Unpopular F1 opinions

[Rob Dylan]

The Wall Of Champions at Montreal should be renamed The Wall Of Knobheads Who Really Shouldn't Have Crashed In The Way They Did.

Not very snappy, I'll give you that.

Wall of stupidity?

Leave the wall alone, it doesn't deserve that!

[tommykl]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

[Rabbi Gordon]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

Seconded

Obvious from his runs in a normally aspirated car against the turbos that he was really talented, but saying that he is one of the top 20 ever? A bit too much imo for a driver who raced a season and a half and barely unrejectified himself.

[AdrianBelmonte_]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

As the majority of F1 drivers that died racing

[Salamander]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

As the majority of F1 drivers that died racing

Including Senna. Yes, I went there.

PROST 4 LYF

[dr-baker]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

As the majority of F1 drivers that died racing

Including Senna. Yes, I went there.

PROST 4 LYF

But not Roland Ratzenberger, RIP.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Including Senna. Yes, I went there.

PROST 4 LYF

But not Roland Ratzenberger, RIP.

Huh, I didn't notice the writing under Salamander's post until I read it embedded in Baker's post. Well camouflaged.

[MorbidelliObese]

Stefan Bellof was overrated.

Tend to agree with this - looking at that 1984 season, usually there wasn't much between him and Brundle, Bellof's drive at Monaco was impressive, but was it more so than Brundle's at Detroit? Brundle didn't have wet weather to further negate the power disadvantage either.

You can't predict a driver's progression obviously, (or levels of Fisichellitis if they get into a winning car after tearing it up in a midfield car) although it's also worth mentioning that of the two Tyrrell rookies Bellof was also the more "experienced", 2 years older and with 2 seasons of F2 compared to Brundle's in F3, plus Group C experience even before he got into F1.

It may also be just a case of Brundle actually being underrated. He never got into a decent car until 1992, when he was possibly passing his peak, had he gotten into say a Ferrari/Benetton level car in the mid to late 80s, he could well have gone on to be a multiple race winner.

Probably one for the "what if" thread but I remember reading that at Monaco Brundle was actually on track to qualify - at Bellof's expense - on his qualifying lap that ultimately ended up with him on his lid... May be an urban myth mind you.

[Rabbi Gordon]

Zanardi is a good-but-not-great driver, who got insanely lucky in CART. He is nowhere near people like Alesi or even Panis.

In the right cars, Christian Fittipaldi could have won races. Just think about it, a talented, consistent driver who is fast if necessary, but usually easy on equipment. In a 1992-93 Benetton or McLaren, proabably.

[ibsey]

Tend to agree with this - looking at that 1984 season, usually there wasn't much between him and Brundle,

Haven't look at the stats for 1984 but I vividly remember Brundle saying something along the lines that he felt Bellof was faster than him but what hurt Bellof was his willingness to take more risks particularly when overtaking. Martin said something like in in their races together Bellof would usually pull out 3 amazing overtaking moves, and be much further down the road than the Brit. However the 4th overtaking more would hurt Stefan's race so Brundle would be right back on Stefan's tail again.

Question is whether you believe that Stefan might have reigned in that risk taking in his later years and been able to capatialise on his speed? I tend to think he was capable of doing so (i.e Jody Scheteker and I am sure many others have in the past).

Bellof's drive at Monaco was impressive, but was it more so than Brundle's at Detroit? Brundle didn't have wet weather to further negate the power disadvantage either.

I can see where you are coming from & it certainly is an interesting thought. However I still tend to think Bellof's performance at Monaco was slightly better than Brundle's at Detroit. Why because of Bellof's passing move on Arnoux which I rate amongst the best, considering his lack of horsepower and the precision & dangers involved. Also what was equally impresive was the laps prior when Bellof was clearly stuck behind Arnoux yet resisted the temptation to dive bomb him. Instead waiting for a cleaner opportunity to present itself, that in my book takes a special kind of courage & that is why I rate Prost's overtaking move on Senna in France 1988 up there with the best of them (possibly an unpopular opinion there).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75_hIBU_Zmg

(See 6:27)

Coming back to my point I am not aware of Brundle having pulled out a particularly stunning pass on a car throughout that race in Detroit, maybe he did and I just haven't seen it. However I would say that when Brundle passed de Angelis, the Italian was driving without second gear - and it all seemed rather easy. Then there is the whole just staying on the track at Monaco 1984 deserved an award argument. Mansell and Senna both made mistakes that day of course.

