Episode 80 - His Nose Flew Over His Head
- Length: 1:12:02
- Size: 62.0 MB
- File: episode80.mp3
- Enhanced: episode80.m4a
- Transcript: Coming soon
- Torrent: episode80.torrent
This week we discuss Canada’s removal from the calendar, and all the action from the Japanese Grand Prix, plus we have a record number of call about the subjects too.
Intro
Of course we’re tired, but that still doesn’t mean I’m important enough to be in good week / bad week.
Good Week / Bad Week
A good week for test drivers and sponsorship deals, but a bad week for Renault and the other manufacturers.
News and Views
It’s all about the lack of Canada on the ‘09 calendar this week, and pretty much nobody is happy about it.
Qualifying
We talk about the tyres, what we were expecting from Fuji (which wasn’t much), the few incidents that were worth talking about, and of course, our race predictions.
The Race
ITV let us down, but the race did not. The first corner held all the drama and influenced the rest of the race. Naturally, we discuss all the penalties and get some callers with varying views on them.
Feedback
A couple of emails regarding the last show, with some corrections, some history, and another about Canada.
October 13th, 2008 at 22:18Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Just thinking about China, I’ve been looking back at the previous races whilst also thinking about who’s on form right now for choices on my Fantasy Racers. From my research I can conclude:
- Alonso has been a driver that has always gone well since China came onto the calender in 2004. He was 4th in 04, won in 05 and 2nd in 06 and 07. Plus he’s also won the last two races so he would be a good choice.
- Kimi is another driver to do well in Shanghai. 3rd in 04, 2nd in 05 and a win last year. 06 was the only glitch in the then unreliable McLaren when he retired with throttle problems.
- Amazingly, a dark horse could be noneother than Button and Honda. Back in the BAR days, JB came 2nd in the first China race and 8th in 2005, and when it was then Honda a 4th place in 06 and 5th in 07. Bear in mind those last two occasion were when it rained. If it does so this weekend, keep an eye on them.
- Vettel should also be considered. Wet weather will bring out the best in him, and he grabbed 4th place here last year as well as scoring that brilliant win earlier at Monza.
- Other drivers who have at least scored points at Shanghai are: Massa, Heidfeld, Webber, Barrichello, Fisichella and Coulthard.
October 13th, 2008 at 22:26lou said:
before i listen to the podcast i have to ask, did i win the podcast length guessing game thing? I guessed 1hr 03mins.
October 13th, 2008 at 22:33Jon Waldock said:
Up top says;
You do the math : P
October 13th, 2008 at 22:38me said:
christine updated the spreadsheet yesterday:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p8keuzIyql2YkMAR_9YJSew
although she hasn’t input the winner yet, i believe that makes lou the closest.
well done lou, that makes you the most mystic guesser. i’ll make sure the details get updated tomorrow
October 13th, 2008 at 22:39lou said:
sorry, what i meant was ‘was i the closest?’ sorry has been a long day and my history essay is driving me crazy!
October 13th, 2008 at 22:45me said:
p.s. i hope no-one gets mad about the length. the phone calls were just too damn good.
we need to have a think about where we can go from here, because if people are willing to ring in every week, then maybe we can bring http://www.sidepodpanel.com/ forward and do something for the final two races.
as ever, please do let us know your thoughts re: length, quality, future direction etc. if we need to split the show into two, with a shorter gwbw / fantasyracers podcast and then an in depth panel discussion we could do both after a race (as one long live broadcast that gets split during editing).
just throwing ideas at you here, don’t hold me too it, we’re keen to encourage more discussion, but also keep show’s short, and those goals don’t appear to sit well together
October 13th, 2008 at 22:56R.G (My fuji, 12th October 2008, they day LIVE went wrong) said:
I love the occasional long show, just as long as it doesn’t happen too often.
I don’t think there is any need to split it in two, its fine as it is, most weeks its only 40 minutes.
If the calls get to popular, you could start some sort of 606, where people ring in with opinions maybe?
October 13th, 2008 at 22:57me said:
that’s true. the thing with 606, is half the people who call in are mentalists. our problem is, the people who call us talk more sense than we do
i wonder if we had some show notes ready, but took calls first. if it was a quiet night we could talk some, but if peeps had lots to say then that would be the show.
again just random ideas floating by…
October 13th, 2008 at 22:59R.G (My fuji, 12th October 2008, they day LIVE went wrong) said:
Well obviously, half the people here aren’t mentalists, they know there stuff, so obviously will be more ‘educational’ so to speak. If you want, you can get me to call in and I’ll be your nutter
October 13th, 2008 at 23:08me said:
that would be brilliant. it’d give the show some much needed equilibrium
October 13th, 2008 at 23:12Alianora La Canta said:
Amusingly, my mobile coverage provider has let me have free texts this weekend. It’s amusing because I’ve not sent a text through any mobile phone for about a year…
October 13th, 2008 at 23:40Ollie said:
I let Lou win, it was her birthday after all!
(I’m such a fibber, Lou won fair and square.) All hail Most Mystical Lou.
Sidepodpanel reminds me of a fun, upbeat version of Question Time. A sort of QT meets HIGNFY. I have no idea why, but it does. Lots of people arguing different views but giggling all the way through. Can there be guest hosts? Not that you would do a bad job, but guest-hosting is all the rage these days, and it would allow you guys to be on the panel as well sometimes. Oooh, the possibilities are endless…
October 14th, 2008 at 00:03me said:
i don’t see why not. sounds like a fine plan.
keep ‘em coming. i liked it when jordan threw a question back at us during the show. think that might’ve been a first. will happily be on the panel.
of course, if christine asks, we’re not discussing or even contemplating this concept, ya hear?
October 14th, 2008 at 00:04me said:
sounds like it’s a good time to start though.
October 14th, 2008 at 00:07Scott said:
So who do you have in mind as being the Boris Johnson of the F1 blogosphere?
October 14th, 2008 at 01:57me said:
can someone clear something up for me pls? james allen yesterday stated that:
“[In Shanghai] Lewis is due a new engine there and he hasn’t taken his free change yet, so can also have a new one in Brazil.”
but that isn’t right is it? or have they changed the rule back so that joker’s are allowed in brazil?
more: http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=James_Allen&id=44254
October 14th, 2008 at 02:01me said:
fyi: apparently this is where they hide the standard ecu:
we must be getting close to the end of the season if teams are giving away these kinds of details.
October 14th, 2008 at 02:16Stuart C said:
Morning/evening,
I have no inkling. I’m afraid that I’m not in a fit state to clear anything up today. Normal service will be resumed on Thursday.
Last night was something of an epic. Dinner at some restaurant that was supposed to have inspired a scene in Kill Bill (couldn’t tell you either way; I watched 20 minutes of the first one, decided it was absolute tosh and deleted both of them from the Sky+ box in a fit of pique) followed by karaoke, hosted by Crofty from R5.
