Singapore Night GP 2008

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

vyselegend wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:the Williams aero sucks when they turn the wheels. this kills the downforce in fast corners. on point and squirt circuits they do not feel the problem because there are no really fast corners. Williams aero is subterranean for many years now. already with BMW it was the lousy aero that always let them down. remember that walrus nose? they do not deserve a driver of Nico's caliber.
You may be right about the bad effect of steering on the car's aero; I hadn't think about that...

However, don't take it as an offense, but I think you're in quite a nationalistic mood these days WB (which is your right of course), and I feel some of your comments are just biased by that. You're so much Germany whohoo here, BMW woohoo there that in the end you're just putting the blame on others with no proof (This is NOT a comment aimed at flamming you, but an expression of what I think of some statements in your recent posts :wink: ) In the Williams/BMW days, both parties expressed unsatisfaction toward the other, and in the end what prevailed is that a team in disagreement with his engine manufacturer comes to nothing good (though there were some good results also during this era). ...
I was sick and tired of Pat Head's attitude when Williams had the strongest engine on the grid and for no money in the world got a competitive chassis. BMW pumped a lot of cash into the team and made some progress for two years. Then it went down the drain very quickly and it was by no means Theissen's fault. The Sauber take over shows very clearly that Theissen is by far the better team manager than Head. These two were conducting a little war between themselves in the two final years and Theissen had no chance because Head was a share holder. Generally Head is vastly over rated the last twelve years. If they hadn't had Newey and Dernie they would have sunk much earlier. It's a shame for Sir Frank because he is generally doing a very nice job and is such a likeable man.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 28 Sep 2008, 17:56, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
gcdugas
5
Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 21:48

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

andartop wrote:.
Quite a few overtakings for position, were you counting gcdugas???
And the pit entry/exit I think seemed just fine after all...
I didn't see much. It was another lottery race with the SC and most of the "action" was manufactured. Trulli was 5 sec. a lap slower and it still took several laps before the first car got by him. And Hamilton didn't risk anything trying to pass Nico because the chances of success were zero even though Hamilton could match Alonso's pace which was 3 sec. per lap faster.

I think Hamilton did get by DC on merit but there wasn't much real overtaking out there.

And then there is the bogus SC rule that was supposed to be fixed by the time the teams got back to Europe mid-season.

I don't want to seem all negative. It seems that fate is intervening to give us F1 fans exciting races despite all the crap in F1 that needs to be fixed. And let us be glad for that! (but we should address those things, FIA bias, SC rule, overtaking)
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1

boci
boci
0
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 00:46

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

andartop wrote:
boci wrote:
andartop wrote: LH once again cruised to the finish line and got the points by doing nothing special other than being lucky.
Nothing like Massa winning in Spa right?
If you read my post you will see what I thought of Massa's (and Kimi's and the Ferrari team's) performance today. What happened is Spa has absolutely nothing to do with the Singapore GP, which is the subject of this thread, but if you want my opinion on that LH was again cruising to get second place in Spa until the rain came a few laps before the end of the race, doing nothing special other than waiting to get lucky!
I did read the rest of the post and you are critisizing Hamilton for something that Massa is just as guilty in! Also Hamilton was catching Kimi on the hard tires even before the rain started.

andartop
andartop
14
Joined: 08 Jun 2008, 22:01
Location: London, UK

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

gcdugas wrote:
I didn't see much. It was another lottery race with the SC and most of the "action" was manufactured. Trulli was 5 sec. a lap slower and it still took several laps before the first car got by him. And Hamilton didn't risk anything trying to pass Nico because the chances of success were zero even though Hamilton could match Alonso's pace which was 3 sec. per lap faster.
I thought you would be counting! What does everyone else think? Are you happy with the amount of overtaking? I think there was much more overtaking opportunity than a lot of people and a few of the drivers were afraid there might be.
As far as Trulli is concerned, they were fighting for position. Would you prefer a F1 where as soon as a car reaches the car in front it's already past it?
And yes, Hamilton didn't risk. I wish he had!
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft

myurr
myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

I think the circuit itself is exciting, and this race was entertaining if a little too based on pure luck.

That said, and I really want to like this circuit as I'm sick of Tilke and his boring technical circuits, but if it wasn't for the timing of the first safety car and Trulli running a one stopper then I think it could have ended up quite processional.

At least there is some chance of overtaking.

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

chasefreak wrote:
Conceptual wrote:, but man, the Singapore track could seriously benefit from the Diamond Track Grinder that Indy uses to smooth the surface.

