Formula 1
-
@canefan Hadn’t heard that Ricciardo was headed to Indycar. I had seen this:
“ Teams looking for a sponsorship boost will benefit from signing Ricciardo. The talent on the track may not be as highly tuned as it once was but his marketing capabilities are still up there with the best. That may be a crude way of looking at why Ricciardo isn’t done on the grid yet, but it is an unavoidable part of F1. Even now there are drivers on the grid who are there purely because of the revenue stream they can bring to teams.”
Which is what shits me about F1, it’s not necessarily the best drivers we get to see, as per the comments re Honda. Unfortunately Liam doesn’t bring any real cash with him that I am aware off. Money and sports are closely linked sadly.
which hints at the problems at red bull
checo = south america /mexico GP
tuki =honda
ricciardo= drive to surviveLawson=????????
money talks -
@canefan Hadn’t heard that Ricciardo was headed to Indycar. I had seen this:
“ Teams looking for a sponsorship boost will benefit from signing Ricciardo. The talent on the track may not be as highly tuned as it once was but his marketing capabilities are still up there with the best. That may be a crude way of looking at why Ricciardo isn’t done on the grid yet, but it is an unavoidable part of F1. Even now there are drivers on the grid who are there purely because of the revenue stream they can bring to teams.”
Which is what shits me about F1, it’s not necessarily the best drivers we get to see, as per the comments re Honda. Unfortunately Liam doesn’t bring any real cash with him that I am aware off. Money and sports are closely linked sadly.
Until I watched Drive to Survive I didn't realise how political it was. The best drivers don't get to drive, just the most commercial ones. I hadn't heard anything about DR going to Indycar. I was just surmising, if he loses his seat that Indycar would be one landing spot. I don't know how much drivers get paid there relative to F1, and how important it is for drivers to bring their own sponsorship?
-
@canefan Hadn’t heard that Ricciardo was headed to Indycar. I had seen this:
“ Teams looking for a sponsorship boost will benefit from signing Ricciardo. The talent on the track may not be as highly tuned as it once was but his marketing capabilities are still up there with the best. That may be a crude way of looking at why Ricciardo isn’t done on the grid yet, but it is an unavoidable part of F1. Even now there are drivers on the grid who are there purely because of the revenue stream they can bring to teams.”
Which is what shits me about F1, it’s not necessarily the best drivers we get to see, as per the comments re Honda. Unfortunately Liam doesn’t bring any real cash with him that I am aware off. Money and sports are closely linked sadly.
Until I watched Drive to Survive I didn't realise how political it was. The best drivers don't get to drive, just the most commercial ones. I hadn't heard anything about DR going to Indycar. I was just surmising, if he loses his seat that Indycar would be one landing spot. I don't know how much drivers get paid there relative to F1, and how important it is for drivers to bring their own sponsorship?
I think we had this debate further up the chat.
Does F1 have the top 20 drivers in their seats? No, of course not.
Does F1 have the top 10 drivers in their seats? I'd argue yes.
Means if Lawson wants a seat, he needs to be in the top 10. I don't know enough about him to comment on that, but I do know that results show he was better than Riccardo.
Honestly, I think racing is probably like Golf, in that the top top drivers are all much of a much ness, with the mentality being the difference between the elite and the next tier.
When you have a sub standard driver in the seat (Sargent, I'm looking at you) it really sticks out.
-
@MajorRage said in Formula 1:
Honestly, I think racing is probably like Golf, in that the top top drivers are all much of a much ness, with the mentality being the difference between the elite and the next tier.
I'd agree with that. F1 has "some" of the top drivers around, but some who aren't as well and the disparity shows at times, which is a shame for the sport as a genuine contest across the field would improve it, but as you say we have already discussed it. Seeing two top drivers in the same team is great (with McLaren at the moment for example).
Would love to see some guys from other fields occasionally. Kyle Larson is incredibly talented but we'll never see him in F1. Dixon is behind only Foyt in Indycar titles now, but turned down F1 because he basically didn't trust the politics to get a drive, and wasn't prepared to play the waiting game that Lawson is having to play. Would be interesting to see Palou go as he was being chased I believe. He would be a good "cross code" comparator. With McLaren in Indy now (and getting more competitive) there might be a cross over driver with O'Ward, for example. McLaughlin was almost instantly successful going from a supercar to Indy, hugely different, but he managed it, even on ovals, very quickly. SVG went from supercars to Nascar and won straight away as well. Incredibly talented.
