Rantbox

[Bobby Doorknobs]

I think there are two problems with the calendar:

a) Too many races are in countries with no real motorsport following (which admittedly is a double-edged sword because how do you create such interest in the first place?), while long-established ones like France, Italy and Germany are threatened with the axe. I don't mind F1 going to places like Korea or India, so long as they don't threaten the places of too many of the more established ones. Magny-Cours is certainly no classic circuit, but the fact that there's no French Grand Prix just feels wrong, being that France is the birthplace of Grand Prix racing and indeed motor racing itself. I do like Monaco and Monza, but that brings me to the next point:

b) More and more circuits are made in the same "5 km of long straights, tight hairpins and a few medium speed corners" mould, meaning less variety. Looking back on the comments on Sepang when it was first on the calendar I've seen praise for it being a "unique" circuit. Now, 15 years later a third of the calendar is on tracks designed with a similar philosophy. Monza stands out because it's a high-speed circuit, as did the old Hockenheim, Monaco stands out because of its tight and twisty nature etc. Yes, old Hockenheim was not regarded as a circuit that consistenly produced exciting races, but it was at least different from most other circuits on the calendar in its nature, which made it stand out, something I can't say to the same extent for most newer circuits, though some do have a few sections that stand out (first sector at COTA for example). The philosophy of track design seems to no longer be about simply creating a challenging circuit but to create one that generates overtaking and therefore improve the "show".

[Spectoremg]

I think there are two problems with the calendar:

a) Too many races are in countries with no real motorsport following (which admittedly is a double-edged sword because how do you create such interest in the first place?), while long-established ones like France, Italy and Germany are threatened with the axe. I don't mind F1 going to places like Korea or India, so long as they don't threaten the places of too many of the more established ones. Magny-Cours is certainly no classic circuit, but the fact that there's no French Grand Prix just feels wrong, being that France is the birthplace of Grand Prix racing and indeed motor racing itself. I do like Monaco and Monza, but that brings me to the next point:

b) More and more circuits are made in the same "5 km of long straights, tight hairpins and a few medium speed corners" mould, meaning less variety. Looking back on the comments on Sepang when it was first on the calendar I've seen praise for it being a "unique" circuit. Now, 15 years later a third of the calendar is on tracks designed with a similar philosophy. Monza stands out because it's a high-speed circuit, as did the old Hockenheim, Monaco stands out because of its tight and twisty nature etc. Yes, old Hockenheim was not regarded as a circuit that consistenly produced exciting races, but it was at least different from most other circuits on the calendar in its nature, which made it stand out, something I can't say to the same extent for most newer circuits, though some do have a few sections that stand out (first sector at COTA for example). The philosophy of track design seems to no longer be about simply creating a challenging circuit but to create one that generates overtaking and therefore improve the "show".

Agree and agree. However (a) with a sport run by greedy lunatics what are we to expect and (b) I like Hockenheim too. Now it's just another circuit.

[Aguaman]

I understand the opposing viewpoint too but in my ideal world, it's the responsibility of the cars to produce good racing, and they race on the most scenic/legendary/popular tracks instead of tracks that are specifically created to "produce" "best racing".

Yeah I agree on the history part. I mean what an English summer would be like without Lord's or Boxing Day in Australia not in Melbourne. However just because it's there doesn't automatically make it a better race. Good races can happen in newer tracks as well. That's what irks me, is that traditional track = great race and newer track = bad race, straight off the bat.

[Klon]

b) More and more circuits are made in the same "5 km of long straights, tight hairpins and a few medium speed corners" mould, meaning less variety. Looking back on the comments on Sepang when it was first on the calendar I've seen praise for it being a "unique" circuit. Now, 15 years later a third of the calendar is on tracks designed with a similar philosophy. Monza stands out because it's a high-speed circuit, as did the old Hockenheim, Monaco stands out because of its tight and twisty nature etc. Yes, old Hockenheim was not regarded as a circuit that consistenly produced exciting races, but it was at least different from most other circuits on the calendar in its nature, which made it stand out, something I can't say to the same extent for most newer circuits, though some do have a few sections that stand out (first sector at COTA for example). The philosophy of track design seems to no longer be about simply creating a challenging circuit but to create one that generates overtaking and therefore improve the "show".

