Unpopular F1 opinions

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 20 Feb 2010, 16:43

I disagree with it (ibsey's post) but am not going to explain why.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 20 Feb 2010, 16:50

I did, and... what so ever, WDC's are not overrated... I really can't see the way to over-rate a WDC... I mean, just to take your 94-talk, if not Schumacher had turned into Hill, Hill would've won that WDC, and therefor, not likely to be fired from Williams, and then, most likely, because he was faster than Villeneuve, he would've won in 97 too, suddently 3 times WDC... U catch my point? I am just taking your "ifs" and point them the other way

But, why the *insert your word here* would Benetton like to have a TC-system (there is some weight in that) and not use it, when you could had a car without, but more chances to put the weight were u wanted it?

Mika Hakkinen was overrated...

If not Schumacher had broken his legs in 99, Schumacher would've won that, and Mclaren had a superior car in the start of 98, with even better tyres, just lucky to get that champ... After an OK 00 season, he dropped out in 01 even finished behind Half Schumacher and with ibseys words " (and judging by the comments made about Ralfy in the Stefan Gp thread, we all know how good he is!!!)"

Ye ye, I took it a bit to far, but it was fun

watka · Post by **watka** » 20 Feb 2010, 17:42

ibsey wrote:Damon Hill was overrated.....

I think most people actually share your opinion (including Frank Williams and Patrick Head). He was pretty solid driver and like with a lot of other 1 time WDCs, he was in the right car at the right time.

More opinions:
Michelin brought more dispute to the sport with their boycott of the 2005 US GP than Nelson Piquet Jr did.
The A-1 Ring is one of the best circuits that F1 has ever used.
James Allen was a better commentator than Jonathan Legard.
Jarno Trulli doesn't even deserve to have 1 GP win to his name, anywhere other than Monaco (2004) and Button would have had him.
Takuma Sato would have won the 2004 Monaco GP if his engine didn't blow up.
This is 100x more exciting than Arnoux vs Villeneuve at Dijon.

ADx_Wales · Post by **ADx_Wales** » 20 Feb 2010, 17:58

Couldn't agree with you more, but I could disagree, but its only a fracton, the 1996 Monza race, with the nippy little chicanes instead of the ridiculous heavy braking area chicane, they decided to stick tyre bundles on the kerbs that the drivers kept cutting, Damon was a victim of them, but not the only one.

Its quite clear to see that he was roped in as the perfect team mate, much like an Irvine or a Barrichello at Ferrari, a Berger at McLaren, a Rebaque at Brabham. But due to my national(ish) bias, he was a worthy champion to me.

Irvine would probably be more overrated than Hill, despite my argument about his wet weather prowess, fast enough to be in one of the best cars, but not good enough to be champion, therefore perfect Ferrari candidate to partner a future multiple world champion, and I doubt thats what Ford were thinking when they were paying him enough money to keep him happy and carefree for three anticlimactic seasons in a Jag.

Another one of those "If (X) had happened then (Y) would have happened" is the "If Ford kept away from the track and left Stewart to hire Irvine as Barrichello's replacement, then it would have been more likely, but it didnt happen, so why did I say it?"

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 20 Feb 2010, 19:51

Myrvold wrote:I did, and... what so ever, WDC's are not overrated... I really can't see the way to over-rate a WDC... I mean, just to take your 94-talk, if not Schumacher had turned into Hill, Hill would've won that WDC, and therefor, not likely to be fired from Williams, and then, most likely, because he was faster than Villeneuve, he would've won in 97 too, suddently 3 times WDC... U catch my point? I am just taking your "ifs" and point them the other way
But, why the *insert your word here* would Benetton like to have a TC-system (there is some weight in that) and not use it, when you could had a car without, but more chances to put the weight were u wanted it?

I though that my opinion might be a bit more unpopular than this (partly why I posted it) & because it would be nice to debate how good was Hill? I will like to defend my opinion to Myrvold. I had difficult understanding your sentence...
"I mean, just to take your 94-talk, if not Schumacher had turned into Hill, Hill would've won that WDC, and therefor, not likely to be fired from Williams,".

Which I assume to mean...If Schumi had not hit Hill, then Hill WOULD have won the WDC & wouldn't have been fired?

