- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I know it's opinion, im just stating why it's here, others seem to be confused at that.An opinion is something you believe, it seems that you confused "opinion" with "random sentence"
Unpopular Motorsport Opinions
- Thread starter Liquid
- 1,944 comments
- 169,661 views
Cap'n Jack
Premium
- 10,062
- South of the South
- GoldMineGutted
I almost agree. I'll put it on in the background and I'll ignore the commentary so I don't have to hear "you won't see this in F1" multiple times a race, so with that said:
- The WEC isn't as great as it's made out to be
Also:
- The majority of GT and endurance serie are actually rather uninteresting most of the time
- Lewis Hamilton's off-track exploits aren't bad at all and he actually has a pretty good attitude during interviews. I think his mannerisms are a bit misunderstood
- the 2008 F1 cars with their ridiculously complicated aero were the best looking racing cars ever
- Hermann Tilke's circuit designs aren't that bad
- 28,506
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Regardless of whether the opinion is popular or unpopular, or whether you agree with it or not, an opinion should be backed up by some sort of justification.
Someone said "I don't think Verstappen should be at Red Bull", I ask "Why not?" because I'm curious. That's a fair question to ask given the lack of elaboration. It's common sense. No need for drama.
Also this:
It's like when people deliberately post ludicrous claims in the Ludicrous Claims thread. No.. that's not what it's about.
Someone said "I don't think Verstappen should be at Red Bull", I ask "Why not?" because I'm curious. That's a fair question to ask given the lack of elaboration. It's common sense. No need for drama.
Also this:
It's like when people deliberately post ludicrous claims in the Ludicrous Claims thread. No.. that's not what it's about.
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
"I don't think Verstappen should be at Red Bull because Kvyat deserved a better chance" is a valid opinion, albeit one which could be fleshed out a bit. I wouldn't agree with it by now, I think Verstappen has more than proved that he deserves the Red Bull seat, but I wouldn't say "why?" in response to it.
"I don't think Verstappen should be at Red Bull because they should've hired Yuji Ide instead" would need a lot of justification; and, let's face it, you'd fail to justify an opinion like that.
On that note, I think F1 should aim to transition to fully electric power in the next decade. Formula E has shown the advantages of reduced noise in terms of where one can hold races, and if motor racing wishes to remain relevant it must be at the forefront of new technology. There's also the not so small matter of the environment.
"I don't think Verstappen should be at Red Bull because they should've hired Yuji Ide instead" would need a lot of justification; and, let's face it, you'd fail to justify an opinion like that.
On that note, I think F1 should aim to transition to fully electric power in the next decade. Formula E has shown the advantages of reduced noise in terms of where one can hold races, and if motor racing wishes to remain relevant it must be at the forefront of new technology. There's also the not so small matter of the environment.
- 23,429
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
They've already addressed that. They now host a lot of races in far-flung countries where there's little interest in F1. Few spectators = fewer cars and coaches travelling to the circuit = much less fossil fuel burnt on a Grand Prix weekend.
F1 cars are already more economical than they used to be - but how much fuel is burnt transporting 140,000 fans to a GP weekend?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 16,416
- United Kingdom
Just holding every GP at Silverstone would help too. That way Formula 1 wouldn't burn 3.4 million gallons of Jet fuel every season.
- 23,429
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Better still, just make it a UK domestic series. F1 at Cadwell Park or Knockhill? - Yes please!
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
A fair deal if they all come by car with an average of about 2.5 spectators a car (I'm guessing). Could be a lot more economical if the best way to access the circuit was by train.
- 12,123
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
British F1 deserves a revival. Imagine F1/GP2 cars from the previous few seasons being sold on both privately and to established teams from junior formulae or other areas of motorsport, a range of spec power units provided by the organisers for season rental, and a mix of established drivers and juniors.
I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but Formula 4 shouldn't exist in its current form. It's made F3 largely redundant and I don't think it hones driving skills like a non slicks and wings series does - F4 should either lose the wings and become an FF1600 successor or it should replace F3 and Formula Ford can slot in beneath it.
- 1,357
- United States
- RazorSharkz
Sam Hornish in the Xfinity series this year?
- 6,293
- Canada
Austria 2016 was Hamilton's fault.
To be clear, that's not an opinion that I hold personally, but it's one that I've heard in numerous places, and if I take the time to play devil's advocate to my own stance in that debate, I can understand why some people think the contact was more Hamilton's fault than Rosberg's.
In my eye's, I can understand blame being placed on Hamilton because he turned into Rosberg. As the following picture shows, Hamiton still had space available to him on his left.
QUOTE="RazorSharkz, post: 11451717, member: 249166"]View attachment 565518
This picture settles it guys.[/QUOTE]
I think another interesting point is that he had acres of paved runoff to his left, with no aggressive kerbs - it's not as though there was a wall right there. He had no issue taking to the paved runoff to avoid a collision on lap 1 of the Russian GP. However according to several internet "experts", in Austria, "he had no where to go".
Like I said before, personally I think the collision was mostly Rosberg's fault. I can't watch it and not know exactly what Rosey was trying to do. I totally understand why he did it as well, but he mucked it up horribly, and made himself look like a complete nob. I do think that Hamilton was rather clumsy for his part in the contact, and I also dislike the way he aggressively raced for position when rejoining the track (again, not really an issue with Hamilton, my issue there is more with the precedent and that driving like that is allowed. I didn't like it when Kimi did it at Silverstone 2014, didnt like the opening lap of Russia this year, didn't like Hamilton doing it against Ricciardo in Monaco this year, and still don't like it. My view is if you're off, you're off, and you must completely yield. If you were "put off", then you need to let the stewards sort it out. To me, racing for position while rejoining the track is completely bonkers) - however both of those issues pale in comparison to how messy Nico was in his attempt to "be hard", which is why I put majority of the blame on him.
I honestly didnt spend much time thinking about it the other way - I was too busy laughing at the memes and jokes - until during FP2 of the British GP when I heard Anthony Davidson claim that Nigel Mansel thought the collision was Hamilton's fault. Kind of blew my mind when I heard it, but it got me curious. So I went back and looked at things again, and I think I can understand how someone might see things that way.
Now I know it's not a direct quote, and Sky does have a reputation for silliness, but Ant is one of the few on the crew I still respect, and Sky is not really known for being anti-Hamilton. It's one of those tidbits that I would love to see more followup on.
For anyone who doesn't believe me, go on YouTube, search 2016 Formula 1 British GP Practice 2. Skip to 6:35 remaining in the session, and have a listen to the conversation between Croft and Davidson. I would link it, but it's illegal and I don't want to get in trouble.
To be clear, that's not an opinion that I hold personally, but it's one that I've heard in numerous places, and if I take the time to play devil's advocate to my own stance in that debate, I can understand why some people think the contact was more Hamilton's fault than Rosberg's.
In my eye's, I can understand blame being placed on Hamilton because he turned into Rosberg. As the following picture shows, Hamiton still had space available to him on his left.
QUOTE="RazorSharkz, post: 11451717, member: 249166"]View attachment 565518
This picture settles it guys.[/QUOTE]
I think another interesting point is that he had acres of paved runoff to his left, with no aggressive kerbs - it's not as though there was a wall right there. He had no issue taking to the paved runoff to avoid a collision on lap 1 of the Russian GP. However according to several internet "experts", in Austria, "he had no where to go".
Like I said before, personally I think the collision was mostly Rosberg's fault. I can't watch it and not know exactly what Rosey was trying to do. I totally understand why he did it as well, but he mucked it up horribly, and made himself look like a complete nob. I do think that Hamilton was rather clumsy for his part in the contact, and I also dislike the way he aggressively raced for position when rejoining the track (again, not really an issue with Hamilton, my issue there is more with the precedent and that driving like that is allowed. I didn't like it when Kimi did it at Silverstone 2014, didnt like the opening lap of Russia this year, didn't like Hamilton doing it against Ricciardo in Monaco this year, and still don't like it. My view is if you're off, you're off, and you must completely yield. If you were "put off", then you need to let the stewards sort it out. To me, racing for position while rejoining the track is completely bonkers) - however both of those issues pale in comparison to how messy Nico was in his attempt to "be hard", which is why I put majority of the blame on him.
I honestly didnt spend much time thinking about it the other way - I was too busy laughing at the memes and jokes - until during FP2 of the British GP when I heard Anthony Davidson claim that Nigel Mansel thought the collision was Hamilton's fault. Kind of blew my mind when I heard it, but it got me curious. So I went back and looked at things again, and I think I can understand how someone might see things that way.
Now I know it's not a direct quote, and Sky does have a reputation for silliness, but Ant is one of the few on the crew I still respect, and Sky is not really known for being anti-Hamilton. It's one of those tidbits that I would love to see more followup on.
For anyone who doesn't believe me, go on YouTube, search 2016 Formula 1 British GP Practice 2. Skip to 6:35 remaining in the session, and have a listen to the conversation between Croft and Davidson. I would link it, but it's illegal and I don't want to get in trouble.
- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
- 6,293
- Canada
See that! What exactly do you mean by "he didn't have anywhere to go"? What do you call that empty Tarmac on his left side, along with all the paved runoff on his left? Is that all "places Hamilton could not go"?Well he didn't have anywhere to go did heTry explaining Rosberg missing the racing line so much he as well been back on Germany?
As for Rosberg missing the apex, that's basically what I mean by how bad he mucked up his opportunity to box Hamilton out. He just made what he was trying to do look way to obvious.
Another point I have seen raised, one which I can't confirm or deny, maybe someone here can clarify, is that at no point is a driver obligated to take the ideal racing line through a corner. I've seen people claim that Rosberg had every right to miss that apex.
The "grey area" becomes the issue of was Rosberg far enough alongside to take those kind of liberties. Some people view it as black/white ahead/not, which I totally understand, and personally agree with. However there's other arguements which say that "along side" is more like "significant overlap", which Rosberg had. Personally I disagree with that, as I see that as more "gentlemen racing"....but even saying that, I see evidence of that kind of approach in respectable professional series like V8SC.
A Recent example I can think of is Townsville T2. Anyone who showed their nose on the inside in the braking zone, if they got even 1/4 car of overlap, was given room on the inside by the driver who was ahead. If there was any kind of overlap, no one turned in on anyone, they just hung on around the outside (and they had a wall there!)
So again, even though I don't agree with the arguement that Rosberg was far enough along side to control the corner, since no rule in F1 is concrete and everything is up for interpretation, I can't say that opinion is wrong.
- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
All British competitors are overrated.
Whether it's Ted Kravitz calling for Mercedes to issue team orders to benefit Hamilton (having previously praised Hamilton for defying orders that would benefit Rosberg), Sky giving more airtime to Jolyon Palmer than to the pole-sitter, or the MotoGP commentators expecting competitors who are faster than Danny Kent to back off and let him hold position because he is competing for the Moto3 title, the abilities of British competitors are grossly misrepresented. We are led to believe that British competitors are the best when their actual performances do not mirror this. I believe that this is an extension of the curiously British attitude that motorsport somehow owes Britain something, and that it is entirely reasonable to hold British competitors to a different standard. After all, I have only ever heard British fans call for Red Bull to be recognised as a British team on the grounds that they are based in Britain.
What's more, I think this attitude undermines motorsport as a whole.
Whether it's Ted Kravitz calling for Mercedes to issue team orders to benefit Hamilton (having previously praised Hamilton for defying orders that would benefit Rosberg), Sky giving more airtime to Jolyon Palmer than to the pole-sitter, or the MotoGP commentators expecting competitors who are faster than Danny Kent to back off and let him hold position because he is competing for the Moto3 title, the abilities of British competitors are grossly misrepresented. We are led to believe that British competitors are the best when their actual performances do not mirror this. I believe that this is an extension of the curiously British attitude that motorsport somehow owes Britain something, and that it is entirely reasonable to hold British competitors to a different standard. After all, I have only ever heard British fans call for Red Bull to be recognised as a British team on the grounds that they are based in Britain.
What's more, I think this attitude undermines motorsport as a whole.
- 6,293
- Canada
I wouldn't say they're overrated in general, but certainly overrated by the British media. And since most of the English media in motorsport is British, the bias is a little hard to miss.
They're not the only ones guilty of that kind of media bias though. American network coverage of international sporting events, especially the Olympics, is so bias that you can't watch it and not burst out laughing. They are getting better, but back in the 90's and 00's, it was hilarious.
They're not the only ones guilty of that kind of media bias though. American network coverage of international sporting events, especially the Olympics, is so bias that you can't watch it and not burst out laughing. They are getting better, but back in the 90's and 00's, it was hilarious.
- 1,837
- Connecticut
- FutureF1
But then again, don't all countries do that? It's only really obvious in GB because they run the most outspoke media. Here in the US, the commentators go crazy over Haas and even that american guy who owns part of Force India. All commentators seem to have some obligation to support whichever country they're speaking for instead of taking the actual scenario into account...