This. This. THIS. THIS, THIS. Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

That is where the true issue with Monza lies. If Monza is removed from the F1 calendar, it will be replaced with another bland five-klick track. If the track taking Monza's place was another extreme, like Monza is - doesn't even have to be the same extreme, but some extreme - I wouldn't even pretend to care about its place on the calendar, as tradition is not that important to me (see: Silverstone. I'm going to throw a party if Silverstone ever leaves the F1 calendar), but as it is, it will serve to make the F1 calendar even more uniform than it already is.

[AdrianSutil]

b) More and more circuits are made in the same "5 km of long straights, tight hairpins and a few medium speed corners" mould, meaning less variety. Looking back on the comments on Sepang when it was first on the calendar I've seen praise for it being a "unique" circuit. Now, 15 years later a third of the calendar is on tracks designed with a similar philosophy. Monza stands out because it's a high-speed circuit, as did the old Hockenheim, Monaco stands out because of its tight and twisty nature etc. Yes, old Hockenheim was not regarded as a circuit that consistenly produced exciting races, but it was at least different from most other circuits on the calendar in its nature, which made it stand out, something I can't say to the same extent for most newer circuits, though some do have a few sections that stand out (first sector at COTA for example). The philosophy of track design seems to no longer be about simply creating a challenging circuit but to create one that generates overtaking and therefore improve the "show".

This. This. THIS. THIS, THIS. Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

That is where the true issue with Monza lies. If Monza is removed from the F1 calendar, it will be replaced with another bland five-klick track. If the track taking Monza's place was another extreme, like Monza is - doesn't even have to be the same extreme, but some extreme - I wouldn't even pretend to care about its place on the calendar, as tradition is not that important to me (see: Silverstone. I'm going to throw a party if Silverstone ever leaves the F1 calendar), but as it is, it will serve to make the F1 calendar even more uniform than it already is.

Just a quick note on old Hockenhiem, I can never remember a race there that WASN'T boring. Great track, ruined by Tilke...

[AndreaModa]

Variety is important in any aspect of life. Take work for instance. Would you rather do 1 task for a whole day or do perhaps 15 different smaller tasks in that same timeframe?

On a different topic...

Watching the BBC's coverage of the Belgian GP earlier this evening, I was struck towards the end of the race by how "meh" Coulthard's commentary is. Very little excitement or enthusiasm. He brought up the topic of Lewis' unbroadcasted radio message about loosing power. DC delivered this news to us in a deadpan style with no drama, but aside from this, I felt that whole "news" was totally pointless anyway. Do we need to know about this when it hasn't affected the race order or time splits? It's the sort of information overload that is unnecessary in my view. If he could have at least injected some passion in there perhaps it would have been better but I'd prefer discussion on what we're actually seeing on the screen.

I don't know whether I'd make a good commentator or not. I'd probably slip one too many profanities in there by accident for Auntie Beeb and garble half of the time anyway, but when I'm watching races, I'm exclaiming out load when there's a tight pass, a mistake, or whatever. I get excited, I shout, I piss the girlfriend off a bit, but it's all passion that is so sorely lacking in the interface between F1 and the paying, viewing public. It extends beyond the TV coverage, to the sponsor-friendly corporate management of the "brand", the drivers' PR training, the crap the teams spew out race after race, etc, etc. It is precisely why we all love commentators like Murray Walker, and drivers prepared to say what they want, like Kimi.

Don't get me wrong here, I still love F1 and go out of my way to invest a significant amount of my time into it, but it would just be nice if those in and around the sport made it look like they were enjoying it just as much as I am!

[Salamander]

Just a quick note on old Hockenhiem, I can never remember a race there that WASN'T boring. Great track, ruined by Tilke...

Yes, ruined, which is why the last 3 races there were pretty memorable - not classics, but had some good racing.

[pi314159]

Just a quick note on old Hockenhiem, I can never remember a race there that WASN'T boring. Great track, ruined by Tilke...

Yes, ruined, which is why the last 3 races there were pretty memorable - not classics, but had some good racing.

While Hockenheim produced some good races in recent years, the changes by Tilke have turned it into just another generic modern GP track. And variety is something the F1 calender desperately needs.

[MorbidelliObese]

Agree on the variety point, I think that's the main reason the Tilkedromes as a whole have a bad reputation. One Tilkedrome in isolation has nothing wrong with it (well apart from the separate run-off debate), it's just they all seem a bit samey to me. A calendar filled with Monzas and old Hockenheims, or filled with Monacos, would be equally bland.

For me circuit variety is better when it goes hand in hand with technical freedom though, as it increases the possibility of cars suiting particular tracks. I remember in 1994 when Ferrari with their V12, while improved from the previous 3 years, were comparatively nowhere compared to Hill and Schumacher's title fight. Then they turn up at Hockenheim and win, probably would have done so even without the big pile up and high attrition behind them. and would have won at Monza if not for Alesi's retirement in the pits. At the other end of the scale circuits like Monaco would often see a V8 car (e.g. Alesi's Tyrrell, or Benetton before they and Schumacher got really good anyway) punch above its weight.

[Aguaman]

So I watched the 2003 & 2004 F1 review

Some notes

- Poor Da Matta. He wasn't that bad
- Trulli's hair in 2004 was horrible
- lol no one cared about Heidfeld in the review
- Coulthard was seen retiring more than actually doing stuff
- Ralf was more likable than JPM cause they showed JPM whining more I guess
- I miss the Livery of Williams

David Coulthard really did nothing. I get why he was there in 2001 and I get the mechanical woes but still.

[CoopsII]

I think F1 should go back to letting the teams test, develop and generally do what the frack they want with their time and money. It was originally introduced to even the playing field and make F1 less expensive but in the last few seasons I've seen no evidence to suggest anythings changed. Red Bull and Mercedes have dominated much like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams did before them and the teams lower down the field have struggled and gone bump just as much as they ever did.

[Spectoremg]

I think F1 should go back to letting the teams test, develop and generally do what the frack they want with their time and money. It was originally introduced to even the playing field and make F1 less expensive but in the last few seasons I've seen no evidence to suggest anythings changed. Red Bull and Mercedes have dominated much like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams did before them and the teams lower down the field have struggled and gone bump just as much as they ever did.

Totally agree with this AND the current regs favour the successful teams.

[DanielPT]

I think F1 should go back to letting the teams test, develop and generally do what the frack they want with their time and money. It was originally introduced to even the playing field and make F1 less expensive but in the last few seasons I've seen no evidence to suggest anythings changed. Red Bull and Mercedes have dominated much like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams did before them and the teams lower down the field have struggled and gone bump just as much as they ever did.

That would no doubt increase expenditure and force the front teams into another arms race. It would also increase the gap between the two ends of the grid. If you add in reliability it means to further reduce any chance of an upset no matter how small it is from a team like Sauber or Force India to finish in the points. I am decidedly against it.

[CoopsII]

That would no doubt increase expenditure and force the front teams into another arms race. It would also increase the gap between the two ends of the grid. If you add in reliability it means to further reduce any chance of an upset no matter how small it is from a team like Sauber or Force India to finish in the points. I am decidedly against it.

Well, it should go without saying that if the teams are allowed to spend more then they would spend more. Arms race? Just what exactly do you think is happening now? They might be spending less money but they're still spending it trying to do over the competition. Anyway, money=results is a bit of a myth. McLaren being pants isn't because them and Honda are struggling to balance the books. Equally, Toyota spent boatloads and achieved buggerall.

[DanielPT]

Well, it should go without saying that if the teams are allowed to spend more then they would spend more. Arms race? Just what exactly do you think is happening now? They might be spending less money but they're still spending it trying to do over the competition. Anyway, money=results is a bit of a myth. McLaren being pants isn't because them and Honda are struggling to balance the books. Equally, Toyota spent boatloads and achieved buggerall.

That is why I wrote another arms race. In the end it is not them who suffer but those who hopelessly run at the back. You will manage to keep running at the back if you have money and a) you have hope of improving or b) you love too much the sport. The ones who fit in b ended with Peter Sauber (maybe you can still count on VJ Mallya for that). You might say that money=results being a bit of a myth but tell me, when was the last time those struggling to balance the books where racing at the front? Sure you have Toyota and Honda to counter balance but over a season you always end up with the richest teams at the top anyway. Maybe Enstone was the odd one over the past two decades but they weren't exactly poor for most of the time.

[CoopsII]

That is why I wrote another arms race. In the end it is not them who suffer but those who hopelessly run at the back.

But clearly they are suffering every bit as much as they used to. In this current system, which you think is better than it used to be, Caterham are gone and Manor/Marussia are hanging on by their fingerprints firmly at the back of the grid where they will remain.

So what exactly is better now with restrictions than it was before? Nothing. No thing.

Also, the last time someone struggling to balance the books raced at the front was Brawn GP.

[novitopoli]

The restrictions on testing were the last of a series of moves whose only goal was to damage Ferrari, as they are the only team owning a test track they could freely use near to their factory. I'm no Ferrari fanboy, but letting this sport die out while putting every effort into damaging the only team whose commitment to Formula One was (and nonetheless still is) unconditioned is a quite stupid thing to do.

[AndreaModa]

What the current regulations and restrictions do is just lock in superiority (or otherwise). So Mercedes came up trumps with their new engine. Therefore, until rules are considerably changed, there is no opportunity for Renault and Honda to catch up because the rules state they cannot change significant parts or redesign their engines.

It's as simple as that. In controlling costs and preventing an arms race, it makes it absolutely critical, above everything else, that a new design or concept works from the get-go. Otherwise it's useless. The same goes for the overall car design. With limited testing it's impossible for struggling teams to really get on top of troubles and find solutions. So the ones that hit the jackpot with a good design (think Red Bull from late 2009 to 2013) can continue to carry it over and maintain a healthy advantage while everyone else just tries to keep up. It was aerodynamics before, and with the new engine formula, it's now all about the engines.

[DanielPT]

That is why I wrote another arms race. In the end it is not them who suffer but those who hopelessly run at the back.

But clearly they are suffering every bit as much as they used to. In this current system, which you think is better than it used to be, Caterham are gone and Manor/Marussia are hanging on by their fingerprints firmly at the back of the grid where they will remain.

So what exactly is better now with restrictions than it was before? Nothing. No thing. [/quote]

The fact that some teams went under can also be attributed to the engine cost increase they kept going when V8s were here after all (but that is another thing). If you implemented testing now, the only thing happening was those who could afford went testing furiously while the others drifted further behind.

Anyway, things are not the same. The gap is smaller to the lower midfield in average me thinks. Seeing in 2004 where it was a one team party too, the gap to 15 or 16 is larger than in 2015.

Also, the last time someone struggling to balance the books raced at the front was Brawn GP.

I will give you Brawn. But even they had those millions poured into their car by Honda. That is why they raced at the front. That obviously reflected in the following year car where they were more into the midfield.

[Wallio]

It's all relative, in The Mechanic's Tale, Steve Matchett talks about how in 1993, the top 4 teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, and Bennetton) were spending an ungodly sum (I believe he lists $40,000,000) on their "active cars" and dominating F1. So the FIA banned drivers aids to close the gap, and lower costs, but the teams didn't just pocket the $40 mil, they reinvested, and the same four teams still dominated. He notes how stupid the logic of "cost savings" truly is.

So I agree, let them test. At least that would give the lower teams some chance of development. I have always said, give the teams X test days. They can use them whenever, and wherever they like, but when they're gone, they're gone. It could be fun seeing one team use all of them pre-season to try and build a huge points lead, only to have one team save a few to hone their new front wing in time for the last few fly-aways. Oh and bring back the Friday cars too. That still was the single stupidest rule change ever.

[mario]

That is why I wrote another arms race. In the end it is not them who suffer but those who hopelessly run at the back.

But clearly they are suffering every bit as much as they used to. In this current system, which you think is better than it used to be, Caterham are gone and Manor/Marussia are hanging on by their fingerprints firmly at the back of the grid where they will remain.

So what exactly is better now with restrictions than it was before? Nothing. No thing.

Also, the last time someone struggling to balance the books raced at the front was Brawn GP.

Brawn GP is a pretty poor example - whilst the team was running low on funding later in the year, Honda spent a colossal amount of money on the development car that became the BGP001.

It should be borne in mind that Honda had two development programs running at full pelt for the upcoming 2009 rule changes: asides from what became the BGP001, there was an entirely separate RA109 that was more akin to the Red Bull RB5.

Whilst the team was left with tight finances afterwards, the car they were left with had probably had one of the largest budgets ever allocated to an F1 car lavished upon it - between the three different development teams (two chassis and one powertrain), Honda's budget that year is conservatively estimated to have been around $1 billion (not adjusting for inflation).

[Ataxia]

It's all relative, in The Mechanic's Tale, Steve Matchett talks about how in 1993, the top 4 teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, and Bennetton) were spending an ungodly sum (I believe he lists $40,000,000) on their "active cars" and dominating F1. So the FIA banned drivers aids to close the gap, and lower costs, but the teams didn't just pocket the $40 mil, they reinvested, and the same four teams still dominated. He notes how stupid the logic of "cost savings" truly is.

Well, that's just it. Frank Dernie once said "the cost of F1 is what you've got. If you have $150m and you were racing orange karts, then orange karts would cost $150m to run".

[Wallio]

That is why I wrote another arms race. In the end it is not them who suffer but those who hopelessly run at the back.

But clearly they are suffering every bit as much as they used to. In this current system, which you think is better than it used to be, Caterham are gone and Manor/Marussia are hanging on by their fingerprints firmly at the back of the grid where they will remain.

So what exactly is better now with restrictions than it was before? Nothing. No thing.

Also, the last time someone struggling to balance the books raced at the front was Brawn GP.

Brawn GP is a pretty poor example - whilst the team was running low on funding later in the year, Honda spent a colossal amount of money on the development car that became the BGP001.

It should be borne in mind that Honda had two development programs running at full pelt for the upcoming 2009 rule changes: asides from what became the BGP001, there was an entirely separate RA109 that was more akin to the Red Bull RB5.

Whilst the team was left with tight finances afterwards, the car they were left with had probably had one of the largest budgets ever allocated to an F1 car lavished upon it - between the three different development teams (two chassis and one powertrain), Honda's budget that year is conservatively estimated to have been around $1 billion (not adjusting for inflation).

Actually Mario, They made THREE different cars, with two versions of the RA109 being developed, one being a hybrid with KERS.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... id-f1-car/

[MorbidelliObese]

It's all relative, in The Mechanic's Tale, Steve Matchett talks about how in 1993, the top 4 teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, and Bennetton) were spending an ungodly sum (I believe he lists $40,000,000) on their "active cars" and dominating F1. So the FIA banned drivers aids to close the gap, and lower costs, but the teams didn't just pocket the $40 mil, they reinvested, and the same four teams still dominated. He notes how stupid the logic of "cost savings" truly is.

Yep even Mosley of all people came to realise this towards the end of his reign. Hence the proposal for a budget cap after endless cost saving regulations (testing ban, engine freeze, etc.) that didn't really do much in the grand scheme of things.

You'll never make winning cheaper. However if you can make turning up and taking part cheaper, that's probably what should be focussed on. It's why I don't mind Haas's approach, and I wouldn't mind perhaps a further slight relaxation on the listed parts rule, so long as none were mandatory spec.

[Waris]

It's all relative, in The Mechanic's Tale, Steve Matchett talks about how in 1993, the top 4 teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, and Bennetton) were spending an ungodly sum (I believe he lists $40,000,000) on their "active cars" and dominating F1. So the FIA banned drivers aids to close the gap, and lower costs, but the teams didn't just pocket the $40 mil, they reinvested, and the same four teams still dominated. He notes how stupid the logic of "cost savings" truly is.

Well, that's just it. Frank Dernie once said "the cost of F1 is what you've got. If you have $150m and you were racing orange karts, then orange karts would cost $150m to run".

The problem with that is not everybody has the same amount. That is why limiting the amount of money a team can spend would work in theory, let's say if the richest team has 250% of what the poorest team has, then you limit it so they can only spend 100%, so everyone spends the same. But in practice it will never work, because they will find some way around it, to spend the money elsewhere.

[RAK]

If Andrew Benson is a hack, then the majority of those who wrote the comments below his piece are hack, slash, slice, chop, stab, hook, pound, grind, maim, behead, disembowel, eviscerate, and about a thousand other words in a variety of languages, all of which are to do with medieval violence in some way.

And nowhere near all of the comments were about Lewis Hamilton, either.

BBC comment sections almost always end up becoming a maelstrom of bovine faeces anyway. I love the irony of people complaining that a Have Your Say is never opened for the biggest issues when the people complaining don't contribute anything worth saying and those who do "contribute" end up spewing a load of Ukip-supporting, Britain First-style, crypto-fascist scaremongering nonsense which bears little resemblance with reality. Because apparently, we all have jackboots now.

Or, they're complaining about the existence of the BBC and its ostensible left-wing/right-wing/[insert political stance here] bias when the movement towards bias and opinion-led news is largely the fault of the audiences who favour the red-top newspapers and the shouty ideologues over critical analysis.

The sports sections aren't much better; as poor as journalism has, by and large, become in the last twenty years at least, what we see in the comment sections of online news outlets is rarely more incisive and commonly a lot worse.

[CoopsII]

My Rant is that I really hate working in an office where no-one understands F1 but they often discuss it the Monday after a race as they've seen it on the sport pages and I often get dragged into it.

This morning I've had such pearls of wisdom as..

"So Hamilton's as good as Senna now, isn't he?"

Well, good or bad is entirely subjective but if you ask me 'no'.

"That crash on Saturday was a bit like that one from last year, very dangerous"

It was nothing like Bianchi's crash.

"Jenson Button's rubbish these days, he should just pack in"

Again, somewhat subjective that and I have simply no intention of trying to explain about Honda and their engines.

"Vettel can't take losing, can he?"

I'm going for a coffee and to scream into my fist for a while.

[Salamander]

My Rant is that I really hate working in an office where no-one understands F1 but they often discuss it the Monday after a race as they've seen it on the sport pages and I often get dragged into it.

You have my sympathy.

[Klon]

Time to play the devil's advocate:

This morning I've had such pearls of wisdom as..

"So Hamilton's as good as Senna now, isn't he?"

Well, good or bad is entirely subjective but if you ask me 'no'.

As you said, good is subjective. Some people are more inclined to judge qualities on numbers. I am honestly one of those persons as well (that's why I am that salty about 2009, but I digress), so looking at Hamilton's career as well as banging the "Senna is overrated" drum, I won't blame anyone who claims Lewis is close to Senna in the overall picture.

"That crash on Saturday was a bit like that one from last year, very dangerous"

It was nothing like Bianchi's crash.

Well, it wasn't like Bianchi's crash, that is correct, but dismissing fears regarding a open-wheel race car rolling over like that is a bit jaded in the bigger picture. In the old days that could have just as well ended badly.

Now the other statements are reasonably silly, can't really defend those - whilst I think Button should pack it up, that is because there are more gifted young guns in Vandoorne and Magnussen that should really be in F1 as it is already - so I won't disagree on your point regarding the uneducated plebs.

[FullMetalJack]

So I watched the 2003 & 2004 F1 review

Some notes

- Poor Da Matta. He wasn't that bad
- Trulli's hair in 2004 was horrible
- lol no one cared about Heidfeld in the review
- Coulthard was seen retiring more than actually doing stuff
- Ralf was more likable than JPM cause they showed JPM whining more I guess
- I miss the Livery of Williams

David Coulthard really did nothing. I get why he was there in 2001 and I get the mechanical woes but still.

I have to come back to this post, having watched both the 2004 Canadian and United States Grands Prix again, you raise some valid points, particularly Coulthard doing sod all. At Indianapolis, he was woeful. I know it was the older McLaren which was behind Sauber in the standings, but he was slow as all hell, and his two points were the most undeserving of anyone that season. Hell, were it not for an engine failure, he'd have most likely been beaten by Nick Heidfeld's Jordan on merit.

I can see why he was still at McLaren in 2002-03. Maybe in 2004, as they knew they had JPM for 2005, they just didn't want to stick a different driver in just for one season who knew it would only be that.

[Rob Dylan]

Man, we regularly talk about (this site is dedicated to) so many people who never got the chance they needed in Formula 1, and then you look at Coulthard 2002-2004. That guy got more chances than he was worth, and did so little with them. I mean he was competent enough to have some decent races in '02, but qualified poorly more often than not, and it wasn't like he was actually competing for any major results when his car blew up in those later races. A hundred opportunities wasted in my opinion.

[good_Ralf]

This really belongs in the YouTube thread, but I have to spew over this guy, who at the moment is one of the top F1 gamers out there. Even though some of his stuff is entertaining, I absolutely hate his style and attitude when doing his videos.

