Ponderbox

[good_Ralf]

I've been watching whole races from the late-1990s/early-2000s and I noticed that the TV producer/director only went onboard with a few cars over the course of the whole race, while today it seems as though the FOM director can choose from anyone he likes and normally does so. Why couldn't the director go onboard with so many cars on world feed back then? Could the director only choose from a few cars per race? Did F1D+ have the rights to the majority of the onboard coverage? Or was money a matter in this?

[takagi_for_the_win]

I've been watching whole races from the late-1990s/early-2000s and I noticed that the TV producer/director only went onboard with a few cars over the course of the whole race, while today it seems as though the FOM director can choose from anyone he likes and normally does so. Why couldn't the director go onboard with so many cars on world feed back then? Could the director only choose from a few cars per race? Did F1D+ have the rights to the majority of the onboard coverage? Or was money a matter in this?

I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that only about 12 cars actually had on-board cameras on them; the remaining 8-12 cars had dummy pods, and as such, with unreliability being much higher back then, by the end of the race more often than not you'd only have a few cars with on-board cameras still running. Hope this answers your question!

[Alextrax52]

I've been watching whole races from the late-1990s/early-2000s and I noticed that the TV producer/director only went onboard with a few cars over the course of the whole race, while today it seems as though the FOM director can choose from anyone he likes and normally does so. Why couldn't the director go onboard with so many cars on world feed back then? Could the director only choose from a few cars per race? Did F1D+ have the rights to the majority of the onboard coverage? Or was money a matter in this?

Thing is directors back then were local. The French TV Director got ROTR in 2004 because he showed virtually no one but Schumacher and Alonso. The Italian TV Director would usually focus on Ferrari which is understandable and then you had the Japan TV Director who would try his best to get the Japanese connected stuff on for as long as possible

[roblo97]

I've been watching whole races from the late-1990s/early-2000s and I noticed that the TV producer/director only went onboard with a few cars over the course of the whole race, while today it seems as though the FOM director can choose from anyone he likes and normally does so. Why couldn't the director go onboard with so many cars on world feed back then? Could the director only choose from a few cars per race? Did F1D+ have the rights to the majority of the onboard coverage? Or was money a matter in this?

Thing is directors back then were local. The French TV Director got ROTR in 2004 because he showed virtually no one but Schumacher and Alonso. The Italian TV Director would usually focus on Ferrari which is understandable and then you had the Japan TV Director who would try his best to get the Japanese connected stuff on for as long as possible

I remember on ITV when someone, either Ted Kravitz or Mark Blundell said that the ITV Driector was the Director for the British GP.

[good_Ralf]

I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that only about 12 cars actually had on-board cameras on them; the remaining 8-12 cars had dummy pods, and as such, with unreliability being much higher back then, by the end of the race more often than not you'd only have a few cars with on-board cameras still running. Hope this answers your question!

Great insight but about 1998-2002 the director appeared to go onboard with different cars from race to race. Take the French GP in 2002. All race, Kimi Raikkonen's camera was the only one used until the very last lap when for some reason we went onboard with new champion Michael Schumacher. At the next race in Germany the only onboard shots came from the Williams cars and in Hungary only the cameras on the cars of Trulli (at the start) and Davidson were used. Only from 2003 (after F1D+ went bust) did the director go onboard with more cars and leave us with the situation we have now.

Thing is directors back then were local. The French TV Director got ROTR in 2004 because he showed virtually no one but Schumacher and Alonso. The Italian TV Director would usually focus on Ferrari which is understandable and then you had the Japan TV Director who would try his best to get the Japanese connected stuff on for as long as possible

Understandable. But surely the directors had the opportunity, even if they didn't use it, to go onboard with other cars.

[Bleu]

During digital TV era there was often just one or two onboards in the "local" feed.

[go_Rubens]

I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that only about 12 cars actually had on-board cameras on them; the remaining 8-12 cars had dummy pods, and as such, with unreliability being much higher back then, by the end of the race more often than not you'd only have a few cars with on-board cameras still running. Hope this answers your question!

