*** The official Formula One 2015-16 off season thread ***

[FW18]

wibble cb said:

I must have missed this, but its really under consideration?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/formu...




Thoughts?

This is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by F1 and the FIA.

Would this type of 'canopy' of saved Justin Wilson or Jules Bianchi? Probably not due to the solidness of the objects their heads hit. Would it have saved Henry Surtees? Well it would have had to of been immensely strong to have stood up to the wheel that came from above. Would it have prevented Massa from his injuries in Hungary 2009? Potentially I think, but it doesn't address the issue of small objects intruding.

Having witnessed the horror of Imola 1994 unfold, I for one would never question the safety of the drivers we love to see every other Sunday. But I feel that there are more pressing matters that the FIA/GPDA should be focusing on in order to save the sport first, and to continue research into a better solution for head protection of drivers going forwards rather than this proposal.

[suffolk009]

^^^ absolutely.

You'd think the rule-makers would learn from recent history: Lowering the noses to prevent cockpit intrusion, only to find that the low nose contributes to whatever is hit "sliding" up the nose.

It would seem wreckless to invent a solution, and without properly testing it before putting it onto cars.

[Vaud]

suffolk009 said:

There's a Judge13 "article" retelling a story that Gerhard Berger "the ex-Austrian F1 driver" (is he no longer Austrian?) rates Rosberg higher than Vettel or Alonso.

Gerhard might be off his meds again.

Full story here if you want to: http://thejudge13.com/2016/01/29/nico-rosberg-bett...

One of the crappest blogs ever to have graced the Internet.

[jbudgie]

One ( two ? ) of the reasons why some people don't like Red Bull is because both Helmut Marko and Christian Horner are whinging tts.

[andyps]

BarbaricAvatar said:

Missed the point.
Senna (and many others) died doing what he loved. Moss is growing old and having falls and doing all the things that happen to regular old folk (Other than the occassional appearance driving a car at 3 tenths). We can't choose our fate, but from my own perspective the former is much more attractive than the latter. Heck look at the outpouring of emotion and the result (removal of #17 for F1) from Bianchi's passing; in purely statistical terms he'd scored 2 points and spent most of his F1 career in the bottom quarter of every race; better drivers have had less recognition.

Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Friday 29th January 13:38

I was at Le Mans the weekend Moss decided to stop racing, also happened to be stood really close to him when he was getting in his car to do a parade lap just before the racing started. He seemed to be very satisfied with his lot, and nothing I have read or seen about him since has changed my view. He stopped doing what he loved at the highest level when relatively young, but continued doing it for another 50ish years at various levels most of us only dream of being able to attain. Would you ask him which he would have preferred? Or were it possible ask Senna or Bianchi which they would prefer?

Sorry though, it has to be said that someone who chooses a username such as you have maybe thinks differently to me and many others.

[BarbaricAvatar]

andyps said:

Sorry though, it has to be said that someone who chooses a username such as you have maybe thinks differently to me and many others.

You wouldn't need to fall to such levels if you had confidence in your argument.

[suffolk009]

Vaud said:

suffolk009 said:

There's a Judge13 "article" retelling a story that Gerhard Berger "the ex-Austrian F1 driver" (is he no longer Austrian?) rates Rosberg higher than Vettel or Alonso.

Gerhard might be off his meds again.

Full story here if you want to: http://thejudge13.com/2016/01/29/nico-rosberg-bett...

One of the crappest blogs ever to have graced the Internet.

Do you know, I went back and re-read it, just to make sure that I hadn't misunderstood the article. And I noticed they misspelt Austrian.

Scarcely believable.

[HustleRussell]

BarbaricAvatar said:

Missed the point.
Senna (and many others) died doing what he loved. Moss is growing old and having falls and doing all the things that happen to regular old folk (Other than the occassional appearance driving a car at 3 tenths). We can't choose our fate, but from my own perspective the former is much more attractive than the latter. Heck look at the outpouring of emotion and the result (removal of #17 for F1) from Bianchi's passing; in purely statistical terms he'd scored 2 points and spent most of his F1 career in the bottom quarter of every race; better drivers have had less recognition.