You can't predict a driver's progression obviously, (or levels of Fisichellitis if they get into a winning car after tearing it up in a midfield car) although it's also worth mentioning that of the two Tyrrell rookies Bellof was also the more "experienced", 2 years older and with 2 seasons of F2 compared to Brundle's in F3, plus Group C experience even before he got into F1.

I agree with the Fisichellitis point. However Ken Tyrrell once told Nigel Roebuck that he thought that, of all the drivers he had had through his team, the two best were Jackie Stewart and Stefan Bellof.

it was not widely known at the time of his death, Bellof had agreed terms with Ferrari for 1986, and would have partnered Michele Alboreto.

Martin Brundle, his Tyrrell team-mate, described him as “The fastest driver since Gilles Villeneuve”, which was the ultimate compliment.

And at the 1000 km race at the orginal Nurburgring in 1983 Stefan recorded the a still-unbeaten 6:11.13 around the track & also got the race fastest lap against a field which include Rosberg, Mass & Ickx.

Also Roebuck I had come to the belief that ultimately he would be Germany’s first World Champion.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... st-talent/


All the above IMO suggest that Bellof deserved a shot with a top team at the very least. Of course we will never know if he would become a Frentzen or a M Schumi.


Regarding the point about the additional experience. Max Verstappen is showing us & Carlos Sainz that raw talent can overcome an extra couple of years experience.

It may also be just a case of Brundle actually being underrated. He never got into a decent car until 1992, when he was possibly passing his peak, had he gotten into say a Ferrari/Benetton level car in the mid to late 80s, he could well have gone on to be a multiple race winner.

I do think Brundle was underrated - and think his performance at Monaco in 1989 was amazing! Deserved that Williams seat in 1993 ahead of Hill IMO.

I also wonder whether Brundle lost a little speed after his 1984 Dallas crash? Let me be clear I acknowledge Brundle was a better 'overall' driver after 1984 (i.e. setting up the car & overtaking in the race etc). However I've heard him say something like up until Dallas 1984 he felt supremely confident in the car. However that Dallas accident taught him a lesson. So perhaps the result was 'wiser' driving from Martin at the cost of slightly less speed?

Probably one for the "what if" thread but I remember reading that at Monaco Brundle was actually on track to qualify - at Bellof's expense - on his qualifying lap that ultimately ended up with him on his lid... May be an urban myth mind you.

I think I have heard that as well. But you have to say he didn't complete the lap - just like Nico didn't complete his final Q3 lap at the weekend.

[DemocalypseNow]

Question is whether you believe that Stefan might have reigned in that risk taking in his later years and been able to capatialise on his speed? I tend to think he was capable of doing so (i.e Jody Scheteker and I am sure many others have in the past).

I am loosely paraphrasing here, but David Richards said something along these lines back when Prodrive was in charge of the Subaru WRC programme;

"It's easier to get a driver to go from 110% to 100% than from 99% to 100%."

I think it's pretty obvious who's hiring he is justifying from that! But it is mostly true - you look at Verstappen, he is at the moment a little bit too aggressive for F1, but with time he will have the opportunity to dial it down a bit and find the right balance. At the same time, there's the possibility that Bellof wouldn't have been able to reign in his high risk racing style over time.

[ibsey]

Another quick thought on the Bellof's drive at Monaco 1984 v Brunde at Detroit point. Wikipedia states;

(Tyrrell's) lighter weight and lower horsepower combined to give much better tire wear. In Detroit, this allowed them to use the softer Goodyear compound, while all the others had to use the harder compound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Detroit_Grand_Prix


I'm not sure Bellof would have had the same tyre advantage in Monaco?