Great insight but about 1998-2002 the director appeared to go onboard with different cars from race to race. Take the French GP in 2002. All race, Kimi Raikkonen's camera was the only one used until the very last lap when for some reason we went onboard with new champion Michael Schumacher. At the next race in Germany the only onboard shots came from the Williams cars and in Hungary only the cameras on the cars of Trulli (at the start) and Davidson were used. Only from 2003 (after F1D+ went bust) did the director go onboard with more cars and leave us with the situation we have now.

I once heard that the only onboard camera in Melbourne in 1999 was Ralf Schumacher's Williams. The directors of the TV feed back then (for example, Imola 2001) rarely showed any onboard camera feed, and when they did, it was only of one car or two. What you said is a true statement, good_Ralf.

Thing is directors back then were local. The French TV Director got ROTR in 2004 because he showed virtually no one but Schumacher and Alonso. The Italian TV Director would usually focus on Ferrari which is understandable and then you had the Japan TV Director who would try his best to get the Japanese connected stuff on for as long as possible

Understandable. But surely the directors had the opportunity, even if they didn't use it, to go onboard with other cars.

I think that the TV directors could use onboard camera from all of the cars, but back then, when the front cars were all the show, those were the only cars that had cameras in use on the live broadcast.

[Alextrax52]

I'm just wondering should we discard the Forum Ratings for 2014 because the last few races have truly been devoid of them. We had 36 users post ratings in Australia but now we are barely getting 10 posts in them.

Australia 36
Malaysia 26
China 23
Bahrain 22
Spain 18
Monaco 22
Canada 20
Great Britain 18
Germany 12
Hungary 14
Belgium 10
Italy 7
Singapore 5
Korea 7
Japan 8

So should we close down the Forum Ratings or not?

[Wallio]

I'm just wondering should we discard the Forum Ratings for 2014 because the last few races have truly been devoid of them. We had 36 users post ratings in Australia but now we are barely getting 10 posts in them.

Australia 36
Malaysia 26
China 23
Bahrain 22
Spain 18
Monaco 22
Canada 20
Great Britain 18
Germany 12
Hungary 14
Belgium 10
Italy 7
Singapore 5
Korea 7
Japan 8

So should we close down the Forum Ratings or not?

While I suppose I don't really get a say on this, as I have never posted in the ratings threads (at least that I can remember anyway), however I think more of it has to do with F1 Deprivation (or rather, a lack there of). The first four Flyaway races all drew people in because we had been F1-less for 4 1/2 months. Then it tails off. Monaco was high because its Monaco, and whether you love it or hate it, everyone has an opinion on Monaco. The last four races have dropped off, because we know who the champion is going to be. Now while the fact that THAT GUY is going to win certainly hurts the ratings, I think if anyone was all but coroneted at this point, you'd see a similar drop, regardless of the driver. Do we have ratings info from say.....2002? or 2004?

Anyway, I think with all the changes in regulations that will take place next year, and with the return of unreliability (hopefully) I think we will see more ratings. Give it one more year.

[DanielPT]

Contrary to what is being said by many pundits and former drivers, I still don't consider Vettel an all-time great. At least not up there with Prost, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Lauda or Schumacher for instance. Why? Because I think he has had it easy. And it wasn't even like Schumacher who at least had the achievement of helping to rescue Ferrari from the doldrums. Not to mention that he managed to beat who is usually perceived as the biggest reason why Vettel is winning so much: Adrian Newey. Sure Vettel is pretty fast and managed to adapt pretty well to these tyres and regulations. The kid has his merits and it is a relentless guy which is always a good thing to be (at least in my view). I had to think a lot on why I don't feel Vettel managed to rate highly in my "all time" books, but then I remembered why I feel this way: Nelson Piquet, a 3 time world champion. Is Nelson on anyone's top 10 all-time list of drivers? If not, why?