Assuming that is what you mean (Please correct me if this is not the case?). THE FACT remains that Hill had at least a 36 (or 40 points as I believe) headstart over Schumi, & was in an equal car (at the very least... in my view the Williams was better in 1994) than him. Yet Hill did not win the WDC? How many times did, Hill actually beat Schumi in an race in 1994. I can only think of Suzuka??? (I don't count Spain because of Schumi's gearbox).

Whereas Schumi beat Hill 8 times in the races they both finished in. How could Hill supporters feel happy if Hill had won the championship, with that kind of record???

I know for sure if I had "won" something on paper, but my rival beat me 8 times & I only beat them once, I would not be shouting about it. For example if Hill was such a worthy WDC why was he SO far off the pace compared to Senna & Schumacher in Brazil, he even got lapped by Senna, despite having 2 years more experience in Williams over Senna? As I previously stated that is J. D Deletraz skill level in my book.

So even if Hill would have won the WDC (as you SPECULATE) then how much weight would of been actually attached to it? Not a lot I suspect. Because people in the know knew Hill only would have won the WDC because of Schumi's problems. It a bit like Jody Scheteker & Gilles Villeneueve in 1979. Although on paper Jody won the championship, everybody in the pitlane knew who was really the fastest of the two drivers, including the team bosses like Frank Williams, which leads me onto my next point. (actually the same happen in 1996, as Schumi stated once...he was "lending" Hill the WDC in 1996...everyone still knew Schumi was the best).

You state...
"Hill would've won that WDC, (in 1994) not likely to be fired from Williams," as you put it.

I disagree. Hill was fired over his 1995 (dismal) performances not over whether he scored one extra point in 1994. In any case, Frank Williams has no problems firing WDC's just ask, Mansell. Those are the FACTS... not "likely" as you had stated.

"and then, most likely, because he was faster than Villeneuve, he would've won in 97 too, suddently 3 times WDC... U catch my point? "

If you actually look at the FACTS (not just speculate what is most likely or not). In the 2nd half of 1996 (French GP onwards) Villeneueve scored 46 points whereas Hill Scored 44 points. Remember that was (the supposely great) JV's rookie year as well. So your point about 1997 is completely unfounded. Know one can say how Villeneueve would have re-acted to having Hill in the team in 1997. In fact in 1997 Hill was outqualified by Pedro Diniz (another great F1 driver) at "drivers" circuits like Spa & Suzuka!!! Again FACT ...U catch my point?

Furthermore ask yourself who's fault was it that Hill wasn't in a Williams for 1997 anyway? If he had been such a great driver, he should have seen off any threat to his seat by H.H. Frenzten (Another hugely successfully F1 driver...U catch my point?).

You state; "I am just taking your "ifs" and point them the other way".. Please can you expand on which "If" you have supposedly turned around?? As I always try to use fact and reasoning to support my opinions.

Simliarly you say...
I did, and... what so ever, WDC's are not overrated... I really can't see the way to over-rate a WDC...

I won't go into this in too much detail on this because this is turning out to be a long post ( I know Coops loves those

) but according to your above logic therefore people who didn't win the WDC aren't good therefore? Stirling Moss, Giles Villeneueve, & Ronnie Peterson would all have something to say about that.

Finally, as everyone in F1 knows the truest judge of a driver is how they fair against their teammate. So let's list Hills experiences there...

1993 - Got beat by a old & Retiring Prost & Senna in a VASTLY inferior car.
1994 - Senna whooped him (despite 2 years less Williams experience) & once Mansell (again old & retiring!!!) got fully used to the Williams started beating Hill - with pole & victory in Australia.
1995 - Coulthard 1st full season, & had illnessness in the early part of the year. Once that was cleared Coulthard regularly out qualified Hill. Furthermore Coulthard got a royal whopping by, as you put it the "OVERRATED" Hakkien. So by your logic, what does that say about how good Coulthard... and ultimately Hill? Again, I would love to know your answer on this?
1996 - Only just beat Rookie JV (supposedly great?) to title, as I have stated, Villeneueve outscored Hill in the 2nd half of the year. Again what does that say about Hill?
1997 - I don't think its too much of an achievement to beat Pedro Diniz, yet Diniz still outqualified Hill at "drivers" circuits like Spa & Suzuka!!!
1998 - Regularly outqualified by Half Schumacher in 1st half of the year, & (the great) Half Schumacher only scored 6 less points then Hill. Not exactly a stunning performance by Hill is it now? Particularly when you consider Half Schumacher would have beaten Hill on points had he been allowed to win at Belgium.
1999 - Oh dear... do I even need to go here?