Boo hiss to Simon A (Motorsport News) and Ed G (The Times) for bailing pre-karaoke.
Honda’s PR team did a game rendition of Fernando (Abba). I launched into Wuthering Heights, complete with an approximation of K Bush’s dance moves from the original video. There was more. I hope nobody was videoing it.
So it’s a sore throat and an equally sore head this morning, coupled with the annoyance of waking up 7 minutes before breakfast is due to stop. That’s just not fair.
October 14th, 2008 at 02:23me said:
if you’re gonna suggest this as the next game we try, we’re going to need some examples.
subtle!
remind me. moves from this original video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv0azq9GF_g
bless ya
October 14th, 2008 at 02:44Stuart C said:
In as much as fading memory (and with one hand holding a microphone) permitted.
Steve C (McLaren) did an impressive Here I Go Again by Whitesnake.
Now, anyway, this Canada thing: a plausible source said last weekend that it’s by no means a done deal, and that the race is likely to reappear. It’s Ernie’s way of saying to the teams, “You can have your three-week break, or you can have a race you all really like going to…” Only the Turkish GP needs to move, and it can host a race at any time – nothing else happens there.
An interesting theory was being piloted around the dinner table last night that Lewis would have known that his race was blown after Turn 1 (what with flat-spotted tyres, etc), so that later around the lap, having passed Felipe and being aware that Felipe was having a go back, he left him almost-but-not-quite-enough room, thus setting a trap.
Discuss. I might go back to bed.
October 14th, 2008 at 03:00me said:
well that’s an angle i haven’t heard before.
we quite enjoyed the three week break, a rest was in order and it built up a nice sense of anticipation. however i’d sooner have canada back… damn that man.
if we were talking about schumi, i’d believe that theory in a heartbeat. but the idea suggests lewis has that same cold calculated ability to intentionally park a car at la rascasse, and i think that’s giving the guy a little too much credit.
firstly, given the vibrations he must’ve been suffering, i’d imagine he’d struggled to even see the corner, let alone position his car within half a width of the kerb.
secondly, you could almost feel the moment his “sensible” brain kicked back in as he caught his initial reaction to spin into oncoming traffic. he almost went for it. after that point the guy drove a decent race, but prior he looked like he was driving angry.
also by getting a red car to crash into him, that would assume he has faith in the stewards to make the right call and that must surely be asking a lot of a man in lewis’ shoes.
i’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts though. if only we had a panel show.
October 14th, 2008 at 05:17Michael (mini3696) said:
First p*****d off that the only other race broadcast at a decent time for Australia is delayed 8.5 HOURS… So instead of watching it live at 2:30pm it gets shown at 11:pm… Bugger that… I hate Channel 10’s coverage here in AUS.
Anyway…
Yoohoo… I finially got a mention on a podcast (for the highest score in Fansasy racers).
And a jump to 15th in the standings… (84th O/A)…
Maybe I could get into the top 5 and get another mention…
Doubt it though…
Only have to catch up 400 points…
If only I had know about this before Australia and didn’t miss that one…
Do I get average points? LOL
October 14th, 2008 at 05:54Stuart C said:
Oh dear. Footage exists of “Bush-gate”. Just had the soundtrack played down the phone to me by a cackling JN.
October 14th, 2008 at 06:41Journeyer said:
At least it can’t be anywhere near as bad as what the Americans have been through for the last 8 years.
Agreed. Also, if it weren’t for this incident (and the subsequent fall to the back), I’d guess Lewis would still have scored a point or two (in spite of the drive-through), so throwing that chance away for a 50-50 penalty on Massa in a Ferrari probably isn’t a risk worth taking, even if Massa did end up getting penalized.
October 14th, 2008 at 08:31Kathi said:
Have you seen this. It’s the video Ed talks about in his latest blog entry
October 14th, 2008 at 08:47Stuart C said:
Go on there and call him a big wuss for not coming to karaoke.
October 14th, 2008 at 08:53Kathi said:
I’m sure he did it for your own good
October 14th, 2008 at 09:17Flibster said:
Waaaay off with my time guess.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:06me said:
let me get this straight…
a video has been found on youtube, post fuji that shows lewis made a driving error during the race.
the whole thing has an eerie familiarity to it
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27me said:
ahh, does mr. noble have a youtube account?
October 14th, 2008 at 10:30me said:
having had a look at the new video material. i think we drew pretty much the right conclusions. it’s good to see what happened at turn 3, and i notice fernando’s giving no quarter when it comes to lewis.
it’s gonna be an explosive end to the season.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:40Christine said:
Whilst I am intrigued by the Bush-gate soundtrack, I think I’d also quite like to hear a cackle from JN
October 14th, 2008 at 10:53Alianora La Canta said:
sounds like it’s a good time to start though. {me - 19 comments ago}
It would be if a) I knew anyone who wouldn’t take offence at being texted instead of phoned (in fact, some of my friends don’t even know how to read a text message yet) and b) my phone dealt with texts in a halfway sensible manner (it blogs, runs Sudoku, plays music and nearly makes my fruit squash for me - who cares if it does the basics like texting and Skyping?)
October 14th, 2008 at 10:58Alianora La Canta said:
can someone clear something up for me pls? james allen yesterday stated that:
“[In Shanghai] Lewis is due a new engine there and he hasn’t taken his free change yet, so can also have a new one in Brazil.”
but that isn’t right is it? or have they changed the rule back so that joker’s are allowed in brazil? {me - 18 comments ago}
Jokers are forbidden, but anyone reaching the end of their two-race engine cycle can take a fresh engine as normal. Anyone retiring during the Chinese Grand Prix will also be able to take a fresh engine as normal.
However, the scenario James Allen is impossible. So Hamilton will have a new engine in China and an old one in Brazil (unless he retires from the Chinese Grand Prix, in which case he gets a new unit).
October 14th, 2008 at 11:05Alianora La Canta said:
I’m afraid that I’m not in a fit state to clear anything up today. Normal service will be resumed on Thursday. {Stuart C - 17 comments ago}
Sorry to hear about the hangover.
I launched into Wuthering Heights, complete with an approximation of K Bush’s dance moves from the original video. {Stuart C - 17 comments ago}
Brave, but good, choice. One of the upsides of picking that song is that it is so difficult to hit the high notes of that song that people expect it to be sung badly, and would have been pleasantly surprised if you had turned out to sing it at all reasonably. A lot of other songs require near-perfection to get away with on the kareoke mic.
So it’s a sore throat and an equally sore head this morning, coupled with the annoyance of waking up 7 minutes before breakfast is due to stop. That’s just not fair. {Stuart C - 17 comments ago}
I agree. That is extremely unfair. Hope you got a refund for the missed breakfast.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:09Alianora La Canta said:
Now, anyway, this Canada thing: a plausible source said last weekend that it’s by no means a done deal, and that the race is likely to reappear. It’s Ernie’s way of saying to the teams, “You can have your three-week break, or you can have a race you all really like going to…” Only the Turkish GP needs to move, and it can host a race at any time – nothing else happens there. {Stuart C - 15 comments ago}
That sounds very Bernie. Clever of him, even if I think they should have both the break and the race (ideally by re-shuffling the calender to have it start earlier).