[Salamander]

Contrary to what is being said by many pundits and former drivers, I still don't consider Vettel an all-time great. At least not up there with Prost, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Lauda or Schumacher for instance. Why? Because I think he has had it easy. And it wasn't even like Schumacher who at least had the achievement of helping to rescue Ferrari from the doldrums. Not to mention that he managed to beat who is usually perceived as the biggest reason why Vettel is winning so much: Adrian Newey. Sure Vettel is pretty fast and managed to adapt pretty well to these tyres and regulations. The kid has his merits and it is a relentless guy which is always a good thing to be (at least in my view). I had to think a lot on why I don't feel Vettel managed to rate highly in my "all time" books, but then I remembered why I feel this way: Nelson Piquet, a 3 time world champion. Is Nelson on anyone's top 10 all-time list of drivers? If not, why?

Piquet was the clear number one at Brabham for his first two years, and in his second he had a dominant Williams-Honda, and Mansell was injured the last two races. That might be why. Though, checking the top 20 all-time list I made ages ago, I do have Piquet 11th.

[LellaLombardi]

I don't wish to inflame any Vettel debates but I have been wondering this: why do people find his finger gesture so inflammatory (even Newey has alluded to it in a quote) and people didn't have a problem with Schumacher's customary podium leap? It's fair to say both drivers were equally hated.

My theory is this: the leap said nothing more than "woohoo!" whereas the finger says something more along the lines of "look at me, aren't I the best?". I seem to remember Murray Walker saying that Schumi's kids had come up with the idea (although they would have been very young at the time) and maybe that softened it too?

[Klon]

I don't wish to inflame any Vettel debates but I have been wondering this: why do people find his finger gesture so inflammatory (even Newey has alluded to it in a quote) and people didn't have a problem with Schumacher's customary podium leap? It's fair to say both drivers were equally hated.

I think to mainly boils down to perception. Schumacher's jump was vintage Schumacher, but was never as hyped as the finger. German TV never had an ad campaign based on jumping and it hardly makes for a condescending nickname ("The Jump" hardly has the ring of "The Finger"). So yeah, for me it is because Schumacher's vintage jump never was a trademark as much as his other behaviour was, whereas Vettel's finger is invariably connected to Seb.

[pasta_maldonado]

I don't wish to inflame any Vettel debates but I have been wondering this: why do people find his finger gesture so inflammatory (even Newey has alluded to it in a quote) and people didn't have a problem with Schumacher's customary podium leap? It's fair to say both drivers were equally hated.

I think to mainly boils down to perception. Schumacher's jump was vintage Schumacher, but was never as hyped as the finger. German TV never had an ad campaign based on jumping and it hardly makes for a condescending nickname ("The Jump" hardly has the ring of "The Finger"). So yeah, for me it is because Schumacher's vintage jump never was a trademark as much as his other behaviour was, whereas Vettel's finger is invariably connected to Seb.

I suppose another way of looking at it is Schumacher's jump showed his emotion and delight at winning a race, whereas Vettel's finger can be viewed as an arrogant behaviour - asserting his dominance over the rest, if you like. It also shows a lack of maturity on Seb's part, in a way, shoving a #1 finger in everybody else's face after a race is quite a childish thing to do, akin to him running around with an 'L' for Loser on his head. There may be all sorts of reasons why both drivers had their customary celebrations, but based on pure gestures, Schumacher's celebration is not particularly inflammatory for rival fans, whereas Vettel's finger is, like he is rubbing his success in everyone else's face.

[SgtPepper]

It also shows a lack of maturity on Seb's part, in a way, shoving a #1 finger in everybody else's face after a race is quite a childish thing to do, akin to him running around with an 'L' for Loser on his head.

That's a really nice and succinct way of putting it.

Nelson Piquet, a 3 time world champion. Is Nelson on anyone's top 10 all-time list of drivers? If not, why?

