain” in FP1 and be completely dry for the rest of the weekend. Or the circuit could be flooded before the parade lap, in the final ten minutes or at any time during the weekend. It could even be flooded overnight so that the circuit is mostly dry at the beginning of the next day.
3) The degree to which the circuit will be flooded. The sprinkler system could be programmed to simulate anything from a light shower to a heavy downpour. Again, keep this from the teams to add the element of the unknown.
4) The percentage of the track to be flooded. Just because you can flood the track, it doesn’t mean you have to. And on some of the longer circuits like Spa, you can get sections of the circuit that are wet while others are completely dry.
So, combine these four completely random variables, and you could end up with a situation in Silverstone where the Wellington Straight, Brooklands, Luffied and Woodcote are flooded with a medium downpour at the end of Q1. Or at Monza, with heavy rain flooding the circuit at 3am on Sunday morning, so that the circuit is largely damp for the race. Or light rain – just enough to make teams consider swapping to intermediate tyres – for the last five laps of Valencia. I think that making the element of artificial flooding completely random is the only way the system could work and be accepted by teams and fans.
The most important part, however, is to test the concept out. I believe Paul Ricard can be flooded so that teams can do wet-weather testing even in the middle of the Mediterranean summer. So, rather than go to Bahrain in August, organise a special running of the French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard and test out the idea of a randomly-flooded circuit. If it works, then we can consider expanding on the idea and applying it to various circuits around the world. If not, then no harm, no foul. And we get the return of the French Grand Prix to compensate.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 2:15
I can’t think of a situation where any driver would want to hit a flooded track while running on slicks. Yes a track can be flooded for testing wet tyres, but doing only a section of a track is just dangerous in my opinion.
I can see some entertainment value in it, but that’s what computer games are for. Leave it there.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 2:23
Then give teams a warning five or ten minutes before the flooding begins. Give them the percentages of the chance the circuit will flood, the degree to which the circuit will flood, and which percentage of the circuit will be inundated. Let them have a little time to warn their drivers and calibrate a strategy, but don’t give them so much information or advance warning that it negates the element of randomness. Drivers might not like the circuit suddenly flooding, but that’s exactly what rainstorms do. How many times have we seen a race where teams nervously eye the sky and try to make a prediction on when the rain will start? Malaysia 2009 is the perfect example: everyone was waiting for the downpour with baited breath, and Ferrari made a call to bring Raikkonen in early and put him on the extreme wets. They blew it. Raikkonen came in too early and shredded the extreme wets on a dry circuit. When the rain did come, it came quickly, and everyone had to react instantly. Now, imagine that applied to everyone as teams try to formulate a strategy on the fly to stay competitive. That’s what my idea is aiming to re-create. Perhaps not to the same extent as Malaysia 2009, but to create a game-changing scenario that the teams have to deal with. The ability to read conditions and react accordingly is a critical skill for a driver. Look at Jenson Button in Hungary at 2010 where he was able to read the compounds of the six drivers in front of him on the opening lap and improvise a strategy to counter them on the spot in the middle of the race. Don’t you want to see more drivers pulling off brilliant tactical decisions like that? A randomised floodgate system would be the perfect test of exactly that.
davey (@djdaveyp87)
3rd March 2011, 2:48
Sorry PM but I just can’t agree with you here. It is far too artificial, just like the rear wings! I think they’ll have enough with the tyres this year as it is.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 3:05
I never said it was perfect. Just better than flooding the circuit for the last ten minutes of the race every time.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 2:54
I remember the Kimi incident too well and I guess you make a point about the randomness of opening floodgates and that can easily be equated to teams watching their weather radar and speculating as to when to bring their drivers in for a tire change.
I still think it’s a bit artificial. We had 4 wet races at the beginning of last year? (no stats in front of me) Remember how the teams could really develop their cars because of so much wet weather running? As I recall most of us were sick of the water.
Sorry, I”m not convinced,but I do give you credit for creating an argument with examples and scenarios for a very unpopular topic which really hasn’t been presented by the FIA in any detail that I’ve read yet.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
3rd March 2011, 3:04
Oops typo.
