#TJ13 #F1 Courtroom Podcast: Yes!!! Man DID land on the moon….


To those that inhabit the land of tweets and social media – what did we all do before the tinternet was rammed into our lives? The world has become smaller with the unlikeliest friendships developing in a similar manner to bacteria in a petri dish.

Once again the guilty have assembled – only this time in the infamous shed behind the Judge’s towers. By all accounts his Lordship has invited Hugh Hefner and some associates to dine on young quail flesh and copious amounts of mead so the chambers are out of action, sorry reach…

Back slapping and welcomes are given to our very own Hippo on his return from therapy – although the doctors note suggests it may be a while before the Vettel fetish has subsided with this one… hang on… the Doctor’s note is signed by returnee ex Formula 1 doc – Gary Hartstein who allowed us an insight into the sinister mind of the Toad from Suffolk who told him to “F*** **f”.

Trumpets Matt Matt signed in with a sharp inhalation and blasted out musical introductions for the afflicted before lending his Murican radio voice to the proceedings and finally Editor and historian Carlo completed the line up with the show’s very first stalker asking him a question directly.

Oh yes, almost forgotten, Spanners appeared in the production somewhere but rumours persist that he was still looking for his manly bellow after producing a shrill ‘girls’ scream when he ventured on to a proper go-kart track the preceding weekend.

So grab a latte, a smoothie or even a beer and settle down as the show must go on and learn why we did land on the moon and what the hell ‘Lego Hand’ actually means..

This week’s song is The Vigil by Habu

You can follow Habu on Facebook or Twitter

To access the Podcast player Click Here (you can also download the file from here)

To find TheJudge13 F1 Courtroom Podcast on iTunes store Click Here

To manually subscribe copy the address to your podcatcher or aggregator: http://thejudge13.podbean.com/feed/

For iPhone users follow the steps below
Step 1: Navigate to http://thejudge13.podbean.com/mobile/ on your mobile

Step 2: You will be prompted to click the “Quick Launch” icon.

Once you’ve done this it will add the podcast to your home screen where it will appear as an App.

For Android users follow the four steps below
Step 1: Navigate to http://thejudge13.podbean.com/mobile/ in Chrome on your mobile device.

Step 2: Bookmark the site URL in Chrome.

Step 3: Go to your Chrome bookmark and find your podcast icon, long-press it, then tap the “Add to Home Screen” from the pop up menu.

Step 4: Now go to the home screen of your Android phone and you should find your app installed there.

43 responses to “#TJ13 #F1 Courtroom Podcast: Yes!!! Man DID land on the moon….

  1. My 1 purchase would be the TV rights to F1, then once I own them I would make F1 free-to-air the world over.

    Great Podcast fellas, this one had a good balance and flow.
    @spanners I’d be holding out for extension options on 2015 and 2016 when you start hard contract talks with the big guy…..who else will he find who can do such a good job of wrangling roudy guests into something that resembles a respectable show.

      • OK, let’s see.

        Matt: Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess (yeah, no doubt!)
        Carlo: The Godfather (easy)
        FH: Bach (pretty, ahem, almost sure)
        Gary: don’t say it yet! The tune seems familiar, but I can’t put my finger on it… [Me now revisiting my Gershwin collection, in search of needles.]

        • FH close, a German B, but not Bach
          GH not Gershwin think later. It’s rather obscure. Well, OK for general audience. Hint!: Composer was born in 1917, US, famous pianist, the tune was written in 1944 and considered a standard in its genre.

          Good Luck 😉

          • Well, mine was obviously Beethoven. Just don’t know which # of symphony – could it be the fifth? It’s a piece that is often covered by metal guitarrists btw.

          • Closer to 1. Ninth popularly known as “Ode to Joy” as text came from Schiller In German think it’s ” Freude schoner (can’t do umlaut, sorry) Gotterfunken tochter aus Elysium, wir betreten feuertrunken Himmlische des Heiligtum (n?)” And yes, from memory. Played it more than once and you don’t forget a choir of 150+ launching into it.

          • The text we used to sing was: “Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter im Delirium. Wir beschmutzen voll betrunken Brauerei, dein Eigentum.”


        • @mattpt55

          Hmm, I’m surprised. I always associated this tune with Bach, and Fuer Elise with Beethoven. I obviously got it wrong!

          Re: Gary’s tune

          Leonard Bernstein? Born in 1918, and apparently prolific in 1944:
          “In addition to becoming known as a conductor, Bernstein also emerged as a composer in the same period. In January 1944 he conducted the premiere of his Jeremiah Symphony in Pittsburgh. His score to the ballet Fancy Free choreographed by Jerome Robbins opened in New York in April 1944 and this was later developed into the musical On the Town with lyrics by Comden and Green that opened on Broadway in December 1944.”