Piquet was the clear number one at Brabham for his first two years, and in his second he had a dominant Williams-Honda, and Mansell was injured the last two races. That might be why. Though, checking the top 20 all-time list I made ages ago, I do have Piquet 11th.

I've been wondering the same thing myself now for a few months, but my 1980s knowledge simply isn't strong enough to be able to fill in all the blanks. I'll go do some research now, but did he have a very dominant car? He almost never gets listed or mentioned by people as their favourite driver, despite having three championships. I guess it just shows my lack of F1 awareness pre-1990s really.

[Salamander]

Nelson Piquet, a 3 time world champion. Is Nelson on anyone's top 10 all-time list of drivers? If not, why?

Piquet was the clear number one at Brabham for his first two years, and in his second he had a dominant Williams-Honda, and Mansell was injured the last two races. That might be why. Though, checking the top 20 all-time list I made ages ago, I do have Piquet 11th.

I've been wondering the same thing myself now for a few months, but my 1980s knowledge simply isn't strong enough to be able to fill in all the blanks. I'll go do some research now, but did he have a very dominant car? He almost never gets listed or mentioned by people as their favourite driver, despite having three championships. I guess it just shows my lack of F1 awareness pre-1990s really.

Well, in 1987, yes. 1981 was a close fight with the Williams', and he only really got a look in in 1983 when Prost fell off the road at Zandvoort. He was also quite unprofessional at times, which probably contributes to people not really giving him the credit he probably deserves.

[good_Ralf]

Well, in 1987, yes. 1981 was a close fight with the Williams', and he only really got a look in in 1983 when Prost fell off the road at Zandvoort.

Didn't Prost take out Piquet in that race, with Nelson scoring no points as a result? Otherwise I agree with your statement.

[watka]

One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

[go_Rubens]

One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

This could have happened, as his car had a decent amount of pace within the engine cover. Too bad it blew up often. Maybe Nelson would be referred to more often if he was a 4-time WDC?

[Londoner]

One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

The same could be said for 1984, as Piquet took more poles than anyone else that season (9 overall), but could only convert two of them into victories, such was the unreliability of his car. He'd have been right up in the championship battle otherwise.

[Alextrax52]

Does anyone actually know Nelson never scored a 3 in a row victory streak?

[mario]

It also shows a lack of maturity on Seb's part, in a way, shoving a #1 finger in everybody else's face after a race is quite a childish thing to do, akin to him running around with an 'L' for Loser on his head.

That's a really nice and succinct way of putting it.

Nelson Piquet, a 3 time world champion. Is Nelson on anyone's top 10 all-time list of drivers? If not, why?

Piquet was the clear number one at Brabham for his first two years, and in his second he had a dominant Williams-Honda, and Mansell was injured the last two races. That might be why. Though, checking the top 20 all-time list I made ages ago, I do have Piquet 11th.

I've been wondering the same thing myself now for a few months, but my 1980s knowledge simply isn't strong enough to be able to fill in all the blanks. I'll go do some research now, but did he have a very dominant car? He almost never gets listed or mentioned by people as their favourite driver, despite having three championships. I guess it just shows my lack of F1 awareness pre-1990s really.

The 1986 and 1987 Williams cars were certainly pretty dominant, whilst a similar case could perhaps be made for the late season BT52 too. Some of it might also be down to the somewhat underwhelming season Piquet had in 1988 for Lotus - although that owed a fair bit to the chassis, which was not great, there was perhaps also a perception that Piquet wasn't able to outperform the car in the way that Senna had been able to perform for Lotus.

I suppose that, in the case of Piquet Sr., part of the reason for the animosity towards him is probably because many feel that he only earned those titles because he cheated. 1981 saw the use of pneumatic suspension on the car to circumvent the regulations on ride height - though within a few races most of the top teams were doing the same thing - and a sense that he only really won because Williams threw the title away, not because of his efforts.
1983 was marred by the arguments over the fuel that Brabham used that season and 1987 was marred by accusations that Piquet was using his connections with Honda and within Williams to hinder Mansell as much as possible (complaints that a recent interview with Piquet and Mansell seemed to validate).

