Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Post Reply
Gothnak
Posts: 415
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:59 am

Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Gothnak »

The fact they can qualify ahead of the Red Bulls but jump out the way as soon as they are close is just a joke.

How is this still legal?

Verne (right now) is now Ricciardo's rear gunner, just not fair.

backdoc
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:46 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by backdoc »

Are you joking?

Gothnak
Posts: 415
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Gothnak »

Certainly not. Passed as soon as Red Bull get near, and then Verne mysteriously is able to stay a safe 2 seconds behind but never close enough to try to pass. I'm just bored of one team having 4 cars. Doesn't matter so much if they are out of the top 10.

User avatar
Blackhander
Posts: 1849
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Blackhander »

Yes, let's get rid of the best young driver development system F1 has ever had, that'll help the sport...
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second

Schumacher forever#1
Posts: 3092
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Schumacher forever#1 »

Let's slowly get rid of every team so we'll have five teams left. Because that would certainly make F1 sustainable.
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"

DirtyMike
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:08 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by DirtyMike »

Shocking call

Torro Rosso got passed by pretty much every midfield team today
1996 and Onwards
Ricciardo .:. Massa .:. LeClerc .:. Sainz

Blinky McSquinty

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

It's pretty disgusting to see such serious allegations of illegalities when it's obviously just sour grapes.

After the first lap it was evident that the Toro Rosso cars had been set up to make a flash in qualifying, and would suffer race pace. The end result just confirms that basic fact, Red Bulls finishing 7,8 with the Toro Rosso 13, 14. There is a big difference between being competitive and being stupid, to fight a fight you know is already lost, to risk a collision or severe tire degradation for nothing but showing how dumb you are.

Infidelity
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Infidelity »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:After the first lap it was evident that the Toro Rosso cars had been set up to make a flash in qualifying, and would suffer race pace. The end result just confirms that basic fact, Red Bulls finishing 7,8 with the Toro Rosso 13, 14. There is a big difference between being competitive and being stupid, to fight a fight you know is already lost, to risk a collision or severe tire degradation for nothing but showing how dumb you are.
Without knowing how Toro Rosso setup their cars, a reasonable justification for any non-conventional decision is gamesmanship.

If you're not likely to get a good result following a standardized strategy, take the alternative with the greater chance of an unlikely successful result.

i.e. Generally used when the downside from an unsuccessful use of an alternative strategy is the same as the conventional strategy, but when the alternative strategy can offer greater returns.

e.g. 1 point good alternative strategy is better than 0 points with the good or bad implementation of standard strategy, which is equal to 0 points with poor implementation of the alternative strategy

Blinky McSquinty

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

Infidelity wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:After the first lap it was evident that the Toro Rosso cars had been set up to make a flash in qualifying, and would suffer race pace. The end result just confirms that basic fact, Red Bulls finishing 7,8 with the Toro Rosso 13, 14. There is a big difference between being competitive and being stupid, to fight a fight you know is already lost, to risk a collision or severe tire degradation for nothing but showing how dumb you are.
Without knowing how Toro Rosso setup their cars, a reasonable justification for any non-conventional decision is gamesmanship.

If you're not likely to get a good result following a standardized strategy, take the alternative with the greater chance of an unlikely successful result.

i.e. Generally used when the downside from an unsuccessful use of an alternative strategy is the same as the conventional strategy, but when the alternative strategy can offer greater returns.

e.g. 1 point good alternative strategy is better than 0 points with the good or bad implementation of standard strategy, which is equal to 0 points with poor implementation of the alternative strategy
In other words, adopt the "WTF, we're not going to score any points anyways, let's go crazy and hope that somehow we luck out"?

That is the best-case scenario, the worst case scenario is that you crash out and take out a car belonging to the team you are going to next year. That would make a lot of people unhappy, especially if Alonso manages to secure third position in the WDC ahead of Ricciardo.

paulsf1fix
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by paulsf1fix »

Blackhander wrote:Yes, let's get rid of the best young driver development system F1 has ever had, that'll help the sport...
:thumbup: :thumbup: I agree with you!

