The 2010 Formula One Season

[rixalex]

Where did you read Alonso complaining that Massa was driving dangerously ? I didn't see that, as far as I'm aware all he said was "I'm much faster than Felipe" ?

I didn't read it, i heard it.

Alonso said it on the pit to car radio during the race, after a failed attempt to pass him. He mentioned it again in the post race interview.

[b19bry]

The track does have a lot to do with passing, though I understand you're not speaking of this case necessarily. In all cases a track that is high speed with wide, flowing corners which do not require a lot of braking are notoriously bad for passing. Not only is there such equality from the top end of the field to the bottom (a couple teams not withstanding), but additionally the aero effects of the cars which allow them to corner so quickly are rendered more ineffective at higher speeds for the pursuing car due to turbulence off the leading car so it is impossible to gain that minimal amount of distance needed to make those passes with all things being nearly equal at that point having neutralized a given cars aero advantage and Hp is a moot point at that time given that it can not be used.

Let's not forget you can throw 1 to 2 second gaps out the window when you put that car close behind another car going through a corner, the car in front is always going to have a serious advantage with clean air flow regardless of which team it is which is why they ask slower cars to move over when being passed by the leaders.

I would also add that the cars at the tail end of the field who are most handicapped in design such as aero, are so, because they are not as smooth nor as efficient and therefore create an even bigger aero disturbance and that is magnified to the cars following through high speed corners..

Conversely on a tight track such as Singapore or most notably Monaco for example while there is some corners to pass on the track it is so tight it isn't feasible to do so and the opposite is true... Slow enough but too restrictive space wise.. Obviously the best tracks have a compromise between space to pass and slow enough corners to create the opportunity for it..

When I wrote "I don't think the track has much to do with it" I was referring to what I saw as the lack of on track overtaking I saw at the German GP which I put down to the cars rather than the track or indeed the drivers.

Of course you're correct in saying different tracks offer varying levels of passing opportunities. Hockenheim should offer reasonable opportunities and I believe in the past has, however from what I saw of the last race there it didn't seem to. Please correct me if I'm wrong ? That has to be down to the current cars.

The last time I can remember a genuine overtake for the lead at Monaco was Villeneuve passing Jones in 81. That was before the advent of driver aids that mitigate against any mistakes and prior to driving standards dropping through the floor. We're unlikely to see it ever happen in Monaco again.

[b19bry]

I didn't read it, i heard it.

Alonso said it on the pit to car radio during the race, after a failed attempt to pass him. He mentioned it again in the post race interview.

That's interesting, I couldn't hear the commentary too well and must have missed that, I was in a bar watching the race ! I haven't see it reported anywhere in those terms have you ? I'd be interested in a link if you have one ?

[WarpSpeed]

The track does have a lot to do with passing, though I understand you're not speaking of this case necessarily. In all cases a track that is high speed with wide, flowing corners which do not require a lot of braking are notoriously bad for passing. Not only is there such equality from the top end of the field to the bottom (a couple teams not withstanding), but additionally the aero effects of the cars which allow them to corner so quickly are rendered more ineffective at higher speeds for the pursuing car due to turbulence off the leading car so it is impossible to gain that minimal amount of distance needed to make those passes with all things being nearly equal at that point having neutralized a given cars aero advantage and Hp is a moot point at that time given that it can not be used.

Let's not forget you can throw 1 to 2 second gaps out the window when you put that car close behind another car going through a corner, the car in front is always going to have a serious advantage with clean air flow regardless of which team it is which is why they ask slower cars to move over when being passed by the leaders.

I would also add that the cars at the tail end of the field who are most handicapped in design such as aero, are so, because they are not as smooth nor as efficient and therefore create an even bigger aero disturbance and that is magnified to the cars following through high speed corners..

Conversely on a tight track such as Singapore or most notably Monaco for example while there is some corners to pass on the track it is so tight it isn't feasible to do so and the opposite is true... Slow enough but too restrictive space wise.. Obviously the best tracks have a compromise between space to pass and slow enough corners to create the opportunity for it..

When I wrote "I don't think the track has much to do with it" I was referring to what I saw as the lack of on track overtaking I saw at the German GP which I put down to the cars rather than the track or indeed the drivers.

Of course you're correct in saying different tracks offer varying levels of passing opportunities. Hockenheim should offer reasonable opportunities and I believe in the past has, however from what I saw of the last race there it didn't seem to. Please correct me if I'm wrong ? That has to be down to the current cars.

