Grand Prix Rejects

eurobrun wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Nelson Piquet Jr. deserves more a F1 seat than Di Resta, Rosberg and Senna.

With Di Resta and Senna I can see your point but Rosberg? I have absolutely no idea what you were smoking there

I would also question why you would include Rosberg in that group - although the consensus seems to be that Rosberg is not the most stunning driver on the grid, I would say that he has earned his place on the grid if you look back at his performance at Williams and Mercedes (particularly his performance at Williams back in 2009). Equally, at least Di Resta nor Bruno Senna have been quite as arrogant nor as spiteful as Piquet Jr has sometimes been in the press...

Dj_bereta wrote:Nelson Piquet Jr. deserves more a F1 seat than Di Resta, Rosberg and Senna.

Senna yes, the other two, no. Though he was always going to be the red-headed stepchild at Renault, he still managed to underpeform. He was less impressive in his time at Renault than Vitaly Petrov was at the same team over a similar timespan. Besides, he's doing fine in NASCAR, let him stay there.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Nelson Piquet Jr. deserves more a F1 seat than Di Resta, Rosberg and Senna.

Senna yes, the other two, no. Though he was always going to be the red-headed stepchild at Renault, he still managed to underpeform. He was less impressive in his time at Renault than Vitaly Petrov was at the same team over a similar timespan. Besides, he's doing fine in NASCAR, let him stay there.

He's not just doing fine, I'd say Piquet Jr.'s probably better suited for NASCAR than F1 or any form of open wheel racing. Even if he deserved a F1 seat more than Di Resta; he's now having too much success in NASCAR and is committed to championship runs in NASCAR to just go back to F1 mediocrity. Nothing short of a seat for a contending F1 team will get Piquet Jr. to leave the US racing scene now after last year, and the contenders are pretty set in their drivers right now.

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:Nelson Piquet Jr. deserves more a F1 seat than Di Resta, Rosberg and Senna.

Senna yes, the other two, no. Though he was always going to be the red-headed stepchild at Renault, he still managed to underpeform. He was less impressive in his time at Renault than Vitaly Petrov was at the same team over a similar timespan. Besides, he's doing fine in NASCAR, let him stay there.

He's not just doing fine, I'd say Piquet Jr.'s probably better suited for NASCAR than F1 or any form of open wheel racing. Even if he deserved a F1 seat more than Di Resta; he's now having too much success in NASCAR and is committed to championship runs in NASCAR to just go back to F1 mediocrity. Nothing short of a seat for a contending F1 team will get Piquet Jr. to leave the US racing scene now after last year, and the contenders are pretty set in their drivers right now.

If I hadn't seen Piquet in GP2, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but he was the only driver in 2006 that held a candle to Lewis Hamilton. That takes some talent - but, evidently, not necessarily talent that translates to F1. But regardless, as you say, he's successful in NASCAR - there's no reason for him to move because he's only getting better with experience, and there are no teams that would want him that he would even be interested in. Frankly, I think Crashgate was a blessing in disguise for him. He's done more in the last year in NASCAR than he would've in 10 years in F1.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:If I hadn't seen Piquet in GP2, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but he was the only driver in 2006 that held a candle to Lewis Hamilton. That takes some talent - but, evidently, not necessarily talent that translates to F1. But regardless, as you say, he's successful in NASCAR - there's no reason for him to move because he's only getting better with experience, and there are no teams that would want him that he would even be interested in. Frankly, I think Crashgate was a blessing in disguise for him. He's done more in the last year in NASCAR than he would've in 10 years in F1.

Sadly, it was hard to get much GP2 in the US back then. Talent is just one component of success. Jimmie Johnson didn't exactly look promising in lower levels of NASCAR with only one Nationwide Series win, two poles, and 24 top tens in 92 races. All of a sudden with the personnel supporting him and a decent car and he led the drivers in points as a rookie in 2002 before fading away to 5th in points which was his worst points finish until 2011 where his championship streak ended with a 6th. Talent can be realized or appear to fade away depending on the quality of the supporting cast and car itself. Piquet Jr. got into the right team at the right time with James Buescher (who became the 2012 Trucks Series champion) as his team mate. The Turner Motorsports trucks were strong most of the year. It speaks volumes of Piquet Jr.'s talent to become a strong contender in just his second year of oval racing experience, but his teammate didn't win until this year either. Both may be flowing with great talent, but the team was very strong.

Charles Pic is overated.

In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

I kinda agree.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

After seeing him in 2010, I'd say yes.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

Boy is he ever. He's not World Championship material, but he'd be a solid rear gunner for a top team, or a dependable team leader in the midfield.