Including Senna. Yes, I went there.

I think I agree that whilst he was undoubtedly an amazing driver, alot of his bad traits are overlooked (i.e. his dive bomb overtakes & blocking tactics). If I'm being really honest, I think his death was largely down to a driving error on his part (pushing too hard on cold tyres which caused the car to bottom out over the bumb at Tamberllo). The possible reasons for his accident are discussed in the below forum;

http://forums.autosport.com/topic/191968-senna-mystery/

Where one poster (f1steveuk) who worked within Formula One Management as an accident investigator, seemed to imply the same thing. Stating;

I would stake a very large sum of money (and I am not a betting man) that the steering wheel failure happened in the impact, as did a lot of damage within the steering mechanism, not least of which was the separation of the right hand front wheel. What was also obvious was the enourmous amount of wear of the front skid blocks, prior to hitting the curb and running over the grass, which would indicate the were in contact with the ground, and heavily, prior to leaving the track.

Also I think Prost deserves more credit than people give him for his WDC win in 1989 considering what he had to go through (i.e. Imola broken agreement, dud Honda engines & being called a wimp at Oz). I know Senna lost a few races due to reliability issues (i.e. US GP or Monza) but I do wonder how much of that was down to him or honda over stressing the engine / car. Whereas Prost's possibly detuned engine / smooth style not over stressing the engine or car.

To finish first, first you must finish as they say.

[MorbidelliObese]

All very good points regarding the Bellof/Brundle comparison. I've taken a break from 1989 to rewatch the 1984 Detroit GP that I have in my archive, although it's only a 12 min low quality video spliced together from multiple You Tube videos I found. And yeah Brundle doesn't pull off any particularly daring passing moves, the footage shows him driving past Warwick pretty much as the Renault breaks down, plus the aforementioned de Angelis pass. Alboreto then breaks down while ahead.

I was initially impressed by the fact he was right on Piquet's tail come the end, but he was probably stroking it home, plus the fact a delayed and lapped Alain Prost was buzzing around on the final laps.

Then again, he'd already qualified up in 11th, right next to Lauda, including ahead of Arnoux and the (admittedly difficult) Williamses, and 5 spots ahead of Bellof himself. De Angelis and Prost were the only finishers that he was ahead of who he qualified behind (not to say he didn't pass anyone else who later dropped out, of course)

[ibsey]

I was initially impressed by the fact he was right on Piquet's tail come the end, but he was probably stroking it home, plus the fact a delayed and lapped Alain Prost was buzzing around on the final laps.

In Brundle book "Working the Wheel" Martin reckoned he could have won that race had it not been for the Brabham mechanics on the track celebrating Piquet coming home. Brundle goes on to say that ironically the celebrations were led by Charlie Whiting....

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Bernie had actually organised the on track celebrations, knowing full well it would hamper Brundle's ability to pass just before the line. Bernie probably thinks along the line of...whats a few mechanics welfare when there is a win to be had.

No doubt about it though it was a very impressive performance by Brundle that day as it was in the same track in 1985, and we've all heard how he took the fight to Senna in F3 during 1983 hence why I am left wondering about how much his Dallas 1984 crash might have affected him. A bit like Herbert & his 1988 crash?

Def think Brundle was underrated but then so was Warwick.

[WeirdKerr]

If McLaren Honda were running in some sort of red/white colour combination it would do an injustice to the memory of the 88-92 era

[dr-baker]

If McLaren Honda were running in some sort of red/white colour combination it would do an injustice to the memory of the 88-92 era

I see the logic in that, and doing so would maybe ramp up the pressure on the team somewhat. However, I wonder if the red band around the nose on their most recent/current livery is meant to invoke that historic livery?