The last time I can remember a genuine overtake for the lead at Monaco was Villeneuve passing Jones in 81. That was before the advent of driver aids that mitigate against any mistakes and prior to driving standards dropping through the floor. We're unlikely to see it ever happen in Monaco again.

First off please reference the highlighted portion above. Then I would say that we agree but with a difference only in application where as mine is about applying those changes to further explain just how they are effecting passing and how that is related to various tracks. The preponderance of my post is confirming your conclusion regarding the efficiency of the current cars and the quality of their set up both aerodynamically and mechanically rendering those minimal differences in time lost or gained a moot point when one faster car is following a slower car, so clearly it is due in large part to the current equipment trim as the historical tracks have for the most part remained unchanged and constant..

My previous posts all confirmed that very conclusion too by pointing out the insignificant difference between a car that is 2 seconds or even half a second faster when it's running on it's own in clear air versus running behind someone, catching and passing are two completely different events, as I stated previously...

Reverting back to Rubens pass on Schumie, it would have been a much greater challenge then it was were it not for Rubens fresher soft tires which was another thing that Schumie should have taken into account prior to his brain fade of a move. But even at that it was no cake walk for Rubens and took him several laps to finally accomplish it and during that time Schumies tires were degenerating even more..

Edited August 10, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[rixalex]

What Ferrari did wasn't to cement places, it was to reverse them. Had Massa been mathematically out of the driver's championship, this might have been more understandable, albeit still somewhat undesirable. He wasn't. He isn't.

What Ferrari did was all about cementing places. Massa was evidently holding Alonso up and slowly backing them both up to Vettel. That would have allowed Vettel to get into striking distance of Alonso well before the finish, as indeed he subsequently did of Massa. Now maybe Vettel would still not have passed either Ferrari and I agree that was most the likely outcome, however the point is he could have had the chance to attack Alonso. With one simple mistake he could have been passed Alonso and then directly onto Massa. Allowing Alonso to pass and build up a lead ensured at least he would not be challenged thus cementing the win for Ferrari.

Had Vettel been on the back of Alonso pressuring him, i think there would be some strength to your argument. He wasn't.

Going into the race Alonso was on 98 points, Massa on 68 with Hamilton leading on 145. At that rate of scoring if Ferrari were to wait for Massa to be mathematically out of it, Alonso would realistically be out of it too.

Those differences look big because of the new points scoring system. In actual fact, they aren't that great. Three wins is what we were talking, and at a stage when there were nine races remaining. Anyone remember the fight back Kimi made in 2007? Something like two race wins behind with three races remaining, if i remember correctly.

[rixalex]

I didn't read it, i heard it.

Alonso said it on the pit to car radio during the race, after a failed attempt to pass him. He mentioned it again in the post race interview.

That's interesting, I couldn't hear the commentary too well and must have missed that, I was in a bar watching the race ! I haven't see it reported anywhere in those terms have you ? I'd be interested in a link if you have one ?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/autoracing/2010/07/25/alonso_wins_german_gp/

OK. Just done a bit of a search and from this link it seems i misheard somewhat. Apologies for that. From what this link says, Alonso's exact words were:

"This is ridiculous." - on the pit to car radio having just failed in an attempted passing move.

Then, in the post race interview he said:

"In some parts of the race we were fighting very hard for first place, maybe it was a bit dangerous. It's a difficult race to overtake,"

My point stands however. When Alonso failed to pass Massa and told the team "This is ridiculous", the unspoken demand he was making, (ie i can't get passed Massa so tell him to get out my way) was as clear as a bell.

[b19bry]

What Ferrari did was all about cementing places. Massa was evidently holding Alonso up and slowly backing them both up to Vettel. That would have allowed Vettel to get into striking distance of Alonso well before the finish, as indeed he subsequently did of Massa. Now maybe Vettel would still not have passed either Ferrari and I agree that was most the likely outcome, however the point is he could have had the chance to attack Alonso. With one simple mistake he could have been passed Alonso and then directly onto Massa. Allowing Alonso to pass and build up a lead ensured at least he would not be challenged thus cementing the win for Ferrari.

Had Vettel been on the back of Alonso pressuring him, i think there would be some strength to your argument. He wasn't.