Equally, Piquet Sr was rather happy to publicly abuse his fellow drivers in ways that many felt were unacceptable. The fact that Honda switched their support from him to Senna - a move that Piquet reportedly felt was commercially motivated (Senna being more marketable in Brazil) and something of a personal betrayal by Honda - seems to have been a driving motivation for his rather unpleasant comments about Senna. That sense of generally being a rather unpleasant individual and a somewhat dodgy character is held against him, and blackens his reputation to this day.

I suppose that another reason why he isn't held in such high regard is the fact that, statistically, there are other drivers who have won fewer championships yet have a better statistical performance. For example, Piquet's podium finishing rate, at about 29%, is reasonably good but not spectacular when compared to other champions (he is only marginally ahead of Coulthard, for example, who finished on the podium about 25% of the time, whilst Senna and Prost had podium finishing rates of about 50%). From that statistical point of view, I guess that there is a sense that Piquet might have won multiple championships but, for what good those statistics can be used for, his results are not that impressive when compared to other drivers with that level of success in their careers, hence why there is something of a sense of being underwhelmed with his results.

[good_Ralf]

One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

The same could be said for 1984, as Piquet took more poles than anyone else that season (9 overall), but could only convert two of them into victories, such was the unreliability of his car. He'd have been right up in the championship battle otherwise.

So with more luck and nerve...

Brazil - Boom 1! - 4th
South Africa - Boom 2! - 1st to 2nd
Belgium - Boom 3! - 3rd
San Marino - Boom 4! - 2nd
France - Boom 5! - 6th
Monaco - Electric failure - 6th
Canada - 1st
Detroit - 1st
Dallas - Throttle - 4th
Britain - Problem - 2nd
Germany - Gearbox - 1st
Austria - 2nd
Netherlands - Boom 6! - 1st
Italy - Radiator - 1st
Europe - 3rd
Portugal - 6th

Raw Points - 86 to 89
Wins: 5 or 6
WDC: 1st

So if the Brabham was reliable in 1982 and 1984, Piquet could have been a quintuple world champion! With more titles than Senna or Prost as well!

Does anyone actually know Nelson never scored a 3 in a row victory streak?

Yep. Read it in the F1 edition of the Guinness Book of Records. Interesting stat.

[PT8475]

One thing to say about Piquet is that he did have a car that decided to blow up every minute in 1982, so he easily could have been a quadruple world champion as this was the year that no one took a stranglehold on the championship and Keke Rosberg won with a solitary win.

The same could be said for 1984, as Piquet took more poles than anyone else that season (9 overall), but could only convert two of them into victories, such was the unreliability of his car. He'd have been right up in the championship battle otherwise.

So with more luck and nerve...

Brazil - Boom 1! - 4th
South Africa - Boom 2! - 1st to 2nd
Belgium - Boom 3! - 3rd
San Marino - Boom 4! - 2nd
France - Boom 5! - 6th
Monaco - Electric failure - 6th
Canada - 1st
Detroit - 1st
Dallas - Throttle - 4th
Britain - Problem - 2nd
Germany - Gearbox - 1st
Austria - 2nd
Netherlands - Boom 6! - 1st
Italy - Radiator - 1st
Europe - 3rd
Portugal - 6th

Raw Points - 86 to 89
Wins: 5 or 6
WDC: 1st

So if the Brabham was reliable in 1982 and 1984, Piquet could have been a quintuple world champion! With more titles than Senna or Prost as well!

Does anyone actually know Nelson never scored a 3 in a row victory streak?

Yep. Read it in the F1 edition of the Guinness Book of Records. Interesting stat.

Stahp! If we keep going, we could make this list so, so long. Prost could easily have been a 5-time champion had the Monaco GP in '84 kept going to the end, Raikkonen could be a triple champ if McLarens didn't blow up, etc, but that's a part of the game. You can make that argument for ANY driver.