October 14th, 2008 at 11:10me said:
ahh, thanks for clearing that up.
at least there’s only 2 more races remaining for allen.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:12Alianora La Canta said:
Just had the soundtrack played down the phone to me by a cackling JN. {Stuart C - 12 comments ago}
That’s not fair. The curse of modern technology. I bet you sounded good at the time you were singing, though - the phone is bound to make it sound strange the morning after…
October 14th, 2008 at 11:18Alianora La Canta said:
Very true, me.
October 14th, 2008 at 13:15Jon Waldock said:
as far as ive heard nothing changed. to be honest it seems like a pretty stupid rule to me, especially if he has an engine failure….
October 14th, 2008 at 13:17Jon Waldock said:
nah i know what ya mean, just messing with ya
October 14th, 2008 at 13:41Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71398
Spectacle for Fridays? Why not a test/3rd driver race? It gives the young drivers something to do and it’s an extra race for the fans.
October 14th, 2008 at 14:06me said:
i don’t believe a word of that article.
the discussions in china are going to be about one thing, and that’s how to reduce engine costs (and appease mosley) without resorting to spec parts.
to pretend that the manufactures care about anything to do with improving the show right now, is plainly nuts.
October 14th, 2008 at 14:42Journeyer said:
How about banning refuelling again? That’s the most popular FOTA idea yet. And yet… so divisive. Some people would rather see it stay.
Your thoughts?
October 14th, 2008 at 14:58me said:
i say they should remain.
time and again (most recently in singapore), the technology has been proven to be safe. there were no flash fires during the night race despite two refuelling nightmares.
when there were fires in hungary, they were extinguished without fuss.
the danger in the pitlane is now about cars meeting with people (see kazuki in brazil). unless you’re planning on also banning tyre changes there’s no safety advantage to banning refuelling.
as mentioned previously, refuelling shows f1 to be a team sport, not all about the driver. it adds an additional variable (guess the fuel load used in qually is a great topic of discussion between saturday and sunday).
we also have no idea if next year’s regs will make any difference. if they don’t and refuelling does go, then you’ll have 18 processions next season and we’ll be begging for the return of refuelling by bahrain.
October 14th, 2008 at 15:08Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
^^ I agree with the last part. Remember the Turbo days when it was essentially more of a fuel economy run rather than a race most of the time. If you were lucky, you’d see some proper battles.
October 14th, 2008 at 15:13me said:
i’m loving the mind games coming from alonso at the moment. i get the impression he’s enjoying everything to do with f1 right now. check out his comments about championship pressure today:
“Massa was winning the race very clear in Hungary and on the last lap you have engine failure, you lose ten points, and this can happen to anyone. And it maybe happens to Lewis as well.”
he’s the stuff of nightmares and he’s not even in the fight. i’m so hoping he’s in a decent car next year, i’ve missed him.
more: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71403
October 14th, 2008 at 15:18Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Anyway, just to let you guys know I’m currently working on a spreadsheet to find out just how close this year’s field actually is. I’ll explain how it works.
I first came up with this method when trying to work out the lap time modifier for the F1 1999 carset on BATracer. Basically it meant how much slower in terms of the fastest car was each car. The fastest car got a gap of 0, since obviously it was fastest. Then the next had a modifier of, for example, 0.106, and so on and so forth.
To work this out I came up with a simple yet very accurate system. For each race in 1999 I scanned the practice and qualifying results and found the fastest laptime for each team over the whole weekend (Basically the best time set by either one of the team’s cars over practice and qualifying.) Then I used a simple subtraction formula to work out the gaps between the fastest car and each team respectively.
Once I had done so for all the races, I then found the average gap for all teams, and the one with the lowest then had that value taken away so it was 0 and therefore the fastest. Then it was just a case of subtracting that value from the other gaps and doing some rounded up. The results were spot-on.
I’m currently doing this for the 2008 F1 carset, but this can also be applied of course to the real season. So far, I’ve done all races up to Valencia, and Belgium is next. Right now, the first 7 teams in terms of average gap are covered by less than a second. I am including Super Aguri and the gap right now theirs is under 3 seconds. There are only 4 values for them since they only took part in 4 races.
October 14th, 2008 at 15:26Stuart C said:
Not in the slightest. It was a deliberate spoof - no way I could hit notes that high without sounding ludicrous. Judging by the hoots of laughter on the video footage it had the desired effect…
I notice that Bob C had the decency not to mention us by name in his Pitpass blog from Sunday.
I’m a bit torn on this. To an extent, you have to question the value of meddling with Fridays to improve spectator value because most people would be at work. Then again, the increasing popularity of live blogging shows that there’s an appetite out there, so…
October 14th, 2008 at 15:33Christine said:
Also, the more of a spectacle it is, surely the less it is about setting up for a race.
I’m all in favour of letting young drivers have a go, but I kinda like speculating on who’s having a bad day (Williams), or who’s just concentrating on setup rather than pace (BMW).
October 14th, 2008 at 15:40Journeyer said:
Pitpass is mainstream website. We’re the luck ones that get exclusives!
In a nutshell:
1. Ban refuelling, but keep tyre stops. I like the wheel-changing at pitstops, but not so much the bit where I think about their fuel strategy.
2. Keep Fridays as they are. But then again, a special race for 3rd drivers after FP2 would be good… but then again, what if the young guns go all petulant and wreck the cars?
October 14th, 2008 at 15:40me said:
agreed.
the thing is, as much as fota try and faff around with their friday ideas. it’ll only happen if it makes more money for bernie.
he makes big money from tv rights, so the question is what can be done to get f1 onto television, on a friday afternoon? and not only that but on a channel that would actually have a budget to pay for the broadcast (i.e. not motorstv).
my guess is the bbc are never going to bump “loose women” for f1 and therefore bernie has sod all interest in improving the friday show.
October 14th, 2008 at 15:44me said:
out of interest, what makes the two different journeyer? why do you like one but not the other?
that’s called gp2 isn’t?
yup, gp2
October 14th, 2008 at 15:47Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
OK, I’ve got the average gap up to Japan and in terms of who’s grouped where, this is how the pack relatively stands:
Ferrari
Mclaren
BMW
__________
Toyota
Renault
Red Bull
Toro Rosso
Williams
__________
Honda
Force India
October 14th, 2008 at 16:01Kathi said:
My broadband is back \o/
Any wishes?
October 14th, 2008 at 16:05me said:
wonderful.
would you believe. the first lap and the bourdais incident pls
October 14th, 2008 at 16:16Flibster said:
Love the idea.