You need to re-read the second & third lines I wrote above. It would be a bit pointless to let Vettel get onto the tail of Alonso before ordering him passed.

Those differences look big because of the new points scoring system. In actual fact, they aren't that great. Three wins is what we were talking, and at a stage when there were nine races remaining. Anyone remember the fight back Kimi made in 2007? Something like two race wins behind with three races remaining, if i remember correctly.

Yes, but in truth Massa hasn't looked like he could put 3 wins together this whole season. You're also assuming all of the top 3 or 4 in the championship are not scoring while you pick up those 3 wins so you can catch up which is highly unlikely.

Edited August 10, 2010 by b19bry

[b19bry]

OK. Just done a bit of a search and from this link it seems i misheard somewhat. Apologies for that. From what this link says, Alonso's exact words were:

"This is ridiculous." - on the pit to car radio having just failed in an attempted passing move.

Then, in the post race interview he said:

"In some parts of the race we were fighting very hard for first place, maybe it was a bit dangerous. It's a difficult race to overtake,"

My point stands however. When Alonso failed to pass Massa and told the team "This is ridiculous", the unspoken demand he was making, (ie i can't get passed Massa so tell him to get out my way) was as clear as a bell.

I never questioned that point, I think it's pretty clear to all that Alonso was pushing for the order to be made, I think he did a similar thing in Australia but was ignored ? To accuse a teammate of dangerous driving against you would be a quite different thing though.

[b19bry]

and during that time Schumies tires were degenerating even more..

as was the standard of his driving (if that were at all possible)

[rixalex]

What Ferrari did was all about cementing places. Massa was evidently holding Alonso up and slowly backing them both up to Vettel. That would have allowed Vettel to get into striking distance of Alonso well before the finish, as indeed he subsequently did of Massa. Now maybe Vettel would still not have passed either Ferrari and I agree that was most the likely outcome, however the point is he could have had the chance to attack Alonso. With one simple mistake he could have been passed Alonso and then directly onto Massa. Allowing Alonso to pass and build up a lead ensured at least he would not be challenged thus cementing the win for Ferrari.

Had Vettel been on the back of Alonso pressuring him, i think there would be some strength to your argument. He wasn't.

You need to re-read the second & third lines I wrote above. It would be a bit pointless to let Vettel get onto the tail of Alonso before ordering him passed.

I disagree that it would have been pointless. Had Alonso had Vettel on his tail and were Massa impeding his progress in front of him, asking Massa to allow Alonso past would have seemed far more reasonable and justified - even Massa himself might have accepted it as the right thing to do. Team harmony along with team image might not have been struck quite such a heavy blow.

As it was, Vettel wasn't on Alonso's tail, but a way back down the track. Yes it could have been hypothesized that Vettel was likely to catch them, but until he did the team had no way of knowing for certain that he would. Making the call as early as they did it is my belief that it had far more to do with acquiescing to Alonso's demands to win the race than to do with concerns about Vettel getting passed both Ferraris. In fact, i feel certain that even had the two Ferraris been way out front with nobody closing in, the same decision to make Massa stand aside would have probably been made.

[rixalex]

Those differences look big because of the new points scoring system. In actual fact, they aren't that great. Three wins is what we were talking, and at a stage when there were nine races remaining. Anyone remember the fight back Kimi made in 2007? Something like two race wins behind with three races remaining, if i remember correctly.

Yes, but in truth Massa hasn't looked like he could put 3 wins together this whole season. You're also assuming all of the top 3 or 4 in the championship are not scoring while you pick up those 3 wins so you can catch up which is highly unlikely.

I agree with what you are saying about Massa's chances being slim.

He's never been much more than a decent driver for me.

2008 when he almost won the title i think falsely inflated his own opinion of himself and his fans opinion of him. His title challenge owed much more to Lewis and McLaren's self-destruct path they had set on (as well as of course a little help from the FIA) than to do with Massa's driving.

Alonso on the other hand is certainly a great driver and has that something special that seperates him.

Despite all that however, i'm still of the feeling that it is just that little bit too early in the season with too many races left to go, for Ferrari to be shouting to the world as they did with the decision they made: "this is the driver we believe in - the other one is just making up the numbers".

The negatives of what it does within the team and what it does to Ferraris image for me outweighs the positives of a few extra points for Alonso (along with another falsely-gained winner's trophy no doubt now adorning Alonso's mantlepiece). Not surprising however that Alonso and his fans consider Massa's loss of face (not to mention winner's trophy) and the team's loss of integrity, as being tough but necessary sacrificies.