I have tried to used facts & evidence to support my opinions, not just merely "what so ever"

speculating like you. I would love to know your thoughts on the above.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 20 Feb 2010, 20:29

I'm not very surprised that you have trouble to understand my english. I guess you've heard Henning Solberg speaking english? Well, i'm not any better...
I still have the impression that Hill would've been a different driver if he had won the 94WDC, and, I do belive that Benetton cheated that year, again, why have the system, and the extra weight if you are not going to use it? So, Schumachers 36/40 points "loss" should've been a bigger loss.

I am not saying that drivers who don't becomes WDC aren't good, but you can't say that a WDC is overrated. There is a reason why people wins WDC, you may have a good car, but you do have to know how to drive good, to be a WDC...

1993: Old and retiring, still fast, and Senna. I don't say people who don't beat those drivers are bad...
1994: It still is Ayrton Senna, claimed to be the best driver F1 have ever seen, not beating him will not make you a bad driver.
1995: Out qualify... Trulli is a good qualifier, there is a difference between qual and race, Hill actually did out qualify Coulthard more than the other way around. And with the logic, that kinda shows the problems to compare seasons... If you mean that Coulthard is better than Hill, and I mean Hakkinen is overrated, and Hakkinen beat coulthard. Though, Hakkinen lost it in 01, and got beaten by Half Schumacher, in a Williams even though McLaren was a better team. That shows me that Hill is bad, but Hill outscored Half in 98. And Half would've beaten Hill if he had won in Belgium yes, but we don't know what would happen if Half got passed, maybe he would've got some technical problems if he had driven harder, who knows, that did not happen...
1996: I am a JV-fan, don't think I can say anything about that, I do think Jacques was a top-driver.
1997: True, but still, being outqualified sometimes doesn't prove anything, everyone gets outqualified sometimes.
1998: Look at 95.
1999: He should've retired after France, and let Jos get the drive out the season(Or Mika, then Luca would've been the Ferrari driver in 99)

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 20 Feb 2010, 20:37

ibsey wrote:If Schumi had not hit Hill, then Hill WOULD have won the WDC & wouldn't have been fired?

Assuming that is what you mean (Please correct me if this is not the case?). THE FACT remains that Hill had at least a 36 (or 40 points as I believe) headstart over Schumi, & was in an equal car (at the very least... in my view the Williams was better in 1994) than him. Yet Hill did not win the WDC? How many times did, Hill actually beat Schumi in an race in 1994. I can only think of Suzuka??? (I don't count Spain because of Schumi's gearbox).

Whereas Schumi beat Hill 8 times in the races they both finished in. How could Hill supporters feel happy if Hill had won the championship, with that kind of record???

I know for sure if I had "won" something on paper, but my rival beat me 8 times & I only beat them once, I would not be shouting about it. For example if Hill was such a worthy WDC why was he SO far off the pace compared to Senna & Schumacher in Brazil, he even got lapped by Senna, despite having 2 years more experience in Williams over Senna? As I previously stated that is J. D Deletraz skill level in my book.

So even if Hill would have won the WDC (as you SPECULATE) then how much weight would of been actually attached to it? Not a lot I suspect. Because people in the know knew Hill only would have won the WDC because of Schumi's problems. It a bit like Jody Scheteker & Gilles Villeneueve in 1979. Although on paper Jody won the championship, everybody in the pitlane knew who was really the fastest of the two drivers, including the team bosses like Frank Williams, which leads me onto my next point. (actually the same happen in 1996, as Schumi stated once...he was "lending" Hill the WDC in 1996...everyone still knew Schumi was the best).

While I acknowledge all the points you make, I have always been a bit pro-Hill and certainly more anti- than pro-Schumacher. So let me just throw the opposite view into this arguement. (It'll be brief!) I've always wondered how Schumacher could be comfortable winning a championship when there were allegations (yes, I said allegations - I have NOT said that these were proved) of cheating - nothing was evewr proved, but they were not able to persuade everybody that everything about the Benetton that year was squeaky clean. It was proved, though, that they had tampered with the fuel rigs for quicker pit stops, so we know they certainly were not 100 % innocent, but what were they not caught doing? And they would not have got the disqualifications unless the FIA could pin it onto something...

