Unpopular F1 opinions

[Ferrarist]

I think he had quite a few moments of brain fade, though.

Well, he played a Jochen Mass-like role at Toronto '96...

[Onxy Wrecked]

While I'm on the topic of IndyCar racing, an unpopular F1 opinion is now due. I've probably said this one 8547845 times in this thread, but I feel I need to say it again because... well, I can.

J.J. Lehto, Tarso Marques, Gaston Mazzacane, Antonio Pizzonia, Eddie Cheever (discounting his IRL tenure), and Stefan Johansson prove that not just any F1 driver can hack it in IndyCar racing. Alex Zanardi did, after all, match Michael Schumacher's testing times in Schumacher's Benetton, and Nigel Mansell, Emerson Fittipaldi, and Mario Andretti were all World Champions...

Another unpopular F1 opinion:

A.J. Foyt deserves an F1 Rejects profile. It's amusing that one of the 5 greatest racing drivers of all time (and easily the best driver ever at the Indy 500) is eligible for a profile on this site, for, of all things, his first few appearances in the Indy 500... which was, after all, a Formula 1 race at the time! If there ever was a NASCAR Rejects (with the same criteria), Jim Clark of all people would be eligible, alongside such names as Delma Cowart, Kirk Shelmerdine, and Steve Wallace!

I don't think it is necessarily contentious to state that drivers from one series will not automatically adapt and dominate another series, even if certain features are shared between the two series.
Admittedly, it has to be said that quite a few of those drivers you've cited made the switch from Formula 1 to IndyCar racing at a quite late stage in their careers (most of them were in their 30's by the time they switched, whilst Mansell was 40 years old when he tried his hand in IndyCars), so there is the caveat that most of those drivers would have probably already peaked in terms of their performance. Still, given the nature of the US racing scene, which has its own idiosyncrasies compared to the European racing scene (running all the way up from the entry level series into the top tier), it is not surprising to my mind that a driver might do well in one series but find himself with the wrong skill set to compete in the other series.

As for Foyt, despite his talents I would have to agree with the comments of others and say that he isn't eligible for a profile here. As others have pointed out, the Indy 500 was a World Drivers Championship event, but the regulations of both series were quite different (although there had been plans for the two series to run similar regulations, the plans were scrapped fairly quickly) and were run by two different governing bodies, so you can't really say that it was an F1 event.

And even if Foyt was, the lack of success was because that was his early years in the Indy 500, if that status of the 500 as a World Drivers Championship event continued past 1960, Foyt would have freed himself from the F1 reject status rather quickly as he won the 1961 Indy 500. So Foyt really wasn't a F1 reject as if the race continued to be counted in the World Driver's Championship, Foyt would have been able to shed his reputation rather quickly.

[Cynon]

And even if Foyt was, the lack of success was because that was his early years in the Indy 500, if that status of the 500 as a World Drivers Championship event continued past 1960, Foyt would have freed himself from the F1 reject status rather quickly as he won the 1961 Indy 500. So Foyt really wasn't a F1 reject as if the race continued to be counted in the World Driver's Championship, Foyt would have been able to shed his reputation rather quickly.

If Moises Solana raced in Europe more, he probably would have broken out of reject status as well. There's a few drivers of that ilk that have profiles already -- guys who would easily have broken out of Reject status if they ran in the World Driver's Championship more often.

But that's the catch here -- the 500 counted for driver's points, but not constructor's.

J.J. Lehto, Tarso Marques, Gaston Mazzacane, Antonio Pizzonia, Eddie Cheever (discounting his IRL tenure), and Stefan Johansson prove that not just any F1 driver can hack it in IndyCar racing. Alex Zanardi did, after all, match Michael Schumacher's testing times in Schumacher's Benetton, and Nigel Mansell, Emerson Fittipaldi, and Mario Andretti were all World Champions...

I for one would actually argue that Johansson did a solid job during his time at Bettenhausen. I mean, he did score a podium in his first race after all.

I think he had quite a few moments of brain fade, though.

Killing Jeff Krosnoff due to pure stupidity and being a fool at the start at Long Beach when the grid was lining up come to mind. The Bettenhausen cars were pretty damn good when Stevie Johnson stepped into them (IIRC they were one of the first to get the Chevy engine), the problem was that Tony Bettenhausen was really old and kind of a never-was (and it pains me to say that).

