So - how do we feel about aggregate qualifying!? They really, really seem to want to fix something that wasn't broken...
shermer75 - Member
What an amazing drive from Pascal Wehrlein! How did he manage that?!?
His fastest lap was only 4/10ths slower than Kimi.
The real question is how did Marcus Ericsson end up ahead of him when his fastest lap was almost 2.5s slower the PW and a full second slower than ANY of the finishers?
So - how do we feel about aggregate qualifying!? They really, really seem to want to fix something that wasn't broken...
Its the continuation of an experiment that they've been carrying out for at least the last ten years.
They're trying to find if there's a limit to how spirit-crushingly tedious they can make a 'sport' before middle aged blokes will actually turn it off and go and do something less soul-destroyingly dull instead
So far the conclusion is that, as long as they put the odd VROOM VROOM sound of a revving engine, then there's definitely no limit at all. Despite it defying all previous evidence regarding human attention spans.
Next season's format will involve an extended period before the race where you can watch the paint drying on the cars after they've sprayed them. Whoever dries slowest gets pole.
No wonder Button found an excuse to park the car. Out qualified, out driven and out raced by a substitute who hadnt got any closer to the car than I have until a few days ago. It must be really embarrassing for Button.
It would have been if he hadn't got past him at the start and was comfortably leading his (admittedly very good) new team mate before his engine went pop.
but the car was designed by Haas engineers.
And built by Dallara.
Utter comprehension fail- could you at least make your childish digs funny?
Can't be bothered - if you don't know the sport and don't like it, why are you reading the thread? Not disputing your right to, but unless you actually enjoy a spot of Sunday night trolling, why bother?
The real question is how did Marcus Ericsson end up ahead of him when his fastest lap was almost 2.5s slower the PW and a full second slower than ANY of the finishers?
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense? Where did you get that info- it's be good to have a peruse! 🙂
No wonder Button found an excuse to park the car. Out qualified, out driven and out raced by a substitute who hadnt got any closer to the car than I have until a few days ago. It must be really embarrassing for Button.
Did this actually happen though? Admittedly Button was out qualified but In the race I watched Button retired on lap 7 while in 9th place ahead of Vandoorne. It’s a shame really as it would have been interesting to see who came out on top, Vandoorne did a great job in his first GP.
It’s a shame really as it would have been interesting to see who came out on top, Vandoorne did a great job in his first GP.
Competent rookies with nothing to lose always do well in their first few races, as everyone else tends to get out the way fearing they may get taken out by an over ambitious lunge for a pass. Certainly seemed to be the case for a few of his overtakes, trying it on in places no-one else does as the door would be firmly be shut in the face of anyone who had something to lose. It obviously still takes skill, both to do it and to know you can try when other cant, but its difficult to say anything more than that IMO.
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense? Where did you get that info- it's be good to have a peruse!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/2016/bahrain-grand-prix/results ]Full Race Results[/url]
binners, not hugely different than any other sport with money as a disproportional focus?
Find me one bit of evidence that suggests Spain 94 wasn't legit.
The illegal ride height? The illegal fuel rig were thet pulled the filters out to get a better flow? (And memorably ignited Vestappen Snr.)
Vandoorne did an excellent job, deinfinately. To say that Button came out looking crap next to him is rubbish.
In Spain?
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense?
Ericsson 2 stopped and was saving fuel in his final stint.
Wehrlein 3 stopped.
Sources:
[url= http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/03/2016-bahrain-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops/ ]http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/03/2016-bahrain-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops/[/url]
[url= http://planetf1.com/news/sun-renault-sauber-manor-force-india/ ]http://planetf1.com/news/sun-renault-sauber-manor-force-india/[/url]
In Spain?
Yep.
The whole of the 1994 season was a catalogue of cheats and fiddles and poor sportsmanship by Benneton
And the championship was won by the team proved to have been cheating, after a deliberate collision by their driver on Damon Hill.
I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories in F1 because they tend to be overblown, but the Benetton B194 was investigated and the traction control software was found to be intact, selectable via a "missing" menu option 13, which may or may not have been useable by the driver.
[ninja edit] A ha! I've found the original FIA press release: [url= http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/benetton-launch-control-fia-press-release/ ]here[/url]
That clarifies that the driver could not force the ECU into launch control mode, but that a laptop could...
While the presence of the code could be explained by the fact that it's easier to deactivate code than to remove it completely - and completely legitimate, Benetton couldn't explain why missing menu options were selectable.
Jos Verstappen accused Benetton of cheating, as reported by Joe Saward [url= https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/verstappen-tells-it-as-he-sees-it/ ]here.[/url]
I'm not sure if Schumacher was complicit or not in using banned driver aids, but I'd be willing to bet may last tenner that the collision at Adelaide was deliberate. Whatever the deal, Hill's attempted overtake of the stricken Benetton as naive in hindsight...
That 1994 press release is really interesting - not ever seen that before - doesn't exactly bring clarity that they were not cheating does it! Well done for posting that up, good to read...