Have hated refuelling ever since they brought it back in. It did give Bennetton a new award though. Biggest cockup during a pitstop. Trying to flambe Jos Verstappen and most of his pit crew isn’t a good thing.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:19Journeyer said:
Fuel stops mean that 2 cars with 2 entirely different fuel strategies can be racing each other, and that’s not honest racing for me, because one car is so much lighter than the other. Fuel levels in a car are dictated by an external strategy, something the drivers have less control of.
Tyre stops on the other hand are much more dependent on the driver. Why? Because the driver here plays a much bigger role in taking care of them. Can he make them last longer while keeping his pace? Drivers who can do this (like a certain M Schumacher) are rewarded with better chances of scoring and winning. If not, does he sacrifice pace for longevity (less pace but less stops) or vice versa (more pace but more stops)? It tests the driver more: he creates his own strategy. He doesn’t need complex fuel math to figure it out, because he knows best how he works his tyres.
One good example: Portugal 1993. Alain Prost was leading when he did his 2nd of 2 tyre stops. That allowed Schumacher (then running 2nd) to take the lead. At that point, he decided to gamble: he thought he could hold off Prost, despite being on old tyres, and decided to suddenly cancel his 2nd stop (he had already stopped once). Prost did catch up with him, but he drove well to hold Prost off and win.
It shows that tyre stops are much more flexible than fuel stops and is a much better indicator of driver talent. Can you be so flexible with fuel stops? Sure, but you have to discuss it with the team before making a decision, since the pitcrew need to make fuel adjustments. With tyre stops, the driver can decide on his own and live with the consequences.
And pitstops look VERY cool when they do wheel changes. Do you remember those 2005 stops where they only come in for fuel? So boring…
Hey… if the rumors are true that GP2 will have their own race weekends, they’ll need a replacement…
October 14th, 2008 at 16:22me said:
but why flibster?
October 14th, 2008 at 16:24Kathi said:
done
October 14th, 2008 at 16:25me said:
but until you solve the problem overtaking (which is by no means a given), you’ll end up with the pole man winning the race… every race.
but i’d argue then, that having a single tyre last a whole race is just as effective a measurement, if not more so.
so why not ban tyre changes too?
October 14th, 2008 at 16:29me said:
damn your bb is faast. thanks you
October 14th, 2008 at 16:31me said:
losing fuel stops would meaning losing the super fast in-laps that sort the men from the boys too (and that schumi was a legend at).
just like a qually lap, you get one chance to make it happen.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:33Flibster said:
Completely ruined the on track racing. It shifted it to how much fuel do they have in and when they were pitting for a 30 second stop.
Sadly, I remember this mythical beast called overtaking on the track rather than the pitlane.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:41me said:
i disagree. didn’t aero, downforce and “dirty air” kill the on track racing?
October 14th, 2008 at 16:41Journeyer said:
Isn’t that why the 2009 cars are ugly, because they’re planned to overtake better? Also, with no fuel stops, guys will be FORCED to try overtaking on track and not WAIT for the stops (which is common practice now). Why? Because they won’t know the tyre strategy of the guy in front of them. It’s a lot harder to predict that than fuel strategy.
But an endurance tyre lacks pace, which is anathema to F1. I want the drivers to have flexibility on what THEY what to do, not be forced onto endurance tyres. F1 has the best drivers in the world: let them prove it to us by driving AND thinking fast. Also, an endurance tyre means no more pitstops, and I like them, at least the tyre-changing part.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:43Journeyer said:
It killed off racing, but even before then, it was already being ruined by refuelling. the aero bit just made the situation worse.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:56me said:
the keyword there though is “planned”, rumour already is the rules haven’t gone far enough. by the end of 2009 we may be back to where we are now.
if they can’t overtake, they can’t overtake. look at what happened between kimi and kubica at the end of the fuji race.
both had finished their stops, they were on equal fuel and what happened?
surely, driver’s aren’t failing to overtake because it doesn’t suit them, they’re just enable to.
October 14th, 2008 at 16:57me said:
a heavy car, brimmed with fuel lacks pace.
so do i.. just as they are
October 14th, 2008 at 16:59me said:
understood, my knowledge of f1 history isn’t as good as it should be.
October 14th, 2008 at 17:03Journeyer said:
That’s what you have tyre stops for: flexibility. It allows you to take risks. Let’s go back to that Kimi-Kubica battle. If Kimi knew he couldn’t overtake Kubica, what if he decided to cancel his final tyre stop, let Robert take on one more set of tyres, then try playing defense on Robert instead of offense? If Kimi’s confident enough he can hold off Kubica from behind, he can take that risk. Alternatively, he can still pit and hope that his mechanics can change tyres faster than Kubica’s mechanics.
Kimi and Kubica aren’t limited by their fuel strategy anymore. Instead, they’re limited by the risks they’re willing to take. We therefore see more from the driver than we do now.
so why brim it up with fuel again mid-race? let the cars burn the fuel off; let the drivers deal with how the cars’ balance changes as it gets lighter. again, more effort from the drivers.
October 14th, 2008 at 17:14Jordan Allen is "having and old friend for dinner tonight" said:
There is nothing wrong with Grand prix Formula 1 Auto racing that 1963 specifications in cars, regulations, tyres, refulling, circuits and most importantly, safety cannot resolve.
There is no way in Hell that Hamilton or Massa would have tried their incidents at Fuji using 1963 specs.
Any backmarker that survived in that era is infinitly better than Hamilton ever will be….
Greastest Ever F1 Driver? Fangio. Hands Down.
October 14th, 2008 at 17:45me said:
allow me to apply the same argument to fuel stops.
alonso specifically chose to go lighter during his 1st stop in fuji, taking the gamble that he could out pace kubica enough to pull out a decent lead.
is that not a driver taking a risk? is that not alonso being confident?
what happened if a safety car had come out just halfway through alonso’s sprint? his race would’ve been scuppered, but the man was brave enough to try it and not rely on his mechanics to make the difference.
removing refuelling from f1 would have robbed of one of the best race drives of the year. a drive by a man on the edge, a man banging in metronomic qually lap after metronomic qually lap. it was spellbinding to watch and all because the guy had the option to vary his fuel load.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:01Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
You know the final race is at the same time as Halloween (same day as Free Practice). If it were a night race then it would be quite appropriate for the occasion
October 14th, 2008 at 18:05Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
sorry, back to the discussion at hand
October 14th, 2008 at 18:27Journeyer said:
sure, to a certain extent, but alonso’s not racing against kubica, he’s racing against time hoping he can stay ahead of kubica. there’s a difference there. i want to see drivers battling one another, side-by-side, not drivers switching fuel strategies in an effort to escape the clutches of another - where’s the excitement in that? it comes back to whether fuel strategy promotes honest racing, and to me, it doesn’t.
another plus: I don’t like having to think, “how much fuel did alonso put in?” “how much fuel did kubica put in?” “how many laps earlier will alonso have to pit?” “how much fuel will Kubica’s BMW have to take considering fuel consumption?” that’s not racing, that’s math.
a good test is to explain what’s going on to a casual fan or a non-fan. can you or i explain how a race strategy unfolds to these fans, the fans f1 realistically needs to stay profitable? probably not, we’d have to explain the math to them for them to grasp what race strategy is about. on the other hand, it’s easier to explain tyre stops because it’s a matter of saying “he needs to pit because his tyres are going off and he’s not as fast as he really can be.”
sure, it’s ok for serious fans like you and me, but how about for the majority of the f1-watching population, the type that stumbles onto f1 while channel surfing? tyre stops eliminate the unnecessary complexity and make it easier for more fans to understand and appreciate. when these fans appreciate what they’re watching more, they’re more likely to stay watching it.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:34Christine said:
I’d just like to jump in and say that I believe a casual fan will be able to relate more to fuel loads than tyre wear.