[rixalex]

I never questioned that point, I think it's pretty clear to all that Alonso was pushing for the order to be made, I think he did a similar thing in Australia but was ignored ? To accuse a teammate of dangerous driving against you would be a quite different thing though.

When Alonso said "it was dangerous", my feeling is he wasn't refering to his own driving, but rather refering to the firm defensive moves that Massa was making to keep him behind.

[WarpSpeed]

and during that time Schumies tires were degenerating even more..

as was the standard of his driving (if that were at all possible)

Yes and why when the rules were changed restricting that he began to struggle even more unable to adjust his driving style and get the most out of his tires as needed...Many drivers are really fast while abusing their equipment and tires but it's the true racers that know how to moderate and temper that aggression to get the best possible finish..

[WarpSpeed]

What Ferrari did was all about cementing places. Massa was evidently holding Alonso up and slowly backing them both up to Vettel. That would have allowed Vettel to get into striking distance of Alonso well before the finish, as indeed he subsequently did of Massa. Now maybe Vettel would still not have passed either Ferrari and I agree that was most the likely outcome, however the point is he could have had the chance to attack Alonso. With one simple mistake he could have been passed Alonso and then directly onto Massa. Allowing Alonso to pass and build up a lead ensured at least he would not be challenged thus cementing the win for Ferrari.

Had Vettel been on the back of Alonso pressuring him, i think there would be some strength to your argument. He wasn't.

You need to re-read the second & third lines I wrote above. It would be a bit pointless to let Vettel get onto the tail of Alonso before ordering him passed.

I disagree that it would have been pointless. Had Alonso had Vettel on his tail and were Massa impeding his progress in front of him, asking Massa to allow Alonso past would have seemed far more reasonable and justified - even Massa himself might have accepted it as the right thing to do. Team harmony along with team image might not have been struck quite such a heavy blow.

As it was, Vettel wasn't on Alonso's tail, but a way back down the track. Yes it could have been hypothesized that Vettel was likely to catch them, but until he did the team had no way of knowing for certain that he would. Making the call as early as they did it is my belief that it had far more to do with acquiescing to Alonso's demands to win the race than to do with concerns about Vettel getting passed both Ferraris. In fact, i feel certain that even had the two Ferraris been way out front with nobody closing in, the same decision to make Massa stand aside would have probably been made.

Agreed.....

[WarpSpeed]

Those differences look big because of the new points scoring system. In actual fact, they aren't that great. Three wins is what we were talking, and at a stage when there were nine races remaining. Anyone remember the fight back Kimi made in 2007? Something like two race wins behind with three races remaining, if i remember correctly.

Yes, but in truth Massa hasn't looked like he could put 3 wins together this whole season. You're also assuming all of the top 3 or 4 in the championship are not scoring while you pick up those 3 wins so you can catch up which is highly unlikely.

I agree with what you are saying about Massa's chances being slim.

He's never been much more than a decent driver for me.

2008 when he almost won the title i think falsely inflated his own opinion of himself and his fans opinion of him. His title challenge owed much more to Lewis and McLaren's self-destruct path they had set on (as well as of course a little help from the FIA) than to do with Massa's driving.

I often here this sort of comparison but without really thinking out the logic that is contradictory behind it... Drivers are often dismissed for what they don't do to sabotage themselves instead of hailed for it as a strength, it is an integral part of being a top driver, both Massa and Rubens do very little to sabotage their own races and this is all to often overlooked where as Hamilton, Alonso, Vettal, et al do things to sabotage their season and results but in doing so they are more outstanding and flashy so get credit for being so and conversely the lesser publicized driver in the team gets an unjust label for not being as talented and the lead driver ONLY lost because of the actions of others??

This doesn't wash as most of their penalties, be it damage, mechanical failures or political mishaps ala Michael are due to their own self sabotage and not any notable talent except for sabotaging their own goals..

[b19bry]

I never questioned that point, I think it's pretty clear to all that Alonso was pushing for the order to be made, I think he did a similar thing in Australia but was ignored ? To accuse a teammate of dangerous driving against you would be a quite different thing though.

When Alonso said "it was dangerous", my feeling is he wasn't refering to his own driving, but rather refering to the firm defensive moves that Massa was making to keep him behind.