The crux of all that is that we don't get to see these guys get a crack in F1 because they don't get the opportunity, they are more than likely good enough though. Hopefully Andretti get a place at the table so at least another couple of seats.
Impossible to know just how good any of them are even in the same formula really, given that some teams produce superior cars within the formula itself, but I'd love to see some guys fill seats in F1 that were there on raw talent and not funding / nepotism/ politics, etc. Anyway, my dreams don't count for much anywhere, let alone F1.
As an aside, I wasn't aware that some drivers even have to pay for their own super licence, which is cheap enough if you're shit, but Max would be up for euro1.2M (Red Bull pay his). Crazy system based on championship points.
-
@MajorRage said in Formula 1:
Honestly, I think racing is probably like Golf, in that the top top drivers are all much of a much ness, with the mentality being the difference between the elite and the next tier.
I'd agree with that. F1 has "some" of the top drivers around, but some who aren't as well and the disparity shows at times, which is a shame for the sport as a genuine contest across the field would improve it, but as you say we have already discussed it. Seeing two top drivers in the same team is great (with McLaren at the moment for example).
Would love to see some guys from other fields occasionally. Kyle Larson is incredibly talented but we'll never see him in F1. Dixon is behind only Foyt in Indycar titles now, but turned down F1 because he basically didn't trust the politics to get a drive, and wasn't prepared to play the waiting game that Lawson is having to play. Would be interesting to see Palou go as he was being chased I believe. He would be a good "cross code" comparator. With McLaren in Indy now (and getting more competitive) there might be a cross over driver with O'Ward, for example. McLaughlin was almost instantly successful going from a supercar to Indy, hugely different, but he managed it, even on ovals, very quickly. SVG went from supercars to Nascar and won straight away as well. Incredibly talented.
How many of them have shown they're competitive in F2?
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
How many of them have shown they're competitive in F2?
None. They don't compete in F2.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
How many of them have shown they're competitive in F2?
None. They don't compete in F2.
That's my point. It's stretching the realms of credibility to say because they've got some success in lesser series they'd be good F1 drivers. But there's evidence the opposite is true, like Ericson, Nasr, Palou. None of them won a F2 championship.
But look at the guys who did; Hamilton, Rosberg, Russell, Leclerc...
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
How many of them have shown they're competitive in F2?
None. They don't compete in F2.
That's my point. It's stretching the realms of credibility to say because they've got some success in lesser series they'd be good F1 drivers. But there's evidence the opposite is true, like Ericson, Nasr, Palou. None of them won a F2 championship.
But look at the guys who did; Hamilton, Rosberg, Russell, Leclerc...
They aren't in "lesser series", they are different formulas. They don't necessarily get opportunities in F2 even. It's largely a Euro comp with a trip to the middle east and Oz. Most of the guys I mentioned are from other parts of the world. Even Lawson went via Japan (supposedly the formula closest to F1 but that came from the TV).
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
How many of them have shown they're competitive in F2?
None. They don't compete in F2.
That's my point. It's stretching the realms of credibility to say because they've got some success in lesser series they'd be good F1 drivers. But there's evidence the opposite is true, like Ericson, Nasr, Palou. None of them won a F2 championship.
But look at the guys who did; Hamilton, Rosberg, Russell, Leclerc...
They aren't in "lesser series", they are different formulas.
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
edit - just look at the differences between Indycar and F1.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
I disagree. They are different. Drivers may very well be successful across them, and has been done before, but I'll leave it there.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
I disagree. They are different. Drivers may very well be successful across them, and has been done before, but I'll leave it there.
Agreed they're different. The difference is they're slower and require less talent.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
I disagree. They are different. Drivers may very well be successful across them, and has been done before, but I'll leave it there.
Agreed they're different. The difference is they're slower and require less talent.
That's bollaux. They're both driving, yes but very different. Rally the track is continuously changing (you don't do circuits) and the opposition drivers are no influence. So there's a lot of reactive skills there. F1 the track doesn't change and is all about nailing the absolute perfect line, whilst dealing with other drivers. You can usefully practice F1 on a PC, rally not much at all, some sim racers have done very well in the real thing on tracks. Just cos it's faster didn't mean more skill, I can say that as someone who has flown low level at 1000kph and also in a heli slower, but much lower
-
@Machpants said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
I disagree. They are different. Drivers may very well be successful across them, and has been done before, but I'll leave it there.