[TheFlyingCaterham]

I don't actually mind most of the Tilke tracks, although that is probably because I grew up (still am growing up ) while he was designing the circuits. I'm not particulary a fan of Singapore, Sochi, or the Mexico City Revamp though

[UncreativeUsername37]

I don't actually mind most of the Tilke tracks, although that is probably because I grew up (still am growing up ) while he was designing the circuits. I'm not particulary a fan of Singapore, Sochi, or the Mexico City Revamp though

A chance to express my Tilke opinions. I must take it. Here's the complete set so I can shut up for a while:

A1-Ring (as it was at the time): That uphill braking on F1C never gets old. The precision braking of the first three turns and the flow of the rest (without the corners being the same) give it a lot of variety despite the shortness.
Sepang: It's the best one besides the three agreed-upon legends. We're here to complain, so next.
Bahrain: Every corner is different, and 1/2 and 9/10 are especially good. There are no notably bad corners, but four turns aren't the whole track, so there's no reason for it to be brilliant either. It's decent.
Shanghai: Like Sepang, but slightly worse. Good, but they shouldn't be on the same calendar.
Istanbul: You brake for a moderate time, you turn slightly more than 90 degrees, you repeat... I don't understand why people ever liked this one.
Singapore: IIRC some other group had more influence than Tilke did, I don't know the situation. It makes street circuit 90-degree corners work, a bit like Adelaide. I love the chicanes at the end.
Valencia: Every corner feels the same, and it's mostly remembered as the prime example of kinked straights ruining overtaking. What exciting thing happened at Valencia that wasn't a stupid crash?
Yas Marina: "Every corner is unique." –Nico Rosberg It's like Turkey, but much more overt.
Korea: The twisty section is boring, the individual corners don't excite. There's nothing wrong with the first part, but it's a bit unimaginative. Gives you that "where's my money" feeling. I was never able to learn the layout of the twisty part, but I never needed to since obviously there was no overtaking there. The entire circuit was 8 corners and a conveyor belt as far as I was concerned.
Buddh: Like Turkey, it has a token epic corner and the rest of the track is meh. Not actively bad like Valencia or Caesars Palace, just... nothing. No emotion provoked. When it left, we were all like "okay".
CotA: We all like Austin, even if all it does is steal other tracks' ideas. Like I said once before, I like the idea of an all-star track. And it doesn't carbon copy, say, Maggotts and Becketts so you couldn't tell with a microscope, they're noticeably different.
New Jersey: We will never know
Sochi: It's terrible, but... how much choice did he have anyway? You can't just go through the stadiums. (Except you can in Mexico? Whatever.)
Mexico: As I've said, I love it. (Probably, it's been 0 races after all.) The first section I'm neutral on, then I didn't like the old Esses for being repetitive and now they look more interesting, and Peraltada is of course a shame but the new corners don't look bad. So the Esses are the big quality change and they're a positive.

[TheFlyingCaterham]

I don't actually mind most of the Tilke tracks, although that is probably because I grew up (still am growing up ) while he was designing the circuits. I'm not particulary a fan of Singapore, Sochi, or the Mexico City Revamp though

A chance to express my Tilke opinions. I must take it. Here's the complete set so I can shut up for a while:

A1-Ring (as it was at the time): That uphill braking on F1C never gets old. The precision braking of the first three turns and the flow of the rest (without the corners being the same) give it a lot of variety despite the shortness.
Agreed there. I've raced the A1-Ring on TOCA RD2, Grid Autosport and Gran Turismo and I find it quite fun, although it can be hard to get the braking point right on the second corner (Either you hit the apex or you're in the gravel trap)
Sepang: It's the best one besides the three agreed-upon legends. We're here to complain, so next.
It may be flat for most of the layout, but I find it quite challenging (I can never seem to get Turns 5&6 right on the F1 games I have.
Bahrain: Every corner is different, and 1/2 and 9/10 are especially good. There are no notably bad corners, but four turns aren't the whole track, so there's no reason for it to be brilliant either. It's decent.
What I like about here most is that there is quite a bit of variation between the types of corners. You've either got the tight hairpins on the fast curves. Not much corners in between though (2010 layout had these in between corners, but it had too much IMO)
Shanghai: Like Sepang, but slightly worse. Good, but they shouldn't be on the same calendar.
I like the idea of the corners turning tighter and tighter into the apex, but then turning out again. The corners here I find are a bit repetitive though (2 Curving in corners, 2 Hairpins and a couple of esses is all the circuit has)
Istanbul: You brake for a moderate time, you turn slightly more than 90 degrees, you repeat... I don't understand why people ever liked this one.
Singapore: IIRC some other group had more influence than Tilke did, I don't know the situation. It makes street circuit 90-degree corners work, a bit like Adelaide. I love the chicanes at the end.
I feel like Singapore has a bit too many 90º corners. Remove a couple of corners on the final section though and I would enjoy the course a bit more.
Valencia: Every corner feels the same, and it's mostly remembered as the prime example of kinked straights ruining overtaking. What exciting thing happened at Valencia that wasn't a stupid crash?
I actually quite liked Valencia, although I feel like it had a bit too many 90º corners (which were needed though). The section leading up to the back straight is my favourite bit, although the straight there could be lengthened a bit.
Yas Marina: "Every corner is unique." –Nico Rosberg It's like Turkey, but much more overt.
I quite like the first section of th circuit, although I feel like F1 should've used that first chicane there instead of the second, as that chicane is a lot more challenging and also opens up a more easier overtaking opportunity at the hairpin. I don't quite like the Marina section of the course, as it's too repetitive. That, and 90º corners should not belong on purpose made circuits.
Korea: The twisty section is boring, the individual corners don't excite. There's nothing wrong with the first part, but it's a bit unimaginative. Gives you that "where's my money" feeling. I was never able to learn the layout of the twisty part, but I never needed to since obviously there was no overtaking there. The entire circuit was 8 corners and a conveyor belt as far as I was concerned.
I like the final section, but that's about it, really.
Buddh: Like Turkey, it has a token epic corner and the rest of the track is meh. Not actively bad like Valencia or Caesars Palace, just... nothing. No emotion provoked. When it left, we were all like "okay".
First section was a bit boring, but I enjoyed the second section quite well, though one of the chicanes there could be removed.
CotA: We all like Austin, even if all it does is steal other tracks' ideas. Like I said once before, I like the idea of an all-star track. And it doesn't carbon copy, say, Maggotts and Becketts so you couldn't tell with a microscope, they're noticeably different.
The whole track is brilliant, except for the stadium section. It should really just be skipped with a longer back straight and have the track link up with the 4th last corner.
New Jersey: We will never know
No comment can be added.
Sochi: It's terrible, but... how much choice did he have anyway? You can't just go through the stadiums. (Except you can in Mexico? Whatever.)
I find that the circuit is just too plain. It's mainly big straights, and stand-alone corners, followed by another big straight.
Mexico: As I've said, I love it. (Probably, it's been 0 races after all.) The first section I'm neutral on, then I didn't like the old Esses for being repetitive and now they look more interesting, and Peraltada is of course a shame but the new corners don't look bad. So the Esses are the big quality change and they're a positive.
The section section with the esses before the hairpin just looks ugly, as does the first section. The esses and stadium don't look too bad.

Respones in bold unless I bathplugged something up.

[mario]

I don't actually mind most of the Tilke tracks, although that is probably because I grew up (still am growing up ) while he was designing the circuits. I'm not particulary a fan of Singapore, Sochi, or the Mexico City Revamp though

As UgncreativeUsergname rightly points out, the circuit in Singapore was more heavily influenced by the engineering conglomerate KBR rather than Tilke (that circuit is barely even mentioned on his website), so there is only a limited amount of criticism that can be levelled at him for that.

As for Sochi, it's worth bearing in mind that the IOC were incredibly protective of the Olympic facilities - they were actively threatening to sue the FIA, FOM and Tilke if any works on the circuit could have an effect on the Games - so the IOC more or less dictated the layout of the circuit to Tilke to minimise the impact on the Olympic facilities.