Well I pretty much 100% disagree with your post #790 but amazingly 100% agree with your post #791.

In this last post I think you've unwittingly hit on a very salient point with regards to Alonso. I think many, particularly the British media and it has to be said most Hamilton supporters, let their 'feelings' get in the way of an objective judgement and always look to see Alonso in the worst possible light.

I'm not especially an Alonso fan but I really don't think there was anything sinister in the 'dangerous' comment he made. He's no Angel but I also don't think he's any worse or better in the self centred ego stakes than any of the other drivers. For example Vettel's pitlane and podium performance in Hungary was positively juvenile but not much was made of that. As I see it, Webber seems the most down to earth and tells it like it is, most of the others are self obsessed prima donna's. It seems only Alonso though gets such a relentless battering from the British media and elsewhere (including this forum) because of his one season at Mclaren.

[rixalex]

Well I pretty much 100% disagree with your post #790 but amazingly 100% agree with your post #791.

Well you can't win 'em all...

[WarpSpeed]

^ It's Karma.... Yin and yang...

[rixalex]

In this last post I think you've unwittingly hit on a very salient point with regards to Alonso. I think many, particularly the British media and it has to be said most Hamilton supporters, let their 'feelings' get in the way of an objective judgement and always look to see Alonso in the worst possible light.

I wondered how long it would be before the "you must be unfairly biased against Alonso because of your feelings about Lewis" argument would raise its head. It's the problem supporters suffer when they are prepared to be open about their feelings on drivers they like - that their view must be in some way be tainted and can't possibly be balanced.

Other supporters avoid this problem, or at least attempt to, by claiming to have no real favourites - they claim to simply be casual but keen, neutral, sitting-on-the-fence observers of the sport, with no horse in the race to cloud their judgement. In my experience though there are few true motor racing fans who don't deep down harbour feelings of favouritism of one sort or another, even if they pretend otherwise.

Your comments at the beginning of the season (something about Alonso "pissing on everyone's parade" i seem to recall) and more recently here with the defensive stance you have taken concerning team orders, i think possibly give a hint as to where your own loyalties lie.

Anyway, that aside, Alonso is far from being the only driver i have a problem with, nor the only driver i have criticised in the past (and believe it or not, my criticism has even at times been directed at Lewis who without doubt has his own flaws). I certainly agree with you that Vettel has been making a fool of himself of late too.

It just so happens that i feel Alonso to currently be one of the most flawed of them all (in terms of character, not ability) and that is the reason why i personally give him more stick than some of the others.

Edited August 11, 2010 by rixalex

[b19bry]

Your comments at the beginning of the season (something about Alonso "pissing on everyone's parade" i seem to recall) and more recently here with the defensive stance you have taken concerning team orders, i think possibly give a hint as to where your own loyalties lie.

Anyway, that aside, Alonso is far from being the only driver i have a problem with, nor the only driver i have criticised in the past (and believe it or not, my criticism has even at times been directed at Lewis who without doubt has his own flaws). I certainly agree with you that Vettel has been making a fool of himself of late too.

It just so happens that i feel Alonso to currently be one of the most flawed of them all (in terms of character, not ability) and that is the reason why i personally give him more stick than some of the others.

As I said I'm not a particular fan of Alonso or Ferrari for that matter. Last season I was hoping Brawn would win the championship and would have been happy whichever driver took it. This season I would much rather a Red Bull (originally I wouldn't mind either one, but I must admit over the last few races I lean more towards Webber now) takes the championship. I was perhaps being a little provocative in making the early season comment but it was intended in a light-hearted manner, banter if you will cos I knew so many posters here hated the guy. Frankly I feel sorry the guy gets picked on so much !

The reason I've taken the opposite view on the team orders question has nothing to do with Alonso. It's because I think the ban is unrealistic, unworkable and the teams that are calling 'foul' are just being hypocrites. Team orders will always be around and all teams will use them, ban or no ban.

This really isn't aimed at you specifically and I see you have criticised others too, it's more a general observation. I think, for example, if you check some of the other F1 sites and see some of the reports and downright poisonous comments that are posted it's an unavoidable conclusion. Alonso is some kind of pariah on these sites.