I disagree with pretty much everything you're saying in this thread, but I particularly take exception to this.

What you're saying is that given the choice between living a great life and dying heroically at 26/34 and living a great life and enduring 86 years or more, you'd rather the former?

[VolvoT5]

More talk about tyres http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/552446/Tyre...

Really, does anyone want the return of the tyre 'cliff' ?

[HustleRussell]

"much less pit-stop’s"... Who wrote that crap?

On tyres, for me a finite lifespan is a good thing, but the tyres must be more robust so that they can be driven at ten tenths until they wear out.

[BarbaricAvatar]

HustleRussell said:

BarbaricAvatar said:

Missed the point.
Senna (and many others) died doing what he loved. Moss is growing old and having falls and doing all the things that happen to regular old folk (Other than the occassional appearance driving a car at 3 tenths). We can't choose our fate, but from my own perspective the former is much more attractive than the latter. Heck look at the outpouring of emotion and the result (removal of #17 for F1) from Bianchi's passing; in purely statistical terms he'd scored 2 points and spent most of his F1 career in the bottom quarter of every race; better drivers have had less recognition.

I disagree with pretty much everything you're saying in this thread, but I particularly take exception to this.

What you're saying is that given the choice between living a great life and dying heroically at 26/34 and living a great life and enduring 86 years or more, you'd rather the former?

Is it so great when all your friends of the era have died and the inevitible loss of body function is setting in?

ETA: Obviously less people agree with my thoughts than i initially suspected, this topic isn't about any of us individually and i have no intention of continuing a line of debate that's only going to end in mud-slinging (the weaker ones have already started).
I don't renege on my thoughts but perhaps we should be discussing the implications for cockpit measures rather than whether dying young or old is better.

Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Saturday 30th January 10:25

[anonymous-user]

BarbaricAvatar said:

andyps said:

Sorry though, it has to be said that someone who chooses a username such as you have maybe thinks differently to me and many others.

You wouldn't need to fall to such levels if you had confidence in your argument.

So are we to assume that you live your life on the edge, thrill seeking and taking risks in order to achieve your preferred existence?

Please enlighten us.

[rdjohn]

REALIST123 said:

BarbaricAvatar said:

andyps said:

Sorry though, it has to be said that someone who chooses a username such as you have maybe thinks differently to me and many others.

You wouldn't need to fall to such levels if you had confidence in your argument.

So are we to assume that you live your life on the edge, thrill seeking and taking risks in order to achieve your preferred existence?

Please enlighten us.

This reminds me of a conversation with my friend during the long hot summer of '76 when we were 24. His theory then was that all people over the age of 40 would benefit from euthanasia.

We are now 64 and his view is that all people under 40 should be exterminated as, at best, they tend to be parasites to their parent's bank account, or simply ne'er do wells.

The only constant are his extreme views. He would be happy on this forum

[andyps]

Interesting view on the changes to tyre regs for 2016 and the availability of 3 compounds at each race - http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-could-n...

I wonder if someone is trying to make a story there where there may not be one at all.

[rdjohn]

andyps said:

I wonder if someone is trying to make a story there where there may not be one at all.

I think in this Internet driven age journalism is not what it used to be. There are too many bottom feeders who simply garner stories from unattributed sources and then others who pose a question like "Cristian, do you think Mercedes dominance is ruining F1?" He's answers "Yes" the following day the headline reads

"HORNER SAYS F1 RUNIED BY MERCEDES"

Have a read at this article http://www.thenational.ae/sport/formula-one/the-sp...

It has clearly been written as a result of a one-to-one interview. The journalists asks an open question and gets an honest answer and publishes it, pretty much verbatim. There are many things wrong with F1 at the moment and piss-poor journalism is one of them. Judge13 is probably only the worst example.