          But then I’m not sure to have heard this tune before…

          • Good guess , but the composer i meant played in a different sandbox, so to speak.

            Not that Lenny didn’t straddle multiple genres, but this composer not so much. Think 52nd street

          • Nope, not getting any extra points today. You know, for us ignorant Europeans, you Muricans don’t have much indigenous “classical” art to talk of. For instance, the closest you get to painting is Andy Warhol. So Gershwin is pretty much a brilliant standout, and I prefer him to most all other composers. Hmm, a winded way to say “I give up”…

          • Congrats, you all get extra points. It was indeed a Monk tune,”Well you needn’t” which not only fits the fact that the esteemed doctor has chosen to visit with us, but also I feel the tune is just a good fit for his style.

            @landroni w/r/t art well overlooking the visual, the entire canvas of Jazz is indigenous. Gottschalk was successful as far back as the 1800’s impressing amongst others Berlioz with his virtuosic settings of tunes from Congo Square.

            I suppose you could argue Copland et al were derivative, but what of Berlin and Broadway or all the tunes written for movies as well?

            Visually you would probably know better than I but Cassat, Whistler and Sargent spring to mind (or, at least Google) and I saw a wonderful O’Keefe exhibit at the Whitney several years ago.

            Warhol, Koons, Pollack all were important, plus no doubt buckets more.

            And this of course overlooks the art of the actual indigenous peoples prior to the big visit by Europe. In particular, I find the totemic art of the Pacific Northwest moving in the same way that Romanesque Sculpture is, though they are quite different on the surface.

            Frankly, one of my favorite all time sculptures are the figures at Sagrada Familia, above the entrances. Truly, powerful, at least for me.

          • @mattpt55
            “Congrats, you all get extra points.”

            Yay! We’re all winners!!

            [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9b3_O7hEl4&w=560&h=315%5D

            Yeah, Jazz was definitely homebrewed. And that thanks for all the other references; I’ll check them out.

            As for Sagrada Familia, I tended to agree with you until I’ve learned more about the history of the construction. It turns out that this cathedral, like any self-respecting cathedral and even in the modern age, takes centuries and several different styles to be completed. Some of the most visible sculptures were commissioned, if I recall correctly, to other artists, which employed a style different from that of Gaudi’s overall design. For which they were criticized.

            Funny for me, first time I saw Sagrada Familia I was rather underwhelmed, possibly because I was so charmed by all the other of Gaudi’s creations, like Casa Battlo and La Pedrera. On subsequent visit I was duly underwhelmed by Casa Battlo and La Pedrera, and started to appreciate better Sagrada Familia. Go figure…

  2. Can someone explain, with current discussion about engine upgrades and engineering points for closed season development where do new providers stand ie Honda?

    • @John re Honda I would think they are not restricted at all, until they deliver a unit for homologating in February. It may be they are restricted once they show up to testing, but the entire development period is based on quotas for already homologated engines, so I can’ t see how it would apply to Honda.

      As far as the rest, each piece of the ICE is listed in an appendix and weighted. There are 5 parts of the engine that are restricted (8%) the rest is fair game for development with the proviso that no more than 48% of the engine can be altered based on the points assigned.

      Possibly that has confused you more, and I’m going off memory so I will check and see if I’ve missed anything important.

  3. Wow, big big big podcast this week. Attacked the main issues from all the angles.

    Re: Suzuka. One thing I’d like to add about this idea of the senior drivers pulling in near the end of the race. Yes it’s a good point that they have not had the experience of something like Imola94, but even still: I disagree that if they had they would have stopped. Most race drivers don’t think that way. Prost and Lauda probably would have, because of the specific things that happened to them, but drivers who haven’t directly experienced that kind of trauma would more see the heavy rain as a chance to make up some places. Witness Button, who I’ve no doubt saw the heavy rain as a chance to bolster his chances of having a drive next year.

    On the other hand, even if the older hands would have stopped driving – there’s no guarantee that younger drivers would have even known about them stopping: would Charlie announce it over the network or something?

    Also – in many ways I think championship points are much more important to the lower teams than the ones higher up. Given how close to collapse the likes of Caterham and Marussia are (and perhaps others) I definitely think those drivers would have soldiered on anyway.

    And finally: no way would Lewis or Nico have stopped just because it was raining.

    P.s: no one wants to buy the Nurburgring? For shame!

    P.p.s: You guys need to start disagreeing with each other more! Nothing fires up a discussion like some major differences of opinion.

  4. I skipped through the first 25 – 30 minutes as there is nothing worth listening to. Dr. Hartsein, is as he was in the previous episode, has a lot of interesting things to say but is way underutilized and really wasted as a guest.