[silverhawk_usa]

As I am fairly new to this topic, I don't know if this has previously been discussed (if so, just ignore me ). In one of Steve Slater's commentary's he suggested the concept of doing away with the blue flags. Slower cars would not have to move over for the faster cars. This would put the slower cars back into the competitive aspects of the race, and the faster cars would have to use their driving skills to maintain or gain positions. If held up by a slower moving car, so be it. If your that much faster, you should be able to get around. Yes, the cars behind would bunch up, but wouldn't that make it more interesting and more exciting? These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world and the most sophisticated race cars. So why do slower cars have to get out of the way for you to pass (this is meant as a redundant question, I don't need the answers of aero-force, tracks, etc)? It would be an equal playing field. In some American racing, lapped cars are actually given their lap back on a yellow flag and allowed to rejoin the field to increase the spectator appeal.

On a similar note; Sir Stirling Moss has commented that he feels it is too easy for today's drivers. It is too safe. He believes that when a car leaves the track, the car should suffer some sort of ill effect. Clearly he states he does not want to see anyone injured, but he believes the huge paved runoff areas, the lack of track side barriers (with exceptions), etc. allow the drivers to get lazy and not stay as technical as they should. The concept of being forced to work to pass slower vehicles would in it's own way introduce this concept.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen. But it is an interesting idea. Thoughts?

[b19bry]

As I am fairly new to this topic, I don't know if this has previously been discussed (if so, just ignore me ). In one of Steve Slater's commentary's he suggested the concept of doing away with the blue flags. Slower cars would not have to move over for the faster cars. This would put the slower cars back into the competitive aspects of the race, and the faster cars would have to use their driving skills to maintain or gain positions. If held up by a slower moving car, so be it. If your that much faster, you should be able to get around. Yes, the cars behind would bunch up, but wouldn't that make it more interesting and more exciting? These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world and the most sophisticated race cars. So why do slower cars have to get out of the way for you to pass (this is meant as a redundant question, I don't need the answers of aero-force, tracks, etc)? It would be an equal playing field. In some American racing, lapped cars are actually given their lap back on a yellow flag and allowed to rejoin the field to increase the spectator appeal.

I think this is a very ill-conceived idea. One of the things I hate about modern F1 is the way and extremes that some drivers go to in order to blatantly block passing. If blue flags were done away with blocking would become a race strategy. Suppose a Red Bull is being chased down by a Mclaren and comes up to lap another Mclaren, which car is the Mclaren going to let pass more easily ? We just had a furore over a race being 'manipulated' through team orders, this would be an open book for every race result to be manipulated by blocking. What we need are measures to cut the level of blocking not encourage it.

As for being given a lap back under a yellow, what do the Americans know about sport, they think WWE is a sport

Seriously the SC (which I think came from US racing ?) kind of does that already and I'd like to see that done away with. As we saw in Singapore it's also a way to manipulate a result.

On a similar note; Sir Stirling Moss has commented that he feels it is too easy for today's drivers. It is too safe. He believes that when a car leaves the track, the car should suffer some sort of ill effect. Clearly he states he does not want to see anyone injured, but he believes the huge paved runoff areas, the lack of track side barriers (with exceptions), etc. allow the drivers to get lazy and not stay as technical as they should. The concept of being forced to work to pass slower vehicles would in it's own way introduce this concept.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen. But it is an interesting idea. Thoughts?

I reckon Moss is right, many of the current F1 drivers 'over' drive their cars because there are no ill consequences in doing that. The ban on refuelling has helped a little on this as drivers have to plan to drive a race distance and drive with a little more finesse, rather than run a series of sprints between pitstops.

[nocturn]

As I am fairly new to this topic, I don't know if this has previously been discussed (if so, just ignore me ). In one of Steve Slater's commentary's he suggested the concept of doing away with the blue flags.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen. But it is an interesting idea. Thoughts?

I would pretty much ignore Slaters commentary. He is frequently wrong (Gary Anderson seems to correct him a few times every race) and has a habit of repeating the same things every race day.

[Mosha]

I may be in a minority, but I do think it's too easy for a car to rejoin the track. They come round a fast corner and fail to keep it on the tarmac, and just drive back on to the track. More kitty litter, to stop the cars safely, off the track by more than a car width should be race over.

[WarpSpeed]

As I am fairly new to this topic, I don't know if this has previously been discussed (if so, just ignore me ). In one of Steve Slater's commentary's he suggested the concept of doing away with the blue flags.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen. But it is an interesting idea. Thoughts?