[Liquid]

And Piquet's last three or four victories were all fortuitous, when the cars in front decided to asplode or crash and gift him the victories.

Taking nothing away from him, of course. He was a great racer in his day. Deserved much better in 1988; that Lotus was abominable.

[good_Ralf]

Stahp! If we keep going, we could make this list so, so long. Prost could easily have been a 5-time champion had the Monaco GP in '84 kept going to the end, Raikkonen could be a triple champ if McLarens didn't blow up, etc, but that's a part of the game. You can make that argument for ANY driver.

Luckily, I've already made a thread which suggests what might have happened if some drivers had luckier seasons than they did e.g. Mika Hakkinen in 2001

[DemocalypseNow]

akin to him running around with an 'L' for Loser on his head.

aaaand now I have my own victory celebration! Thanks Pasta

[Aerospeed]

akin to him running around with an 'L' for Loser on his head.

aaaand now I have my own victory celebration! Thanks Pasta

What, you mean this?

[takagi_for_the_win]

To be fair, most people downplay Piquet Snr's achievements for the fact that he had the best machinery, but there are still two big holes in that argument.

First of all is the obvious one- its all very well having the best machinery but you have to have the ability to make your advantage count. Yes, Piquet had the best car more than once in his career, but he also won 3 world championships- the same amount as Senna, Stewart, Lauda etc. As I've said before, lucking into one championship is fairly difficult, so to luck into three of them- especially when you're up against the likes of Alan Jones, Prost, Rosberg, Senna and Mansell is nigh-on impossible.

Also, how did he get into the position of having the best machinery? If you look at his 1986 and 1987, yes it was clear that the Williams was far superior, but Piquet was picked to drive the superior cars. Teams are always looking to get the best drivers available, and a team like Williams wouldn't have paid the salary of a double world champion if they had felt he was an average driver.

Also, I can't help but feel that the huge Senna/Prost rivalry at the end of the 80's hugely overshadowed Piquets achievements somewhat, in the same way that Alonso's two titles could well be overshadowed in years to come by the Vettel dominance that we are seeing now.

[Aerospeed]

Also, I can't help but feel that the huge Senna/Prost rivalry at the end of the 80's hugely overshadowed Piquets achievements somewhat, in the same way that Alonso's two titles could well be overshadowed in years to come by the Vettel dominance that we are seeing now.

I doubt someone who ended a dominant run would be overshadowed by that... but his year in McLaren might

[Hound55]

Based on the recent discussion taking place in the Indian GP thread, I am curious as to why contemporary legendary drivers spur so much hate. Many fans are fairly critical of Vettel, particularly of his more questionable actions (Malaysia 2013, I'm looking at you), and are fairly incapable of accepting his achievements because they feel that his reputation is tarnished. This is includes the classic "he has the best car" argument, but people also feel his reputation is tarnished because of some of the things he has done. This makes me wonder if other drivers that are regarded as all time greats have experienced similar controversy. In short: do the legends of our sport need to be ruthless in order to be on the top of their game? Does this scarring of character influence their greatness? Does being the best in the world mean that you need to assert yourself over everyone else in order to maintain your dominance?

Vettel is an example that is frequently talked about here, so I won't go into it further. Shumacher, the most legendary, has had his fair share of incidents during his prime and slightly afterwords. Senna is known for his crashing into Prost in 1990 at Japan, among several other things. Alonso, although restoring his reputation these past few years with the help of Massa, Vettel, and Ferrari, was hated because of what he did to Lewis Hamilton at McLaren. Prost, quite well regarded by many F1 fans, was depicted as the antagonist to Ayrton Senna in the film Senna. While we can all agree that was unfair, as Senna was at times much worse, there must be some element of truth to their depiction of Prost as a bad guy. After all, there has been considerable controversy for his actions just one year prior to Senna's at Japan. Nelson Piquet was known for being quite a loudmouthed driver during his career.