As of last Thursday Motorsport has started sending me an email every day. Who is funding them? Do they actually attend GPs? Are they FIA accredited?

[andyps]

rdjohn said:

As of last Thursday Motorsport has started sending me an email every day. Who is funding them? Do they actually attend GPs? Are they FIA accredited?

I'm not sure the answer to the question about who is funding Motorsport.com - I started taking more interest in the site when they got journalists such as Jonathan Noble who do seem to have good contacts and know what they are talking about (to a higher degree than some others at least), and I think attend the races. Interesting to see that Zac Brown is now also involved so I guess it means there is some approval from Bernie as they seem reasonably close.

Edited to add - thanks for the link, an interesting read even with the engine agenda from Red Bull so clear!

Edited by andyps on Sunday 31st January 00:21

[MissChief]

rdjohn said:

andyps said:

I wonder if someone is trying to make a story there where there may not be one at all.

I think in this Internet driven age journalism is not what it used to be. There are too many bottom feeders who simply garner stories from unattributed sources and then others who pose a question like "Cristian, do you think Mercedes dominance is ruining F1?" He's answers "Yes" the following day the headline reads

"HORNER SAYS F1 RUNIED BY MERCEDES"

Have a read at this article http://www.thenational.ae/sport/formula-one/the-sp...

It has clearly been written as a result of a one-to-one interview. The journalists asks an open question and gets an honest answer and publishes it, pretty much verbatim. There are many things wrong with F1 at the moment and piss-poor journalism is one of them. Judge13 is probably only the worst example.

As of last Thursday Motorsport has started sending me an email every day. Who is funding them? Do they actually attend GPs? Are they FIA accredited?

I really do not take anything anyone from Red Bull says seriously any more. When they were winning by double digit seconds and won the WCC at a canter (although it wasn't like this every season they won I'll admit) then there wasn't any of this 'dominance is ruining the sport' talk, it was all 'it's up to them to catch us'. RB are the sorest losers and such moans when they don't get their own way or aren't being as successful as they think they should be, not as successful as their current form and car says they should. If they spent as much time working on their car as they do moaning most fans would be happier. And live a quieter life.

[RichB]

MissChief said:

rdjohn said:

andyps said:

I wonder if someone is trying to make a story there where there may not be one at all.

I think in this Internet driven age journalism is not what it used to be. There are too many bottom feeders who simply garner stories from unattributed sources and then others who pose a question like "Cristian, do you think Mercedes dominance is ruining F1?" He's answers "Yes" the following day the headline reads

"HORNER SAYS F1 RUNIED BY MERCEDES"

Have a read at this article http://www.thenational.ae/sport/formula-one/the-sp...

It has clearly been written as a result of a one-to-one interview. The journalists asks an open question and gets an honest answer and publishes it, pretty much verbatim. There are many things wrong with F1 at the moment and piss-poor journalism is one of them. Judge13 is probably only the worst example.

As of last Thursday Motorsport has started sending me an email every day. Who is funding them? Do they actually attend GPs? Are they FIA accredited?

I really do not take anything anyone from Red Bull says seriously any more. When they were winning by double digit seconds and won the WCC at a canter (although it wasn't like this every season they won I'll admit) then there wasn't any of this 'dominance is ruining the sport' talk, it was all 'it's up to them to catch us'. RB are the sorest losers and such moans when they don't get their own way or aren't being as successful as they think they should be, not as successful as their current form and car says they should. If they spent as much time working on their car as they do moaning most fans would be happier. And live a quieter life.

Hear, hear

[Vaud]

I'd love to see Adrian Newey have one last hurrah - at Williams.

Though at a wild guess there could be clauses in the Merc supply agreement that prevent it.

[Scuffers]

Vaud said:

I'd love to see Adrian Newey have one last hurrah - at Williams.

Though at a wild guess there could be clauses in the Merc supply agreement that prevent it.

I doubt it?

Merc would rather him at Williams than RB or Ferrari.