I would pretty much ignore Slaters commentary. He is frequently wrong (Gary Anderson seems to correct him a few times every race) and has a habit of repeating the same things every race day.

As did even Alex who I now respect more for his understanding if not his ability to drive in a consistently quick manner without a huge brain fade at some point..

But in this case Slater does have a point but the flag is a misunderstanding too. A blue flag does not mean "yield right of way" necessarily, it means you may have a faster class car coming up on you. It was primarily applied for sports car series with multiple classes who have a wide range of speed differences and to provide a driver with information about a possible overtaking car of a faster class. F1 has adopted and twisted it to mean that you should move over to allow these cars to pass but that is not it's correct interpretation within a class when all cars are in essence racing for position..

The concept of moving over comes more from a drivers professional courtesy as there may come a time when you might wish someone had moved over so you could win and they didn't because at some point you didn't reciprocate. A driver is not obligated to give up a lap to anyone in his class as should there be an SC for example you can then get back to the end of the line and still be on the lead lap and not out of the race, so to speak, it makes the racing more exciting.. I personally would fight for every lap, if they were fast enough to lap me then so be it, they've earned it unless I'm seriously off the pace, fortunately I've never had to deal with this rule in regards to my class only faster classes passing..

As for one team blocking another that still happens whenever possible so neither the SC nor the blue flag has any effect on that whatsoever..

[WarpSpeed]

I may be in a minority, but I do think it's too easy for a car to rejoin the track. They come round a fast corner and fail to keep it on the tarmac, and just drive back on to the track. More kitty litter, to stop the cars safely, off the track by more than a car width should be race over.

I think run off on long straights or corner entries is beneficial but not on the corner exits where the drivers ability should take over and they should slow more on entry and accelerate later to avoid using it. IMO these run offs are beneficial to a drivers performance and can be/are exploited for gain where as a run off on entry is just a safety for potential brake or mechanical failure, brain fade or avoidance of another car but has no performance value as running out there would be detrimental and not beneficial in any way.. I hate gravel for many reasons not the least of which is that another car can cause you to go into it and ruin your race through no fault of your own only their own poor judgement or skills...

[PattayaParent]

^some drivers use the runoffs to overtake and then try to justify that the other driver 'forced me over' when they don't want to give the place back.

Not mentioning any names mind

[rixalex]

The reason I've taken the opposite view on the team orders question has nothing to do with Alonso. It's because I think the ban is unrealistic, unworkable and the teams that are calling 'foul' are just being hypocrites. Team orders will always be around and all teams will use them, ban or no ban.

I must admit, i wasn't particularly aware that other teams had been calling "foul".

Yes, team orders will always be around, but the team's need to be responsible with it. They have their time and place, even if the rules say otherwise, and the general public (the ones who fund the sport) has no problem accepting them when they are issued fairly, sensibly and without an overmanipulation of the results. What Ferrari did in my opinion went beyond acceptable levels of fair play and reduced the final result to that of a farce, that was comically maintained right up to the post race interview.

I think, for example, if you check some of the other F1 sites and see some of the reports and downright poisonous comments that are posted it's an unavoidable conclusion. Alonso is some kind of pariah on these sites.

Well if we take this forum as an example, i think Alonso is far from being the only driver to get a lot of flack. Lewis, Schumi, Senna to name a few have all been spoken of in less than glowing terms quite a bit over the last season or two - and of course one of those drivers has been dead years - how much flack might Senna be getting were he still alive and racing today i wonder? More than Alonso? Well possibly not. Alonso does get a lot of people's backs up. You might put that down to bitterness. I don't. I put it down to a catalogue of ugly incidents all of his own making. There was a time when he was my favourite driver. I sincerely find it sad to think of what his career has become, it having started so freshly and brightly.

[WarpSpeed]

^some drivers use the runoffs to overtake and then try to justify that the other driver 'forced me over' when they don't want to give the place back.

Not mentioning any names mind

Yes but that serves to reinforce my suggestion as it's only because they know they have the same advantage on the exit to maintain momentum. If that was neutralized they would no longer be able to avail themselves of that tactic without serious damage to their aspirations of finishing the race on exiting the corner..

[b19bry]

^some drivers use the runoffs to overtake and then try to justify that the other driver 'forced me over' when they don't want to give the place back.

Not mentioning any names mind

Aah yes..........Spa 2008 remember it well