    Matt55 and the Dr. make some interesting points and observations and likely would have made for a more interesting discussion by themselves.

    • I remember somebody criticised my otd’s last year for various reasons but was quite crude with his language. People stepped in and defended me until he mentioned he’d never read anything I’d written..
      The point being how do you have a voice without any knowledge.
      Can’t please all of the people….

      • Well, Carlo, you should know by now that Cav doesn’t really comment on the content itself. He merely comes in to insult people. God knows what sort of beef he has with me and apparently you as well. I would file his comment under logorrhea.

    • Oh and by the way, Dr Hartstein, or Gary as we call him, tweeted he had a blast. The podcast isn’t an interview it’s fun and different.
      Obviously didn’t appreciate Craig and comment of the week!

    • …. We’ve said it before Cav….. You need to stop listening and return to the discovery channel….

      Saying the same thing each week, is not going to change the PC production 😉

      • Reminds me of that buffoon, who filed a complaint against TopGear to the BBC: “I wrote a letter to the BBC and I don’t care if they don’t read it.” 😀

    • @Cav

      “I skipped through the first 25 – 30 minutes as there is nothing worth listening to. ”

      My friend sent me a message saying nearly the exact opposite of this. lol. Ah well. I guess we can’t please everyone all the time.

      But seriously I do value feedback. The fact that you comment negatively every week means that you keep listening.. so at least some of us must be doing something to keep you coming back. Sorry it wasn’t me this week.

      To everyone: Keep feedback coming and why not leave me a skype message and I may play it on the podcast after comment of the week.

      Search on Skype for “SpannersReady”. Look forward to hearing from you!!

      • Constructive feedback worth listening to includes both positive and negative issues….

        All negative is mere bitching and should be recognised as such….

        • @thejudge13 I don’t think people totally understand that the podcast is not just the 1hr50min we hear, they guys have to prepare content, discuss the agenda and at least 1 person has to edit the whole thing ready for publication.
          I for 1 greatly appreciate the hard work and time given (for free) by all involved, just the fact they can be bothered should be enough to discourage negativety for negativities sake.

  5. Very nice podcast. Spanners (and I presume the Judge) asked a good number of pertinent, hard questions. I was a bit disappointed to see Dr Harstein once more ostensibly jump to the defense and almost glorifying Charlie Whiting, but later he became a bit more balanced in his praise for the FIA which was good to see. There are a number of other questions that I would have liked discussed, but unless you’re preparing a 7h podcast I don’t see that happening.

    There are several points that I would have liked to address, but a lot of keyboard life has already been lost on these issues so I’ll focus on just one. It seemed to me that Carlo suggested that one of the factors in the crash was the lack of tarmac runoff, as in: he jumped onto the gravel and then couldn’t brake so skid off.

    Could someone take the time to explain why tarmac would be *safer* than gravel? I must admit that I’m lost.

    As I pointed out previously ( http://thejudge13.com/2014/10/09/tj13-f1-courtroom-podcast-2/#comment-97895 ), I believe that one of the factors in the ferocity of Bianchi’s crash was the *lack of gravel*. From the little we know of Bianchi’s skidding trajectory ( http://thejudge13.com/2014/10/19/f1-forensics-putting-the-pieces-together-part-1-justice4jules/gal1200/ ), he started skidding onto the track tarmac, then caught a whiff of gravel or wet grass, and then ended the journey on tarmac and into the tractor. To me it seems obvious, and a no-brainer, really, that more gravel would have been beneficial as it would have much better effected deceleration on the out-of-control car.

    Why do people seem to think otherwise? Just because Charlie said so?

    • landroni, I obviously didn’t state my point clearly. Apologises.

      I meant that I had read somewhere that Bianchi skated across the surface of the gravel bed which did little to slow the car. People have suggested that tarmac would have been more effective but I wanted to get across that tarmac would have been wet also and seeing as he aqua planed off of tarmac, a tarmac area was not likely to have made any difference as it too would have been wet.

      The only time tarmac is effective is when the car is spinning across a dry tarmac area and the tyres are scrubbing off speed.
      Sorry for the confusion

      • Thank you Carlo for taking the time to address this topic.

        “a tarmac area was not likely to have made any difference as it too would have been wet.”

        Agreed on tarmac run-off in the *wet*: It’s nothing more than a glorified skiing slope for cars gone haywire. So NOT safer than gravel. At least half of this Charlie says… myth debunked.

        “The only time tarmac is effective is when the car is spinning across a dry tarmac area and the tyres are scrubbing off speed.”

        But isn’t this just a symbolic safety arrangement? I mean, even if a car spins onto *dry* tarmac runoff, wouldn’t the decrease in speed be simply insignificant compared to the cars original speed, especially across a ~15m runoff path (as in Bianchi’s case)?

