2012 Formula One Season

[The Raven]

Whoops! Which I'd been a bit more random with my options! Nevermind.....

Speaking of crap Radio 5 live commentary, my favourite moment was from the 2008 Brazil GP. It took them about 5 minutes to realise that Lewis Hamilton had won the Championship and not Massa!

[The Raven]

Sky Sports F1 HD (your new home of F1)™ did a great job of commentary, if that's of any consolation.

Yay scrxisi back! How you doing?

If Sky get the rights to the whole season I would be tempted...

[hopeful traveller]

Sky Sports F1 HD (your new home of F1)™ did a great job of commentary, if that's of any consolation.

Permission to forward this message to my Dad?

If Sky get the rights to the whole season I would be tempted...

It's been worded badly by both sides...

Basically Sky have EVERY race live, the BBC get the worst 10.

[tubeguru]

If Sky get the rights to the whole season I would be tempted...

How closely have you been following F1 in the off-season?! Sky got the rights way back into last year.

[tubeguru]

And a good start in the side-predictions competition for those who said Mercedes' rear wing would be protested. Looks like Lotus are going to protest about it, despite Charlie Whiting saying it is legal.

How can someone protest something that has been ruled legal? And if their protest is upheld, how does that square with Whiting's authorisation? It's just weird.

[The Raven]

If Sky get the rights to the whole season I would be tempted...

How closely have you been following F1 in the off-season?! Sky got the rights way back into last year.

Whoops! Sorry, I meant that if the BBC lose all rights to F1 (no live races or highlights at all) I would be tempted.

[Root]

How can someone protest something that has been ruled legal? And if their protest is upheld, how does that square with Whiting's authorisation? It's just weird.

You're probably referring to Charlie Whiting commenting on its legality. The thing is, that was his opinion, not an official ruling. Now that it has been protested, it will be up to the stewards to make an official ruling. There are two stewards, and Whiting is not one of them.

I highly doubt they will ban it though.

[Root]

It's been worded badly by both sides...

Basically Sky have EVERY race live, the BBC get the worst 10.

That's bad wording from you! They don't have the best ten by any means, but neither do they have the worst ten - and it's all subjective anyway. What I do object to is the BBC claiming they have "ten of the most important races", which I read a couple of months ago. As far as I'm aware, they're all worth the same number of points. Even BT, who don't carry the Sky F1 channel on their TV services, were reduced to writing that nonsense on their website to try to keep their subscribers happy.

Edit: Sorry for the double post.

[tubeguru]

How can someone protest something that has been ruled legal? And if their protest is upheld, how does that square with Whiting's authorisation? It's just weird.

You're probably referring to Charlie Whiting commenting on its legality. The thing is, that was his opinion, not an official ruling. Now that it has been protested, it will be up to the stewards to make an official ruling. There are two stewards, and Whiting is not one of them.

I highly doubt they will ban it though.

They'd better not. F1 is turning into an identikit racing series. Technical innovation isn't embraced any more. Because of the huge sums of money and sponsorship involved, as soon as one team finds an advantage the others protest it so they don't lose.

Colin Chapman will be turning in his grave.

[Root]

I completely agree. The technical side of the sport has always been as important a part of it as the drivers for me, and I love it when a team comes up with something innovative like that, so long as it doesn't make them completely dominant.

[tubeguru]

I completely agree. The technical side of the sport has always been as important a part of it as the drivers for me, and I love it when a team comes up with something innovative like that, so long as it doesn't make them completely dominant.

Which, ironically is what happened with Chapman's Lotus 79 in 1978.

[Root]

Yep, Chapman and Adrian Newey are in an elite group of two, in my opinion, when it comes to the greatest F1 car designers. Still, Chapman's Lotus cars never managed to win back-to-back drivers' titles.

[tubeguru]

Yep, Chapman and Adrian Newey are in an elite group of two, in my opinion, when it comes to the greatest F1 car designers. Still, Chapman's Lotus cars never managed to win back-to-back drivers' titles.

F1 was much more open back then - not as closely regulated by the FIA. I mean, who on earth would respond to the Lotus 79 by building the Ferrari 312T4?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ville ... ddock).jpg

Mind you, who would respond to the Lotus 79 by building this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2001_ ... an_car.jpg

[Root]

I have always loved the Brabham fan car. If I remember correctly (too lazy to read the Wikipedia article), it didn't actually break any regulations, but it was so fast that the FIA banned it in order to preserve the integrity of the competition.

[tubeguru]

You probably haven't read Alan Henry's excellent 1990 book, "The Turbo Years", but in the 1978 chapter, on the subject of the fan car, after describing how Lauda used it at Anderstorp to thrash Mario Andretti in the hitherto dominant Lotus 79, he says:

Word had it that Chapman was already sketching plans for a 'twin-fan' version of the Lotus 79 before flying home to Norfolk the evening after the Swedish race, but motor racing's rule makers were already hot on the heels of the BT46. Deep amongst the technical regulations is stated that "aerodynamic devices must comply with the rules relating to coachwork and must be firmly fixed while the car is in motion." Further, and aerodynamic device was defined as "any part of the car whose primary function is to influence aerodynamic performance."

Despite [Gordon] Murray's (the car's designer) protestations that the fan had been installed primarily for the purposes of engine cooling, the Brabham fan car concept had clearly been rumbled. Ecclestone deferred with good grace and withdrew the car, his commercial savvy subtly appreciating that a short-term performance advantage was not a good enough reason for compromising the collective strength of FOCA (F1 Constructors' Association, as it was back then).

I suggest you get the book in question - it's the story of how Renault used a loophole in the regulations to introduce turbos in 1977, leading to their widespread use up to 1988, when the McLaren MP4/4 used them to achieve levels of dominance that Red Bull can only dream of.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turbo-Years-Gra ... 014&sr=8-1