He was only fast his rookie year, afterwards he was really disappointing. Granted, he had year-old Penske cars after 1993, but even those were pretty fast. Brilliant runs at Belle Isle, though. If the series was just 16 races at Belle Isle he'd probably be champion, but thankfully it isn't. Don't know anyone who'd want to be in Detroit that long.

I guess its too many times mentioned but Bernie definitely deserves a profile as well. I have a distant memory of Ecclestone which might is wrong but could be right, knowing his dry sense of humor - some reporter asked his opinion who is the worst F1 driver ever, to which Bernie briefly replied 'myself' - therefore, don't rule out the possibility that he might also want a profile on the site as well and be willing to be interviewed for that...

Bernie definitely deserves a profile here, especially since one of his attempts was labelled as not being a serious attempt if I recall rightly from the podcast!

[girry]

As for Foyt, despite his talents I would have to agree with the comments of others and say that he isn't eligible for a profile here. As others have pointed out, the Indy 500 was a World Drivers Championship event, but the regulations of both series were quite different (although there had been plans for the two series to run similar regulations, the plans were scrapped fairly quickly) and were run by two different governing bodies, so you can't really say that it was an F1 event.

what about Rodger Ward then? He's a World Championship winner who also took part in f1 events but never scored there - would he be classified as an F1 Reject?

[Onxy Wrecked]

As for Foyt, despite his talents I would have to agree with the comments of others and say that he isn't eligible for a profile here. As others have pointed out, the Indy 500 was a World Drivers Championship event, but the regulations of both series were quite different (although there had been plans for the two series to run similar regulations, the plans were scrapped fairly quickly) and were run by two different governing bodies, so you can't really say that it was an F1 event.

what about Rodger Ward then? He's a World Championship winner who also took part in f1 events but never scored there - would he be classified as an F1 Reject?

Maybe. The problem is that the world championship included a bunch of races and his F1 mediocrity is overruled by success that overshadows Foyt.

[mario]

As for Foyt, despite his talents I would have to agree with the comments of others and say that he isn't eligible for a profile here. As others have pointed out, the Indy 500 was a World Drivers Championship event, but the regulations of both series were quite different (although there had been plans for the two series to run similar regulations, the plans were scrapped fairly quickly) and were run by two different governing bodies, so you can't really say that it was an F1 event.

what about Rodger Ward then? He's a World Championship winner who also took part in f1 events but never scored there - would he be classified as an F1 Reject?

I guess that would be up to how Enoch and Jamie saw fit to interpret things - personally, I would say that Rodger Ward would be an F1 reject given that the Indy 500 was awarded World Drivers Championship status, but was otherwise an entirely separate event from the Grand Prix of that era (being run by the USAC whereas Grand Prix racing was organised by the FIA).

[Cynon]

As for Foyt, despite his talents I would have to agree with the comments of others and say that he isn't eligible for a profile here. As others have pointed out, the Indy 500 was a World Drivers Championship event, but the regulations of both series were quite different (although there had been plans for the two series to run similar regulations, the plans were scrapped fairly quickly) and were run by two different governing bodies, so you can't really say that it was an F1 event.

what about Rodger Ward then? He's a World Championship winner who also took part in f1 events but never scored there - would he be classified as an F1 Reject?

Maybe. The problem is that the world championship included a bunch of races and his F1 mediocrity is overruled by success that overshadows Foyt.

Eric van de Poele? Alex Zanardi? Two hugely successful drivers whose talent cannot be denied, yet both had mediocre race results in F1. I would be all for a Rodger Ward profile as well by the same criteria.

I guess that would be up to how Enoch and Jamie saw fit to interpret things - personally, I would say that Rodger Ward would be an F1 reject given that the Indy 500 was awarded World Drivers Championship status, but was otherwise an entirely separate event from the Grand Prix of that era (being run by the USAC whereas Grand Prix racing was organised by the FIA).

USAC is in the FIA and was at the time I believe. This is why I think Foyt and Ward would be eligible for the site.

[simonracer]

What you guys are all forgetting is that Ward ran in the '59 US Grand Prix. So there doesn't need to be any debate about him being included on this site, because he ran in a WDC race that wasn't the Indy 500.

