So. Caterham, then.

[Duncan Snowden]

Any thoughts on their driver line-up for Abu Dhabi? The Barichello
rumours don't seem to go away. Will they even race?

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <20141119142...@talktalk.net>, Duncan Snowden

<dunc...@talktalk.net> writes:

> Any thoughts on their driver line-up for Abu Dhabi? The Barichello
> rumours don't seem to go away. Will they even race?

Maximum of four drivers per season, so they can only run one new
driver. However, with Koboyashi now being confirmed, that does leave
the second seat open for anyone. Ericsson is definitely out, so that
leaves just however many unsigned drivers with F1 superlicences
available for the seat. Perhaps Jacques Villeneuve or Ralf Schumacher
will feel tempted...

--
Mike Fleming

[Duncan Snowden]

It's Will Stevens, apparently.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/11/will-stevens-completes-caterham-line-up-in-abu-dhabi/

Given some of the names that have been flying around, they could have
made a worse choice. He took part in the young driver tests for
the team, and left for Marussia with the promise of a Friday drive at
Suzuka, which didn't happen. And now he's about to have at least one
entire race weekend to his name. It's a funny old world.

I really hope at least one of these teams makes it to next season. If
only to give the grandees angling for three-car outfits one in the eye.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mark Jackson]

On 11/20/2014 9:55 AM, Duncan Snowden wrote:
> I really hope at least one of these teams makes it to next season.
> If only to give the grandees angling for three-car outfits one in the
> eye.

I'm just hoping Caterham have enough speed to qualify within 107%, or at
least to convince the stewards to issue a waiver.

--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Every individual is an exception to the rule. - Carl Jung

[Duncan Snowden]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:15:03 +0000
Mark Jackson <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On 11/20/2014 9:55 AM, Duncan Snowden wrote:
> > I really hope at least one of these teams makes it to next season.
> > If only to give the grandees angling for three-car outfits one in
> > the eye.
>
> I'm just hoping Caterham have enough speed to qualify within 107%, or
> at least to convince the stewards to issue a waiver.

Good point. Kobayashi was comfortably within the time in FP1, and I
think Stevens just made it by a tenth or so (more like a few
hundredths, actually). Of course quali's a different matter, but a
showing like that will be useful if they do need a waiver.

It's remarkable how few cars have failed to make 107% recently. We
think of the "new" teams as consistent back-markers - and so they are -
but the likes of Forti and Simtek were regularly failing to qualify
back in the '90s.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <20141121120...@talktalk.net>, Duncan Snowden

I don't know whether the time for 107% is taken as the fastest time in
Q1 or the actual pole time. As it was, pole was 100.5 seconds so they
had to do under 107.5 seconds, and Stevens did 105.1 seconds.

I thought it was rather unfair on the new teams when they orignally
came in to restrict their testing to the same as teams which have been
around for decades. I think there's a case for a new team (not an old
team with a new name) to be allowed perhaps double the amount of
testing in their first year.

--
Mike Fleming

[Mark Jackson]

On 11/24/2014 1:35 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> I don't know whether the time for 107% is taken as the fastest time
> in Q1 or the actual pole time.

The former.

[Duncan Snowden]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:35:02 +0000
Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't know whether the time for 107% is taken as the fastest time in
> Q1 or the actual pole time. As it was, pole was 100.5 seconds so they
> had to do under 107.5 seconds, and Stevens did 105.1 seconds.

Yep. I thought he did a pretty solid job, actually. Didn't see much of
him on Sunday for obvious reasons, but he seemed to be consistently
improving his times through free practice.

> I thought it was rather unfair on the new teams when they orignally
> came in to restrict their testing to the same as teams which have been
> around for decades. I think there's a case for a new team (not an old
> team with a new name) to be allowed perhaps double the amount of
> testing in their first year.

Then again, the testing ban's one of the few cost-saving measures they
were promised that actually came to fruition. It's a good point,
though. The new teams could have been given an extra session on Fridays
or something.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Simon Turner]

On Monday, in article <20141121120...@talktalk.net>

dunc...@talktalk.net "Duncan Snowden" wrote:

> It's remarkable how few cars have failed to make 107% recently. We
> think of the "new" teams as consistent back-markers - and so they are -
> but the likes of Forti and Simtek were regularly failing to qualify
> back in the '90s.

Forti yes, but not Simtek: they folded in mid-1995, before the 107% rule
was introduced, and indeed only failed to qualify once: Ratzenberger was
out-qualified by Gachot's Pacific at the first race of 1994. (Unless
you want to include Montermini's DNQ after destroying his car and
injuring himself at the 1994 Spanish GP, which seems a little unfair.)

But yes, the current back marker teams are a lot closer to the pace than
most of their predecessors.

--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
si...@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer

[Duncan Snowden]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:55:05 +0000
si...@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) wrote:

> Forti yes, but not Simtek: they folded in mid-1995, before the 107%
> rule was introduced, and indeed only failed to qualify once:
> Ratzenberger was out-qualified by Gachot's Pacific at the first race
> of 1994. (Unless you want to include Montermini's DNQ after
> destroying his car and injuring himself at the 1994 Spanish GP, which
> seems a little unfair.)

Fair enough. I actually wavered over mentioning them, but talked myself
into it. :)

--
Duncan Snowden.