F1 tracks in the 60s and 70s are/were way better than todays circuits and most if them could be made f1 ready circuits.

roblomas52 wrote:F1 tracks in the 60s and 70s are/were way better than todays circuits and most if them could be made f1 ready circuits.

What part of "unpopular" do you not understand? The "un" part, I guess?

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

Until this year I agreed. Now he has got a whole bunch for his performance this year where he wasn't even that impressive until the last third of the year

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:F1 tracks in the 60s and 70s are/were way better than todays circuits and most if them could be made f1 ready circuits.

What part of "unpopular" do you not understand? The "un" part, I guess?

If you want an unpopular opinion I shall give you one

The old hockenheim is better than monza and the current one is incredibly underated

roblomas52 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:F1 tracks in the 60s and 70s are/were way better than todays circuits and most if them could be made f1 ready circuits.

What part of "unpopular" do you not understand? The "un" part, I guess?

If you want an unpopular opinion I shall give you one

The old hockenheim is better than monza and the current one is incredibly underated

I don't like the old Hockenheimring, but I do like the new circuit. Regarding Monza, I have to admit that I don't really like the first half of it. It's just long straight-chicane-long straight-same chicane, the same reason the old Hockenheim sucks. After della Roggia, it gets awesome, though.

roblomas52 wrote:If you want an unpopular opinion I shall give you one

The old hockenheim is better than monza and the current one is incredibly underated

I would put the old Hockenheim on a par with Monza (they were always two races that I would look forward to equally). But the new one doesn't strike the same chord with me.

eurobrun wrote:

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

Until this year I agreed. Now he has got a whole bunch for his performance this year where he wasn't even that impressive until the last third of the year

Well, I have to agree he didn't show something special this year, but I read (not on this forum) of people saying that he is as bad as Yamamoto... and I don't really think so.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

eurobrun wrote:

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:In my opinion Vitaly Petrov is underrated.

Until this year I agreed. Now he has got a whole bunch for his performance this year where he wasn't even that impressive until the last third of the year

Well, I have to agree he didn't show something special this year, but I read (not on this forum) of people saying that he is as bad as Yamamoto... and I don't really think so.

He is a lot better that Yamamoto and definitely not a bad driver.

Now my own opinion: Nivelles-Baulers wasn't a terrible track and I would take it over at least half of todays tracks

He is a lot better that Yamamoto and definitely not a bad driver.

Yep.. and he also overperformed Kovalainen this year.

roblomas52 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:F1 tracks in the 60s and 70s are/were way better than todays circuits and most if them could be made f1 ready circuits.

What part of "unpopular" do you not understand? The "un" part, I guess?

If you want an unpopular opinion I shall give you one

The old hockenheim is better than monza and the current one is incredibly underated

The old hockenheim was a bit boring; I mean, it just had a decent first corner and motordrome entrance and three chicanes joined by long straights; the only interesting head to head fights I can remember are Berger vs Schumacher in 1994 (and that one just happened because De Cesaris and Hakkinen went berserk at the start; I bet Grosjean was watching TV that day and got his first -and favourite- driving lesson), and Katayama doing banzai against both Williams. And the other Berger vs Hill in 1996, with Hill desperately trying to pass the Benetton until the Renault engine of the Austrian exploded... The newer one is much better, even if it just has one overtaking point against three of the old. Monza is a lot more exciting than the old Hockenheim.

I always thought the old Hockenheim was just a carbon copy of Monza: Both blasts through the forest with a few chicanes inbetween.

darkapprentice77 wrote:Charles Pic is overated.

Pic is not on a good enough team to be measured as over or underrated.

Both Hockenheim - old and new - are equally bad.

FMecha wrote:Both Hockenheim - old and new - are equally bad.

Old Hockenheim wasn't a great track, but at least it was something different. New Hockenheim is probably the most anonymous track on the calendar, except South Korea maybe.

Old Hockenheim wasn't great, but the new one is even worse in my opinion.

New Hockenheim is probably the most anonymous track on the calendar, except South Korea maybe.

What about Silverstone (not how it was in the past, the present Silverstone)?

You may hate me, but I like the new Silverstone... Was it totally needed? Probably not, Silverstone was fine as it was in layout terms, but I think the new section is a bit better than the old combination, as it adds another passing spot.

The old Hockeheim track was brilliant simply because it tested the cars to the limit. Attrition is something that is severly lacking nowadays. That's what made races there interesting, because you didn't know who was gonna make it to the finish. Plus, seeing cars doing over 200mph through a forest was awe-inspiring.

The new Hockenheim is so vanilla it hurts. There's no distinguishing features whatsoever from the rest of the Tilkedromes, just a set of bog-standard hairpins and straights. Where's the challenge in that?

Aerond wrote:You may hate me, but I like the new Silverstone...

I surely don't hate someone because like a track that I don't!