Good to see new people on the podium, but who would have guessed with 5 races to go in the season, that we would see the top 2 teams finishing behind mid-packers?
geeze i just know abt 3 races left as this race is over
where did u get the No. five from
I guess if you could count, you would know that Italy and Singapore + Japan, China and Brazil = 5 races.

andartop
andartop
14
Joined: 08 Jun 2008, 22:01
Location: London, UK

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

boci wrote:
I did read the rest of the post and you are critisizing Hamilton for something that Massa is just as guilty in! Also Hamilton was catching Kimi on the hard tires even before the rain started.

I still don't see what Massa has to do with my opinion on LH's performance today. I did not compare these two drivers. I expressed my opinion on the performance of the 3 drivers who finished on the podium in today's race. I also commented on the (under)performance of my favourite team's drivers and crew. If you want to discuss Belgium, there is another thread. If you want to compare Lewis and Massa, it's up to you.
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft

Saribro
Saribro
6
Joined: 28 Jul 2006, 00:34

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

myurr wrote:Christ Raikkonnen out! Slightly out of shape over the curbs and slid out.
Looking at how that right-front tyre fumbled at the first touch with the wall, could it have been a flat tyre that got him out of shape in the first place?

myurr
myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

Saribro wrote:
myurr wrote:Christ Raikkonnen out! Slightly out of shape over the curbs and slid out.
Looking at how that right-front tyre fumbled at the first touch with the wall, could it have been a flat tyre that got him out of shape in the first place?
Don't think so - although he may have punctured his right front on the curbs. He hit the end rather hard.

User avatar
gcdugas
5
Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 21:48

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

This strays way off topic but the initial quote was from this thread so I addressed the matter here (as well as starting another thread). Sorry...
WhiteBlue wrote:I was sick and tired of Pat Head's attitude when Williams had the strongest engine on the grid and for no money in the world got a competitive chassis. BMW pumped a lot of cash into the team and made some progress for two years. Then it went down the drain very quickly and it was by no means Theissen's fault. The Sauber take over shows very clearly that Theissen is by far the better team manager than Head. These two were conducting a little war between themselves in the two final years and Theissen had no chance because Head was a share holder. Generally Head is vastly over rated the last twelve years. If they hadn't had Newey and Dernie they would have sunk much earlier. It's a shame for Sir Frank because he is generally doing a very nice job and is such a likeable man.
You mean earlier than 12 LONG years ago? Williams had their hey day but since then (12 yrs) they have done very little except in 2003 when I think they should have won everything but were robbed by Michelin-gate and the bogus Indy Montoya DQ.

To be fair the team should have never been hoodwinked by Willi Weber into Ralf's second contract. They should have treated Montoya better and told Ralf the whiner to piss off. This wasn't Head's fault, it was Frank's and Frank should have told Mario that Ralf was history. But BMW held a lot of cards when Ralf's contract came up and with German pressure Williams had to cave in. No doubt the strained relationship with BMW made it hard for Williams to have the rapport to tell Willi Weber where to go. A back drop of 3 Ralf victories in 2002 made it even harder (though a monkey could have won those races in that car). Also the 2002 car only finished 16 times out of 34 starts (17x2) and mostly is was the grenade in the rear that let them down so Williams' frustration with BMW was justified. For sure circumstances conspired against Williams and BMW but they still should have dumped Ralf (or halved his salary) and backed Montoya more. It was so bad that Montoya signed to race for McLaren a year and a half in advance even during a near double Championship year at Williams. This is personnel mismanagement at it highest and Williams at their lowest.

McLaren, even when they had Newey saw that the age of the star designer was over and built a team of designers. Williams is trying to do the same but Sam Michael just isn't up to it and Patrick finds it hard to delegate and release the engineers fully. But they do need to get some better aero people also. Mark Gillan was available but Toyota correctly perceived his value and snapped him up. Williams are notoriously cheap (except when they are being swindled by Willi Weber) and are too gentlemanly to poach talent from other teams. They need to spend $$$ on pirating talent and then let them do their job. They are being soundly beat by Toyota who have come to the sport well after Williams' hey day and spent much of that short time floundering tailoring the car to the same overpriced Ralf when Jarno dusted him in early 2005 (from the TF105B through to the last Ralf influenced car the TF107 Toyota were went down hill.... no I don't like Ralfie-pooh and Willi the shyster). The point being that Toyota are now beating the "pedigreed" Williams soundly in a square chassis fight.