Over in Mexico, I struggle to see how the old Peraltada corner could have been used given the modifications to the circuit since F1 was last there. The stone blockwork on the outside of the corner is not suitable for fixing a barrier to, and due to the stadium on the inside of the corner and a major highway on the outside, there are no access routes for marshals or medical personnel to be able to access that corner if there was a crash. It may be missed, but to be honest I cannot see how you'd be able to use the circuit as it is now and still meet the necessary safety standards or emergency access requirements.

[Aguaman]

I don't get the love for the appearance of the cars in the 90's. They look meh to me like someone got a canoe/kayak for the early 90's and did stuff to it. To me 2000 onwards is the prettiness.

[Salamander]

The problem with the 2000s is that the cars have far too many little aero add-ons which disrupt the lines of the car, culminating in the horrendous montrosities of 2007-08.

[Miguel98]

The problem with the 2000s is that the cars have far too many little aero add-ons which disrupt the lines of the car, culminating in the horrendous montrosities of 2007-08.

I think that the 07 and 08 cars are rather pretty. More pretty than the 2010's cars for sure. Probably not as pretty as some of the 90's cars, but on level with the early 2000's cars.

[mario]

The problem with the 2000s is that the cars have far too many little aero add-ons which disrupt the lines of the car, culminating in the horrendous montrosities of 2007-08.

I think that the 07 and 08 cars are rather pretty. More pretty than the 2010's cars for sure. Probably not as pretty as some of the 90's cars, but on level with the early 2000's cars.

I suppose to an extent it depends on when you began watching the sport, since that effectively sets your benchmark for how you then judge later developments. To some, the elaborate aero pieces on the cars from 2007-2008 has a certain beauty in their functionality, whilst to some the simpler and more restrained lines of the cars from the early 2000's is more to their tastes.

[DemocalypseNow]

So let's just go and rip up the form book on that idea.

The Brawn BGP001 was the best looking car ever.



Beautifully proportioned, a clean, minimalist livery. Fantastic. Compare this to the horror show of rivals from the 2009 season - the sausage nose of the McLaren, the ghastly narrow front ends of RBR, STR & Toyota, the cumbersome and bulky BMW Sauber, and finally the retina-destroying Renault. The only other reasonable car from that season was the Williams, with the Ferrari treading the line. But, the BGP001 came at a time when the general population were so aghast at the sudden and dramatic change in carshape, they didn't give the BGP001 a chance.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

So let's just go and rip up the form book on that idea.

The Brawn BGP001 was the best looking car ever.



Beautifully proportioned, a clean, minimalist livery. Fantastic. Compare this to the horror show of rivals from the 2009 season - the sausage nose of the McLaren, the ghastly narrow front ends of RBR, STR & Toyota, the cumbersome and bulky BMW Sauber, and finally the retina-destroying Renault. The only other reasonable car from that season was the Williams, with the Ferrari treading the line. But, the BGP001 came at a time when the general population were so aghast at the sudden and dramatic change in carshape, they didn't give the BGP001 a chance.

Not to mention the car was so good-looking the FIA changed the regs so that teams would start building cars that would resemble it (well, that and safety reasons). Though the less said about the results the better...

[Salamander]

The only thing wrong with the Brawn was the livery. For me, majority white is already bad enough, but then they backed it up with an awful secondary colour. The only thing that should ever be coloured florescent yellow is high-visibility jackets.

[CoopsII]

The design and aesthetics of F1 cars have similar parallels to hairstyles or fashion in that it's only after the passing of time that you realise how odd certain looks were. The early 2000 cars to me look all right angles and boxy, not as fluid as, perhaps, some of todays cars do (or, actually, the early 90s cars). Therefore into the next decade I'm sure I'll look back at the all-conquering Mercs as being rather unusual, perhaps like a spider that shat itself. Or something.

[UncreativeUsername37]

The only thing wrong with the Brawn was the livery. For me, majority white is already bad enough, but then they backed it up with an awful secondary colour. The only thing that should ever be coloured florescent yellow is high-visibility jackets.