[Faustus]

What you guys are all forgetting is that Ward ran in the '59 US Grand Prix. So there doesn't need to be any debate about him being included on this site, because he ran in a WDC race that wasn't the Indy 500.

1963 US Grand Prix as well.

[CoopsII]

I miss Joey Zyla

[Faustus]

I can't help thinking that driver training academies and schemes like Red Bull's are a terrible thing for motorsport. They undermine the so-called accepted route through the lower formulae by placing drivers wherever they feel like at whatever time in their careers.

The lack of a clearly defined career progress path from karts to Formula 1 is another matter, but that is hardly unpopular.

[Ferrarist]

I agree with that notion. Especially since this gives power to men like Helmut Marko, who can make or break young drivers careers. Just ask Robert Wickens or Jaime Alguesuari.

[Copersucar]

Killing Jeff Krosnoff due to pure stupidity and being a fool at the start at Long Beach when the grid was lining up come to mind. The Bettenhausen cars were pretty damn good when Stevie Johnson stepped into them (IIRC they were one of the first to get the Chevy engine), the problem was that Tony Bettenhausen was really old and kind of a never-was (and it pains me to say that).

Krosnoff's crash was a freak accident, and although I accept he should shoulder some blame, he wasn't responsible for Krosnoff's death.

[Onxy Wrecked]

What you guys are all forgetting is that Ward ran in the '59 US Grand Prix. So there doesn't need to be any debate about him being included on this site, because he ran in a WDC race that wasn't the Indy 500.

This makes Foyt ineligible as Foyt never competed in a Formula 1 GP. Ward did and can be considered as an F1 reject.

[tommykl]

What you guys are all forgetting is that Ward ran in the '59 US Grand Prix. So there doesn't need to be any debate about him being included on this site, because he ran in a WDC race that wasn't the Indy 500.

This makes Foyt ineligible as Foyt never competed in a Formula 1 GP. Ward did and can be considered as an F1 reject.

If that criteria is used, then Eric Thompson's profile should be pulled from the main site, since he never actually took part in a Formula 1 race, since F2 regulations were used at the time.

[roblo97]

Killing Jeff Krosnoff due to pure stupidity and being a fool at the start at Long Beach when the grid was lining up come to mind. The Bettenhausen cars were pretty damn good when Stevie Johnson stepped into them (IIRC they were one of the first to get the Chevy engine), the problem was that Tony Bettenhausen was really old and kind of a never-was (and it pains me to say that).

Krosnoff's crash was a freak accident, and although I accept he should shoulder some blame, he wasn't responsible for Krosnoff's death.

IIRC Krosnoff died in Toronto

[Ferrim]

F1 off-season is too short these days.

*runs and hides*

[UncreativeUsername37]

F1 off-season is too short these days.

*runs and hides*

What... huh... why...? What spectator-side advantages does a short off-season have?

[Onxy Wrecked]

What you guys are all forgetting is that Ward ran in the '59 US Grand Prix. So there doesn't need to be any debate about him being included on this site, because he ran in a WDC race that wasn't the Indy 500.

This makes Foyt ineligible as Foyt never competed in a Formula 1 GP. Ward did and can be considered as an F1 reject.

If that criteria is used, then Eric Thompson's profile should be pulled from the main site, since he never actually took part in a Formula 1 race, since F2 regulations were used at the time.

Maybe I was wrong, but if we used the Indy 500 the number of rejects would increase to the point that half of the site's profiles would be Indy 500 drivers from the 1950s thru 1960.

[tommykl]

This makes Foyt ineligible as Foyt never competed in a Formula 1 GP. Ward did and can be considered as an F1 reject.

If that criteria is used, then Eric Thompson's profile should be pulled from the main site, since he never actually took part in a Formula 1 race, since F2 regulations were used at the time.

Maybe I was wrong, but if we used the Indy 500 the number of rejects would increase to the point that half of the site's profiles would be Indy 500 drivers from the 1950s thru 1960.

Definitely, but I was referring to your opinion that Foyt shouldn't be included because the Indy 500 wasn't run to F1 regulations. In that case, neither should Thompson, since between 1952 and 1953, F2 regulations were used.