Agreed they're different. The difference is they're slower and require less talent.
That's bollaux. They're both driving, yes but very different. Rally the track is continuously changing (you don't do circuits) and the opposition drivers are no influence. So there's a lot of reactive skills there. F1 the track doesn't change and is all about nailing the absolute perfect line, whilst dealing with other drivers. You can usefully practice F1 on a PC, rally not much at all, some sum racers have done very well in the real thing on tracks. Just cos it's faster didn't mean more skill, I can say that as someone who has flown low level at 1000kph and also in a heli slower, but much lower
You might want to reread what I wrote.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@Machpants said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
Outside of rallying, they are all lesser series/ formulas.
I disagree. They are different. Drivers may very well be successful across them, and has been done before, but I'll leave it there.
Agreed they're different. The difference is they're slower and require less talent.
That's bollaux. They're both driving, yes but very different. Rally the track is continuously changing (you don't do circuits) and the opposition drivers are no influence. So there's a lot of reactive skills there. F1 the track doesn't change and is all about nailing the absolute perfect line, whilst dealing with other drivers. You can usefully practice F1 on a PC, rally not much at all, some sum racers have done very well in the real thing on tracks. Just cos it's faster didn't mean more skill, I can say that as someone who has flown low level at 1000kph and also in a heli slower, but much lower
You might want to reread what I wrote.
That's like reading an article, not the done thing.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post
-
@Machpants I love rallying. My parents did it. Smashing down a loose gravel or ice road requires tremendous talent, let alone in something like a Group B monster.
But track work; IMO there's a clear gradient from karts all the way to F1. It's the pinnacle because of the speed and hence lack of error margin.
-
Speed plus proximity to the other cars I reckon. Knowing where your edges are at that speed with everyone having that level manoeuvrability as well as straight-line speed makes the decision making just incredible
Edit - said with absolute zero driving ability of his own
-
-
@MajorRage said in Formula 1:
Honestly, I think racing is probably like Golf, in that the top top drivers are all much of a much ness, with the mentality being the difference between the elite and the next tier.
I'd agree with that. F1 has "some" of the top drivers around, but some who aren't as well and the disparity shows at times, which is a shame for the sport as a genuine contest across the field would improve it, but as you say we have already discussed it. Seeing two top drivers in the same team is great (with McLaren at the moment for example).
Would love to see some guys from other fields occasionally. Kyle Larson is incredibly talented but we'll never see him in F1. Dixon is behind only Foyt in Indycar titles now, but turned down F1 because he basically didn't trust the politics to get a drive, and wasn't prepared to play the waiting game that Lawson is having to play. Would be interesting to see Palou go as he was being chased I believe. He would be a good "cross code" comparator. With McLaren in Indy now (and getting more competitive) there might be a cross over driver with O'Ward, for example. McLaughlin was almost instantly successful going from a supercar to Indy, hugely different, but he managed it, even on ovals, very quickly. SVG went from supercars to Nascar and won straight away as well. Incredibly talented.
The crux of all that is that we don't get to see these guys get a crack in F1 because they don't get the opportunity, they are more than likely good enough though. Hopefully Andretti get a place at the table so at least another couple of seats.
Impossible to know just how good any of them are even in the same formula really, given that some teams produce superior cars within the formula itself, but I'd love to see some guys fill seats in F1 that were there on raw talent and not funding / nepotism/ politics, etc. Anyway, my dreams don't count for much anywhere, let alone F1.
I disagree. Every single f1 team will have stats on every driver in every competition on the planet. Everybody knows the single biggest differentiator is the driver. Data scientists in these guys alone will be deep into double figures for every team.
A good example is Craig Lowndes.
Dominated super cars, went to Europe, got a seat beside Montoya in the same car. Then failed whilst Montoya went on.
I get your overall point, which I agree, but I would suggest that very few, if any, drivers don’t get an f1 shot if they really are up to it.
-
@antipodean said in Formula 1:
@Machpants I love rallying. My parents did it. Smashing down a loose gravel or ice road requires tremendous talent, let alone in something like a Group B monster.
But track work; IMO there's a clear gradient from karts all the way to F1. It's the pinnacle because of the speed and hence lack of error margin.
I still disagree, F1 and similar races are very formulaic. It's about repetitive exactness, not necessarily driving skill. However you define that, being great at F1 does not mean you're better, just different,