Here's one: I like white liveries. Tyrrell mid-90s, Stewart, Brawn, Sauber 2011-12, all good-looking. Not absolutely beautiful, but better than neutral for sure.

[Nessafox]

The only thing wrong with the Brawn was the livery. For me, majority white is already bad enough, but then they backed it up with an awful secondary colour. The only thing that should ever be coloured florescent yellow is high-visibility jackets.

Fluorescent is underrated. It's hip these days to tell how much you hate it, but when you think about it, it's not that bad.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

The only thing wrong with the Brawn was the livery. For me, majority white is already bad enough, but then they backed it up with an awful secondary colour. The only thing that should ever be coloured florescent yellow is high-visibility jackets.

Here's one: I like white liveries. Tyrrell mid-90s, Stewart, Brawn, Sauber 2011-12, all good-looking. Not absolutely beautiful, but better than neutral for sure.

You're right in that none of those cars were beautiful (except the Brawn in my opinion), but this

was a real beauty. It may have been something of a departure from Minardis of previous years but it still looks damn good.

[Salamander]

The only thing wrong with the Brawn was the livery. For me, majority white is already bad enough, but then they backed it up with an awful secondary colour. The only thing that should ever be coloured florescent yellow is high-visibility jackets.

Fluorescent is underrated. It's hip these days to tell how much you hate it, but when you think about it, it's not that bad.

I think maybe it could've worked better if they used more or less - accents or a majority florescent livery could've worked fine (maybe). Instead, they used exactly the right amount to irk me.

White liveries will always bore me, however.

[AndreaModa]

Agree on the Brawn, and the Minardi, phoar that's hands down the best Minardi livery of them all.

Another white livery I like is the Tyrrell 026. I believe I may have mentioned that before!

[Nessafox]

But that Minardi was just a downright gorgeous car, it even looked good in their awful 1994 livery.

[Rabbi Gordon]

There are NO female drivers good enough to be driving in F1 or even the NASCAR cup series at the moment.
Simona de Silvestro is the best atm and she is where she deserves to be. Part-time at a quite good team. Showed skill, but not enough to warrant a full-time Andretti ride, though enough to remain in the series and try to improve from her usual lower-midfield position. Albeit her cars were often not up to pace, but she really didn't show to be exceptional in them.
NASCAR is a bit longer opinion, but the title renders it an even more off-topic thingy.

[LolLola]

There are NO female drivers good enough to be driving in F1 or even the NASCAR cup series at the moment.
Simona de Silvestro is the best atm and she is where she deserves to be. Part-time at a quite good team. Showed skill, but not enough to warrant a full-time Andretti ride, though enough to remain in the series and try to improve from her usual lower-midfield position. Albeit her cars were often not up to pace, but she really didn't show to be exceptional in them.
NASCAR is a bit longer opinion, but the title renders it an even more off-topic thingy.

Sexist......

[girry]

It's a valid opinion and depends on what counts as "deserving to be in f1". If we're dead set about only the 20 "best" singleseater warriors deserving a seat, then Simona is not on that list...and neither is half the current grid. However, if the definition is doing a solid job and not embarrassing themselves, Simona most likely would cut it. Danica would probably be somewhere slightly above Chilton level on pure pace (though another matter would be her diligency abd focus..), and despite her lacking resume Susie was not too bad in those free practises. Visser and Cerruti, possibly in the future
they could be respectable enough too.

Ed - also disagree on Simona not having results, she did beat TK on road courses over a season

[Miguel98]

Cerruti? No way in hell. She is not that good.

Beistke Visser is the biggest hope. She's really fast. She just doesn't have the luck.
And I'm 100% sure that if the chance was there for De Silvestro to drive in F1, she would take it, and she wouldn't be bad at it. She would definetelly be midfield material.

[Rabbi Gordon]

Sexist......

Unless you are joking, gtfo. I'm not sexist, talent is not a matter of sex. There are great female drivers racing at the moment, but they are not in open wheels. They drive in drag racing or GT racing. For example Erica Enders-Stevens, Courtney Force and Claudia Hürtgen are all great drivers in their respective fields, while Simona or Wolff are nothing more than decent.