You know when your petrol tank is running out, you need to stop at the garage, so does an F1 car.
It’s harder to grasp why a tyre runs out quite so quickly. When I drive on the motorway, my tyres are fine. It probably needs more explanation.
This is me taking the point of view of a casual fan, as I was one of those up until a few years ago. However, I’ve never seen racing without fuel stops, so I don’t know about that side of the argument.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:35Jordan Allen (That cursed Froilian Gonzalez, he ruined F1!) said:
Yeah, there has not be good racing after the 1953 French Grand Prix at Reims when Frollan Gonzalez pull out a second a lap lead becasue he was coming in for fuel and tyres. Too bad he ended up third….
Well, you allow me to fix the circuits first, and their just might be some slipstreaming battles again. If Monza, with the three chicanes removed and the old banked section added on can not have slipstream battles then there is not hope for F1 in its present state.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:49Journeyer said:
but the way teams run fuel strategy is different. you’ll have to tell the casual fan, “they’re running three stops because their car seems to run better light. they’ll leapfrog those on two stops because their fuel consumption is x litres/sec, meaning they’ll go around 0.x sec faster a lap, while the other team…” so on and so forth.
If it were just tyres, all you’d need to say is, “well, he’s stopping more often because he wrecks his tyres faster than the other guy - can’t you see him going all over the track every lap?”
October 14th, 2008 at 18:50Journeyer said:
On a lighter note,
It would be Halloween Night in Europe during FP2, if that helps.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:50me said:
well said christine, i like your thinking.
journeyer, if you hated tyre stops too i could understand your arguments. i probably wouldn’t agree with them, but at least they’d be consistent. i can’t for the life of me see why you prefer one type of stop over another?
however, for me there’s enough changes to cope with in 2009 and i think that FOTA are best off not meddling with anything more, and not jumping to any rash conclusions.
hopefully they’ll can tie themselves up with knots of bureaucracy for several more years and we can continue to enjoy some of the closest racing we’ve had for a long time.
there is off course a valid argument to suggest that, given the races we’ve seen this year, nothing needs changing
October 14th, 2008 at 18:54Journeyer said:
given that the 2009 changes are so radical anyway, might as well bundle refuelling in, rather than delaying it by a year and giving everyone an excuse to focus on 2010 instead of 2009 if they don’t do so well. at least there won’t be any more radical changes for years to come, so the teams at the back can close even faster to the teams at the front than if refuelling were delayed.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:55Journeyer said:
On a lighter note,
So sweet.
Hehehe. 
October 14th, 2008 at 18:56Christine said:
I disagree.
I get your point about tyres, but at the same time, that can be complex too. Why is that cars tyres burning out quicker than the other one? What’s this graining business all about? Why do the tyres need to be warm to start with but when you run them they got hot and the rubber disappears?
I don’t think I’ve ever used math to figure out pit stops.
In either case, it depends how detailed you want to get. When I first started watching F1, all I needed to know was:
He’s running a light fuel load which means he’s gonna have to stop three times, but can go faster. The other guy is only gonna have to stop twice but is heavier.
Everything can be simplified, just ask James Allen.
October 14th, 2008 at 18:58me said:
i think you’re underestimating the casual fan if you think they can’t figure out a lighter car goes faster.
you’re also doing the commentators a disservice by suggesting that they can’t explain the basic rules of racing.
to a degree you could also say that complexity encourages deeper understanding. asking questions is a good thing, and if people think they’re clever because they’ve just figured out a complex rule they may be more likely to tune in again.
October 14th, 2008 at 19:00Christine said:
This is true. I get very excited when I get something right. And even more so when I know something ‘me’ doesn’t
October 14th, 2008 at 19:12me said:
technically it’s probably too late to increase fuel tank size for ‘09, but let’s say the teams manage to figure something out.
if next years regs suck, and there’s zero overtaking, and you lose refuelling, then we’re royally screwed are we not?
why not wait and see what the aero regs do first, and then have a think about further improvements?
i feels like the teams have suddenly gone:
“hey, now we have a committee, what can we mess around with first?”
i can’t see this FOTA thing ending well at all to be honest.
October 14th, 2008 at 19:17Jon Waldock said:
I like this idea, but that means only 12 cars…and it would take up extra time and it would be more money and you’d still have FP1 and FP2
spare cars anyone?? oh but i forgot, they’re going on a saving money thing
how about a nascar rule?? (i think its nascar) mechanics cant move until the car has fully stopped??
October 14th, 2008 at 19:20Jon Waldock said:
but this is what makes me really angry every week
“there are 3 sessions….the times in this session dont count for the final session” etc etc
BOO at James Allen….
I KNOW THERE ARE 3 SESSIONS AND I KNOW HOW THIS FLIPPING SYSTEM WORKS!!! WE’VE ALREADY HAD IT A SEASON BEFORE THIS ONE!!!!
grrr
lol
October 14th, 2008 at 19:28Christine said:
Some things are flipping obvious. I don’t think he needs to explain something that is going to play out right in front of your eyes.
However, if you listen to Martin, he’s capable of explaining things that we might already know, and newbies might not, without being patronising.
October 14th, 2008 at 19:28Jordan Allen (Tires just go "Round And Round" like an Aeromsith song!) said:
Right the only thing that a fixed level of fuel ensures is that everyone will run out of gas if everyone is dicing for position. As proof Exhibit A: Monaco 1982. The race no one wanted to win. I grant you that to the NASCAR-level moron, the race will be more entertaining, as there will be passing for the lead, until you realize that the guy in first does not want to be in first and slows down to the point where he gets passed for the lead. This saves fuel as the guy in 2nd uses less fuel as the air is already punched by the car in first. Exhibit B is the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix. Pironi won the race by saving drops more fuel than Villeneuve and was able to power by as Villeneuve was more concerned with finishing the race on fumes than fighting Pironi.
If I have a flat tire on my car. I remove it and replace it with a new tire. They both feel like they have the same weight. Saying that a fresh tyre is faster than a tyre seems like a bit of stretch, as both tires can still reach speeds that the causal driver is used to.