So my point is this... Although Schumacher officially won the championship, and beat Hill 8-1 (according to ibsey), how much assistance mechanically did Schumacher get? We will never know and will only ever speculate on. And I have never forgiven the Adelaide incident. I might have done so, if it had not been for the Schumacher/Villeneuve incident at Jerez 1997. And by how many points could Schumacher have beaten Hill by if everything had been done "by the book" and thereby not given the FIA any chance to have given him any race bans whatsoever? Probably would have prevented the Adelaide incident from ever have occuring... Or for this discussion to have been taking place!

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 20 Feb 2010, 23:01

I can see this thread rapidly descending in to the obsessive team-mate comparisons to find 'who's the best' that you can find on any forum on the internets.

ADx_Wales · Post by **ADx_Wales** » 20 Feb 2010, 23:05

I Disagree

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 20 Feb 2010, 23:35

Shinji, I'll try my best not put a stop to that now...

Myrvold, about your English, no worries. I get the impression perhaps English isn't your 1st languange so I do understand. Hell I don't speak any other languanges in fact my english isn't any better than Kimi Rakkionen either most of the time (as I am Dyslexitic).

To further this debate, which I am finding quite interesting. You say

"I still have the impression that Hill would've been a different driver if he had won the 94WDC.... "

Different in what way, I assume you mean in somehow better? Which is your opinion and I do respected it. However if anything I would have thought losing the 94 WDC would have a more profound effect on Hill in this respect i.e. he would be more motivated & stronger to win the WDC in future. Mansell & Hamilton, are both prime examples of drivers who had lost a WDC & come back "stronger" as a result of their experience. Which makes Hill's dismal performance in 1995 & the following years all the more suprising to me? (I believe 1994 was Hill's best year, all things considered) Where as JV & Rakkionen are examples of people who declined after winning a WDC. In any case, I cannot believe Hill's results would have been significantly different in 1995 or thereafter, even IF he had won the WDC in 1994.

You also say
"I do belive that Benetton cheated that year, again, why have the system, and the extra weight if you are not going to use it? So, Schumachers 36/40 points "loss" should've been a bigger loss."

I believe they carried the system to do back to back starts with TC & without to help the driver perfect their starts, without TC & It was too complicated to remove the system there after. Furthermore, I believe to engage the system was incrediably complicated, & the drivers wouldn't have had time at the starting grid to engage it. Furthermore I believe if they had used TC (or cheated in any other way), this would have been difficult to hide in the telemetary, and the FIA could have easely have found out. Are you seriously telling me, the FIA have not already investigaged these possibilities, and found nothing. Whereas you know better?

Simliarily with all the spying that goes on in F1, wouldn't one of the other teams, have investigated this & found some piece of evidence as well. I mean it would have been in their interest, and probably worth millions extra to Benetton's rivals. Jeez, if Benetton, could keep their cheating a secret from these spys, they should all go & work for MI6, not be F1 mechanics.

If anything because of the allegations & fuel rig, Benetton were under closer supervision from the FIA & everyone else, so it would have been very stupid on their part to cheat during this period, and would no doubt have been caught. Dr Baker makes the point of Benetton not being 100 % innocent - for which they were punished for their crimes accordingly. But I seem to recall Williams had been found to have tampered with Senna's Steering Column at Imola, which wasn't allowed either, nor were they punished? So we could equally ask what were Williams not caught doing? (& the same to applies about every other team on the grid).

The best bit of evidence for me, is if Schumi & Benetton has been cheating in 1994 as you claim, then how come they managed to win the 1995 championship so conviencly, with equal engines (actually Benetton were a couple of mph slower than Williams because of engine installation I believe), a poorer chassis & poorer 2nd driver? Were they cheating in 1995 as well? If they were cheating in 1994 but not 1995, why wasn't there a massive drop off in pace then? Come to think of it why didn't Schumi win Suzuka 1994...a race he would have most benefited from TC? It just doesn't make sense. I am only interested in facts & evidence, not speculation.