If we're dead set about only the 20 "best" singleseater warriors deserving a seat, then Simona is not on that list...and neither is half the current grid.

That I could not argue with

However, if the definition is doing a solid job and not embarrassing themselves, Simona most likely would cut it.

This might be true, though I'd say she'd be off Ericcson's pace by a bit.
Her better results usually came with everything falling her way. I would never claim that she never did well, because 2-3 times a year, she had great performances.

Danica would probably be somewhere slightly above Chilton level on pure pace (though another matter would be her diligency abd focus..)

lel I totally agree with you on Princess Danica. She is not THAT bad, but not good either. Problem is that if you are not too talented, at least work hard and try to be better (see: Menard, who is quite good now or Stremme who is still bad, but worked his ass off every time). But nooo, Danica has that piss-poor "move out of my way" (even if I'm struggling to keep 33rd against Yeley) attitude and is so stuck up that she'll never realize that she's not one of the top drivers.
Other than here there was a Johanna Long, who became almost as overrated as Danica is. She was good in late models, but did absoloutely nothing in NASCAR and because she is a very nice person and a female, she got this enormous fan support, even though her resumé is running well (10th-12th in a bad car) in some races before wrecking at around halfway.

Cerruti? No way in hell. She is not that good.
Beistke Visser is the biggest hope. She's really fast. She just doesn't have the luck.

Visser IS promising, yes, but she needs to improve a lot, because even when she avoids trouble, she is a midfielder in a not-exactly-star-filled WSR grid. She should work on her one-lap pace a lot. And then maybe a team better than AVF will take a chance on her.

[DemocalypseNow]

There are NO female drivers good enough to be driving in F1 or even the NASCAR cup series at the moment.
Simona de Silvestro is the best atm and she is where she deserves to be. Part-time at a quite good team. Showed skill, but not enough to warrant a full-time Andretti ride, though enough to remain in the series and try to improve from her usual lower-midfield position. Albeit her cars were often not up to pace, but she really didn't show to be exceptional in them.
NASCAR is a bit longer opinion, but the title renders it an even more off-topic thingy.

Sexist......

Crying wolf much?

While the argument perhaps lacks the depth of empirical evidence to make it completely bulletproof, there is at the same time no evidence supporting an argument that the current crop of pro female racing drivers have the level of talent required to be successful at the outright highest level. With Beitske Visser, it's a case of "wait and see" - there are a couple of years left before it comes a point where she has to be consistently at the front of 3.5 to really fit the profile of an F1 driver elect. With the rest, they have had plenty of time and opportunities to establish themselves.

Let's look at the three women who have come closest of late to making a breakthrough in F1. De Silvestro has been mentioned, and in all honesty I don't know quite enough about her career to pass judgement, so I'll leave this to others. The general consensus is that she's certainly an able racing driver, but not one of world class ability, and I am willing to accept that stance and move on to the next case.

Susie Wolff. Her testing times are not particularly important, as it's hard to tell what her programme was in any given session compared to her team-mate. I prefer a more level playing field to compare. So let's go for DTM, in which she is hugely experienced. A few drivers have come through the junior ranks and to F1 via DTM, such as Paul di Resta and Christjian Albers. Neither made any real impact in F1, and yet were successful in the tin top series. While not in a factory ride, Martin Tomczyk has proven that in DTM you can succeed while not racing in the most up to date iteration of a factory car. Wolff was consistently, for her entire career in the series, propping up the rear. The evidence suggests she wouldn't be able to cut it.

Carmen Jorda needs far less explanation. Take a cursory glance at her GP3 results and you'll immediately see why she landed her role at Lotus. It certainly had nothing to do with racing ability.


It's this attitude that we must push women into high profile driving roles that is damaging the prospects of them succeeding in racing. Using middling examples of drivers like these and insisting they be handed roles they are unqualified for, and then dare question resistance towards it as "sexist" is extremely damaging for everyone involved.