[Onxy Wrecked]

Of course the story of Thompson's race is far more impressive out running Stirling Moss and other F1 legends than Foyt's racing mostly against fellow Americans in a 500 mile oval race where surviving to the end without mechanical failure or crashing gets a driver around the top ten of 33 which Foyt did in 1959 with a 10th place finish. Sometimes a story is more awesome than the A.J. Foyt just driving to finish his second Indy 500 and completing the two hundred laps about 4 minutes off the pace (3 laps down based on the fastest laps in that race) behind Rodger Ward who won the 500 in 1959. So either Ward is a reject or Thompson and Foyt are, but the standards of it make this a sticky situation where if you make Ward a reject then Foyt and Thompson aren't as neither raced in F1. If one makes Thompson a reject off of F2, Foyt is also one for the Indy 500, but Rodger Ward won the Indy 500 would not be one.

[mario]

I can't help thinking that driver training academies and schemes like Red Bull's are a terrible thing for motorsport. They undermine the so-called accepted route through the lower formulae by placing drivers wherever they feel like at whatever time in their careers.

The lack of a clearly defined career progress path from karts to Formula 1 is another matter, but that is hardly unpopular.

It does create considerable pressure on drivers to move up through the ranks at the rate that is best for the organisation managing them, rather than giving the driver time to develop his skills at a particular level before moving on either up the ranks or elsewhere into a series he is better equipped to deal with. An outfit like Red Bull Racing wants to maximise its return on investment through getting a driver into a relatively high tier series a.s.a.p., therefore maximising their advertising potential and increasing their potential commissions on driver deals.
I do recall that there was one particularly critical motorsport journalist who questioned whether the trend of sponsors and driver academies pushing drivers so rapidly through the ranks meant that too many drivers were being pushed into situations they hadn't been able to adapt themselves to, creating potentially dangerous situations in higher series (Grosjean was given as a particular example, both in 2009 - where he had to take on the role as the nominated reserve driver once Piquet Jr was sacked, even though Grosjean himself later admitted that he probably lacked experience - and also over his performance in 2012 given the number of accidents he had that season).

As for the lack of a clearly defined career path, that is certainly true (and it could be argued that more than one series has that same problem), although I believe that the FIA has been trying to simplify things in recent years. Part of the problem, though, appears to be in the slightly unexpected form of the EU Commission and the principle of free competition - in effect, the FIA is not allowed to specify a particular driving path since that would effectively mean that the FIA was giving certain series a monopoly on driver selection.
OK, the FIA is trying to get around the problem by slimming down the number of series at a junior level, but it has to allow a certain number of competing series to exist at each level - so a certain amount of overlapping and conflict between series is inevitable, but cannot be entirely avoided.

[Onxy Wrecked]

I can't help thinking that driver training academies and schemes like Red Bull's are a terrible thing for motorsport. They undermine the so-called accepted route through the lower formulae by placing drivers wherever they feel like at whatever time in their careers.

The lack of a clearly defined career progress path from karts to Formula 1 is another matter, but that is hardly unpopular.

It does create considerable pressure on drivers to move up through the ranks at the rate that is best for the organisation managing them, rather than giving the driver time to develop his skills at a particular level before moving on either up the ranks or elsewhere into a series he is better equipped to deal with. An outfit like Red Bull Racing wants to maximise its return on investment through getting a driver into a relatively high tier series a.s.a.p., therefore maximising their advertising potential and increasing their potential commissions on driver deals.
I do recall that there was one particularly critical motorsport journalist who questioned whether the trend of sponsors and driver academies pushing drivers so rapidly through the ranks meant that too many drivers were being pushed into situations they hadn't been able to adapt themselves to, creating potentially dangerous situations in higher series (Grosjean was given as a particular example, both in 2009 - where he had to take on the role as the nominated reserve driver once Piquet Jr was sacked, even though Grosjean himself later admitted that he probably lacked experience - and also over his performance in 2012 given the number of accidents he had that season).

As for the lack of a clearly defined career path, that is certainly true (and it could be argued that more than one series has that same problem), although I believe that the FIA has been trying to simplify things in recent years. Part of the problem, though, appears to be in the slightly unexpected form of the EU Commission and the principle of free competition - in effect, the FIA is not allowed to specify a particular driving path since that would effectively mean that the FIA was giving certain series a monopoly on driver selection.
OK, the FIA is trying to get around the problem by slimming down the number of series at a junior level, but it has to allow a certain number of competing series to exist at each level - so a certain amount of overlapping and conflict between series is inevitable, but cannot be entirely avoided.