I have read Steve Matchett book & it is a great account of working within Benetton during that period (which he wrote after leaving the team). Yet he doesn't give any evidence to the suggestion they had cheated. Nor in fact has any whistleblower come forward, despite us being some 15 years down the line? Remember that the 2008 Singapore incident came to light because Piquet, blew the whistle after he was sacked. If I recall correctly Lehto got the sack from Benetton, in a simliar way, why didn't he blow the whistle after hje got sacked??? He's got no reason to hide it, if it did happen. In fact Lehto could make a hell of a lot of money from it, if it was true?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen generally in F1, and I do believe in some instances cheating does go undetected. However i believe Benetton were too much in the spotlight, for them to have gained an advantage from cheating & got away with it. In any case, the DSQ & 10 points lost at Belgium - was unfair which ever way you look at it, & arguably the 6/10 points lost at Britian too. They had nothing to do with the supposed TC, but everything to do with the FIA being w**kers & wanting to shape the championship, just like in 1989 & 1999 & Monza 2006. Enough said.

Re; Hill's Teammates

1993: If Hill is to be a deserved WDC, he has to expect to beat the best. No matter who that is (Isn't that the whole point of winning a WDC or am I watching the wrong sport?). True Hill doesn't have to beat them the likes of prost & Senna all the time. But it is one thing to lose to them occassionally & another thing to get a whipping. Hill got a whipping by a Prost (circa 40 years old) who was past his peak & his prime...how many times did stall for example. I don't ever recall Prost stalling before 1993? Even Jean Alesi managed to beat Prost more times then Hill when they were teammates.
1994: Ditto
1995: As I orginally pointed out Coulthard was in his 1st full season & had illness at the beginning of the year. So again I don't think its a major achievement to beat Coulthard in 1995. However If we examine the 2nd half of the year (i.e. from Germany onwards), as they were both full fit then, we see that Hill scored 38 points & had 4 retirements (all due to crashes). Where as Coulthard scored 32 points but had 2 crashes & 2 mechical failures..both when he was leading & in a very strong position to win. I mean if Hill is to be consider WDC worthy he should be blowing away these teammates Coulthard just like Hakkien did. That was the point I was making.
1996: I disagree that JV was a top driver I'm afraid (It kills me to say that because I am the biggest GV fan ever). Good 2nd class driver is kind to him. I'm sure I am not the only one with that opinion?
1997: Your point re; everyone gets out qualified once in a while. Worthy world Champions, like Schumi, Hakkien, Alonso, & Hamilton...don't & certainly not by the likes of Diniz.
1998: I repeat my point if Hill is to be consider WDC worthy he should be blowing away these teammates Half Schumacher, not finshing, broadly speaking equal to them in championship terms.

Finally Dr Baker states;
So my point is this... Although Schumacher officially won the championship, and beat Hill 8-1 (according to ibsey), how much assistance mechanically did Schumacher get?

None, as far as I am concerned. I'm sorry their is is no hard evidence or facts, there are just to many If's & buts to suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry this has become long winded again, but really annoys me, when opinions are based on speculation or distorted facts. If it any thing this excerise had made me think even more that Hill is overrated, than I orginally thought, as it is not difficult to find evidence / stats to back that case up, as I have been doing all evening.

P.s. your point RE; a WDC can't be overrated. As I suggested previously, Hill Didn't "win" 1996 WDC, Schumi "loaned" it to him.

Porrima · Post by **Porrima** » 21 Feb 2010, 00:43

thehemogoblin wrote:NASCAR keeps changing the rules, manipulates the results, and is losing viewership fast.

In other words they are becoming more like Formula 1?

P.S WHat are the hick.. heartland americans now watching then for their motorsport?

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 21 Feb 2010, 01:03

Porrima wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:NASCAR keeps changing the rules, manipulates the results, and is losing viewership fast.

In other words they are becoming more like Formula 1?

P.S WHat are the hick.. heartland americans now watching then for their motorsport?

You mean the hicks in the Southeast? Oh, they're still watching NASCAR and whining when anyone not Dale Earnhardt, Jr. or Tony Stewart doesn't win. They're a lot like the people who keep saying F1 shouldn't expand to Abu Dhabi and across the world and should stay at old tracks in Europe...

Except the tracks that NASCAR has expanded to are legitimately crap, whereas some of the tracks F1 has added recently aren't that terrible. Valencia and Singapore stand out as the major crap venues...