Now you take a spare “Jerry Can” for your car, in case you run out of gas in the middle of NASCAR-hillibilly Horror- Movie axe-murdrer country. Before you fill it, it weights next to nothing, as it is just plastic. the 5 galleons of gasoline that go into it weights 6 pounds per galleon, which equals 30 pounds. And anyone who has picked up a Jerry can full of gas will tell you that 30 pounds feels heavy. Now if you can state that this 30 pounds or “jerry can” worth of fuel is worth whatever time per lap then you indirectly have stated the chief headache of the Race Engineer. Just how much fuel can I carry without turn the Ferrari into a lame duck for the Force Indias, or worse yet, Button.
October 14th, 2008 at 19:29me said:
didn’t know that, but it seems like a reasonable idea.
there is that perennial problem and i agree, but i’d argue that it’s just one man.
croftie does a fine job on 5live too. their use of text messages in this area really helps them.
October 14th, 2008 at 19:33me said:
you’re missing your calling in life as an f1 commentator jordan
October 14th, 2008 at 19:39Steven Roy said:
That reminds me of a comment in parliament a few years ago. I have no idea who said it but he was warned about unparliamentary language for saying half the members of this house are liars. When told to apologise he stood up and said ‘I apologise unreservedly. Half the members of this house are not liars.”
October 14th, 2008 at 19:44Jordan Allen (Hulk! Smash James Allen (Please)) said:
Have not anyone else figured out this is James Allen`s secret code for `last Chance to grab you munchies before the session starts….`
October 14th, 2008 at 20:13Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Could well be! Never thought of that.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:17Steven Roy said:
Gilles Villeneuve Jarama 1981. One of the absolutely legendary races and drives in history. Put in re-fuelling and he would have been lucky to make the top 10. Same thing goes for Monaco that season. Re-fuelling does not help racing. Look how often Schumacher said Ross found me some empty track so I could put a series of fast laps in. One year at Imola he went from 12th to 2nd and passed one car on the road. Is that racing? To me a driver should only be able to gain a place if he goes and takes it from the guy in front. Motor racing is about two drivers fighting for the same piece of tarmac. Not groups of statisticians trying to move their drivers on to empty pieces of tarmac.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:19Steven Roy said:
Creating overtaking is easy. Painfully easy. Sort the tracks, slash the aero and fit big slicks.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:19Jordan Allen (I am not not a phophet, this is just to easy to foresee!) said:
This idea depends on where the mechanices are at the start of this ruling.
In Nascar, the mechanics are behind the pit lane wall until the car stops. in F1, the mechanics are at their stations. Forcing the mechnaics to stay frozen to their spots is just asking for Nakajima to go 17-human pin bowling.
oh, wow! Nakajima just got a strike!
October 14th, 2008 at 20:21Dom said:
Just popped along to the F1 website and i’m stunned by what i’ve seen. Bernie is letting us watch his precious race footage on his own site!
One question. Why did they not bother with this until so late in the championship?
The footage gives us a few camera angles and onboards from the penalty-deciding moments to the race. Now the Bourdais-Massa meeting is the one we’re interested in, but unfortunately they only show the incident from a slightly better angle, and an onboard from Massa, neither of which really help…
October 14th, 2008 at 20:21Steven Roy said:
Fuel flow is limited so the only pressure on the mechanics is to get the nozzle in and out. Everything else is dependent on fuel flow. With tyre stops a well drilled crew makes a huge difference and every move they make affects race time. I still don’t want pit stops of any kind but there is a huge difference in the ethos of fuel and tyre stops.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:25me said:
wow!
pressure i should think. from fans and journo’s.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:27me said:
i fear you’re overlooking the strategy element here.
also, there’s the lollipop guy who has to react to the fuel nozzle being removed. additionally the insertion of the fuel nozzle plays havoc with the jacks held front and rear.
it all adds up to make things more a lot more interesting, especially when a ferrari guy panics.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:30Steven Roy said:
That’s not what Villeneuve said on the eerie phone call with Roebuck. He said they were told to slow down to but every time he passed Pironi he slowed down and then Pironi jumped him a couple of times. He claimed the lap times when he was leading were a long way slower when Pironi took the lead but Gilles simply passed Pironi anyway. He didn’t suggest that he was in more trouble than Pironi fuel wise. Apart from anything else Gilles could get incredible fuel mileage. One race he drove so fast for so long Ferrari tore up their fuel calculations because he should not have been able to do what he did. But that was Gilles.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:32Steven Roy said:
You would need to close the garage door in F1 and the team with the most agile mechanics would win. Of course if you are a mechanic in the pit in front of Kazuki when he arrives hot and you are sprinting round the car it could be messy. NASCAR pits are much bigger than F1.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:34me said:
you guys are pretty good at convincing me to change my mind about a lot of things, but i really haven’t heard a compelling reason to ban mid-race refuelling.
neither can i find a reason why teams would want to be discussing this. autosport says:
“The idea of a refuelling ban surfaced following the host of pit stop problems this year - and plans to talk about it have been given a new urgency in the wake of Felipe Massa’s bungled stop in Singapore.”
but that problem was down to one man and his trigger happy finger. the simple solution would be to find a better mechanic. why do the other teams care and where has this urgency come from?
i can’t help feeling someone is feeding autosport a line or two to hide what’s really going to be discussed.
October 14th, 2008 at 20:41Steven Roy said:
I hate the strategy aspect of F1. I want to see drivers battling for position not driving on empty tracks. One of the reasons the Schumacher era was boring was because of Ross Brawn. All the publicity said it was boring because he won 5 years straight but by co-incidence Valentino Rossi won the Moto GP championship the same 5 years and no-one ever suggested that was boring. F1 at that time was boring because Brawn was light years ahead of anyone else on stratey calls and all we ever saw was Schumacher ‘passing’ groups of drivers without ever seeing another car. For me Schumacher was a very fast driver and able to knock out endless streams of qualifying pace laps but he was nothing special in traffic. Had he been racing at a time where he had to race wheel to wheel to make progress his results would have been nowhere near as good.
October 14th, 2008 at 21:15Jon Waldock said:
1) i still think hamilton just missed his braking point, a tad harsh for someone locking up me thinks
2) i dont know how massa can still deny it wasn’t his fault
3) that camera angle is about as useful as flooded engine
October 14th, 2008 at 21:19me said:
that was, by anyone’s standards a huge lockup though.
agreed.
am guessing bourdais didn’t have an onboard camera for this race?
October 14th, 2008 at 21:19A Padt said:
This is the first time I’ve listened to this podcast and I have to say it’s a lot more fun to listen to than the one on BBC.co.uk
October 14th, 2008 at 21:23Jon Waldock said:
definitely. im slightly impressed
if this is a regular feature we can decifer which of the incidents the stewards probably regret penalising for!! lol
October 14th, 2008 at 21:25Jon Waldock said:
welcomee
October 14th, 2008 at 21:26Christine said:
Thanks A, and welcome
October 14th, 2008 at 21:37Jordan Allen (I am not not a phophet, this is just to easy to foresee!) said:
1a) Regardless of the turn 1 silliness, I think the penalty Lewis got was for forcing Kovi of the track and into the pit lane exit, for the simple reason that Kovi would have been as guilty as Hamilton for putting Massa of the track and yet, no penalty was given to Kovi.
1b) The last thing you could accuse Hamilton was of missing his braking point. He flat spotted both his front tires in the middle of turn 1. He was clearly driving to recklessly where he could not make the turn around turn 1 without going wide. That was just stupid driving on his part.
2) Neither incident was Massa fault.
a) He had to avoid the Toyota and went wide. Hamilton cuts the corner of the previous turn and fishtails and cuts Massa of the road. They where roughly side by side as they went into the apex of the corner where the incident occured. Massa had no where to go but on to the grass where the braking is not as effective as it is on tarmac and slides in Hamilton. The penality should be on Hamilton for cutting the previous corner to gain an advantage.
Now if Hamilton stayed on thebetween the actual white lines of the track, hmmm, that`s a tough call. Hamilton did have position but Hamilton did leave Massa no room at all. Classify it as a racing incident.
b) Massa did have the faster speed and did get into the corner so he ddi have track position. Furthermore, Seebass was warned about oncoming traffic via the flashing blue light… But no penality needed to be given. Again racing incident.
3) Are not all engines flooded with fluidsÉ
October 14th, 2008 at 22:00Jon Waldock said:
well whatever it was, he had a lock up and once you lock up (especially to that extent) your not turning the corner
i dont see where Hammy cuts the corner?? and massa has done what Hammy would have done at Spa if he hadnt have gone across the grass.
do you mean because he went on the curb going into the chicane?? because theres nothing wrong with that. and about the leaving no room thing, thats racing, AND thats what kimi did to him at Spa!
the rules say;
39.2 During the race, drivers leaving the pit lane may only do so when the light at the end of the pit lane is green and on their own responsibility. A marshal with a blue flag and/or a flashing blue light, will also warn the driver if cars are approaching on the track.
that dosent mean that he just has to let him past though, far from it in fact. there are numerous examples where drivers coming out the pit lane race those coming down the straight. and it was a braking zone, so the speed difference shouldnt be hugely different, and even if it was they’res no rule saying that bourdais should let him past, he had the line so it was massa responsibility to give him room.
October 14th, 2008 at 22:06Jon Waldock said:
oh and a flooded engine isn’t an engine that has lots of fuel in, its “an engine that has been fed with an excessively rich air-fuel mixture that cannot be ignited. This is caused by the mixture exceeding the upper explosive limit for the particular fuel.”
October 14th, 2008 at 22:24Do You See What I See? | Sidepodcast : Your Weekly F1 Podcast said:
[...] all due credit to the powers that be, because as Dom spotted earlier, Bernie’s official site is now carrying video footage from the various incidents that drew so [...]
October 15th, 2008 at 01:25Journeyer said:
Good morning, everyone.
Nice to see Steven Roy take on the cause while I was sleeping. Lots of discussion about it, apparently. I’ve think whatever I wasn’t able to discuss, Steven Roy did. So I’ll digress on this one.
Now, on a lighter note… is it just me, or are those who want refuelling out of F1 big fans of 1980s F1 races?
October 15th, 2008 at 01:28me said:
you said it was a divisive subject
interesting though, i can’t say i knew that i cared very much about refuelling until someone suggested it be taken away. a great topic for a debate.
October 15th, 2008 at 01:42Journeyer said:
It’s been suggested by many a fan for the past decade or so now. So many fans have very strong arguments on either side. Something we can discuss in an offseason show, perhaps?
October 15th, 2008 at 01:51me said:
i recall it coming up before, but i don’t remember it being raised as a serious suggestion from a team / team member.
certainly
October 15th, 2008 at 02:00Journeyer said:
Brilliant! I see it now… Me, Steven Roy, and Flibster on one side… You, Christine, and Jordan Allen on the other… Trying to convince undecided fans… That’ll cause some fireworks!
Assuming we can set up the group call, of course.
October 15th, 2008 at 02:21Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
And myself as the person who says “Oi! Pack it in!” if it starts to get out of control.
I can just imagine it:
“Oi! Flibster! Stop trying to verbally bitchslap Me with your views on why he’s wrong about why refuelling should not be banned by telling him he’s a massive arse! Go sit in the corner!”
Typing that arse bit had me peeing myself laughing. I crack me up sometimes
October 15th, 2008 at 02:31me said:
i have a feeling it’s gonna be a marvellous off-season.
October 15th, 2008 at 03:11Jordan Allen (Oh boy, this is going to be fun!) said:
See we both agree that Hamilton did apply his brakes at the right point to make the turn Hamilton’s problem was that his ambition overcame his tyres’ adhesion and he nearly speared into Kimi. How if Hamilton went slower or braked earlier Hamilton would have been able to make the corner.
a) He had to avoid the Toyota and went wide. Hamilton cuts the corner of the previous and fishtails and cuts Massa of the road. Massa had no where to go but on to the grass where the braking is not as effective as it is on tarmac and slides in Hamilton. The penality should be on Hamilton for cutting the corner to gain an advantage.
Now if Hamilton stayed on thebetween the actual white lines of the track, hmmm, that`s a tough call. Hamilton did have position but Hamilton did leave Massa no room at all.
do you mean because he went on the curb going into the chicane?? because theres nothing wrong with that. and about the leaving no room thing, thats racing, AND thats what kimi did to him at Spa!
It was right-hand corner before the left where the incident took place. Massa in front of Hamilton, had to vear left to avoid a Toyota that had cut him off. Hamilton, by turning more sharply right, had his right side tyres on the kerbs, and by straight lining the two corners, was able to pinch Massa of on to the grass. As this rule about not straightlining the chicane was made in light of what KIMI did to Hamilton in Spa, I do not see how Hamilton can be except, unless for course it is written so.
As to Massa, at no point was he behind Hamilton during this chicane. Massa’s nose would have ben no further than Hamilton’s Sidepod at best. And Hamilton took the straightline to the apex of the Left curve with Massa on the inside. Hamilton pinched in Massa on to the grass, and since there is less adhesion on grass, you can not brake as well as you should, and Massa hits Hamilton by a accident that was more Hamilton’s fault than Massa. Massa avoid two accidents in that chicane, but the third one was the charm. Massa should not have gotten penalized for that.
And about the leaving no room thing, thats racing.
I would agree with you if “That’s racing” did not give Massa a penalty for causing an accident which he clearly did everything in his power to avoid. Once Hamilton forced massa on the grass, an accident became unavoidable.