It's possible the best thing NASCAR has done as a racing organization is to create a clear cut path with multiple sub-series to race in such as the K&N Pro Series where drivers as young as 15 drive, the Camping World Truck and Nationwide Series where a driver must be 18 or older to drive in, and then there is the Sprint Cup series which is the highest level and has crowds at some tracks that exceed 150,000 fans. It's also why IndyCar is doing even worse than F1 as the best talent or largest money supplies will jump to F1 and NASCAR is cheaper to compete in and will siphon talent before they can compete in open-wheel racing with the K&N Pro Series.

[Cynon]

It's possible the best thing NASCAR has done as a racing organization is to create a clear cut path with multiple sub-series to race in such as the K&N Pro Series where drivers as young as 15 drive, the Camping World Truck and Nationwide Series where a driver must be 18 or older to drive in, and then there is the Sprint Cup series which is the highest level and has crowds at some tracks that exceed 150,000 fans. It's also why IndyCar is doing even worse than F1 as the best talent or largest money supplies will jump to F1 and NASCAR is cheaper to compete in and will siphon talent before they can compete in open-wheel racing with the K&N Pro Series.

IndyCar's feeder system has been messed up ever since The Split, when both Atlantics and Indy Lights (both incarnations) were used as feeder categories, along with sprint cars. Indy Lights is gradually getting its act together but it's got a ways to go. I have my own theories as to what would fix IndyCar's money woes as far as the teams are concerned but I doubt it's an unpopular opinion...

NASCAR does have a pretty good feeder category until you get to the top three rungs of the ladder, because the same drivers compete in all three series, making it next to impossible to advance beyond the Truck series without having money behind you or a backmarker team that really likes you. You should know this too.

For the ignorant, the top three tiers in NASCAR;

1. Sprint Cup
2. Nationwide
3. Trucks

You have the ridiculous situation of top-level Sprint Cup drivers taking all the good rides in the Nationwide and Truck series, which has resulted in NASCAR's talent pool not looking very good in the long term. All three of the Rookie of the Year contenders in the Sprint Cup series have money behind them (Danica Patrick, Ricky Stenhouse, and Timmy Hill), though to be fair, Stenhouse has shown some speed, but no discipline. Danica sometimes has speed, but is never given credit for it or throws it away due to a really dumb mistake), and Timmy Hill is so slow I won't be surprised if he's called turn 5.

Since this isn't the NASCAR thread I won't elaborate any further.

Here's an unpopular opinion that might turn some heads, but it's not really F1 related; Nelson Piquet, Jr. grew up quite remarkably ever since Crashgate... he doesn't seem like he has that much of a sense of entitlement (unless saying he wants to make it into Sprint Cup counts as entitlement... I call that a career goal), and he's a respectable (but not stellar) competitor ever since leaving F1.

[Onxy Wrecked]

It's possible the best thing NASCAR has done as a racing organization is to create a clear cut path with multiple sub-series to race in such as the K&N Pro Series where drivers as young as 15 drive, the Camping World Truck and Nationwide Series where a driver must be 18 or older to drive in, and then there is the Sprint Cup series which is the highest level and has crowds at some tracks that exceed 150,000 fans. It's also why IndyCar is doing even worse than F1 as the best talent or largest money supplies will jump to F1 and NASCAR is cheaper to compete in and will siphon talent before they can compete in open-wheel racing with the K&N Pro Series.

IndyCar's feeder system has been messed up ever since The Split, when both Atlantics and Indy Lights (both incarnations) were used as feeder categories, along with sprint cars. Indy Lights is gradually getting its act together but it's got a ways to go. I have my own theories as to what would fix IndyCar's money woes as far as the teams are concerned but I doubt it's an unpopular opinion...

NASCAR does have a pretty good feeder category until you get to the top three rungs of the ladder, because the same drivers compete in all three series, making it next to impossible to advance beyond the Truck series without having money behind you or a backmarker team that really likes you. You should know this too.