I like Toro Rosso, I am secretly hoping that Red Bull put a little bit of cash into Caterham as I think they have a handful of good driversready step into F1 but then where does it end?

Davidbl
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:18 pm

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Davidbl »

To be honest I'm also a bit uneasy that one company own 2 teams.

Imagine the same person in football owned both Manchester United and Liverpool and then when those 2 teams played each other, one team was ordered to let the other team win. There would be uproar.

For this reason the same person can not own 2 football clubs that play competitively against each other.

I do not think bringing this point up on this forum is "sour grapes."

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8485
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Exediron »

Gothnak wrote:The fact they can qualify ahead of the Red Bulls but jump out the way as soon as they are close is just a joke.
I don't think that happened.

But I do agree that Toro Rosso needs to become an independent team again. One owner with two teams isn't right, whatever the result.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
hittheapex
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by hittheapex »

Davidbl wrote:To be honest I'm also a bit uneasy that one company own 2 teams.

Imagine the same person in football owned both Manchester United and Liverpool and then when those 2 teams played each other, one team was ordered to let the other team win. There would be uproar.

For this reason the same person can not own 2 football clubs that play competitively against each other.

I do not think bringing this point up on this forum is "sour grapes."
I agree raising the concern isn't sour grapes. Throwing around unfounded accusations on the other hand, is.

I learned recently that Flavio Briatore owned both Ligier and Benetton in....1995 if I recall correctly. I was too young to remember much of that season, but does anybody recall the feelings within the paddock and within the fans? Did we have the same kind of concerns and conspiracy theories as we do now?
"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker

Jeepkhana
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by Jeepkhana »

Gothnak wrote:The fact they can qualify ahead of the Red Bulls but jump out the way as soon as they are close is just a joke.

How is this still legal?

Verne (right now) is now Ricciardo's rear gunner, just not fair.
I'm not falling for this troll post. What size is your tin hat?

User avatar
MistaVega23
Posts: 1969
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by MistaVega23 »

hittheapex wrote:
Davidbl wrote:To be honest I'm also a bit uneasy that one company own 2 teams.

Imagine the same person in football owned both Manchester United and Liverpool and then when those 2 teams played each other, one team was ordered to let the other team win. There would be uproar.

For this reason the same person can not own 2 football clubs that play competitively against each other.

I do not think bringing this point up on this forum is "sour grapes."
I agree raising the concern isn't sour grapes. Throwing around unfounded accusations on the other hand, is.

I learned recently that Flavio Briatore owned both Ligier and Benetton in....1995 if I recall correctly. I was too young to remember much of that season, but does anybody recall the feelings within the paddock and within the fans? Did we have the same kind of concerns and conspiracy theories as we do now?
Hardly any really, apart from the fact that both cars looked the same design-wise.

Ligier were too far off Benetton to pose much of a threat.
#KeepFightingMichael

User avatar
hittheapex
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am

Re: Yet another example of why we don't need Toro Rosso

Post by hittheapex »

MistaVega23 wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
Davidbl wrote:To be honest I'm also a bit uneasy that one company own 2 teams.

Imagine the same person in football owned both Manchester United and Liverpool and then when those 2 teams played each other, one team was ordered to let the other team win. There would be uproar.

For this reason the same person can not own 2 football clubs that play competitively against each other.

I do not think bringing this point up on this forum is "sour grapes."
I agree raising the concern isn't sour grapes. Throwing around unfounded accusations on the other hand, is.

I learned recently that Flavio Briatore owned both Ligier and Benetton in....1995 if I recall correctly. I was too young to remember much of that season, but does anybody recall the feelings within the paddock and within the fans? Did we have the same kind of concerns and conspiracy theories as we do now?
Hardly any really, apart from the fact that both cars looked the same design-wise.

Ligier were too far off Benetton to pose much of a threat.
They did and both were absolutely gorgeous in my opinion. Actually was a very good year, I loved the Ferrari and Forti as well.
"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker

Post Reply