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 21 Feb 2010, 01:46

Cynon wrote:
Porrima wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:NASCAR keeps changing the rules, manipulates the results, and is losing viewership fast.

In other words they are becoming more like Formula 1?

P.S WHat are the hick.. heartland americans now watching then for their motorsport?

You mean the hicks in the Southeast? Oh, they're still watching NASCAR and whining when anyone not Dale Earnhardt, Jr. or Tony Stewart doesn't win. They're a lot like the people who keep saying F1 shouldn't expand to Abu Dhabi and across the world and should stay at old tracks in Europe...

Except the tracks that NASCAR has expanded to are legitimately crap, whereas some of the tracks F1 has added recently aren't that terrible. Valencia and Singapore stand out as the major crap venues...

But Turkey and Malaysia make up for those.

Alianora La Canta · Post by **Alianora La Canta** » 21 Feb 2010, 14:35

Faustus - 8 posts from top of page 2 wrote:Every Formula 1 car on the grid is illegal in some way.

Exactly - anyone who's thought through the consequences of Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations will agree because it implicitly bans a number of things that appear on every Formula 1 car ever.

The only reason why this opinion is unpopular is because most people have fallen asleep by Article 3.9 due to the soporific nature of FIA regulations...

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 21 Feb 2010, 15:48

thehemogoblin wrote:But Turkey and Malaysia make up for those.

I agree, Istanbul and Sepang are decent tracks, not the best but at least they give reasonably entertaining races.

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 21 Feb 2010, 15:52

thehemogoblin wrote:
Cynon wrote:
You mean the hicks in the Southeast? Oh, they're still watching NASCAR and whining when anyone not Dale Earnhardt, Jr. or Tony Stewart doesn't win. They're a lot like the people who keep saying F1 shouldn't expand to Abu Dhabi and across the world and should stay at old tracks in Europe...

Except the tracks that NASCAR has expanded to are legitimately crap, whereas some of the tracks F1 has added recently aren't that terrible. Valencia and Singapore stand out as the major crap venues...

But Turkey and Malaysia make up for those.

Turkey is pretty good, and Malaysia's not too bad either. The 2009 Abu Dhabi race wasn't a bad race, but I won't judge a track until it has had at least three grands prix run at it.

Collieafc · Post by **Collieafc** » 23 Feb 2010, 10:36

Every time I open my mouth (or add a thread) I start controversy...

coops · Post by **coops** » 24 Feb 2010, 12:30

The new teams' cars have the potential to cock up many a drivers race this season.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 24 Feb 2010, 14:27

Nicole and Lewis are truly in love.

Frentzen127 · Post by **Frentzen127** » 24 Feb 2010, 14:50

Hill deserved more that win @ Monaco 96'

ADx_Wales · Post by **ADx_Wales** » 24 Feb 2010, 15:39

Why cant we just call him Zsolt Baumgartner?

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 25 Feb 2010, 09:46

coops wrote:The Virgin cars have the potential to cock up many a drivers race this season.

Fixed. Sorted. Corrected.

f1-gast · Post by **f1-gast** » 26 Feb 2010, 09:13

*Jos Verstappen and Management choosed wrong in 1993 (they should take MCLAREN TEST CONTRACT !!!!)
Minardi was better then the most people think
*Briatore is a great person in the formula 1 and should be back
*Max Mosley did great things
*Bernie Ecclestone should leave the formula 1
*Lotus will fail hard Chapman will turn hisself in his grave of it

Tealy · Post by **Tealy** » 26 Feb 2010, 09:55

f1-gast wrote:*Bernie Ecclestone should leave the formula 1

This is about unpopular F1 opinions :lol:

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 26 Feb 2010, 15:24

Max was right.

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 26 Feb 2010, 17:58

CarlosFerreira wrote:Max was right.

So true.

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 27 Feb 2010, 08:41

shinji wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:Max was right.

So true.

Thirded.

And now for two controversial ones:
* It would have been no big loss if we wouldn't have had a British Grand Prix this year.
* Ralf Schumacher at his best was better than Vettel.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 27 Feb 2010, 10:26

Klon wrote:* Ralf Schumacher at his best was better than Vettel.

Ya know...

Shadaza · Post by **Shadaza** » 27 Feb 2010, 17:02

Sharkfins look Great

Cars looked good with wingletts, like space ships really did look futurisitc

I don't care if the tires have grooves or not.

Singapore is a great event on the calender, though little overtaking it is a track that rewards driver skill and I enjoyed Hamilton v Vettel v Rosberg as they literally drove away from the rest of the grid.

Kimi Raikkonen is a *insert explitive*

I hate the new Renault and Lotus colour schemes.

F1 should not return to the USA

Hamilton is one of my heroes. His never give up attitude and the fact he did not have a welloff round inspires me.

Webber is overated.

The budget cap is a good idea. So is Kers.

Zsolt Baumgartner wasn't that good and I would say the jokes where old but they where never funny to begin with. take that

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 27 Feb 2010, 22:03

Shadaza wrote:The budget cap is a good idea.

It isn't?

Shadaza wrote:Zsolt Baumgartner wasn't that good and I would say the jokes where old but they where never funny to begin with. take that

Oh no, you di-dn't :mrgreen:

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 27 Feb 2010, 22:20

Klon wrote:* It would have been no big loss if we wouldn't have had a British Grand Prix this year.

Here here! Agree 100%.

* - F1 needs to go oval racing
* - F1 needs to go CART-style with chassis/engine combinations -- a few chassis available to pick from (Lola/Reynard/Penske/Swift), and a few engines to pick from (Honda/Toyota/Ford/Mercedes)....

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 27 Feb 2010, 23:21

Drivers points should be awarded from the number of overtakes they achieve in the race, and the more sideways they get without losing the car (like in Drift GP mode on Racedriver Grid).

There shouldn't be a "off season" at all.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 28 Feb 2010, 14:43

Cynon wrote:
* - F1 needs to go oval racing

At both Rockingham in Northhamptonshire in England/Britain and Eurospeedway Lausitz, Germany on consectutive weekends.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 28 Feb 2010, 14:45

dr-baker wrote:
Cynon wrote:
* - F1 needs to go oval racing

At both Rockingham in Northhamptonshire in England/Britain and Eurospeedway Lausitz, Germany on consectutive weekends.

On a sperate point, some of the Grands Prix (like at Monza) need to made longer, from the current approx. 190 miles upto around 250-or-so miles.

watka · Post by **watka** » 28 Feb 2010, 19:13

Klon wrote:* It would have been no big loss if we wouldn't have had a British Grand Prix this year.

Silverstone has only been on the calendar for so long because it's a driver's circuit.

Others:
McLaren have likeable qualities.
Africa needs a Grand Prix somewhere.
Tiago Monteiro deserved another season in F1.
Christian Klien deserved the Force India seat in 2008 more than Giancarlo Fisichella.
Lotus were idiots for favouritising Mario Andretti over Ronnie Peterson.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 28 Feb 2010, 22:08

Well, if I don't count the first one there, what is unpopular with those opinions?

P_Friesacher · Post by **P_Friesacher** » 28 Feb 2010, 23:35

The Yas Marina Circuit is actually a rather decent track - some "traditional" ones like Barcelona produce much worse races

Collieafc · Post by **Collieafc** » 02 Mar 2010, 11:22

P_Friesacher wrote:The Yas Marina Circuit is actually a rather decent track - some "traditional" ones like Barcelona produce much worse races

Barcelona still has the record for the least number of passes in a GP (one)

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 02 Mar 2010, 20:49

Collieafc wrote:
P_Friesacher wrote:The Yas Marina Circuit is actually a rather decent track - some "traditional" ones like Barcelona produce much worse races

Barcelona still has the record for the least number of passes in a GP (one)

What a wonderful race that was. Wasn't it the one with the simultaneous Arrows retirements?

midgrid · Post by **midgrid** » 03 Mar 2010, 13:31

shinji wrote:
Collieafc wrote:
P_Friesacher wrote:The Yas Marina Circuit is actually a rather decent track - some "traditional" ones like Barcelona produce much worse races

Barcelona still has the record for the least number of passes in a GP (one)

What a wonderful race that was. Wasn't it the one with the simultaneous Arrows retirements?

Not quite: 1998 was the year when Mika Salo and Pedro Diniz pulled off in unison; 1999 was the year with one overtaking manoeuvre.