F1 2009 Season discussion/development thread

Just found out that those classic races are currently running on the BBC red button service in better quality than the streaming version (obviously) - watching that 94 race on a large flat-screen seems very strange!
 
I couldn't see the streaming versions. Am I blind :s

edit - found them!

Last time I looked at that link they only had the short versions.
 
I am not usually the betting type, but I thought I would see what odds are being offered for this weekends GP.

2009 Australian Grand Prix - Race winner (Ladbrokes 24/3/09 23:50)

K Raikkonen 4/1
J Button 4/1
F Massa 5/1
F Alonso 5/1
R Barrichello 7/1
R Kubica 8/1
L Hamilton 9/1
N Heidfeld 20/1
S Vettel 20/1
J Trulli 33/1
T Glock 33/1
H Kovalainen 33/1
N Rosberg 33/1
N Piquet Jnr 66/1
M Webber 66/1
K Nakajima 66/1
S Bourdais 150/1
S Buemi 200/1
A Sutil 300/1
G Fisichella 300/1
Click to expand...

Any surprises here? I might have to do the patriotic thing and put a £10 on Button. Should make the race even more exciting than I hope its panning out to be already :)
 
NightSt@lk3r said:
So they should have went to them again, stop moaning and make your own or prepair to get plastered.
Click to expand...

I think they are preparing to get plastered. ;)

Seriously guys, I've not seen such a dominant testing performance (BrawnGP) since the 1992/93 season, when Williams totally dominated the races and everybody else was fighting for the minor places or hoping that the Williams cars got a DNF.

I saw the Massa interview on the BBC website and in there he suggested that perhaps the BrawnGP were trying to get sponsors, so ran their cars really really light or even illegally.

We are going into the first GP of the season almost totally blind.
 
NicktheNorse said:
See paragraph 4 of this story:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37288
Click to expand...

Even after reading that it still doesnt say anything either for or against and this is why (imo)

There is potential for different designs to do the same job - just because type "a" of the double defuser is banned, doesnt necessarily mean tybe "b" should be

Admittedly the FIA does look as though its having double standards again - and at the very least IF /When the FIA had their mind changed over the winter , they should have advised Renault /Red Bull of this change due to earlier application and denial

BUT ONLY if the two designs where sufficiently similar - perhaps they wherent in which case R/RB and all the others doesnt have a leg to stand on

I do admit though that as several teams have come up with similar ideas then the likelyhood is that R/RB was sufficiently similar - but it might not have been

For those teams who where denied, then they can feel aggreaved to say the least - for those that didnt think of it in the first place......tough luck....still doesnt mean it should be banned though, after all thats what F1 should be all about should it not (ie finding different ways within the law to engineer a better car)

sunama said:
I saw the Massa interview on the BBC website and in there he suggested that perhaps the BrawnGP were trying to get sponsors, so ran their cars really really light or even illegally..
Click to expand...

We know for a fact that BrawnGP where doing long enough stints so that fuel wasnt light before pitting. That really only allows for missing ballast, which imo would make the testing times completely ridiculous - as this "permanent" weight would surely affect the cars handling even more than low fuel

Not only that if you take away the effect of the double diffuser (which is rumoured to give 1/2 sec per lap or something), over most runs Brawn GP where still the same amount ahead where they not?

Of course BGP must be desperate for sponsors - but isnt it rumoured they already have a reasonable budget for the whole of the year without any title sponsors - so its not likely they are desperate to have some before Aus, compared to AGAINST running a incomparable /illegal car in the only full tests they have)

It just seems like a complete waste of time to test an illegal car in the only chances you get (with such drastic rule changes in mind, and less testing time)

Its possible yes - but with Brawn at the helm I think highly unlikely
 
Last edited:
Bennah said:
Am I missing something here? Button joint favourite to win at Albert Park?
Click to expand...

The problem with calling favourites this year is that there are too many unknowns - new rules, the fastest cars in testing (BrawnGP) might've been running illegally to get sponsors on board and Ferrari have tendency to go fast only when it matters.

Its best to wait and see what happens at Australia, as quite literally any of about 12 cars could win. If we made predictions purely on pre-season testing, then BrawnGP should get a 1-2.
 
FrankJH said:
Of course BGP must be desperate for sponsors - but isnt it rumoured they already have a reasonable budget for the whole of the year without any title sponsors - so its not likely they are desperate to have some before Aus, compared to AGAINST running a incomparable /illegal car in the only full tests they have)
Click to expand...

300 people losing their jobs, rumours of a very dark cloud over their heads if they don't get some big sponsors soon.

Very stable.
 
Flibster said:
300 people losing their jobs, rumours of a very dark cloud over their heads if they don't get some big sponsors soon.

Very stable.
Click to expand...

Yes, this year is stable, they have a lump sum from Honda which is enough to go racing on. They do require sponsors for 2010 (and preferably 2009 to shore up the coffers) if they want to continue, as part of being classed as a new entrant means they don't get money from FOM for 2 years.
 
FrankJH said:
Even after reading that it still doesnt say anything either for or against and this is why (imo)

There is potential for different designs to do the same job - just because type "a" of the double defuser is banned, doesnt necessarily mean tybe "b" should be

Admittedly the FIA does look as though its having double standards again - and at the very least IF /When the FIA had their mind changed over the winter , they should have advised Renault /Red Bull of this change due to earlier application and denial

BUT ONLY if the two designs where sufficiently similar - perhaps they wherent in which case R/RB and all the others doesnt have a leg to stand on

I do admit though that as several teams have come up with similar ideas then the likelyhood is that R/RB was sufficiently similar - but it might not have been

For those teams who where denied, then they can feel aggreaved to say the least - for those that didnt think of it in the first place......tough luck....still doesnt mean it should be banned though, after all thats what F1 should be all about should it not (ie finding different ways within the law to engineer a better car)



We know for a fact that BrawnGP where doing long enough stints so that fuel wasnt light before pitting. That really only allows for missing ballast, which imo would make the testing times completely ridiculous - as this "permanent" weight would surely affect the cars handling even more than low fuel

Not only that if you take away the effect of the double diffuser (which is rumoured to give 1/2 sec per lap or something), over most runs Brawn GP where still the same amount ahead where they not?

Of course BGP must be desperate for sponsors - but isnt it rumoured they already have a reasonable budget for the whole of the year without any title sponsors - so its not likely they are desperate to have some before Aus, compared to AGAINST running a incomparable /illegal car in the only full tests they have)

It just seems like a complete waste of time to test an illegal car in the only chances you get (with such drastic rule changes in mind, and less testing time)

Its possible yes - but with Brawn at the helm I think highly unlikely
Click to expand...

The are many possible design permutations if you go down the road that Brawn/Toyota/Williams did which would lead to quite different final solutions. But, they are all based on the same initial premise - and it is that premise that will be protested/needs clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom