Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 1,944 comments
  • 169,893 views
The engines are pretty similar spec wise, could be side exit versus full length pipes (M3 GTR vs Z3 GT3) making the difference. The Z4 certainly sounds good... not sure if I've ever heard the P60B40 in the flesh though, and though I love those old official videos from BMW Motorsport, there's no doubt the transmission whine is more noticeable in the recordings.
 
I can't say I've ever heard anyone say either of those engines is better, so to claim "one engine is better than another" isn't really unpopular if it's not another opinion.
 
Liquid
You'd need two videos of similar audio fidelity to make a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
Maybe this will help.


Its surprisingly rare to find the clear footage (and no, the Joachim Stuck Nurburgring one doesn't count) and there's confusion between the race and road car.

And also well as the e46 (car I refer to) and e92 (which in actuality named M3 GT2 but Youtubers like to refer such as M3 GTR because NFSMW views of course).

As why this is unpopular, well M3 GTR has been very popular because of the celebrity status from NFSMW, while Z4 GT3 doesn't fare as much popularity outside of the dedicated track racing community, which is honestly far more niche.
 
FoRiZon
Its surprisingly rare to find the clear footage (and no, the Joachim Stuck Nurburgring one doesn't count) and there's confusion between the race and road car.

And also well as the e46 (car I refer to) and e92 (which in actuality named M3 GT2 but Youtubers like to refer such as M3 GTR because NFSMW views of course).

As why this is unpopular, well M3 GTR has been very popular because of the celebrity status from NFSMW, while Z4 GT3 doesn't fare as much popularity outside of the dedicated track racing community, which is honestly far more niche.
Click to expand...

I think you're on safe ground with this opinion if the counterpoint is just NFS MW fans. Most race fans I know, whilst bemoaning the turbocharged sound of the M6 GT3, cited the Z4 GT3 as one of the best sounding GT3 cars of the time... it gets/got plenty of love... and rightly so. I think it looks and sounds fantastic.
 
The DTM deserves to die unless they do a 180º and transform themselves into some "German V8 Supercars" kind of thing (big powerful clumsy cars). The world does not need another GT3 series at all (if anything, a few GT3-centric series should die or downgrade to GT4).

Ricky Carmichael's fear of losing (it's more along the lines of being outperformed more than just losing a race) he keeps mentioning in recent interviews makes 100% sense once you watch the 1999-2001 AMA Supercross seasons. In the 1999 season he was essentially a nobody (5th-8th most of the time), he was somewhat disappointing after dominating the 1998 125cc series. In the year 2000 he became an unsuccessful contender, he was up there but the only race he won wasn't a true supercross race (it was in Daytona, in one of those extra-long sandy courses). He starts 2001 and he is banging bars with 7-time champion Jeremy McGrath and, after the 4th race, it's no longer even close. MC never won another pro race in his life and RC scored 392 out of 400 points (2nd once, 3rd once and 14 wins including 13 in a row).

I've been watching the 1982 F1 season and I find insane that Ecclestone's Brabham tried to make one-stop race strategies viable starting in the 10th race of the season. I don't get why they waited for so damn long and it's quite funny that they had to buy Indycar technology (better guns to change the tyres and a better refueling system) to make it work.
 
die996
I've been watching the 1982 F1 season and I find insane that Ecclestone's Brabham tried to make one-stop race strategies viable starting in the 10th race of the season. I don't get why they waited for so damn long and it's quite funny that they had to buy Indycar technology (better guns to change the tyres and a better refueling system) to make it work.
Click to expand...

What's the unpopular about this? From what I remember, no team was doing fuel-based strategies at that time in Formula One. Regardless of whether it took Brabham until the 10th race of the season or not, it's just something they exploited ahead of the curve before any other F1 team.

It's easy to look back in retrospect and wonder why noöne else thought of the fuel strategies earlier and that it took so long to catch on but I don't see where an unpopular opinion comes into it.
 
Liquid
What's the unpopular about this? From what I remember, no team was doing fuel-based strategies at that time in Formula One. Regardless of whether it took Brabham until the 10th race of the season or not, it's just something they exploited ahead of the curve before any other F1 team.

It's easy to look back in retrospect and wonder why noöne else thought of the fuel strategies earlier and that it took so long to catch on but I don't see where an unpopular opinion comes into it.
Click to expand...
It was the 10th race, it was July. Why not March, April or May? My problem is that it makes no sense they didn't get/apply the idea several months earlier.
 
die996
It was the 10th race, it was July. Why not March, April or May? My problem is that it makes no sense they didn't get/apply the idea several months earlier.
Click to expand...

That's a criticism, not necessarily an unpopular opinion.

You'd have to ask their chief strategist why they didn't do it earlier in the season and ask the other teams why they didn't do it at all.
 
Ideas don't only happen during the off-season, and its not like ideas can be implemented immediately.

Who knows, you said they needed IndyCar strategists and technology. What's to say it took them those 10 races to acquire all that equipment. Or maybe one of the team members visited/watched an IndyCar race during the early part of the season and then had the idea - AND thought of the means to do it.

This seems like the weirdest of criticisms of all time. You'll find plenty of innovations and vehicles which appear mid season. This seems like such a miniscule one to pick up on.
 
Jimlaad43
This seems like such a miniscule one to pick up on.
Click to expand...
It was literally the first time after 36 years of F1 racing and over 60 years of GP racing that a team had thought of pitting on purpose during a 190-mile race. Also, the change they were trying to implement was such a big game-changer that teams almost 30 years later are still pitting on purpose.

Brabham's odd timing for their change in strategy is even more hilarious when you notice that Nelson Piquet finished 2nd in the Dutch GP (9th race) without stopping and then no entry by Brabham finished on the lead lap for the rest of the season. Both Brabhams finished in Dijon-Prenois in the points but both a lap down. Gordon Murray and Bernie Ecclestone probably should've used those long boring winters thinking it out and contacting the people because it's clear they botched their whole 2nd half of the season.
 
It's far too easy to say HOW DID THEY NOT SEE IT? about any technological or strategical advancement with enough hindsight.

Why didn't Ferrari do the semi-automatic gearbox earlier? Preselectors had been around in Grand Prix racing since the 1940s.
Why did no other team beat them to it? Were they blind?

Why didn't Tyrrell do the raised nosecone 5 years earlier? Wings had been in F1 for over 20 years by that point.
Why didn't another team see it before they did? What, were they stupid?

Why did it take Lotus until the late 1970s to use ground effect? Venturi tunnels were known about in the 50s. The Coada effect was first documented in 1910. Why did no other team exploit this well-known physics phenomenon?

It's a facile criticism.
 
Last edited:
Here's an incredibly unpopular opinion right now. Those who think eSports and real sports should be considered as equals are delusional. We've gotten to the point where if someone who's a professional racer in real life doesn't take an electronic game seriously enough, they could face being cancelled and lose their careers over it. Pros should not feel pressured into having to take a digital facsimile of their real jobs seriously, and any online race on a video game should have no impact on the happenings of a real championship, PERIOD.
 
MisterWaffles
Here's an incredibly unpopular opinion right now. Those who think eSports and real sports should be considered as equals are delusional.
Click to expand...

I very much agree with this, but also, in fairness, I don't see that many people saying they are equals.

What Abt did was at best just stupid, and at worst, blatant cheating, and he did it representing his employer and the series he races in. He has a lot to lose... that should have been first and foremost in his mind. This wasn't even a momentary slip.. it was a premeditated decision. His employer, his pay cheque and his contract are real, even if the race is virtual... he should not have dismissed that fact so easily.
 
MisterWaffles
Here's an incredibly unpopular opinion right now. Those who think eSports and real sports should be considered as equals are delusional. We've gotten to the point where if someone who's a professional racer in real life doesn't take an electronic game seriously enough, they could face being cancelled and lose their careers over it. Pros should not feel pressured into having to take a digital facsimile of their real jobs seriously, and any online race on a video game should have no impact on the happenings of a real championship, PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the real world, where sponsors care about your appearance all the time in a public setting, regardless of whether they're in a real race or in games. These eraces get major viewing figures, and if you're going to spend your time shouting the N-word, you deserve to be punished.

Think of it this way, if Simon Pagenaud was spotted punching Lando Norris on a Golf Course, or if Daniel Abt went on a CHARITY game show and just employed someone to feed him answers to make him look better, it would be justified to be angry at them. This is the exact same thing.

eSports has become the only sports on at the moment, so the fans watch because they want to see it done properly. If drivers want to piss around, that's fine, but do it in the right place. A charity event set up by the actual series promoter is not the place to piss around, especially when literally every other driver in the series is taking part.

You just need to see how badly the fans have reacted to some of these incidents to realise how real it is. Simon Pagenaud may think he was just messing about when he took Norris out at Indy, but he has seriously damaged his reputation for doing something completely stupid. He is lucky to still have his drive because it is the kind of thing that can ruin careers. The "It's just a game" mentality has shown itself to be not true at all. Fans are happy to see that racing is a bit more aggressive and lenient with damage in the eRaces, but they want to see the drivers actually trying, not phoning it in or actively lying about who they are to make themselves look good. Yes have some fun, but take it seriously enough to avoid pissing people off properly.

Bubba Wallace's attitude pissed off his sponsors, so they left him.
Kyle Larson said a word which has ruined many careers.
Pagenaud deliberately rammed a popular driver out of the lead in an extremely obvious way.
Abt deceived the entire audience in a way that is technically illegal in some countries. Was losing his drive an overreaction? Potentially, but for a brand as big as Audi that he represents, it's not the kind of thing they want to promote.

Just because it's a "game", doesn't mean the drivers can get away with anything. You can bring the sport into disrepute at any time, and teams don't just have to fire people for on-track misdemeanours, off-track means just as much. Everyone is working from home on Zoom at the moment. If you were caught getting someone else to do your work while you just sat behind and did nothing all day, how would your boss feel? Would you keep your job? Probably not. It is just as serious as anything. "It's just a game" is not true at all.
 
MisterWaffles
Pros should not feel pressured into having to take a digital facsimile of their real jobs seriously, and any online race on a video game should have no impact on the happenings of a real championship, PERIOD.
Click to expand...
There is a long way between taking it super seriously and being an ass and making a mockery of the whole thing. The majority of the pro racers seem to be doing it in the right spirit, it is a shame that there are a few people shining the spotlight on the eRacing for the wrong reasons.
 
Yeah, ultimately if you're a public figure then you're a public figure whenever you're in public, regardless of the manner.

With the Wallace thing... Yeah it was harsh but his sponsor's reasons for being annoyed make total sense. If you pay someone to do something you expect them to do the thing.

With the Larson thing... Well... That had little to nothing to do with sim racing and everything to do with the fact that it's a bad idea to say that racial slur if you're not black, regardless of whether or not you're in the vicinity of a microphone which may or may not be hot at the time. Ganassi and Nascar responded in the only way that I think they could've without creating an even bigger PR disaster.

With the Pagenaud thing... He did a lot of damage to his reputation with the general motorsport fanbase with that stunt and regardless of how seriously one thinks that these events should be taken the ultimate fact is that he was representing his team, his sponsors, and Indycar as a whole and he's honestly lucky to have not faced a stronger backlash.

With the Ferrucci thing... There's a real life pattern of behaviour there that that move tied into and regardless of how seriously we're taking the sim racing event itself the fact that he continued to act in line with that pattern of behaviour has only driven home the belief for many that the guy shouldn't be allowed near a race car.

And then with the Abt thing... It's by far the silliest situation here and I can't help but suspect that Audi were actually just looking for an excuse to drop him, and like with the Wallace situation if you pay someone to do something you do kind of expect them to actually do it.

The fine and sanction from Formula E does honestly seem rather harsh though. What he did was definitely cheating and he obviously should've been disqualified from the esports event, but in this case. It does seem like something of an overreaction to a mostly harmless prank.
 
die996
The DTM deserves to die unless they do a 180º and transform themselves into some "German V8 Supercars" kind of thing (big powerful clumsy cars). The world does not need another GT3 series at all (if anything, a few GT3-centric series should die or downgrade to GT4).
Click to expand...
The irony is that VASC itself is on brink on death because of GM's pullout from all RHD markets, including Australia.
 
Here's an unpopular opinion.

Some of these championships should have awarded actual driver's championship points for some of their eRaces. Formula E seems like the kind of series that would be most likely to do such a thing. Even if it's something minimal like 5 points for a win, 4 for second and so on down to 1 point for 5th. Suddenly all the teams and drivers would take it seriously and there wouldn't be this mess. That, or they ran a whole eRace championship like VASC and Indycar are doing, and keep track of results, awarding the points of a full round to the final championship table before the season gets going again. If Formula 1 did it for example, they'd finally be able to get a full grid of actual race drivers.

Yes, some championships have done really well to get all their drivers connected and racing together, but I feel like this has been an opportunity lost because it's all been for fun, which has led to all these controversies because of the differences of opinion to the "it's just a game" moniker. Racing purists may sneer at such a thing, but a for-championship points virtual Grand Prix around say Interlagos would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than literally any Abu Dhabi or Russian Grand Prix. If that's what it takes to get drivers like Raikkonen, Ricciardo and Hamilton to come out of their shells and actually join in, it'd be fantastic.
 
tankuroded
The irony is that VASC itself is on brink on death because of GM's pullout from all RHD markets, including Australia.
Click to expand...
The concept is still MUCH better than DTM's. DTM reminds me of that old concept of what NASCAR once wanted to make. In like the 60s (or late 50s?), NASCAR wanted to rival Indycar by making some kind of roadlegal-powered car-looking open-wheel series. They wanted that series to reach Indycar-levels of speed. As of now, DTM is just some wannabe open-wheel series and not some touring car series like V8SC is. Those freaking Italians behind V8 Superstars were right, a more professional version of that series would've killed DTM!

Jimlaad43
Some of these championships should have awarded actual driver's championship points for some of their eRaces. Formula E seems like the kind of series that would be most likely to do such a thing. Even if it's something minimal like 5 points for a win, 4 for second and so on down to 1 point for 5th. Suddenly all the teams and drivers would take it seriously and there wouldn't be this mess. That, or they ran a whole eRace championship like VASC and Indycar are doing, and keep track of results, awarding the points of a full round to the final championship table before the season gets going again. If Formula 1 did it for example, they'd finally be able to get a full grid of actual race drivers.
Click to expand...
You can't be making up championship-deciding rules as you go, boy.
 
Jimlaad43
Racing purists may sneer at such a thing
Click to expand...

I'm not a racing purist, but genuinely cannot stomach the idea of a Virtual races being included in a real championship. Whichever way you slice it, playing a computer game is not the same as real life, it is not motorsport. It might offer people only attracted to the racing and competitive element of it some kind of ... attraction... but it's a cold, dead, lifeless experience in pretty much every other regard. Mixing virtual motorsport with real motorsport is like pumping water into the foundations of a building, and there should be zero expectation on any driver in the real world to compete in the virtual one.

edit: I don't think it's coincidence that people that like to play racing games mentally equate doing it to real life motorsport more than the people doing the real life motorsport equate what they do tp playing a racing game.
 
Here’s another hot take I was thinking of today after watching some AC videos. Macau is a garbage track so why does it get so much hype? Racing on 90% of that track is improbable. It’s basically a giant GT3 conga line and the massive pileups make for spectacular photos but are not productive for producing actual racing.

I’d rather drive 100 laps at Paul Ricard than 10 at Macau.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Agreed. I feel the same way about Monaco and I know I'm not on my own in that regard.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time there was an interesting race at Monaco... probably 1996, and even then it mostly was a race of attrition.
 
MisterWaffles
Here’s another hot take I was thinking of today after watching some AC videos. Macau is a garbage track so why does it get so much hype? Racing on 90% of that track is improbable. It’s basically a giant GT3 conga line and the massive pileups make for spectacular photos but are not productive for producing actual racing.

I’d rather drive 100 laps at Paul Ricard than 10 at Macau.
Click to expand...
So you'd rather drive on a track that is completely sterile and void of any real challenge or consequence?
 
Not sure if this is unpopular or not, I always see people taking a dump on Honda which I don’t think is fair, but anyway...

McLaren deserve most of the blame for the 15-17 seasons. They were so obsessed with their sizo zero concept that they never gave Honda the freedom to develop how they want. It’s no coincidence that Honda made big steps forward with Red Bull while McLaren went nowhere with Renault in 18.
 
die996
basically a load of insults
Click to expand...
"Interesting" and "Entertaining" are completely different things. The 2019 French Grand Prix had a load of overtaking, brilliant battles and stories, yet it gets scoured down as one of the worst races of all time, because none of it was entertaining or interesting.

Monaco 2018 was a story with a very interesting strategic element and tension due to Ricciardo's engine issues.
Monaco 2016 was a wet, crash-filled race with the Ricciardo and Hamilton battle being a great story.
Monaco 2011 was setting up to be a thrilling finish with major tyre life differences between the leaders before the Red Flag
Monaco 2010 was entertaining for the many crashes it was filled with
Monaco 2008 was a true wet-weather classic with so much action and a surprise winner thanks to Hamilton crashing so early on.

A race doesn't have to have overtakes to be interesting if the driving on show is exemplary. 2005 San Marino was only interesting because of Alonso vs Schumacher, but because it was such a tense and enthralling battle that was a youngster holding off the defending 7 times World Champion in Ferrari's backyard, of course it was tense. This was the champion who had won 5 championships in a row chasing an unknown driver - of course he should have got past at some point. That's why it was so on edge because the overtake should have happened, but it didn't due to Alonso's brilliance.

One lap doesn't make a race, many laps of tension does. Take a look at the 2013 season. There was a load of overtaking and passing throughout the season, yet through this COVID break where F1 is showing classic races, I couldn't think of a single race from that season I'd want to watch again because they were all "meh" at best. Compare the 2005 San Marino GP to the 1997 European one. In Jerez, it's legendary for one botched championship-deciding move from Schumacher and Villeneuve giving up a couple of positions on the last lap. Nothing else happened in that race, yet it's classed as legendary for the story that went with it. This is a sport and entertainment package together. Action and story are both important, but sometimes you have to accept that you're only getting one in the race.

Compare the Turkish Grand Prix's of 2010 and 2011. 2011 held the record for the most overtakes in a single race until 2016, yet because Vettel romped away to a comfortable win, you hardly remember it. The 2010 race is the one that sticks in the mind. The Red Bulls and McLaren's were in a super-tense line for the whole race pretty much where you just knew something would happen - and then it did when the Red Bulls collided. The McLaren's had a few laps of exemplary wheel-to-wheel racing before the race was decided. 2011 had the action, 2010 had the story.

Yes, Monaco and Imola can't give us a great race of passing like Hockenheim or Bahrain could, but it's the variety that makes the calendar worth following. How do you think NASCAR is able to get away with 34 races a year on ovals? They're all subtly different and require a different type of overtake. The worst kind of tracks are the ones that look like they should give good racing but don't, like Sochi and Abu Dhabi. Those are the real culprits of the season. Monaco has the history of it, which in this case is the only reason it deserves to stay on the calendar until there is no choice to remove it. Monaco will be on the calendar until there's an unacceptable accident, which sucks but it seems to be the only reason it will go away. They won't remove it before then because they can't. This season is an exception, but 2020 in itself is force majeure anyway.

Saturday in Monaco is the day when Formula 1 drivers show their true skills. Nothing on the calendar compares to a Monaco pole lap. Fact.
 

Latest Posts

Back