Prisoner 6753 wrote: » The writing for Bottas has been on the wall for a while in terms of a #2 role. The team orders issued earlier in the season just confirmed what we all knew. Kimi has been a #2 pretty much since the day he rejoined Ferrari, but the team radio in Germany was classic, he forced them to say it publicly.
Adamocovic wrote: » Oh Kimi is definitely a support driver too. No argument in that. But difference for me is that Kimi has been around and achieved so much. A world champion and 10 years older than Bottas. I think it annoys him at times but he's winding down his career and good friends with Vettel. Bottas on the other hand was tipped to be one of the main men in F1, got his move to a top team and now sees himself as the assist or support driver. At his age Kimi was winning a championship. Different skill levels but must be hard for Bottas. If he is content with the role fair enough, but it must be hard for a pro entering what you would imagine is his peak. Maybe he will emerge down the line as a number 1 driver at the top, but it hasn't gone to plan for him.
Adamocovic wrote: » If he is content with the role fair enough, but it must be hard for a pro entering what you would imagine is his peak. Maybe he will emerge down the line as a number 1 driver at the top, but it hasn't gone to plan for him.
skipper_G wrote: » Was he ever really that highly rated ? I suppose I'd have just put him in the same category as Perez / Hulk. Good drivers, could win races in the right car but not really number 1 material. Maybe he has the potential but he's lacking something, I can't quite put my finger on it
Valtteri Bottas hailed a world champion in waiting by speedy Williamshttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/19/valtteri-bottas-williams-formula-one
Harika wrote: Taller drivers tend to have their heads also higher, and as those cockpits are as small as possible designed every cm more hurts the aerodynamics. Additionally tall drivers carry more weight than their smaller colleagues what is a distinct disadvantage.
chicorytip wrote: » Harika wrote: Taller drivers tend to have their heads also higher, and as those cockpits are as small as possible designed every cm more hurts the aerodynamics. Additionally tall drivers carry more weight than their smaller colleagues what is a distinct disadvantage. Ocon looks as skinny as a rake and must weigh little in comparison to somebody like Raikkonen, for example, who although quite short, appears quite bulky. Must be middle age spread!
Adamocovic wrote: » Maybe it depends who you ask but quite a few had hyped Bottas up. Think in his second or third year he finished ahead of Vettel, Alonso and a few more highly thought of drivers in the WC. I remember BBC would do pieces regarding him too, one was him and his race engineer clay pigeon shooting together. Maybe I'm remembering not as accurate but I always remembered a lot of hype around him.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » According to joe saward, Ocon had a seat fitting in the McLaren before they started talking about whether he might join the team. It sounded like a kind of pre-discussion fitting. He said it was a tight squeeze. Does anyone remember Alex Wurtz considering an operation to break his legs and take out 4-6cm? It was 1998 I think. It was considered at least which tells you how seriously drivers and teams take drivers height.
Harika wrote: » https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/f1-tv-viewing-figures-sky-sports-channel-4-formula-one-crash-soar-2019-exclusive-deal-a8513276.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true SKY numbers are going down and next year they will be paying twice the fee annually. Let's see if liberty makes something happen
A gradual switch to Pay TV over the past decade has fuelled a 41.3 per cent drop in F1’s worldwide TV audience to 352.3m last year.
vectra wrote: » I honestly cannot for the life of me see Red Bull rear wing wobbling like the Mercedes one does,! As for having evidence ? Did I suggest somewhere It does move under load?To answer that question. I would have as much evidence that it does move as you would have that it does not move under load. Perhaps you could show us evidence that it does not move?
flazio wrote: » Just a reminder, there's a classic F1 Speed with Guy Martin, tonight at 9 on Channel 4.
flazio wrote: » This week's Beyond the Grid podcast is a fascinating chat with Eddie Jordan recorded last weekend in Spa.
Inviere wrote: » From the article... Absolute insanity. F1 has lost just under half its viewers over ten years, because of the shift to pay-tv viewing.
SCOOP 64 wrote: » This will be the last year for me watching F1 now that channel 4 will not be showing it next year.
skipper_G wrote: » It's on catch up for anyone who missed it. Doing so myself, nice look at the Williams simulator! Guy is brilliant, love how he just rolls up his sleeves and gets stuck in
Gintonious wrote: » Not only that, a "wobbling" rear wing like that will do nothing at slower speeds except destabilise the car.
Jordan 199 wrote: » On this date twenty years ago:https://www.grandprixradio.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Spa4.jpg
vectra wrote: » So are you actually expecting me to believe that Mercedes has a rear wing on their car that the know destabilises it at slower speeds? :rolleyes:
LollipopJimmy wrote: » Yes Sam
Ghost Train wrote: » When watching it back a few days ago I liked how Ron Dennis was there with Eddie for the last lap or two... All smiles, gives him a quick shoulder rub
Gintonious wrote: » I dont think you are grasping how little sense you are making here. A destabilised rear wing is not an advantage, its the opposite. Not only that, the aero generated at slower speeds is obviously lower that that at higher speeds. You have shown one video, where the car hits the kerb, the wing wobbles (as they do when the car hits a bump etc), and you think that is some sort of trick advantage...right, makes total sense to me. Can you explain then, from your technical knowledge, how a moving, destabilised (your words there, think about that), rear wing is an advantage on any car, not just the Merc.
So are you actually expecting me to believe that Mercedes has a rear wing on their car that the know destabilises it at slower speeds?
Inviere wrote: » You give out about Hamilton making insinuations about Ferrari having an illegal advantage, and here you are doing that exact thing The cars are all held to the same standard.
Inviere wrote: » whatever the f is on their car, it aint working. They're second best now.
vectra wrote: » I think you need to remove your analizing hat a minute Where did I once say a destabilised wing would be an advantage?? What you replied here is exactly what I was asking you.