East Londoner wrote:The old Hockeheim track was brilliant simply because it tested the cars to the limit. Attrition is something that is severly lacking nowadays. That's what made races there interesting, because you didn't know who was gonna make it to the finish. Plus, seeing cars doing over 200mph through a forest was awe-inspiring.

The new Hockenheim is so vanilla it hurts. There's no distinguishing features whatsoever from the rest of the Tilkedromes, just a set of bog-standard hairpins and straights. Where's the challenge in that?

I get your point; I also liked those ultra thin rear wings when Hockenheim came; but it rarely produced great races, that was its main problem. The new one could be more inspiring at sight? Probably, but still produces good racing. I think the new one, in terms of design only claims a bit more imagination after the hairpin.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

New Hockenheim is probably the most anonymous track on the calendar, except South Korea maybe.

What about Silverstone (not how it was in the past, the present Silverstone)?

Silverstone isn't anonymous at all in my opinion. I don't even dislike the new section. Silverstone managed to modernise the circuit without destroying its character, like Hockenheim.

pi314159 wrote:

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

New Hockenheim is probably the most anonymous track on the calendar, except South Korea maybe.

What about Silverstone (not how it was in the past, the present Silverstone)?

Silverstone isn't anonymous at all in my opinion. I don't even dislike the new section. Silverstone managed to modernise the circuit without destroying its character, like Hockenheim.

Spot on. The Abbey turn 1 and the section after it are brilliant to watch, and the area around the new loop and hairpin have loads of grass banking so it's great to see the cars quite close, and the views back to turn 1 are excellent as well. And you get to see Maggots/Becketts/Chapel from there too. The only problem now is the lack of a crossing over the track to the infield, there's one on the Hangar straight, and the one on the Brooklands straight, and I think one still by the old pits but that's it. They need one up at the top of the circuit near the final corner because it's a right old trek trying to get inside when you enter by the new pit straight.

East Londoner wrote:The old Hockeheim track was brilliant simply because it tested the cars to the limit. Attrition is something that is severly lacking nowadays. That's what made races there interesting, because you didn't know who was gonna make it to the finish. Plus, seeing cars doing over 200mph through a forest was awe-inspiring.

The new Hockenheim is so vanilla it hurts. There's no distinguishing features whatsoever from the rest of the Tilkedromes, just a set of bog-standard hairpins and straights. Where's the challenge in that?

As I understand things, to a certain extent you can blame the German planning regulations for the fact that the circuit is so drastically cut down.
As the regulations stand, the track owners were effectively limited to the current area that you can see now - the stadium section could not be touched in any way, whilst environmental regulations forced the owners to remove a large chunk of the old circuit and plant trees there, otherwise the local government wouldn't have provided the funding they needed to work on the circuit. If your only option is to effectively have the circuit turning back in on itself, it's hard to see what else you could do in the circumstances, especially since you have no real topography to work with either.

I actually like the modern Hockenheim, although it's partially down to the fact that on F1 2012, it's my strongest circuit.

I'd still have the classic one back though.

I wouldn't have minded as much if they didn't tear up the old track!

JeremyMcClean wrote:I wouldn't have minded as much if they didn't tear up the old track!

But the improvements and the conditions to get them required that the old track got torn up. Government, making good things even worse since... the time of Gilgamesh.

You know I'd rather have Toro Rosso go bust than have Red Bull carry on owning them indefinitely. The ideal situation would be for them to sell the team off to new, independent owners, but failing that I'd rather just have F1 without them. They are the dictionary definition of pointless, not achieving anything of note and just generally being rubbish.

The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

AndreaModa wrote:You know I'd rather have Toro Rosso go bust than have Red Bull carry on owning them indefinitely. The ideal situation would be for them to sell the team off to new, independent owners, but failing that I'd rather just have F1 without them. They are the dictionary definition of pointless, not achieving anything of note and just generally being rubbish.

I really would like Toro Rosso being sold to independant owners. I fear I'll never forgive Red Bull for turning my favourite Formula 1 team into an anonymous B-Team.

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

The difference is that Hockenheim is that old Hockenheim was a simple straight-chicane-straight, while Spa has lots of exciting corners (Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont). And also, Spa usually produces interesting races, while the old Hockenheimring didn't.

But I still prefer the old Hockenheimring to the new. I miss the cars running through the forest with 350 km/h.

pi314159 wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

The difference is that Hockenheim is that old Hockenheim was a simple straight-chicane-straight, while Spa has lots of exciting corners (Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont). And also, Spa usually produces interesting races, while the old Hockenheimring didn't.

But I still prefer the old Hockenheimring to the new. I miss the cars running through the forest with 350 km/h.

I think we all miss the old Hockenheimring. Safety made this happen as did government mandates.