“Remember how the teams could” read as “couldn’t”
gDog (@gdog)
3rd March 2011, 2:59
How ridiculous that idea is is just beyond words.
It’s far too contrived.
Firstly, the safety aspect. It’s one thing for a natural rain shower to catch the drivers out, but imagine artificially flooding the circuit caused an accident in which someone was hurt. I don’t think I’d want to be the guy that hit the button to flood turn 3 on lap 15. It’s all well and good giving a warning, but say there was some kind of failure in the system and instead of a light sprinkling you got a river across the track causing aquaplaning.
Then there’s the potential for the conspiracy theorists to say the race has been fixed. If anyone has any kind of significant lead (>10 seconds) and there’s a “random” shower, try and stop the outcry from the fans of the driver/team in the lead at the time.
It’s just another utter nonsense idea from BE. One thats on a similar level to the shortcut idea. Artificial and dangerous.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 3:15
Sorry, but the “It might not be safe!” argument holds no weight. Do you think I just cooked this up in the ten minutes between my classes? I actually put thought into this. Naturally, there would be safety measures in place, sensors to detect failures in sprinkler systems, with an error routine on an independent circuit designed to shut down a sprinker in the event of a failure. There is no reason why this system cannot work on the grounds of safety. And when was the last time you heard of a sprinker system failing? Under your logic – that a wet circuit might cause a crash that injures a driver – Formula 1 should abandon all wet races because a driver might crash in the wet. Your argument feels like you’re grasping at straws for the sake of opposing something you don’t like, and in the process of doing so, you contradict established practices, like racing in the wet.
Teams would be given due warning that the circuit is about to flood. They won’t know for certain that it will, but you could give them twenty minutes to plan a strategy based on the information available. And if the track flooding indeed goes ahead (regardless of probability), they could have two minutes’ warning to pit. Since no circuit has a dry lap time of more than two minutes – not even Spa – any team caught out by the track flooding would only have themselves to blame.
If you really think the fans will call it a conspiracy, then disclose all the information of pre-determined percentages at the start of the race. That way, they will know the likelihood of the track being flooded before the race has even begun.
gDog (@gdog)
3rd March 2011, 5:09
Thats not my logic at all if you re-read my post again. Natural rain is one thing, and can be anticipated, either by the teams radars, or by the driver being able to see through his visor. Unless you also suggest the teams get an artficial radar overlay feed on their real radar that indicates the likelihood of articial rain (as well as real rain) and that the drivers get some idea of the impending conditions (flashing lights around the circuit indicating the possibility of artificial rain?) then I can’t agree at all that there is no safety issue. Adding all these safety features just makes it into even more of a farce. Why not just make it indoor and control all the other environmental conditions while you’re at it? It’s a joke.
Even if you publish that information, you’re still leaving yourself open to being critised for attempting to fix the result. If there’s any element of randomness to it, then it may or may not “rain” – this will either favour or impede someone at some point. This means ultimately someone outside of the drivers and their teams (be it a computer operator who plugged in the percentage chance of rain, or the software developer that created the code, or the race controller or whoever it is that decides what the chances of “rain” are) is controlling an element of the race. There’s enough contention over the stewards decisions as it is. The only solution to that would be to publish the full information prior to qualifying but if you do that then it’s pretty much nullifying the point to it all.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 7:42
Sorry, but you’re grasping at straws to try and prove it’s a bad idea. You’re trying to find facts to fit the theory rather than a theory to fit the facts. If the computers decides that it will “rain” and that the water will affect 75% of the circuit and will mimic certain conditions, then all race control has to do is tell the teams what to expect. There is no need for an “artificial radar overlay”. Tell the teams what they need to know, and everything works. If you really wanted to be pedantic, you could tie the computer in to meteological data for the region and have the probabilities run off the actual likelihood of rain occurring for that time of year.
That’s not it at all. Although people like the software programmers would have control over an element of the race, it would be impossible for them to influence the result. All the probabilities would be calculated by race control on the Thursday before anyone takes to the circuit. Nobody would be able to control the system in a way to favour certain drivers or teams simply because the result would be generated before any running took place. And like I said, it would apply to the entire weekend, so the circuit might be flooded in the first five minutes of FP1 and the rest of the weekend would be dry. How does that benefit anybody? It doesn’t. You just don’t like the idea of a system that could create an artificially wet race, and you’re just making up stuff to “prove” it’s a bad idea.