And I'd bet my last tenner with yours that Shuey's collision was deliberate too
I guess the FIA couldn't prove the Benetton had plugged in a laptop as car no 5 was in the pits, activated the launch control and then supplied the FIA with the kosher ECU software for analysis. Burden of proof and all that.
It's a safe bet that other teams would have had 1994 cars on the grid with an evolution of the 1993 ECU software with deactivated sections of code - having the code present was not a breech of the rules themselves (note: according to Benetton, the team did use the launch control software during testing in 1994).
.
This thread was better before Hora removed his comment about how Hill should've been a triple world champion.
It's quite interesting watching the interviews from back in the day, Hill comes across as terribly awkward, mixing his metaphors and all over the place, but there's an innate decency and humility about him that was at odds with Schumacher's assured self confidence. Had he won the championship in 1994, he'd still have blown it in 1995 when Schumacher won it fair and square.
One day, it'll make for a fascinating Hollywood movie...
No he should have. Easily twice.
I deleted the whole commented as I also commented would Senna have been pushing that hard from the off at Imola if the Beneton was ..?
If he won it he'd have blown the next year? No confidence and he was still within his talent window firmly. They are racing drivers not PR puppets. I'd look terrible in front of a camera as would 99% of STWers
The illegal ride height? The illegal fuel rig were thet pulled the filters out to get a better flow? (And memorably ignited Vestappen Snr.)...... The whole of the 1994 season was a catalogue of cheats and fiddles and poor sportsmanship by Benneton
They got DQ'd for ride height at one GP (Spa, was it?) because the plank that was used to measure whether teams were running lower than regulation was worn below the legal minimum - by definition, as it got measured as part of post race, this didn't happen at any other GP therefore you can be reasonably sure that they didn't run illegally low at any other GP.
Re the fuel rig filters, they claim they were advised to remove the filter by the company that made them, and there is some evidence to corroborate it - most of the other teams did it too, not sure if it was implicated in the Boss's fire but don't think they were punished for it.
Traction control has been done.
I've got no doubt that Adelaide 94 was a deliberate action - Hill had no choice but to go for it IMHO, I'd have happily seen Schumi shot for it.
I know this will sound rubbish but from a friend who was and is still heavily involved in F1 Benetton under Briatore were constantly cheating.
"The car will only win if the driver is good enough"
Yes, but as drivers like Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, and more recently Button and Raikkonen have proved, you don't need to be the best driver if you have the best car. Hill was a clear no.2 to Senna (Hill would never have been anywhere near Senna in terms of talent), Villeneuve was lucky to be in the best car when Hill left Williams, Button was lucky that Brawn exploited the diffuser loophole, and Raikkonen was lucky to be in a Ferrari at the right time. All four drivers capable of great results, but none are what I'd consider truly 'great' in the same way as Senna, Prost, Schuey, Alonso and Vettel. I'd have Hamilton up there if he'd managed what others have done; to win in an inferior car, but so far, he seems to have had a lot of luck in getting good seats really. Alonso and Vettel stunned early in their careers, by getting results they technically had no right to. Hamilton is clearly one of the best drivers currently, in F1, and I'd much prefer to see him actually battling with other drivers, than watching a technically superior car win again and again.
Raikkonen is stupid fast or was, just a head full of toys. Actually I think you are doing a disservice to all 4 drivers. Considering Hill never raced karts he was Capitol Radios bikey for Gods sake to become world champion was an astonishing achievement
... you don't need to be the best driver if you have the best car...
Not disagreeing, just saying that the increments at that level are small, the guys you mentioned are not "greats" but they wouldn't have been world champion if they hadn't been exceedingly good drivers indeed. Let's face it, there was another bloke with the same kit and HE didn't win it.
Clodhopper you do know post ban on electronic gizmos the Williams was abit of a handful right? What year was that and what bloke who was good at test driving and driver feedback helped reform that car?
Yep Hill missed out on the acknowledged kart route due to family circumstances. I can't speak for the chap but ^^ is what I saw, read and understand from the 90's.
Post electronics ban, most of the cars were a handful - you should read Jos Verstappen's and Johnny Herbert's feedback on the B194, it was apparently woolly at the limit and subject to snappy oversteer all the way through the year. The Williams FW16 started out as a pup (Senna even lobbied the team to revert to the interim FW15c), but was thoroughly sorted by the last three races of 1994.
All this should not detract from the job that Damon Hill did that year - he turned up at the Williams factory the day after Imola to help make sense of the data from Senna's crash, he also pulled the team out of the despondency it had sunk into and dragged a poorly understood and probably undeserving car by the scruff of the neck to win at Spain. Hill grew up very, very quickly in those few weeks, despite having to face a sceptical press and taking home a salary a fraction of what the team and Renault paid Nigel Mansell for his 'guest' appearances.
Suzuka 1994 was a defining moment in Hill's career, he drove like a champion on that day. He was - and still is - one of my absolute F1 heroes.