        But then again, the car may not be spinning. The car may simply go straight ahead, just as Bianchi it seems did, or as Kovalainen in a McLaren in Turkey T8, or as Massa in Hungary 2009, or if you have a suspension failure, etc. In all of these cases, which are genuine eventualities, what good is a dry tarmac runoff? Really, how much can it possibly decelerate a car going off straight ahead, for any of a number of reasons?

        On the other hand, I’ve seen dry gravel traps catch stray cars like glue. Properly set up gravel traps can be very effective. Of course they’re a big nuisance when every little error that the team’s (diapered) darling makes implicates an aborted session, but hey isn’t this war with real-life ammo? Don’t send in the kids!

        Of course gravel is no panacea, and certainly comes with its own safety risks (e.g. increased risk of spinning cars, or big shunts if close to the racing line in very-highspeed corners). But I do feel that gravel traps are the only technology currently available in racing to significantly decelerate and even outright stop a car gone astray, either in dry or in wet. And unless someone comes up with convincing arguments, I simply canNOT understand how tarmac runoff could overall be considered safer than gravel, in either dry or wet.

        Spin it as you will, but gravel wins hands down, and to me the recent phasing out of gravel traps (and its nonexistence in shiny new Tilkedromes) for “safety reasons” is downright outrageous. I mean, the nerve!

        • Some good points, just want to pick up on one and state another if I may

          Massa was unconscious when he speared off the track – you’d have to assume gravel would have slowed him down but Michael Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone after brake failure and he skipped over a gravel run off area…

          This is why it’s so difficult to implement one over the other. There are arguments for and against in every accident and not one simple solutions but I honestly don’t believe these tarmac car parks are the be all of safety otherwise they would have tarmac’d every circuit by now.

          Then again, I mentioned last week, Nurburgring 2007, cars skated across a saturated track and a saturated gravel trap without discernible loss of speed. Could it be gravel when wet does nothing to slow a vehicle down? Does it effectively glue itself together?

          • ” Michael Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone after brake failure and he skipped over a gravel run off area…”

            Interesting. Maybe it’s important how the gravel trap is effectively being set up, how deep or shallow it is…

            ” I honestly don’t believe these tarmac car parks are the be all of safety otherwise they would have tarmac’d every circuit by now.”

            One of the commenters here was consistently advocating (I understand) putting in place first a band of gravel, then a bad of tarmac, and further gravel before the barrier. Punish the driver for error, but allow them to continue. How would that work safety-wise?

            “Then again, I mentioned last week, Nurburgring 2007, cars skated across a saturated track and a saturated gravel trap without discernible loss of speed. Could it be gravel when wet does nothing to slow a vehicle down? Does it effectively glue itself together?”

            Yeah, same happened to Vettel in Suzuka 2014: I was shocked how he lost it, skated on gravel like walking on water, then continued without as much as a sweat. Gravel should have parked him right there, right then. Maybe again it’s an issue of gravel depth? Maybe shallow gravel isn’t a very effective slow-down device, wet or dry? Especially wet?

  6. I’m warming to these podcasts. I must admit some of the initial segments and humour don’t quite hit the spot for me (I feel a little like I’m eavesdropping on a conversation between a group of mates that I’m not part of) but I appreciate the fact you try to inject a bit of light relief and tangential stuff – something I’ve always liked about this site – and, it’s probably just a matter of personal taste, each to their own. The motor sport experience and knowledge of the contributors really shone through and there were some tidbits in here that I hadn’t heard/read elsewhere. So thanks for the effort guys, not just on the podcast but also on the site in the general. Recently I feel there’s been an upswing in the quality of information and debate, particularly regarding the Caterham situation and the views from all sides on the Bianchi incident. Always enjoy features like Black Jack’s Briefs too. Cheers all.

  7. So in the pod cast there was a lot of talk about people not slowing down under waved yellow of fear of being over taken. I always thought you could not over take under yellow flags so I can’t see the problem with the approach of using the pit lane speed limiter as a maximum speed for a section where there are waved yellows or have I misunderstood something?

    • The problem is if it limited the cars in one area of track, whilst allowing others to continue at speed it could advantage a great number of drivers or even cause them to push harder to catch up.
      Alonso in 2003 slammed into mark Webbers errant wheel during a safety car period in Brazil. It doesn’t bear thinking about if he’d hit Webber at 200 mph, I’m guessing Zanardi type accident?
      The only way it could be fair is either it affects everybody on track at same time or all the drivers have to through sector an equal amount of times

    • I talked about people over taking me on yellows and not being punished while on a kart track.

      The other problem was I slowed down while others didn’t. So they bunched behind me. Then there was no clear point to speed up so they would overtake before the danger had passed.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.