For the ignorant, the top three tiers in NASCAR;

1. Sprint Cup
2. Nationwide
3. Trucks

You have the ridiculous situation of top-level Sprint Cup drivers taking all the good rides in the Nationwide and Truck series, which has resulted in NASCAR's talent pool not looking very good in the long term. All three of the Rookie of the Year contenders in the Sprint Cup series have money behind them (Danica Patrick, Ricky Stenhouse, and Timmy Hill), though to be fair, Stenhouse has shown some speed, but no discipline. Danica sometimes has speed, but is never given credit for it or throws it away due to a really dumb mistake), and Timmy Hill is so slow I won't be surprised if he's called turn 5.

Since this isn't the NASCAR thread I won't elaborate any further.

Here's an unpopular opinion that might turn some heads, but it's not really F1 related; Nelson Piquet, Jr. grew up quite remarkably ever since Crashgate... he doesn't seem like he has that much of a sense of entitlement (unless saying he wants to make it into Sprint Cup counts as entitlement... I call that a career goal), and he's a respectable (but not stellar) competitor ever since leaving F1.

Of course, Hill also lacks the car to go faster. The team he races for is not much faster if one puts anyone else in the car as seen with certain other drivers as in Ken Schrader in particular. Top drivers do crowd the field in some races especially where both Sprint Cup and lower series race at the same track on the same weekend. The talent pool is being altered more due to money with certain pay drivers appearing like Brian Scott who have more money than talent, and former cup regulars such as Elliott Sadler who don't want to drive a back marker or start and park.

[Cynon]

Of course, Hill also lacks the car to go faster. The team he races for is not much faster if one puts anyone else in the car as seen with certain other drivers as in Ken Schrader in particular. Top drivers do crowd the field in some races especially where both Sprint Cup and lower series race at the same track on the same weekend. The talent pool is being altered more due to money with certain pay drivers appearing like Brian Scott who have more money than talent, and former cup regulars such as Elliott Sadler who don't want to drive a back marker or start and park.

I do believe I've told you this elsewhere, but if you have a crapwagon at your disposal, your job is to impress people in that crapwagon, and Hill has failed to do that. Timmy Hill himself brought a ton of money to that team, and there's no way he would have been considered for FAS Lane Racing if it wasn't for some kind of money.

[CoopsII]

Charles Pic needs a haircut.

[Faustus]

Of course, Hill also lacks the car to go faster. The team he races for is not much faster if one puts anyone else in the car as seen with certain other drivers as in Ken Schrader in particular. Top drivers do crowd the field in some races especially where both Sprint Cup and lower series race at the same track on the same weekend. The talent pool is being altered more due to money with certain pay drivers appearing like Brian Scott who have more money than talent, and former cup regulars such as Elliott Sadler who don't want to drive a back marker or start and park.

I do believe I've told you this elsewhere, but if you have a crapwagon at your disposal, your job is to impress people in that crapwagon, and Hill has failed to do that. Timmy Hill himself brought a ton of money to that team, and there's no way he would have been considered for FAS Lane Racing if it wasn't for some kind of money.

Would that be the same situation as Paul Menard at Richard Childress Racing?

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Of course, Hill also lacks the car to go faster. The team he races for is not much faster if one puts anyone else in the car as seen with certain other drivers as in Ken Schrader in particular. Top drivers do crowd the field in some races especially where both Sprint Cup and lower series race at the same track on the same weekend. The talent pool is being altered more due to money with certain pay drivers appearing like Brian Scott who have more money than talent, and former cup regulars such as Elliott Sadler who don't want to drive a back marker or start and park.

I do believe I've told you this elsewhere, but if you have a crapwagon at your disposal, your job is to impress people in that crapwagon, and Hill has failed to do that. Timmy Hill himself brought a ton of money to that team, and there's no way he would have been considered for FAS Lane Racing if it wasn't for some kind of money.

Would that be the same situation as Paul Menard at Richard Childress Racing?

Not really, Menard is actually decent at times. Hill is just shite

[Faustus]

I can't help thinking that driver training academies and schemes like Red Bull's are a terrible thing for motorsport. They undermine the so-called accepted route through the lower formulae by placing drivers wherever they feel like at whatever time in their careers.

The lack of a clearly defined career progress path from karts to Formula 1 is another matter, but that is hardly unpopular.

