Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 1,944 comments
  • 168,827 views
lose 30 seconds in a pitstop and just wait for the next safety car to bunch up the field...

This issue isn't unique to Endurance racing, or pit stops... time differences thanks to any reason are lost if cars are bunched up behind a safety car.
 
Why is the Nurburgring 24h actually terrible?
· Too much traffic and way too many classes (a 100-car race with GT3, GT4, Porsche Cup, TCR and not much else would be better)
· Superlong lap with very few passing opportunities unless traffic plays a role
· So many red flags because of fog
· Poor coverage due to the track size

Why shouldn't the 787B be considered a "legendary car"?
· No displacement equivalency since nobody had explored rotary engines enough - Norton used that same cheat in sportbikes
Should rotaries ever race against piston engines?
· Yes but not before a good displacement equivalency is found
 
Why is the Nurburgring 24h actually terrible?

These are reasons why YOU don't like it... this thread is for opinions, so I don't mind people not liking what I believe is the best motorsport event of them all, but don't try and pass it off as fact.
 
These are reasons why YOU don't like it... this thread is for opinions, so I don't mind people not liking what I believe is the best motorsport event of them all, but don't try and pass it off as fact.
But isn't the whole point of having a valid opinion being able to rationalise your reasons? He gave an opinion, it was controversial, so he explained why. That's literally the point of the thread?
 
Too much safety is bad.

I know that nobody wants to go back to the '60s and '70s way of doing things in which a driver would crash, burn, and remain charred in his car covered by a tarpaulin at the side of the track for the rest of the race but modern endurance races in particular take the safety precautions a bit too far. This year's Spa 24h looked more like a parade than a race because for each 15 minutes of racing there was a half an hour safety car period, or at least that's how it seemed.

How I would do it: If someone spins out, yellow flags. If the car is in a dangerous spot and can't move, double yellows. If it requires another vehicle to get it out of there, OK, double yellows or a slow zone - the slow zone is a great thing, it should be used a lot more. But no, they put up a full course yellow before pulling out the safety car which keeps circulating until the field is all sorted, even three laps at Spa is closer to ten minutes, while the crashed car may have been dealt with during the first minute. And let's not even get started about the race being effectively neutralized every time something happens.
 
Last edited:
They ran it pretty much outside the rules. Mazda argued that they weren't competitive (which was absolutely true: forget Le Mans, if you look at their results that season, the best place they got was a fifth place with the 91 spec car. Mercedes and Jaguar were light-years ahead) so they were allowed to ran without the mandatory 100kg ballast that Jaguar and Mercedes had to comply for dropping 91 cars in favor of old 90 spec (because of the whole 3.5L debacle, that would ended up killing Group C and the whole WSC), even with Jaguar complaining loudly about the whole thing.

But Mazda had a trump card: their advisor was Jacky Ickx, who is said to have smoothed things out with the ACO so Mazda could drop the ballast, race with a car that didn't follow the rules of its own class, and won a race that was plagued by nonsense even weeks before the start. The Mazda 787 was slow compared aginst its peers and got its only remarkable result in a shady deal.

The only feature that car has is its crazy engine and wonderful sound, but that's it.
In return though, didn't they ban the powerplant the following year, effectively ending the car's success/loophole?
 
But isn't the whole point of having a valid opinion being able to rationalise your reasons? He gave an opinion, it was controversial, so he explained why.

No problem with that at all.

Why is the Nurburgring 24h actually terrible?

"Why I think the Nürburgring 24h is terrible" is what he meant. If you can't see the difference, m'eh.

Too much safety is bad.

I know that nobody wants to go back to the '60s and '70s way of doing things in which a driver would crash, burn, and remain charred in his car covered by a tarpaulin at the side of the track for the rest of the race but modern endurance cares in particular take the safety precautions a bit too far. This year's Spa 24h looked more like a parade than a race because for each 15 minutes of racing there was a half an hour safety car period, or at least that's how it seemed.

How I would do it: If someone spins out, yellow flags. If the car is in a dangerous spot and can't move, double yellows. If it requires another vehicle to get it out of there, OK, double yellows or a slow zone - the slow zone is a great thing, it should be used a lot more. But no, they put up a full course yellow before pulling out the safety car which keeps circulating until the field is all sorted, even three laps at Spa is closer to ten minutes, while the crashed car may have been dealt with during the first minute. And let's not even start about the race being effectively neutralized every time something happens.

Barrier repairs at Spa are, IMHO a big problem.
 
In return though, didn't they ban the powerplant the following year, effectively ending the car's success/loophole?

That's true, but as I understand it, that ban had more to do with the mandatory 3.5L engine formula for the WSC than the whole ballast at Le Mans argument. The 3.5L became compulsory so Mazda stayed one more year in the series with a rebranded Jaguar(!), since they didn't had an engine that would fulfill the new regulations.
 
But isn't the whole point of having a valid opinion being able to rationalise your reasons? He gave an opinion, it was controversial, so he explained why. That's literally the point of the thread?

Having opinions backed up by rationale still doesn't mean you can pass it off as absolute and objective fact.

---

Back on to the 787B, it was within the rules. The rules were adhered to so I don't see where the problem is. Other cars of similar ilk like the Chaparral 2J and Brabham BT46B are also very popular despite being one offs, gimmicks, only serving a specific purpose or whatever.

And speaking of gimmicks, the Le Mans 24 Hours' gimmick is that it's a test of reliability, not outright speed; a fact that has been proven many, many times over the years that the race has been run. The Mazda didn't have the one lap pace of the other competitors, no, but it was more reliable and you can't fault that in an endurance race.

Additionally, the 1991 race was weird anyway because the actually-for-1991-spec new cars from Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz actually failed to qualify anyway.
 
Last edited:
But isn't the whole point of having a valid opinion being able to rationalise your reasons? He gave an opinion, it was controversial, so he explained why. That's literally the point of the thread?

Agreed, but that's probably why his claim that it was fact caused the response it did.
 
Indycar and Nascar are a joke. There is no skill driving round in circles for the latter and very few from the former ever stepped up to greater things with the exception of Fittipaldi and a few other "self made" racers.
 
I don't think watching a hollywood film is a fair representation of a mans life on or off track....honestly. Are you aware of the term poetic licence? Nikki Lauda was the true champion as he came back from the impossible. Nikki was like Ayron, a consummate professional he knew about cars as well as driving, Thats the difference in a driver and a champion.
 
Indycar and Nascar are a joke. There is no skill driving round in circles for the latter and very few from the former ever stepped up to greater things with the exception of Fittipaldi and a few other "self made" racers.
Am curious to hear why you feel that way. Take it from someone who used to scoff at oval racing, it's an extremely difficult discipline of motorsport in both indy and nascar.

For starters, indycar, to the dismay of many fans, spends very little time on ovals nowadays. Indycar has instead become the pinnacle of a drivers championship. No power steering, no power brakes, and the only race series in the world that competes on four completely different types of race tracks: Natural terrain road courses, City street courses, short ovals, and superspeedways. The driver who wins the championship in this series has to perform on all four of these track types. IMO, Indycar is where you go if you want to see the top drivers in the world compete head to head.

NASCAR, I'm more inclined to agree with it being a joke, but not because of ovals, just because of the new rules package. The high downforce package and low horsepower make for a very different spectacle. I would say there's still a lot of talent involved though. Watch an onboard and these guys are constantly working the wheel.

While I totally understand that this is your opinion, I could not disagree more and hope that I can show you the light towards enjoying North American motorsport
 
There is no skill driving round in circles
NASCAR is a joke because of continual rule changes over the past decade that have destroyed anything interesting about it the decade before; but you're perfectly free to hop a plane to America and show them all how it's done.

very few from the former ever stepped up to greater things with the exception of Fittipaldi and a few other "self made" racers.
Greater things presumably being doing several dozen high speed parade laps in F1 until the sponsors who paid to get you in the car run out of money.
 
Back on to the 787B, it was within the rules. The rules were adhered to so I don't see where the problem is. Other cars of similar ilk like the Chaparral 2J and Brabham BT46B are also very popular despite being one offs, gimmicks, only serving a specific purpose or whatever.

And speaking of gimmicks, the Le Mans 24 Hours' gimmick is that it's a test of reliability, not outright speed; a fact that has been proven many, many times over the years that the race has been run. The Mazda didn't have the one lap pace of the other competitors, no, but it was more reliable and you can't fault that in an endurance race.

Additionally, the 1991 race was weird anyway because the actually-for-1991-spec new cars from Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz actually failed to qualify anyway.

No, it wasn't. Mazda, Mercedes and Jaguar all had to stick with 1990 spec cars - Mercedes and Jaguar because their 3.5L engines, as pretty much everyone else's, weren't ready and kept exploding - and Mazda because, well, it was a rotary.

FIA/ACO decided that, fine, if you don't have a reliable/compliant engine for using a 1991 chassi, you can still race with a 90 spec car, provided that you add those 100kg of ballast. This was mandatory: if you were to stick with the old car, in order to prevent a potential engine DNF early on in the race with the new one, you had to do so with 100kg more (or, in Mazda's case, you couldn't even start the race with a 91 car + non-3.5L combo). Peugeot, the only manufacturer to actually qualify and race with a 3.5L car were free from this.

So, if the ballast was mandatory, and Mazda was allowed to just ignore it, I think it's pretty clear that they ran that car outside the rules that their class rivals had to follow. Mercedes jumped to a huge lead (4, or 5 laps ahead, IIRC), until being hit by realiability issues, and Jaguar never had the pace because, you know, 100kg is kinda heavy...
 
No, it wasn't. Mazda, Mercedes and Jaguar all had to stick with 1990 spec cars - Mercedes and Jaguar because their 3.5L engines, as pretty much everyone else's, weren't ready and kept exploding - and Mazda because, well, it was a rotary.

FIA/ACO decided that, fine, if you don't have a reliable/compliant engine for using a 1991 chassi, you can still race with a 90 spec car, provided that you add those 100kg of ballast. This was mandatory: if you were to stick with the old car, in order to prevent a potential engine DNF early on in the race with the new one, you had to do so with 100kg more (or, in Mazda's case, you couldn't even start the race with a 91 car + non-3.5L combo). Peugeot, the only manufacturer to actually qualify and race with a 3.5L car were free from this.

So, if the ballast was mandatory, and Mazda was allowed to just ignore it, I think it's pretty clear that they ran that car outside the rules that their class rivals had to follow. Mercedes jumped to a huge lead (4, or 5 laps ahead, IIRC), until being hit by realiability issues, and Jaguar never had the pace because, you know, 100kg is kinda heavy...

You can argue that the playing field was uneven, it was a bad time for sports cars and I'm not denying that at all, but where exactly did Mazda field an illegal and ineligible car? Accepting that they didn't run ballast where others did, why were they allowed to and why were they not disqualified for running an underweight car? You'd think the stewards, the ACO or the FIA might have noticed and done something about it.

The displacement of the 787B was 2.6L using the standard methodology of engine displacement and volume; that is, chamber volume times by the number of combustion chambers (cylinders or rotors). This put it below the 3.5L threshold for requiring ballast, where the other cars such as the Jaguar were still using their 7.0L V12s.

It is true that for rotaries you usually double the capacity or displacement when working out the engine's power output potential but that's only relevant when comparing it to four-stroke engines. If you've got a 13B Mazda RX-8 and say "Yeah, it's 1.3 but it's technically a 2.6", that's incorrect. It's not a 2.6 no matter what you say, it's 1.3. By the letter of the law, in parc ferme or scrutineering Mazda had a car with an engine volume of 2.6L. The rules did not specify that the ballast applied based on a car's power output or potential but only on the capacity of the engine. I don't think it's greatly different to comparing a turbo car against non-turbos; a 2.5L turbo has the potential of a 5.0L aspirated engine but you still can't say it's a 5.0L car.

It's a loophole, a technicality, an escape clause, even a cheat, whatever you want to call it, but every racing team exploits them and for Mazda it happened perfectly at the right time.

Was the 787B a slow car that had the rules align in its favour? Yes.
Was it illegal? No. The ACO and FIA did not dispute its win and instead legislated around it for future races.

I mean really, the disappointment from the perspective of Jaguar, Peugeot and Mercedes-Benz is that they were forced to use new engines that hadn't been proven to last at too short notice so it was no surprise that their 1991 cars weren't ready or reliable. That wasn't their fault and it wasn't Mazda's either. It was Bernie Ecclestone who basically strong-armed the FIA into making the WSPC use engines "similar" to F1.
 
The FIA has, frequently, disqualified cars for not having the right kind of headlights. They've disqualified cars cars for things after the race that they said were fine before the race. They've disqualified cars for taking damage during endurance races. You're nuts if you think they wouldn't have disqualified for 787b for being 220 pounds underweight.
 
Last edited:
You can argue that the playing field was uneven, it was a bad time for sports cars and I'm not denying that at all, but where exactly did Mazda field an illegal and ineligible car? Accepting that they didn't run ballast where others did, why were they allowed to and why were they not disqualified for running an underweight car? You'd think the stewards, the ACO or the FIA might have noticed and done something about it.

Well, if you find that the non-ballast situation is ok and not shady at all, fine.

The FIA has, frequently, disqualified cars for not having the right kind of headlights. They've disqualified cars cars for things after the race that they said were fine before the race. They've disqualified cars for taking damage during endurance races. You're nuts if you think they wouldn't have disqualified for 787b for being 220 pounds underweight.

The FIA has, frequently, allowed black-flagged drivers to stay on the race. They've did nothing when a title contender stopped his car on a qualifying session in order to prevent his rival for getting a pole position. They've disqualified teams from an entire season from illegal fuel systems, and had allowed others, with even more convoluted exploits, to keep their points in the same season under the same rules. You're nuts if you think that an organization that reverted a lifetime ban on the actors involved with the Crashgate would care about a ballast infringement on a car that happened to have a massive advocate such as Jacy Ickx.
 
Indycar and Nascar are a joke. There is no skill driving round in circles for the latter and very few from the former ever stepped up to greater things with the exception of Fittipaldi and a few other "self made" racers.
It is about driving on the edge. When the racetrack is so simple, even stupidly small differences in tuning can make or break your race. In NASCAR, it is specially hard because of how heavy the car is and how bad the components are (tyres, suspension, brakes, etc). Just play some iRacing or even NR2003 and you'll see the difficulty is very real.

The problem with Indycar for the past 20 years and NASCAR for this year is that the cars have so much grip that the threshold for both drivers and tuning have been lowered too much.
 
I view oval racing as being very similar to drag racing. On first glance they both seem like they are extremely easy, but once you delve past the surface you realize they are just as complex as road course racing.

That's not to say I think everyone has to like those disciplines, but to call either easy requires a good amount of ignorance.
 
Unpopular Opinion prompted by the current discussion: F1 is just one of many pinnacles of motor racing. Each discipline is unique and therefore cannot be viewed as "under" F1 as they're not necessarily the same sport.

I HATE stick and ball references, but it's like claiming a baseball player is bad because he's never played in the super bowl. It's idiotic to make that comparison
 
Unpopular Opinion prompted by the current discussion: F1 is just one of many pinnacles of motor racing. Each discipline is unique and therefore cannot be viewed as "under" F1 as they're not necessarily the same sport.

I think this "pinnacle of motorsport" thing is a value that speaks more to the average Joe who will measure the relevance of anything based on its superlatives, not its intrinsic merits.

A true motor racing fan will have his own opinion. For me, sports car racing is the pinnacle, because I like it more, it gives me something no other discipline does. Someone else will find the right ballance of passion and subjective quality in Nascar, Formula E, or WRC, touring-cars, what have you. Even F1, for those who like the way it is now.
 
So, if the ballast was mandatory, and Mazda was allowed to just ignore it, I think it's pretty clear that they ran that car outside the rules that their class rivals had to follow.
You're nuts if you think that an organization that reverted a lifetime ban on the actors involved with the Crashgate would care about a ballast infringement on a car that happened to have a massive advocate such as Jacy Ickx.
Mazda didn't ignore the rules. Mazda didn't operate outside the rules. Mazda didn't enter an illegal car. They petitioned to get an exemption because they were off the pace in a race that was already struggling to get entrants to fill the field, and were granted it. The FIA/ACO cared enough to allow it in advance. The FIA/ACO didn't weigh the car after the race and shrug their shoulders. It was not a ballast infringement. Period.


No amount of stamping your feet about how unfair it was to Jaguar (who were still a fair bit faster with the XJR-12s anyway, and it was no one's fault but themselves that it had driveability problems near the end of stints) or saying that they only allowed it to do because of a conspiracy with Jackie Ickx, will make it so it was.
 
FIA/ACO decided that, fine, if you don't have a reliable/compliant engine for using a 1991 chassi, you can still race with a 90 spec car, provided that you add those 100kg of ballast. This was mandatory: if you were to stick with the old car, in order to prevent a potential engine DNF early on in the race with the new one, you had to do so with 100kg more (or, in Mazda's case, you couldn't even start the race with a 91 car + non-3.5L combo). Peugeot, the only manufacturer to actually qualify and race with a 3.5L car were free from this.

You omit the most important fact... Mazda were given an exemption from the 100kg ballast rule even before the very first race of the season (two months before Le Mans). Remember that the car was so slow in relation to the others that it didn't win anything except the reliability-focussed 24H Le Mans race. They were never going to have to apply the 100kg ballast for that race just as they were never going to have to for any of the others.

As for saying that you couldn't start the race if you didn't have a 3.5L engine... that's also completely false. That's how Mazda started all the 1991 races. It feels like you're trying to whip up the scent of conspiracy but there really is none. The car was allowed to compete, it competed all season, and it was dog-slow even with the "suspicious" advantages that you seemingly claim. It won at Le Mans because it was slow but it was supremely reliable.
 
You omit the most important fact... Mazda were given an exemption from the 100kg ballast rule even before the very first race of the season (two months before Le Mans). Remember that the car was so slow in relation to the others that it didn't win anything except the reliability-focussed 24H Le Mans race. They were never going to have to apply the 100kg ballast for that race just as they were never going to have to for any of the others.

As for saying that you couldn't start the race if you didn't have a 3.5L engine... that's also completely false. That's how Mazda started all the 1991 races. It feels like you're trying to whip up the scent of conspiracy but there really is none. The car was allowed to compete, it competed all season, and it was dog-slow even with the "suspicious" advantages that you seemingly claim. It won at Le Mans because it was slow but it was supremely reliable.

Hum, I didn't know that the exemption was for the whole season, and I was wrong about that, thanks for clarifying it. And, as far as I knew, you could, as they did, run without a 3.5L enginge, provided that you did so with a 90spec car.

About the "you are trying to whip up the scent of conspiracy" thing. Look, I just stated an unpopular opinion (as in MY opinion), seems to be allowed in the thread, that the car has a status that It doesn't deserve. And I'm not making a conspiracy theory: Oreca end Ickx worked together and put pressure so FISA would allow the car to race outside of the rule that mandated the ballast to everyone else, if it was exempt because it was just too slow, makes no difference, since the rule should be the same for everybody, regardless of who is your consultant.

As I already said, if you guys found that this is OK, fine by me, I just found that this is not the makings of a legendary car, hence the unpopular opinion about it.
 
F1 teams (Red Bull especially) should not be aloud to swap drivers between teams mid season. I say just keep Gasly in the Red bull car and if he does not improve in the second half of the season swap him or ditch him for one of the Toro Rosso drivers.

This is one of the main problems with Helmut is that he does not give drivers (Gasly and Kvyat) longer in the Red Bull car to improve.
 
F1 teams (Red Bull especially) should not be aloud to swap drivers between teams mid season.

That might be bad for the sport, telling the team owners that they can't remove drivers who they don't want to work with from their multi-million dollar sportscars. In worse case scenarios you'd see them fielding one car rather than a driver who they wouldn't work with.
 
I don't like too many catch fences at circuits. Motorsport is dangerous.

Brands GP loop has now caught and infection of them. They detract from the spectator experience in general and I base my decision on whether to visit some circuits on how obtrusive the fences are.
 
Back