PeriSoft
3rd March 2011, 6:47
I can see some entertainment value in it, but that’s what computer games are for. Leave it there.
I think that ship already sailed…
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:30
It surely is possible to do that (from what Bernie said, he was proposing it a bit like you do, randomly, not at a fixed time, with only 2 minutes info before spraying), but is it desirable?
Certainly not.
Read the take Joe Saward (him again) has on it, comparing it to Wrestling and heading towards the infamous “Rollerbal”.
vjanik
3rd March 2011, 11:12
i say just race in SPA where you dont need a computer program. the factor of unpredictability is already present there for thousands of years. racing in a desert and then flooding the racetrack seems like a massive waste of resources. the asian GPs and some European ones already have a high probability of rain and uncertainty weather wise without needing investment. thet should get a discount from Bernie for their unique location and for providing this service.
i remember bernie’s idea of a roundabout corner. where there would be a junction where the track would split in two and then join at a later point. supposedly helping with a faster car getting past a slower one. or his medal system. he is really deprating from reality as time goes on.
why not have a trap door somewhere and the FIA can open it randomly? or a catapult
verstappen
3rd March 2011, 12:16
Man, you’re THE F1fanatic. Although I can’t agree with you here, to come up with such an idea you have to breathe F1!
Credits for that Pm
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
3rd March 2011, 14:23
And how do you justify the massive waste of a resource much of the world struggles to gain access to?
There would be criticism if it emerged that Alonso leaves the tap on while he brushes his teeth. Wasting the amount of water you’d need to flood a tracks multiple times per season just opens F1 up for more criticism about it’s wastefulness.
Mads (@mads)
3rd March 2011, 16:00
It could be entertaining, but for me it has nothing to do with racing. It is even more artificial then the ARW in my opinion. And flooding certain sectors of the track randomly could also cause unnecessary accidents. F1 drivers and teams should fight the laws of physics, not some sort of artificial computer controlled world. Rain is fun, but leave it to the nature to produce it. It is what makes places like Spa more fun then anywhere else, because the weather there is unpredictable, you would take that away from the track if random “rainfall” also was likely anywhere else, no matter the climate.
DANK
3rd March 2011, 16:22
That’s just a stupid idea. Full stop.
It adds no value to the sport other than maybe entertainment, which would be artificial at best, at the benefit of a fair race.
sato113 (@sato113)
3rd March 2011, 2:04
why is Gp2 Asia just in abu dhabi and bahrain? if you want an easier more asiany championship, you could do singapore —> malaysia —> China—> Korea
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 2:15
Because it’s very expensive to fly the cars and teams between those countries. Abu Dhabi and Bahrain are in close proximity to one another geographically, thus minimising the cost. For a Singapore-Malaysia-China-Korea championship, you’d have to fly the teams from Europe to Singapore, which is about twice as fas as it is from Europe to Abu Dhabi. And while you could drive to Sepang, you’d then have to fly to Shanghai. I would not want to have to navigate the roads of South-East Asia like that. And from Shanghai, you’d have to fly (or at least ship) the teams to Korea, because there is no way Kim Jong-Il would let them drive through North Korea. And then, once the championship finishes, you’d have to fly the teams from Korea to Europe, which is once again twice as far as it is from Bahrain to Europe. So in the end, you’ve spent twice as much on the GP2 Asia Series as you have on the GP2 Series proper – and you’re only competing in about a third of the events as you would in the GP2 Series.
It also doesn’t help that Singapore has to be run as a support race to Formula 1, because there is no way they would shut the city down for a weekend just so that GP2 could race. GP2 finishes in Italy with Monza before moving on to Singapore two weeks later. So you’d have just two weeks for the teams to refresh themselves before a new championship begins. However, a purpose-built racing facility is planned for Changi Airport in the future and is expected to be completed by 2012 and will be of a high enough standard to host MotoGP race.