It does create considerable pressure on drivers to move up through the ranks at the rate that is best for the organisation managing them, rather than giving the driver time to develop his skills at a particular level before moving on either up the ranks or elsewhere into a series he is better equipped to deal with. An outfit like Red Bull Racing wants to maximise its return on investment through getting a driver into a relatively high tier series a.s.a.p., therefore maximising their advertising potential and increasing their potential commissions on driver deals.
I do recall that there was one particularly critical motorsport journalist who questioned whether the trend of sponsors and driver academies pushing drivers so rapidly through the ranks meant that too many drivers were being pushed into situations they hadn't been able to adapt themselves to, creating potentially dangerous situations in higher series (Grosjean was given as a particular example, both in 2009 - where he had to take on the role as the nominated reserve driver once Piquet Jr was sacked, even though Grosjean himself later admitted that he probably lacked experience - and also over his performance in 2012 given the number of accidents he had that season).

As for the lack of a clearly defined career path, that is certainly true (and it could be argued that more than one series has that same problem), although I believe that the FIA has been trying to simplify things in recent years. Part of the problem, though, appears to be in the slightly unexpected form of the EU Commission and the principle of free competition - in effect, the FIA is not allowed to specify a particular driving path since that would effectively mean that the FIA was giving certain series a monopoly on driver selection.
OK, the FIA is trying to get around the problem by slimming down the number of series at a junior level, but it has to allow a certain number of competing series to exist at each level - so a certain amount of overlapping and conflict between series is inevitable, but cannot be entirely avoided.

The FIA employed Gerhard Berger to sort this out, didn't they? Has anyone seen any recommendations from him? Then Jonathan Palmer made things even worse with his Formula 4, directly competing against Formula Renault UK. Granted that the latest 2010-specification of Formula Renault has not been anywhere near as successful as the previous, for various reasons, and that in the UK the championship for the earlier specification is far better subscribed. The latest car is too expensive and the spares are priced ridiculously so the championships are not as healthy as they used to be, Formula BMW is pretty much dead, so Palmer saw a business opportunity and took it.

[Faustus]

I do believe I've told you this elsewhere, but if you have a crapwagon at your disposal, your job is to impress people in that crapwagon, and Hill has failed to do that. Timmy Hill himself brought a ton of money to that team, and there's no way he would have been considered for FAS Lane Racing if it wasn't for some kind of money.

Would that be the same situation as Paul Menard at Richard Childress Racing?

Not really, Menard is actually decent at times. Hill is just shite

He won a race as well, didn't he? Indy 2011? Hadn't done much up to his win and not much since.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Would that be the same situation as Paul Menard at Richard Childress Racing?

Not really, Menard is actually decent at times. Hill is just shite

He won a race as well, didn't he? Indy 2011? Hadn't done much up to his win and not much since.

At the start of his career he looked like he was only there because of his money but he gradually became a decent driver and since he has been at RCR he is actually not bad. Timmy Hill on the other hand has never shown any real talent but somehow has a legitimate fanbase

[CoopsII]

Its time McLaren changed the livery.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Its time McLaren changed the livery.

I wouldn't consider that unpopular, I agree completely

[CoopsII]

When faced with the choice of the Nurgerburgering or the New Hockenheim the fact that the former won has impressed me not one bit. But equally, Diet-Hockenheim would've left me equally cold.

[mario]

I can't help thinking that driver training academies and schemes like Red Bull's are a terrible thing for motorsport. They undermine the so-called accepted route through the lower formulae by placing drivers wherever they feel like at whatever time in their careers.

The lack of a clearly defined career progress path from karts to Formula 1 is another matter, but that is hardly unpopular.

It does create considerable pressure on drivers to move up through the ranks at the rate that is best for the organisation managing them, rather than giving the driver time to develop his skills at a particular level before moving on either up the ranks or elsewhere into a series he is better equipped to deal with. An outfit like Red Bull Racing wants to maximise its return on investment through getting a driver into a relatively high tier series a.s.a.p., therefore maximising their advertising potential and increasing their potential commissions on driver deals.
I do recall that there was one particularly critical motorsport journalist who questioned whether the trend of sponsors and driver academies pushing drivers so rapidly through the ranks meant that too many drivers were being pushed into situations they hadn't been able to adapt themselves to, creating potentially dangerous situations in higher series (Grosjean was given as a particular example, both in 2009 - where he had to take on the role as the nominated reserve driver once Piquet Jr was sacked, even though Grosjean himself later admitted that he probably lacked experience - and also over his performance in 2012 given the number of accidents he had that season).