So he's doing this challenge where he has to survive a lap of Sochi in F1 2014 in PC with the damage sensitivity settings maximized while using this camera which looks down on the car from 1,000 feet up.
When he collides with another AI driver, he bad mouths and blames other drivers when it is his fault for crashing into them.
After about a dozen minutes of raging, he completes the challenge, but only by going pathetically slowly a la Yuji Ide but still counts it just because he finished in the top 10 in a greatly reduced field, if he had been 11th which could very much have been possible in another race, he wouldn't have counted it.
Then the second he finishes the challenge he unceremoniously slams his car into the pit wall, like it was nothing when he was getting so angry over crashing just a minute earlier. Add in being very repetitive with his soundtrack choices in his videos and you have a gamer whose videos without sound are fine, his presence/voice/commentary is just unbearable.

[Salamander]

Sounds like the majority of mainstream YouTube Let's Players - all screaming and/or rage and nothing of actual substance said.

If you're looking for a good racing video game channel, may I recommend Empty Box on YouTube? He mostly plays iRacing and avoids anything F1, but he's a solid, respectful racer. I'd provide a link, but am on my phone at the moment.

[sw3ishida]

This really belongs in the YouTube thread, but I have to spew over this guy, who at the moment is one of the top F1 gamers out there. Even though some of his stuff is entertaining, I absolutely hate his style and attitude when doing his videos.

So he's doing this challenge where he has to survive a lap of Sochi in F1 2014 in PC with the damage sensitivity settings maximized while using this camera which looks down on the car from 1,000 feet up.
When he collides with another AI driver, he bad mouths and blames other drivers when it is his fault for crashing into them.
After about a dozen minutes of raging, he completes the challenge, but only by going pathetically slowly a la Yuji Ide but still counts it just because he finished in the top 10 in a greatly reduced field, if he had been 11th which could very much have been possible in another race, he wouldn't have counted it.
Then the second he finishes the challenge he unceremoniously slams his car into the pit wall, like it was nothing when he was getting so angry over crashing just a minute earlier. Add in being very repetitive with his soundtrack choices in his videos and you have a gamer whose videos without sound are fine, his presence/voice/commentary is just unbearable.

He first caught my attention when YouTube suggested a video of him playing F1 05. After constantly moaning about B.A.R never having "barcode" livery and being generally bad at the game and complaining about the graphics (on a 10 year old PS2 game), he came back and did an F1 03 video where he said it was all because he hadn't been an F1 fan for long enough. He didn't make a decent show of '03 either, by the way. I'm glad someone else is also saying what I think.

[good_Ralf]

Sounds like the majority of mainstream YouTube Let's Players - all screaming and/or rage and nothing of actual substance said.

If you're looking for a good racing video game channel, may I recommend Empty Box on YouTube? He mostly plays iRacing and avoids anything F1, but he's a solid, respectful racer. I'd provide a link, but am on my phone at the moment.

I've heard of Empty Box but I've never checked it out. I am subscribed to FailRace and Tiametmarduk, who is much more calm, presentable and less annoying better compared to most F1 gamers.

[Salamander]

You'll probably like Empty Box then, he very rarely - if ever - loses his cool.

[Rob Dylan]

I really liked that guy who posted up all those videos showing off the best Codemasters F1 game glitches, he was hilarious He also did lots of funny videos of stupid online experiences.

His name was "Joey"something I think, it's been a while since I watched those.

[AdrianSutil]

I don't mind Aarava. Some of his content can be quite funny. I liked his realistic damage one at Austin for example.

Alex Zafro is ok. he's not the best and he freely admits it. Currently watching a series about the career mode on F1 Championship Edition (06 season) on PS2. He also pretty knowledgeable about past teams and drivers.

IntoTheBarrier is good. He's not a great driver and always does 3 lap races online so you can imagine the carnage involved in them. But he loses it sometimes due to stupid online drivers and penalties, something I can easily relate to.

[Klon]

Let's Players are shmocks, news at 11.

There are like a handful good ones, but really, unless you are lucky to find them on a random YT search, they ain't worth searching for.

[CoopsII]

Did you hate that silly Hamilton/Rosberg as Senna/Prost thing? Well, get ready for the Hamilton/Vettel as Senna/Mansell thing which Vettel has brought to life in the quotes in this link...

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/latest/headlines/2015/10/vettel--senna-mansell-style-rivalry-with-hamilton-would-be-fun.html

I don't blame Vettel, it's just him thinking aloud, but I wonder if he realises how comments like that are simply fuel for lazy journalists up and down the paddock.