Hakkinen is one that evades me. I can't think of any times where his racecraft was rather poor and unsavory, but I wasn't following F1 at the time. I was a wee youngin Dale Jarrett fan. There are numerous other great drivers I didn't touch on, but that's mostly because I don't know much about the racing during that time.

But what about drivers that are great, but not legendary. I don't know of any instances where Massa was really out of line. Raikkonen was out of line several times, but more in the "I am going to a party, see you guys whenever" sort of deal. Webber is known for battling back against his legendary teammate, but where are his ruthless moves? Button seems to be a nice guy all around. Only recently have I heard him act up at all, and that was because he felt Perez was being overly aggressive. What abuot Barrichello? Playing second fiddle to Shumacher took a lot out of him, sure, but where was his ruthlessness?

Maybe we just overreact when drivers that are currently dominating the sport do something incredibly daft. I know much more about Vettel being a jerk than I do Webber. Is it just the media blowing a champion's actions out of proportion, or is there some basis to the criticism?

[lgaquino]

Your post goes pretty much in the same way as the one I did yesterday on the indian gp thread (but yours is better written ). And I think it's a great topic to discuss

Is it just the media blowing a champion's actions out of proportion, or is there some basis to the criticism?

I do think there's something different nowadays. The media does blow things way out of proportion, but we've always that had (I hardly think the media was different in the 70's, for instance). However, things are so ...immediate now.
There's so much coverage about every aspect of so called celebrities, including F1 drivers, and the general people now have outlets to voice their opinions too, which intensifies things

I'm trying not to go into the "this generation is different" stereotype, but sometimes I think people feel the need to assert their opinions into others. And that generates heated discussions, where there's no pondering. Only "I absolutely love that and it's the best! [you better not disagree!]" or "I absolutely hate that and it's the worse! [you better not disagree!]"

[Jocke1]

I'm pondering if it is time for unlocking the Abu Dhabi GP Thread? I've come up with;...yes.

[UncreativeUsername37]

I'm pondering if it is time for unlocking the Abu Dhabi GP Thread? I've come up with;...yes.

Is there news about it?

[Jocke1]

I'm pondering if it is time for unlocking the Abu Dhabi GP Thread? I've come up with;...yes.

Is there news about it?

Yes, this just in: Chilton will dominate!.....................the back of the grid.

[roblo97]

I'm pondering if it is time for unlocking the Abu Dhabi GP Thread? I've come up with;...yes.

Is there news about it?

Yes, this just in: Chilton will dominate!.....................the back of the grid.

And some young men will answer some question..............on how they are looking forward to the race.

[FullMetalJack]

To be fair, most people downplay Piquet Snr's achievements for the fact that he had the best machinery, but there are still two big holes in that argument.

To be fair, the only driver who ever won the World Championship when he clearly didn't have the best car was Alain Prost in 1986, so you can't really downplay anyone's achievements in the best cars.

[Gerudo Dragon]

To be fair, the only driver who ever won the World Championship when he clearly didn't have the best car was Alain Prost in 1986, so you can't really downplay anyone's achievements in the best cars.

Either that, or Prost is the only worthy World Champion

[takagi_for_the_win]

To be fair, most people downplay Piquet Snr's achievements for the fact that he had the best machinery, but there are still two big holes in that argument.

To be fair, the only driver who ever won the World Championship when he clearly didn't have the best car was Alain Prost in 1986, so you can't really downplay anyone's achievements in the best cars.

And that's another very good point.

[pasta_maldonado]

To be fair, most people downplay Piquet Snr's achievements for the fact that he had the best machinery, but there are still two big holes in that argument.

To be fair, the only driver who ever won the World Championship when he clearly didn't have the best car was Alain Prost in 1986, so you can't really downplay anyone's achievements in the best cars.

Or Keke Rosberg in 1982, the Williams FW08 was solid but class of the field it was not.