As for the lack of a clearly defined career path, that is certainly true (and it could be argued that more than one series has that same problem), although I believe that the FIA has been trying to simplify things in recent years. Part of the problem, though, appears to be in the slightly unexpected form of the EU Commission and the principle of free competition - in effect, the FIA is not allowed to specify a particular driving path since that would effectively mean that the FIA was giving certain series a monopoly on driver selection.
OK, the FIA is trying to get around the problem by slimming down the number of series at a junior level, but it has to allow a certain number of competing series to exist at each level - so a certain amount of overlapping and conflict between series is inevitable, but cannot be entirely avoided.

The FIA employed Gerhard Berger to sort this out, didn't they? Has anyone seen any recommendations from him? Then Jonathan Palmer made things even worse with his Formula 4, directly competing against Formula Renault UK. Granted that the latest 2010-specification of Formula Renault has not been anywhere near as successful as the previous, for various reasons, and that in the UK the championship for the earlier specification is far better subscribed. The latest car is too expensive and the spares are priced ridiculously so the championships are not as healthy as they used to be, Formula BMW is pretty much dead, so Palmer saw a business opportunity and took it.

They did indeed, although I am not entirely sure if Berger's report has been published in full for the public to read - part of it does seem to have been given to the FIA, though, since it is because of Berger's advice (he is aiming to "restore the Formula 3 European Championship to its former status") that the European F3 Championship is being expanded to 10 rounds and acting as a support race for more events (mainly DTM). It's not been a popular move judging by the criticism Carlin has directed at the FIA for promoting the European F3 series at the expense of the British F3 title (which is having to cut back to just four rounds, with three heats each, because of a lack of entrants). http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105333

That latter point about the problems with Formula Renault does pick up on one of the major problems amongst some of the junior series, though, which is excessive price gouging by parts suppliers. GP2 is, as far as I am aware, notoriously bad for that practise, which is part of the reason why FR3.5 is now becoming the preferred option for both drivers and the young driver program of some teams (some spare parts cost are rumoured to cost as much as 10 times more in GP2 than the equivalent part for FR3.5 does, mainly because FR3.5 allows multiple parts suppliers whilst the owners of the GP2 series have a monopoly over the supply of spare parts). It creates the opportunity for lower cost series to emerge, but lower cost doesn't always mean better value for money...

[Onxy Wrecked]

Of course, Hill also lacks the car to go faster. The team he races for is not much faster if one puts anyone else in the car as seen with certain other drivers as in Ken Schrader in particular. Top drivers do crowd the field in some races especially where both Sprint Cup and lower series race at the same track on the same weekend. The talent pool is being altered more due to money with certain pay drivers appearing like Brian Scott who have more money than talent, and former cup regulars such as Elliott Sadler who don't want to drive a back marker or start and park.

I do believe I've told you this elsewhere, but if you have a crapwagon at your disposal, your job is to impress people in that crapwagon, and Hill has failed to do that. Timmy Hill himself brought a ton of money to that team, and there's no way he would have been considered for FAS Lane Racing if it wasn't for some kind of money.

The problem is that he has flashed enough talent with a 22nd position finish at Kansas to keep himself around in a crapwagon that should run around 30th in every race as seen with the performance of Ken Schrader. Schrader's best finish was 29th. Hill in the same car finished 22nd and 29th in the races that he finished for FAS Lane Racing. The problem is that if he doesn't succeed on a superspeedway with a top ten or two or produce multiple finishes in the low 20s and upper teens; he'll be gone in favor of Brian Scott who brings more money, more talent, more experience, but more crashes. More crashes is bad for a low budget team however. Hill has talent, but he's only as good as his car where his money is not great enough nor is his talent with his track record good enough to justify a better car.

[pasta_maldonado]

I actually think the red looks good on the Enstone E21

[Onxy Wrecked]

I actually think the red looks good on the Enstone E21

I agree... but some would certainly disagree.

[Gerudo Dragon]

I actually like Mansell.