I see, and where are the lights or warning that a car is exiting the pit lane? And the rest of your paragraph can equally apply to Massa, actually more so for the point have I have just raised, in that there is no warning that there are cars entering the track.
I hate to say this but your main arguments seem to be it is ok for Hamilton to force people of the road, but not Massa, and massa, when fighting for position must yield. Why the double standard?
October 15th, 2008 at 03:21Jordan Allen (E. T. phoning home...) said:
Couple of technical issues to sort out. Besides factoring my heart-attacking long-distance phone call to Sidepocast GHQ, what about the fact that I live 5 in a time zone some five hours behind you people?
Can I reverse the charges?
October 15th, 2008 at 04:35Jordan Allen (E. T. phoning home...) said:
One thing keeps on bugging me about your comments after the Japanese Grand Prix Christine. You where surprized that Renault manged to get Alonso out of Pit Lane from BMW’s Kubica. Your reason for this is that BMW were “the fastest pitlaners in teh West….”
Can ask you what good is it to be the fastest Pitlaners in the West” whne you are clearly in the east. Not just the east, but the Far East….
October 15th, 2008 at 08:57Jon Waldock said:
oh no i completely agree that what hammy did was stupid but i just think it was a bit touch and go as to whether it should be penalised. i dont think he should have, you do.
and looking at it again i can see that massa was trying to avoid the toyota but hammy just goes round him over the curbs like hes allowed to do.
lets just say that he did hit him by accident, but if ham had gone around the corner on the grass and hit kini at spa then they’d be up roar. but i still think massa could have just cut the chicane.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:27Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71407
I think its awesome that the last race of the season is 2 days before my 19th birthday. I wonder if…
October 15th, 2008 at 10:38Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
I’ve been doing some more research and I’ve worked out that Hamilton can win the title this weekend of the following happens:
If he wins the race, Massa needs to be 5th or lower
If he’s 2nd, Massa needs to be 7th or lower
If he’s 3rd, Massa needs to not score
Anything other than that and the title battle goes to Brazil. So effectively Lewis needs a mishap or a problem with Massa this weekend to possibly take the title this weekend. What race is his engine on?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:39Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Massa I mean. Lewis will surely use his joker at some point, predictably for the race.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:47Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Ooh, just had a look on F1Wolf, Massa’s engine will be on its second race. Lewis will get a new one.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:47me said:
really?
cause he’s due a new one anyway, and that means the max he can do is fp3 and qually before changing it.
that’s a bit of a risk for the mechanics to take isn’t it? swap out the engine in parc fermé and hope like hell they plugged everything in correctly as the guy takes to the grid?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:49me said:
uh-huh, so when you said…
the thing with the above speculation, is you haven’t taken fernando alonso into account. even if massa has a mishap, the same could easily happen to lewis.
it looks like it’s three against one going into the final rounds (or maybe that should be 19 against one?).
October 15th, 2008 at 10:54Journeyer said:
You’re forgetting about Kubica.
In addition to that, for Lewis to at least eliminate Kubica from the title chase before Brazil:
If he’s 4th or 5th, Kubica needs to be 3rd or lower.
If he’s 6th or 7th, Kubica needs to be 4th or lower.
If he’s 8th or lower, Kubica needs to be 5th or lower.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:57me said:
ah-ha, that too.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:01Journeyer said:
A MAJOR correction:
October 15th, 2008 at 11:03Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Hehe, I was researching how Hamilton could win the title at the time instead of who was on what engine.
And you’re right, I had forgotten about Kubica. One thing I’m just hoping for is rain this weekend.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:04Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Talking of weather, autosport.com has it partly cloudy on Friday, showers on Saturday and thunderstorms on Sunday
October 15th, 2008 at 11:06Christine said:
Alonso reckons he can win this weekend as well. What do we think the chances of that are?
October 15th, 2008 at 11:07Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
weather.com has sunny conditions on Friday, mostly sunny on Saturday and showers on Sunday.
He’s always gone well here since the first Chinese GP. Plus he’s on form, so he would be a wise bet for a victory should the title contenders faulter.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:08Journeyer said:
If it rains? Pretty good, actually. If it stays dry, he’ll need a bit of luck to take the lead (like the last 2 races). But once he hits the front, chances are he’ll stay there.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:10Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
Accuweather has dry on Friday, bit cloudy on Saturday and apart from some rain in the morning, sun breaking through the clouds on Sunday.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:13Scott Woodwiss (Gotta beat Christine in FR) said:
BBC.com has sunny on Friday and Saturday but heavy showers on Sunday.
So really overall I think we can expect a dry Friday, mostly a dry Saturday with a few clouds and maybe a shower or two, and whatever happens there will be clouds overhead on Sunday, and it will just be a question of if and when it rains. But if it does, it will be heavy.
October 15th, 2008 at 15:11Alex Andronov said:
Having read back through the thread. I would have to say that I am totally with Me on this one.
I understand what the others are saying about how overtaking should have to happen on track. But actually with Schumacher and Brawn out of the picture to a greater and lesser extent it has been quite frustrating as teams seem closely matched on strategy and nobody can overtake. Take away the strategy and we’d be stuck completely.
I also agree with Christine’s point. You should be able to quickly “get” the sport but at the same time see the strands that need to be looked further in to if you want to be entangled further. My non F1 following friend has slowly but surely been coming back to me for more info about what’s been going on this season. Driving style was much harder for him to “get” than fuel load. I could explain what a smooth driver was but he couldn’t relate that to what he was seeing as easily as he could understand a heavy car and what that would mean to lap times.
October 15th, 2008 at 15:56Jordan Allen said:
Wonderful: But where is this presumption that Hamilton is going to finish coming from?
I forsee a similiar situtation to what had happened in Fuji last weekend. However, thinks time Kimi is in front by the distance of the half the car length in in front of Hamilton and is properly spearing Kimi of the track. Kubica wins and Massa in 2nd and we have three way shoot-out.
Massa vs Hamilton in Brazil. Massa has the lead into the first corner ahd Hamilton spears him off. Under most historical circumstances, this would ensure the win to Hamilton but Kubica has a stumming drive to win the race and championship.
Of course Kubica will not gain the champiionship win until some time next year as Ron Dennis will say that Alonso did not defend his position and let Kubica by and therefore the stewards should DQ Alonso for throwing thr race or drop Kubica back to 2nd place, eiher result allowing Hamilton to get the championnship over Kubica by a very narrow margin. (less than 3 points)
We also find out that Hamilton is colour blind in the yellow-white specturm. Thus, Kimi’s Ferrair looks indentical to Massa’s Ferrari….
At this point my budget model crystal ball can not see further into the future…
October 15th, 2008 at 17:50Stuart C said:
I’m expecting to be coughing my guts up, what with the smog. Can’t actually see the clouds for it…
October 15th, 2008 at 17:57me said:
i bet the photographers love that?
loosing sight of a mountain peek must be small fry to loosing the whole sky.
October 15th, 2008 at 18:04Steven Roy said: