Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 1,953 comments
  • 170,365 views
Don't know if that opinion is really (that) unpopular, but I believe that people should stop tracking and comparing drivers with records.
Motorsport has changed way too much to compare the achievements of drivers with the ones from 5, 10, 20, and-so-on years ago.
I don't think too many people will disagree with you on this. Especially not anyone who has to suffer through listening to any modern NASCAR driver being compared to Richard Petty, who racked up of his wins and championships in a time where maybe 15 drivers at best had the money to compete at every race in the full season, and at least half the field in any given race was made up of local yokels in cars that were anywhere from 2 to 5 years older than his.
 
It's not unreasonable to not compare drivers from different eras. You just can't. And yet it's always something which can be a source of fascinating debate and intrigue, if done in a civil manner and with the acknowledgement that there isn't a true answer.

The real question is always where the cutoff is. You can't compare with Fangio and Clark and nor can you compare Fangio to Clark. You can't compare Hamilton's time now to Prost's time then but can you compare Hamilton's time now to, say... Schumacher's time then?
 
images

Now that's a proper unpopular opinion there. I think it's more down to the current issues with the cars and regs than the track itself. Cars should be able to race at Suzuka, and drivers clearly still enjoy the circuit with at least Vettel consistently naming it as his favourite on the calendar.
The same could be said for Monaco. The reason drivers have such an issue there is because of the cars, not the circuit. Modern cars are some 3 feet longer and 400 pounds heavier than they should be. It’s why Senna’s win in 1992 was so phenomenal, despite the cars being wider then than they are now; because you could actually overtake back then. Simply because the cars were lighter, less aero-dependent, and had a much shorter wheelbase. If F1 mandated a 2m width, 3m wheelbase, and a minimum weight of 630kg in addition to the current new aero rules for 2022, the cars might actually be able to overtake again without requiring a mile-long straight and DRS into a hairpin.

— back on topic, my ‘unpopular opinion’ is F1 would be better off if the likes of Mercedes and Renault left the sport for good. Pandering to OEMs is precisely what’s led to the sport being in the conundrum it’s in today: spiralling costs driven by a misguided attempt at “road relevancy”. The hybrids can sod off, and so can every single OEM that doesn’t like that. F1 would be leagues better if the entire grid was powered by the likes of Judd, Cosworth, Mechachrome, Ilmor, and Gibson. You know, the sort of speciality racing engine shops F1 was originally created to provide a showcase for. Is the average fan gonna care if Williams has a Mercedes-badged Ilmor engine (yes, Ilmor makes Mercedes’ engine, just like Mechachrome makes Renault’s engine) or just a nude Ilmor engine? Doubtful.
Costs would be dramatically lower, parity would be much closer, and there’d be no nonsensical push for green/road relevant technology (and the associated lack of exciting and sexy engines) that the vast majority of fans don’t care about.
FOM and associated media only thinks we do because the OEMs have pushed hard for it for marketability reasons. When Mercedes wins, they can go on television and brag about how their hybrid tech is better than Renault’s because they won the WCC and that’s why the average Joe should buy an A class instead of a Megane. If Mercedes want to advertise their engines, they can do it in touring cars and GT cars. Where the call for road relevancy actually makes sense.

Plus, we all know that’s what Ferrari secretly wants anyway. They’d go right back to making giant V12s if the regs allowed them to. Banish road relevancy to the nether realm where it belongs and literally everyone except the teams that’ve dominated the sport over the last decade win.
 
The real question is always where the cutoff is. You can't compare with Fangio and Clark and nor can you compare Fangio to Clark. You can't compare Hamilton's time now to Prost's time then but can you compare Hamilton's time now to, say... Schumacher's time then?

It's probably best to stick to major technical changes to be reasonably fair.

1950-1958 - the front-engined era
1959-1970 - the wingless mid-engined era
1971-1976 - the aero development era
1977-1986 - the first turbo era
1987-1993 - the mechanical development era
1994-2005 - the hunt for NA power era
2006-2013 - the V8 era
2014-2021 - the hybrid era

Of course they all overlap slightly but quite noticably no driver has extended huge success from one era to another. Or perhaps more importantly, no team has. In the '60s Lotus generally had the fastest cars and Clark made the most out of them, although he also lost a lot of races and probably two championships to the notorious unreliability. In the early '70s Tyrrell got it right with Stewart taking two championships and Cevert being set for more if it wasn't for his untimely death. From there on it was a really mixed bag all the way to the late '80s when McLaren swept the floor with everybody else - until it was Williams' time until the mid-'90s. After that Ferrari got their act together and Schumacher ruled the circus, the V8 engines again shuffled the pack and this time Red Bull nailed it with Vettel going on a spree. In the beginning of the hybrid era Mercedes was the only one to hit the mark properly and Hamilton has used it to his great advantage ever since.

Which leads me to the question, how can we ever compare drivers properly, even inside the same era as the cars are so different? Probably the only way to do it is the comparison to their team mates (and again their team mates) and it can lead to interesting results.

Let's take Vettel as the first example.

In his first full year in 2008 he was paired with Sébastien Bourdais, a four time CART champion. Vettel took the points 35-4. After that he beat Mark Webber five years in a row, lost once to Daniel Ricciardo, and again beat Kimi Räikkönen four years in a row before losing once to Charles Leclerc. With Ricciardo being one of the fastest drivers on the grid, having himself gone 1-1 against Jean-Éric Vergne who is now a two-time Formula E world champion and beating Max Verstappen in 2017, Räikkönen being one of the few who was able to outdrive Schumacher in Ferrari's heyday, and Leclerc perhaps the outright fastest guy of today, he's done pretty well.

And of course Hamilton.

In his first full year in 2007 he struck it even with Fernando Alonso, steamrolled Heikki Kovalainen the next two years, went against Jenson Button for a total 2-1 result over the next three years, against Nico Rosberg for a 3-1 over the next four years, and then beat Valtteri Bottas three years in a row. Alonso is hard to judge truly properly thanks to his politics in every team he's been in but he's unquestionably very quick, and Button and Rosberg are both world champions themselves, although someone might say that Button only because of the Brawn loophole car. However, Barrichello - himself far from a slouch - couldn't get enough out of the BGP 001 to beat Vettel that year.

Pretty much all the rest of the quick ones have been mentioned in those two paragraphs. It's hard to say which one of them is really the king of the 2010s because they haven't really been in comparable cars but both have beaten very impressive drivers, and also got beaten themselves by a couple of surprises. Perhaps the real conclusion is that Button, Ricciardo and Rosberg are all much better than they've ever been given credit for.

The odd comparisons could go on much further. Take Kovalainen for example - a Race of Champions winner, neck to neck with Rosberg in GP2, faster than Alonso in Renault's testing before his first season, took pole in Silverstone 2008 for McLaren in pretty much the only race where he wasn't driving a fuel tanker in qualifying on "an alternative strategy". In reality it's all down to circumstances, which car suits who better, and as much as people hate to admit it, who is favoured by the team.

Yes, I'm a bit bored sitting at work when just about all the customers are on summer vacation. :P
 
I think records should be cleared yearly. Like not forgotten, as the best of each year should be kept in a master record. But, since each season is brand new technology, comparing times from even five years ago in almost any motorsport, is like apples to oranges.
 
Which leads me to the question, how can we ever compare drivers properly, even inside the same era as the cars are so different? Probably the only way to do it is the comparison to their team mates (and again their team mates) and it can lead to interesting results.

I don't think even comparing team mates is a reliable method either. Often a driver is favored, for one reason or another, within a team and sometimes a driver just doesn't gel with a particular car, ie it inherently doesn't suit their driving style. You've also got official and unofficial team orders to take into account where one driver takes a lead in points after a certain percentage of the season and the team decides it to be best all round if one driver is concentrated on for the rest of the season. It's rarely a level playing field within a team even if on paper they're using the same equipment and it all distorts the raw facts and figures used to express how the results will appear in the history books.
 
Today on Waffles Complains: White racing cars are boring.

The Alpha Tauri livery for the 2020 F1 season is overhyped. I constantly keep seeing people rate it as the best, or at least top 3 liveries of the season. In my opinion the new look took away some much-needed colour from the grid this year. Now Haas, Alpha Tauri, Williams and Alfa Romeo are running around with significant amounts of white on their car and it makes the back end of the midfield look really generic.

Basically I just think there’s way too much white in the F1 grid right now and (formerly) Toro Rosso are the worst offenders of this.

Williams aren’t safe from my whininess either. They had a pretty good looking livery with the Rokit sponsorship, but went back to freakin’ white again once they lost it. Like, come on. Get creative with your darn liveries man.
 
Last edited:
Today on Waffles Complains: White racing cars are boring.

The Alpha Tauri livery for the 2020 F1 season is overhyped. I constantly keep seeing people rate it as the best, or at least top 3 liveries of the season. In my opinion the new look took away some much-needed colour from the grid this year. Now Haas, Alpha Tauri, Williams and Alfa Romeo are running around with significant amounts of white on their car and it makes the back end of the midfield look really generic.

Basically I just think there’s way too much white in the F1 grid right now and (formerly) Toro Rosso are the worst offenders of this.

Williams aren’t safe from my whininess either. They had a pretty good looking livery with the Rokit sponsorship, but went back to freakin’ white again once they lost it. Like, come on. Get creative with your darn liveries man.
Grid used to be 40% black cars for much of the early 2010s. The grid’s being whitewashed, I tells ya! It’s a white supremacist race-ist conspiracy!
(/s, for the people that don’t realise I’m making puns)
 
White liveries aren't boring, but a grid of a lot of white cars is. 2000 was one of the best looking grids in F1 history because most teams had vastly different major colours as their livery. You want to be able tow work out which car it is from a glimpse, not by having to stare at it until it's already gone past. There's a reason you can tell the difference between a Ferrari and a Williams, but AlphaTauri and Williams look exactly the same.
 
I don't think it's unpopular to find white liveries boring but I do agree with it.

White text on a black livery is more interesting than black on white.

tyrrell-2.jpg


agp_98_salo_arrows.jpg


Tyrrell actually did a good job with their 1997 car, all things considered, but the 1998 Arrows is far more striking for a car with little sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
I know that this wanders into sacred cow territory (both saying things that somewhat knock the dead down a peg and saying things that go against popular narrative), but this is what this thread is for I guess.

Colin Bond was a better driver and person than Peter Brock. Brock was inherently more marketable and appropriate as a "public face" for the Holden Dealer Team. I have spoken to several drivers and especially mechanics of the time, and while it is not a "oh everyone believes this behind the scenes but nobody will speak up" situation it is most certainly not an uncommon opinion with people who knew both men. I still think that Brock was a phenomenal touring car driver, one of the best of all time in fact, but there were two phenomenal drivers in that Holden Dealer Team and one of them had a large amount of his prime years stifled for corporate reasons in spite of being better on track than the other.

Not taking away from either man, both are legends.

Edit: I should probably preemptive clarify what I mean by "better person". I don't mean to imply that Brock was a "bad person". I mean to state that Brock was a backstage politick guy and more than willing to take a "low road" in getting ahead. Whether these are bad traits or powerful traits are up to personal interpretation. What I have seen is many people who like Brock, some who like him with caveats, and some who don't like him, while I have yet to speak to a mechanic or driver of the period who knew both men and had much of a bad thing to ever say about Bond.
 
Motorbike Racing governing bodies need to be a lot stricter on injured riders returning to racing well before any injury has healed. The fact that I saw headlines over the weekend saying "Alex Rins a doubt for race after breaking collarbone" is ridiculous. Surely an injury like that should be "go and heal before you do yourself any more damage, there's no way we'll let you race" (which they thankfully did). They're not superhumans for jumping back on a bike with their legs bolted together 2 days after it as bent the wrong way, they're idiots.

Now of course Marc Marquez has broken his arm quite badly, and I'm guessing he's going to miss one, maybe two races at most? These kind of injuries need a set minimum cool-off time where they're not even allowed on a bike for anything. I'm sure a few years ago Valentino Rossi went and rebroke his leg or something while Motocrossing a week after doing it in MotoGP. Protect the riders, don't force them to come back ASAP and ride in severe pain or at risk of doing themselves permanent damage because there isn't anything to stop them.
 
Mercedes will dominate for atleast another 10 years as I cannot see any sign the compeditors are closing in and Hamilton haven´t dropped his pace despite being 35 years old
 
Mercedes will dominate for atleast another 10 years as I cannot see any sign the compeditors are closing in and Hamilton haven´t dropped his pace despite being 35 years old
With the cost cap and new regulations I got hope that it should close. Mercs current advantage is they just have soo much more resources, but that advantage will be mitigated somewhat.

I would say that if Merc did continue the dominance I think F1 will get very damaged by it.
 
Mercedes-Benz, as a Formula One team, won't be around for another 10 years.

They have virtually dominated the category since the new engines came in & although it's nice to collect trophies, the returns on their investments, even with the new cost cap, must be diminishing.

When just about everyone knows you've won yet another race, and yet another championship, it gets harder to trumpet the success without it falling on deaf ears. Generally speaking, people probably take more notice of failure than they do a victory.

Ultimately, they can only go in one direction. Two, if you count a withdrawal as a Constructor.
 
Schumacher wasn’t the GOAT and the only people who like the V10 era are the people who were too young to remember any era before it. Almost all of Michael’s championships came from him driving a car that had a dominating advantage and teammates who were selected to be his #2, and whenever he was forced to actually fight for a championship, he showed how dirty of a racer he was. McLaren-era Raikkonen was better. Damon was arguably better.
 
Almost all of Michael’s championships came from him driving a car that had a dominating advantage and teammates who were selected to be his #2

How do you compare Schumacher to Hamilton?

In your own opinion.
 
Not sure if it is an unpopular opinion... but it is entirely possible that Max Verstappen may not become an F1 world champion.

Just pointing it out as I have been reading for years now that Max is a future world champion.

He has all the talent in the world, but as ever, time and place is everything. Perfect example: I don't think anyone predicted in 2006 that Alonso wouldn't win another title.
 
Honestly that's always a claim which irks. Unless someone has a time machine they can't prove that Max Verstappen will become a WDC. It's quite likely. Hamilton will have to retire eventually and Verstappen is clearly one of the most highly rated drivers on the grid who is most likely to be able to gain access to front-running machinery. But maybe in 20 years time we'll look back at such claims and wonder how we didn't see the era of Ocon and Norris' domination coming. Who knows?
 
Luckily for spectators, the Ghost of F1 Past has conferred unreliability upon this year's Red Bull teams.

Edit:
Question: Did Max set a new distance record for the steering wheel launch?
 
Last edited:
Luckily for spectators, the Ghost of F1 Past has conferred unreliability upon this year's Red Bull teams.

Edit:
Question: Did Max set a new distance record for the steering wheel launch?
Max is still like a petulant child in the way he can throw a tantrum.

He still has a lot of growing up to do between the ears.
 
Luck for F1 fans would be an unreliable Mercedes.
Actually, lucky for F1 fans would be a grid as tightly packed & competitive as this seasons midfield.

Roll up to the next round & not even the teams themselves can predict where they’re going to be.

That's what I’m waiting for but I’m not holding my breathe.
 
Actually, lucky for F1 fans would be a grid as tightly packed & competitive as this seasons midfield.

Roll up to the next round & not even the teams themselves can predict where they’re going to be.

That's what I’m waiting for but I’m not holding my breathe.
A few well placed sandbags in the Mercs and one in Max's car would more or less give you that.
 
Max is still like a petulant child in the way he can throw a tantrum.

He still has a lot of growing up to do between the ears.

It's part of the reason I'm getting more disenchanted with F1; the amplification of the petulance among a lot of the field is getting tiresome. It's not that cursing and whining weren't a part of the sport 30-40 years ago, but I think a lot of that comes down to the way F1 is managed for maximum attention-seeking targeted at the bottom of the barrel.

The racing isn't really that bad, just those pesky silver cars which tend to be really, really consistent is what takes a bit of the suspense away.
 
Unpopular opinion.

Lance Stroll deserves his seat in F1 and is a far better driver than he will ever get credit for.

Hes a solid driver. Even if Perez didn't miss 2 GP this season, Stroll has still been superior to him and would still comfortably lead him in the championship. He was average in qualifying last year which affected his results but he almost always went forwards in the races. He was fast in junior Formula, particularly notable in his consistent performances across 2 seasons of F3 finishing ahead of George Russell both championships they competed together. And every lauds George as the next big thing in F1. Yes you can argue Prema were the superior team to Carlin and HiTech respectively but you still have to go and deliver the performances and it was still fundamentally a spec series.

He gets a lot of criticism for who his dad is and how he ended up in Racing Point blah blah but sometimes you need that backing and its hardly unusual for a driver to get into F1 via the pay route. If this season he continues to perform strongly he will have a great opportunity next season with the marque brand of Aston and Vettel as a team mate to keep furthering his profile and performances.
 
RE: Lance Stroll

In 2017, he proved enough times that he was fast enough to be in F1.
It has taken until 2020 though for him to prove he deserves to stay in F1. He has two podiums to his name, is one of the best drivers on the grid on Lap 1 (although that may be due to his usual terrible qualifying - something he has solved this season) and has driven that Racing Point to a similar or better level than Perez and Hulkenberg.
The only thing he's really missing is a bit of charisma in Interviews. Lance's favourite word is "uhhhh", it seems.

The real test is Vettel next season. If he can keep up with or easily beat Vettel, then there will be no questions at all about him. Another podium or two this year and the haters will probably be forced to keep their mouths shut.

After all, wasn't Super Aguri started and run simply to keep Takuma Sato in Formula 1? Oh yes it was. Racing Point being bought and run for a certain driver isn't new.
 
Mercedes-Benz, as a Formula One team, won't be around for another 10 years.

They have virtually dominated the category since the new engines came in & although it's nice to collect trophies, the returns on their investments, even with the new cost cap, must be diminishing.
This article from ESPN in the last 2 weeks shares that Mercedes apparently, reported a profit despite spending over $440 million in the sport.
The results to end-December showed Mercedes made a post-tax profit of 14.7 million pounds, compared with a previous 12.6 million.
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29823419/mercedes-f1-spent-442-million-2019-made-money

I do agree the team will be gone in 10 years, probably in 5, personally. There's so much rumored about Toto leaving & Lewis will be 40 by then with Bottas at 36. Ferrari will surely be back to top form alongside (hopefully) McLaren as well, so even if Mercedes is still around, I don't see all the things that have contributed to their domination (in or out of their hands) still being in place.
 
Back