Perhaps a better solution would be to start in Indonesia at the Sentul circuit (but it needs an upgrade), then move to Changi, Sepang, then Zuhai, Shanghai, Yeongam and Suzuka or Fuji. The idea is to make the championship long enough that it is cost-effective for the teams to go, but short enough that they can take a break after Monza and again before Istanbul. Or organise it in a way that only Asian-based teams can compete in it.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
3rd March 2011, 2:16
I wish that they’d combine GP2 Asia and the main GP2 series to make a more substantial calendar. Most teams are the same anyhow. It would make it more of a comprehensive series that would help grow its following.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
3rd March 2011, 2:25
The teams tend to treat GP2 Asia as a feeder series to GP2 proper (I’m going to call it GP2 Europe from now on). Because the GP2 Asia calendar is much shorter, the teams can afford to take a chance on a driver they believe has promise, but largely remains untested, without jeopardising their chances in the much more prestigious – and longer – GP2 Europe championship.
Sam
3rd March 2011, 2:51
I like Lewis and Jenson’s message. Made me laugh..anyway, very professional and heartfelt of the drivers to do this.
Heidfeld’s message was a bit..I guess…surprising, but maybe the truly is a bad relationship there(which would explain why Robert wanted Luizzi in the seat).
andrewh
3rd March 2011, 4:02
There is a perception in the Paddock that Luizzi has never been given a proper opportunity to realize his talent. It’s clear these drivers go back along way through the various series that brought them up to F1. They rate each other based on this behind the scenes knowledge that F1 fans are not necessarily aware of. Heidfeld has had his chances, Luizzi not so much
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2011, 7:32
I liked that as well. Lewis by himself was a bit lost for words, but you could just see Jenson had something in mind. Made a great comical duo!
Agree with you on Heidfeld. And Rubens calling about every 5 minutes. He really cares about the guys.
statix
3rd March 2011, 13:10
I have only some positive feelings about Nicks message. It was quite real, no strange or artificial things there. He had something to say at least, some guys in video had really nothing to say.
Oliver
3rd March 2011, 6:41
heidfeld’s message may just be a joke that went wrong. Heidfeld and Luizzi were the two names KKKubica called as his potential replacement. I very much doubt ther is any bad blood there apart from normal driver rivalry.
Oliver
3rd March 2011, 7:01
About this downpour thing, is F1 saying it needs rain to function properly that they have to use artificial means to create a spectacle.
F1 is not a game show its a serious sport and it should be left that way and all flukes left outsides.
Shomir
3rd March 2011, 8:48
Notice that Heidfeld isn’t even in the photo.
Ben N
3rd March 2011, 9:13
I believe that’s because it was taken before anything regarding Heidfeld was announced…
Shomir
3rd March 2011, 10:49
Really? mmmmkay…
Spaulding (@spaulding)
3rd March 2011, 14:33
Petrov, D’Ambrosio, and Alonso were the weirdest ones on camera.
Petrov looked like he was reading off of a teleprompter (he kept focusing on something to his lower right and appeared to be following something with his eyes) and D’Ambrosio is trying to dig his own eye out while Glock is talking.
Also, Alonso was looking all over the place without any real focus, but maybe he’s just a bit ADHD.
PeriSoft
4th March 2011, 15:29
I haven’t heard him speak much, but remember that Petrov’s English may not be the best – he might have read off a prompter because of that; doesn’t mean anything about his state of mind necessarily.
George (@george)
3rd March 2011, 17:53
Was there an F1 team at Rockingham today? I could hear something that sounded suspiciously like one from work but a quick google doesn’t reveal anything.
I see F3 were testing there but apparently they finished yesterday…
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
3rd March 2011, 19:28
I just can’t help wondering how high the stakes go when F1 drivers play poker, as the video suggests they commonly do!
Alianora La Canta
5th March 2011, 21:12
If they’re still playing it in the way they were in 2008 and 2009, not very. The article in the Red Bulletin for the Sunday of the British Grand Prix on the subject said each driver put in a €50 stake. When they play poker in outside tournaments (which has happened a few times), the stakes are probably a bit higher. The most I’ve ever heard a driver win in a single game of poker was Nico Rosberg winning £30,000 (if I remember rightly, the game was at Monaco 2009 and Bernie and Flavio both participated).