All in all I must agree with your assessment of Patrick Head. He is living in the past. BTW, this same "living in the past" mentality is what drives Max Mosley with his "customer chassis"/cheap engines/low budget/"independent teams" fixation that has its roots in the Cosworth era. Accordingly Max has been out of step ever since the "manufacturer era" started with the first Renault turbos and that is a lot of time to spend being out of date. Ron Dennis, for all his small picture attention to detail, read the big picture tea leaves better and, after the low point of Peugeot, acquiesced to reality and became the first to embrace a manufacturer, give them an equity stake and allowed full engineering collaboration and integration. Head and Williams resisted all of this when the golden opportunity of BMW appeared at their door step. BMW wanted full engineering collaboration and integration back in 2002 but Williams chaffed as the old mentality was too hard to shake. Moreover if Williams had the wisdom to give BMW an equity stake they would have forever secured a worthy manufacturer partner. As it is they have been rightly relegated back to the customer engine status that their out-dated paradigm dictates. There are no more partners to be had and they missed their chance. They can only fade/remain in second tier status from now on.

Bad personnel management saw Mansell and Hill leave the team as sitting Champions. More bad personnel management saw Ralf get embraced and Montoya disgusted into leaving. Bad business management saw BMW leave and an opportunity for long term prosperity vanish. All this has its roots in an out-dated short-sighted cheapskate mentality. So, while I also greatly respect and like Frank, I must apportion much of this at his footsteps as well.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1

woohoo
woohoo
6
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 01:12

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

gsdugas, you have your dates and facts messed up.

Michelin gate was not in 2003 it was in 2005, Montoya was not DQ in indy in 2003 but 2004, and Hill did not leave, he was fired.

And also, the BMW was one of the most powerful engines in the field, but bad design and engineering left Williams in the midfield, which is why BMW left. Williams (the team) is self to blame for the mess they are in.
The only way to close a stupid question is to give a smart answer

West
West
0
Joined: 07 Jan 2004, 00:42
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

No, gcdugas is right.

Montoya got, IMO, a very contraversial DQ in Indy 2003. He made Barrichello go off the track or something similar.

Michelin-gate was around the time of the 2003 Hungarian GP when Bridgestone allegedly had photos of the Michelins expanding beyong regulation size during the race. Pre- and post-race the tires met regulations.

That said, this will probably be their only highlight of yet another disappointing season. Quite sad since they were (are?) the team I followed since I started watching F1 (along w/ Mild Seven Renault, gotta love those cigarettes).
Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements

User avatar
gcdugas
5
Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 21:48

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

woohoo wrote:gsdugas, you have your dates and facts messed up.

Michelin gate was not in 2003 it was in 2005, Montoya was not DQ in indy in 2003 but 2004, and Hill did not leave, he was fired.

And also, the BMW was one of the most powerful engines in the field, but bad design and engineering left Williams in the midfield, which is why BMW left. Williams (the team) is self to blame for the mess they are in.

My dates are correct. Michelin-gate was not Indy 2005, it was pre-Monza 2003 when the FIA decided that tires which were legal since 1998 were no longer legal as they changed measuring methods at the behest of Ferrari. Yes the Monty Indy DQ was in 2003 when he and Rubens got into a tussle.

Hill was dumped to make way for Frentzen. Dumped, let go, fired... whatever. It is a shabby way to treat a reigning WDC.

The BMW engine of 2002 was the most powerful but the engine caused the vast majority of the 18 DNFs.

My dates and facts are correct. And it seems you agree with my conclusion about Williams being responsible for the mess they are in.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1

andartop
andartop
14
Joined: 08 Jun 2008, 22:01
Location: London, UK

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

Without that BMW engine though I seriously doubt JPM would have had half a chance to challenge for the WDC. I think it's much better to have a powerful but unreliable engine than a weak and reliable, as reliability issues are usually easier to sort out than performance issues..
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft

User avatar
gcdugas
5
Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 21:48

Re: Singapore Night GP 2008

Post

andartop wrote:Without that BMW engine though I seriously doubt JPM would have had half a chance to challenge for the WDC. I think it's much better to have a powerful but unreliable engine than a weak and reliable, as reliability issues are usually easier to sort out than performance issues..
OK but the point being made was that the BMW Williams relationship was an opportunity squandered by Williams and why it happened. 2003 was Williams' last hurrah.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1