Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 1,944 comments
  • 169,646 views
At least you made an attempt. It’s rather annoying how many people blindly hate on something without even giving it a chance (NASCAR seems to be the most popular target when it comes to motorsports).
I've never been to a NASCAR race, but I can already tell the road courses to me are more fun to watch simply because of how technical Sonoma and Watkins can be. If more road courses were on the schedule instead of round 2s at certain ovals, more people wouldn't be hating on NASCAR.

I'll stop getting off topic now
 
Personally, I don’t really like drag racing. It’s just not my type of sport. I don’t know how much skill is needed though, especially in the official drag events.

I do like drag races that include super cars and production cars in general (World’s Greatest Drag Race, anyone?). :D
 
Here's my unpopular opinion, I guess. (based on the preceding discussion)

I have more respect for drag racing than I do for NASCAR. My reason is that the NHRA allowed technology to actually proceed to a point where it's baffling just how quick they can get something to move under the power of an ICE, which is the whole point of this particular motorsport. Oh, and top fuel drag boats? Holy crap!

Don't get me wrong. I understand a lot of technology and development goes into perfecting cup cars, but then it ends up as something similar to who brought the most superior brick. The cars themselves just make me shake my head. Every race I actually sit down to watch, I wonder what would be possible if they actually advanced the cars into the 21st century. Maybe then they could include more road course events without the cars looking like a joke.
 
Every race I actually sit down to watch, I wonder what would be possible if they actually advanced the cars into the 21st century. Maybe then they could include more road course events without the cars looking like a joke.

Not a NASCAR shill by any stretch and not necessarily disagreeing with you either, but this is actually exactly the same as Formula 1. Both types of cars could easily be significantly faster, but both organizations keep the cars around a predetermined speed/pace through technical regulations, all in the interest of safety. There is a massive amount of development that goes into the Cup cars, just within an incredibly small window. And the teams are extremely creative in their engineering solutions - it can be real interesting thing to look into, if you're into that type of thing.

Back around 2004, Rusty Wallace took a Cup car to 230mph in an unrestricted test at Talladega. They'd be even faster today.....and how fast of a car could an F1 team build without the limitations we have?

Both categories have a very high level of safety which should always be commended, but I don't believe the technology in that area is ready for cars frequently exceeding 400km/h.
 
Now this is certainly unpopular but here goes anyway...

The upcoming Formula E car is ugly as hell. And it's not the Halo that's ruining it, it's all of the rest of it. That's not even a formula car anymore.

I agree. In the first teasers it looked good, because the setting was dark and you couldn't really see all that much. Now that Nissan showed their car, it's apparent that it won't look very good. Way too bulky in the area front of the rear wheel and the diffuser looks frankly dumb. The halo is just the final nail in the coffin.
 
Last edited:
Mark Webber is a very good, very accomplished driver. But he isn't one of the great F1 drivers, not even of his own time.

He was caught in Red Bull's updraft. And, to be fair, made the most out of it.
 
Last edited:
Kenseth had no good reason when he wrecked Logano at Martinsville 2015. Yes, Logano did ruin his chances at the championship, but it was far from appropriate to ram him.
 
Mark Webber is a very good, very accomplished driver. But he isn't one of the great F1 drivers, not even of his own time.

He was caught in Red Bull's updraft. And, to be fair, made the most out of it.
When you take into consideration Mark was fighting against more than the other guy in the same car, from within the same team (yes, I’m talking about Helmut Marko), I think he did as well as could be expected.

If anyone suggests he had a fair fight/equal chance, they’re delusional.
 
He was caught in Red Bull's updraft. And, to be fair, made the most out of it.
Pretty sure he saw the updraft coming. He chose them over Renault for 2007, and Alsonso won the WDC with Renault in 2005-06. He knew something...
 
Marco Simoncelli was an overrated dirty rider that would've achieved NOTHING in MotoGp. He got away with a lot of awful moves including blocking Héctor Barberá to the point of making him do a frontflip at over 120mph at Mugello 2008.

Extreme enduro (motorbikes) is awful nowadays. If you have to carry your bike to overcome an obstacle it's not real motorcycling. Organizers are making courses for the top10 riders worldwide and have forgotten everyone else.

Enduro (downhill mountainbiking) is awful nowadays too. Trails were supposed to be easier than World Cup courses, enduro was supposed to be an easier approach to downhill mountainbiking but now we're seeing enduro events that sometimes use ex-World Cup courses.

My unpopular opinion:
Indy car is better than F1.
Nah, it's "1990s ChampCar is better than any F1 era ever".
 
Pretty sure he saw the updraft coming. He chose them over Renault for 2007, and Alsonso won the WDC with Renault in 2005-06. He knew something...

I don't disagree with this, Webber put in great drives at Minardi and Jaguar and was clearly not a Johnny Carwash, but I still stand by my post.
 
If he had won the title in 2010, he'd have been put into the "Damon Hill and Jenson Button" bracket of people who deserved the championship, but weren't exactly the greatest of their era.
 
I don't disagree with this, Webber put in great drives at Minardi and Jaguar and was clearly not a Johnny Carwash, but I still stand by my post.
For sure. He was quick but not one of the greats. His racecraft was right up there though.
 
If he had won the title in 2010, he'd have been put into the "Damon Hill and Jenson Button" bracket of people who deserved the championship, but weren't exactly the greatest of their era.

Button, maybe, but I actually think Damon Hill doesn't get enough credit.
 
I didn't even know Webber was being debated as a 'Great' ?

I agree he was a very very good driver and probably deserved more success than what he had (I guess the same could be said for many F1 drivers too though)... But I think anyone who calls him a great is maybe pushing it a little bit.
 
Button, maybe, but I actually think Damon Hill doesn't get enough credit.

I think it's because his championship-winning season was measured against Michael Schumacher's choice to go to Ferrari, having a rookie teammate, and Benetton making a car that was a bit unwieldy. And I think a lot of his title gets unfairly besmirched by Villeneuve's star fading out a few months after handing over the lead to Mika Hakkinen...

It's the classic Can't Win Situation: if Damon hadn't won the DWC in the best car, his stock would have tanked. He did a heroic job at Arrows and Jordan on a few occasions, but he became a bit disinterested as his final season progressed. Seemed like a nice enough guy, never seemed to whine about his situation nor vociferously blame others (even when powered by Yamaha) at any time. He even still sounds quite positive and mostly upbeat, if his social media platform is anything to go by. Probably just glad to be there at all when his time came at Brabham...it might be good while until the next 30-year-old makes an F1 debut which eventually leads to a championship.
 
Last edited:
It's the classic Can't Win Situation: if Damon hadn't won the DWC in the best car, his stock would have tanked. He did a heroic job at Arrows and Jordan on a few occasions, but he became a bit disinterested as his final season progressed.
It's funny how no F1 fan seems to know that Damon Hill didn't start racing cars till he was like 24, he was an amateur motorbike racer and there is even footage online of him racing the Yamaha RD350 British Cup. The fact that he reached F1 and won a freaking title puts him above 99% of racing drivers.

He even still sounds quite positive and mostly upbeat, if his social media platform is anything to go by. Probably just glad to be there at all when his time came at Brabham...it might be good while until the next 30-year-old makes an F1 debut which eventually leads to a championship.
You probably missed the best days of "Hill on Twitter", back when he was @F196WC (F1 1996 World Champion). He had no reason to censor himself so he gave no ****s and went at it hard. Now he's yet another corporate sell-out, I even unfollowed him.
 
Mark Webber is a very good, very accomplished driver. But he isn't one of the great F1 drivers, not even of his own time.

He was caught in Red Bull's updraft. And, to be fair, made the most out of it.
He was about as good as Button and post title Kimi were, in my opinion. I think if he had won the 2010 title, a lot would have been made about the fact that everybody made big mistakes that year, whereas that didn't happen so much with Vettel, probably helped by the fact he backed it up 3 times.
 
I think it's because his championship-winning season was measured against Michael Schumacher's choice to go to Ferrari, having a rookie teammate, and Benetton making a car that was a bit unwieldy. And I think a lot of his title gets unfairly besmirched by Villeneuve's star fading out a few months after handing over the lead to Mika Hakkinen...

Button, maybe, but I actually think Damon Hill doesn't get enough credit.

I'll qualify what I mean by this. It's lengthy.

And in order to qualify it, you have to understand what it's like having the British English media on your case if you're seen as the country's only hope. Anybody from our islands (Britain or Ireland) who is into soccer will know just how much pressure is put on, for example, the England national football team. The media will laud them as the greatest athletes to ever oxygenate blood on a continuous, seemingly daily basis.... right up until they lose. Then, it's nothing but savagery about not being good enough and the reverse hubris from the newspapers for never being at fault for the pressure lumped on the team; it's never acknowledged. They like to build you up, but they love bringing you down twice as much.

The same applies to Formula One. Younger fans might not appreciate the background I've given because Lewis Hamilton is a four-time world champion and objectively one of the best drivers of all time. It's the whole issue of being "Britain's no.1 F1 driver", like being "Britain's no.1 tennis player" and I'm sure it applies to other countries as well. After Damon Hill retired (don't worry, I'm getting to him) David Coulthard took the crown of "Britain's hope". And really, in the Schumacher era where 8-9 teams needn't have bothered turning up anyway, he only really challenged for the title once in 2001. But he had to win, the newspapers and television said so. He's Britain's best driver so he must win. Much like Andy Murray, Coulthard was British when he won and Scottish when he lost; I remember some distinctly harsh articles on Coulthard in the early 2000s when his no.1 status at McLaren was fading and when he wasn't magically winning every championship.

So Damon Hill.

He debuted in Formula One aged thirty-two and, unfortunately for him, at a time when the great British hope of Nigel Mansell was retiring and the other British drivers such as Herbert, Brundle and Blundell were midfield runners. MansellMania was over and there wasn't anything to replace it. But Hill got called up to Williams, he was their test driver after all, and became Britain's number one driver in 1993 when he was:

a) thirty-three years old
b) extremely inexperienced in Formula One

But he did well, to be fair. He was in the winning team and won three races in a row that year.

Then 1994 happened. Not only is Hill Britain's number one driver on a crest of a wave, generating the media pressure I talked about, but then Ayrton Senna dies. In a Williams. Hill suddenly finds himself an inexperienced team leader in only his second full season of Formula One at the age of 34 and not just of any team but the best British team at that point in time. He is also the son of a former World Champion, the popular Graham Hill.
England Expects.

He didn't win in 1994 and was cheated out of that title by THAT BLOODY GERMAN!!! DO THEY WANT A THIRD DEFEAT BY THE TOMMIES?

At least the press had someone to blame for him not winning.

In 1995 he was a heavy favourite for the title but Williams found it difficult to compete with Benetton in equal engines and Hill made many uncharacteristic errors leading to retirements (Britain, Germany and Italy). Pressure getting to him? Yes, it's only natural but I argue that media pressure was just as great as the natural pressure of a driver gunning for the title. Whereas he lost the 1994 championship by a point, he was 34 points behind in 1995. But two years not winning the title, he is Britain's number one of course, at least to him being featured in an admittedly funny advert where "Hill finishes second! Again!". They also did this advert with the "loser" of England's Euro 96 penalty shootout, Gareth Southgate.

But anyway, all this leads to 1996. Two years being under the media scrutiny, two years actually getting used to Formula One as a thirtysomething debutant, quite frankly it cannot have been easy. And then it's well known during a season where Hill has by far the most superior car that the team is actively not renewing his contract. Imagine that! You're winning races and leading the title but the team say "Yeah, we're not going to retain you." Instead the team is focusing on the new number two, the hot new thing. Damon is old news in F1 circles. Yet he keeps his cool and wins the title. And Pizza Hut made up for it with a great second advert if only for Murray Walker outtakes; "we knew you'd do it in the end". Charming.

Blah, blah, Arrows, blah, blah Jordan. He did what he could in those two seasons. And the press were very kind to "Damon Nil" when he was struggling with Arrows bloody Yamaha. Rumour has it that Hill declined an offer from McLaren to partner Mika Häkkinen because as a former, and recent, world champion he didn't want to be a number two. Who knows how it might have been had he been driving those McLarens?

But anyway, given all that I'm not surprised he became fatigued in 1999; naturally as an aging driver but equally so escaping the clutches of the gutter press and the circus that goes with it.

tl;dr

a) He debuted at thirty two
b) He was suddenly team leader of Britain's best team as Britain's best driver with little experience
c) He finished runner-up twice
d) The English press is trash
e) His own team publicly dismissed him during his title-winning year
f) Oh, did I mention that he's also the son of a former World Champion?

Credit where credit is due. Even if he hadn't won a title, he did extremely well given the circumstances.
 
Valentino Rossi is not very likeable. He has a strong history but now comes across as a whiner and bad loser.
THIS ONE THOUSAND TIMES! Valentino Rossi has one of the worst attitudes in modern motorsports. The man has actively tried to boycott almost every single teammate he has had.

In 2002 he told HRC that Ukawa could never beat him and told them to move him out of MotoGp, in 2003 he told HRC he would never teach or help Nicky Hayden (this makes Hayden's 2006 World title all the sweeter), in 2004 he would never share his numbers with Edwards, then he hated Jorge Lorenzo to the point of campaigning for the "non-factory rookie rule"... VR46 is no good, please look past his very fake smile.
 
I'll qualify what I mean by this. It's lengthy.

And in order to qualify it, you have to understand what it's like having the British English media on your case if you're seen as the country's only hope. Anybody from our islands (Britain or Ireland) who is into soccer will know just how much pressure is put on, for example, the England national football team. The media will laud them as the greatest athletes to ever oxygenate blood on a continuous, seemingly daily basis.... right up until they lose. Then, it's nothing but savagery about not being good enough and the reverse hubris from the newspapers for never being at fault for the pressure lumped on the team; it's never acknowledged. They like to build you up, but they love bringing you down twice as much.

In some ways, American Media can be very similar in most sports and the arts; they're arenas where the latest artist/style is all that matters. Last year was crap, why are you still doing this?!? Nobody in the press wants to look as if they're clueless, appear as if the competition has stolen a march on them, and can afford to typically gamble on "who/what's next" even if it fizzles out. But that seems more like a tabloid press than the serious stuff. Usually, motor sports over in America have escaped this, being mostly a fringe sport or interest, and most of the media sort of works together. Someone has to become a real dumpster fire for the tides to turn. Maybe it's because they could potentially die the following week, and there's a guilty feeling?

Ignore all this if we're calling anyone with only a blog / YouTube channel / moderates a game forum as their only press credentials, pretending to be part of The Press. Someone is always going to be more over-the-top than the next, given a lack of repercussions for slander or being incorrect 90% of the time, if you can posture around for the 10% of the time they were correct.

But why can they act this way? Because that career in journalism will typically outlast the average someone's top-flight sporting career, their spotlight on stage, the chart-topper's single/album, that lead in the box-office draw. They can afford to tuck their tail between their legs the moment a lack of success is detected, and most everyone just nods their head.
 
Last edited:
Back