They got DQ'd for ride height at one GP (Spa, was it?) because the plank that was used to measure whether teams were running lower than regulation was worn below the legal minimum - by definition, as it got measured as part of post race, this didn't happen at any other GP therefore you can be reasonably sure that they didn't run illegally low at any other GP.
It's Spa I'm thinking of, the plank had also tasted kerb a fair amount more than it should have that race, which iirc is what took it below the limit
Hill was a clear no.2 to Senna (Hill would never have been anywhere near Senna in terms of talent),
Weird thing to write when we only have 3 races where a direct comparison can be made and in 2 of those Senna despite all his experience and talent crashed out, 2nd time fatally.
Note that Hill in his 1st year beat Prost at times in the same car. He also won a GP in a Jordan and placed 2nd in an Arrows. Considering how old Hill came to F1 we'll never know his full potential, but to say he was nowhere near Senna in terms of talent is ridiculous.
Oh aye I remember him crossing that line to take the crown, that and Lewis's first title. I'll always remember where I was at that moment 8)
"to say he was nowhere near Senna in terms of talent is ridiculous."
I don't think so. Senna was a master who come to totally dominate F1 and deposed Prost as the top driver. Hil was an excellent driver, undoubtedly talented. But he won only when his Williams was the totally dominant car. Let's not forget Schumacher winning the WC despite having had 3 DQs/exclusions. No, sorry; Hill was outclassed by Schuey in my opinion, so I don't think it is ridiculous to say he wasn't up to Senna's standard at all.
You know Senna was also in very good cars out of the field..
There's "cheating" and there's "interpreting the limit of the regulations". Often the lines between the two are somewhat blurred.
In the 1970s, cars were weighed before a race to ensure they met the minimum weight regs. It wasn't long before some cars appeared on the grid with massive "coolant tanks" full of water, which would be emptied, Wacky Races style at the first corner, much to the consternation of anyone following too closely behind. This was technically "legal" at the time, if hugely unsporting.
There have been attempts to circumvent the rules in plain sight - e.g. the rule that no moveable aerodynamic devices be fitted to a car was routinely sidestepped thanks to certain teams fitting front and rear wings that have flexed and deformed under extreme aerodynamic load, reducing drag and raising speed.
In the 1960s, the rules dictated that a physical barrier be put in place between the driver and engine, to act as a bulkhead in event of fire. Lotus' interpretation of the rules were that the bulkhead didn't have to be fireproof, so theirs was made of cardboard.
There is also a reason why cars weave over to the dirty side of the track once they cross the finish line.
weave over to the dirty side of the track
Euphemism?
Sauber seem to be in major trouble, talk of them not making China (GrandPrix247 is notorious for gossip though!), but Monisha wasn't in Bahrain and was apparently trying to find a solution...
http://www.grandprix247.com/2016/04/05/ferrari-bail-out-sauber-to-pave-way-for-alfa-romeo-return/
Sauber seem to be in major trouble,
A real shame, was always a bit of a Sauber fan! Hasn't been looking good for them since the beginning of last year, when they ditched Van Der Guarde for the pay drivers.
How come the back of the field cant get sponsors? Sauber were on the TV coverage almost as much as everyone else at the last GP, or at least enough that I noticed them. Surely that has to be worth a something to someone? even if its just for one race? (I think teams can add/remove sponsor images of a certain size to the car between races? sure ive seen that before)
How come the back of the field cant get sponsors?
I think it's the old 'Card Rate' rule that Ron Dennis is sticking too. I'm sure they could get lots of sponsors, but not at the right price. No point running a Greggs logo on the sidepods in return for a years supply of pasties (although some may see this as a decent return!).
If F1 teams start letting out advertising space at cheap prices this could have a knock on effect to lower formulas too, as a sponsor could say "I'm not sponsoring your GP3 team for £???.?? when I can sponsor Sauber for the same price".
Weird thing to write when we only have 3 races where a direct comparison can be made and in 2 of those Senna despite all his experience and talent crashed out...
He crashed out of all three, although only one could clearly be said to be entirely down to him. That does nothing to harm his legacy as one of the smartest, quickest and most ferocious drivers we've been lucky enough to see - Senna Vs Schumacher would have been utterly epic.
That does nothing to diminish Damon's legacy - for my money his reputation just how good he was, to win his first race in his first full season and take the title to the wire in his second, to be robbed of an Arrows victory by mechanical failure and win in a Jordan - these are not easy feats.
Interesting insight into the Benetton fuel fire since it's been mentioned in this thread
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f1-broken-rules-fire-willem-toet
Interesting write up, I remember that at the time and the "telling off" they got for removing the filter!
Hill nearly winning the Hungarian GP in the Arrows and bringing it in with hydraulics failure for a podium kind of goes against the earlier statements that he only won as he was in the best car.
Old qualifying is back for China...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123660/f1-old-qualifying-format-back-from-china
