Unpopular F1 opinions

[Backmarker]

Nigel Mansell won the Spanish Grand Prix the day I was born.

[tommykl]

Meanwhile, I was born 8 days after Michael Schumacher's first victory for Ferrari.

[James1978]

Carlos Reutemann won the Brazilian GP at Rio in a Ferrari 2 days before I was born which makes me a seriously old git.

In terms of the race dominations, how about Hamilton at Silverstone in 2008 when he won by over a minute? I know that was more to do with the wet but still.......

[dr-baker]

I was born on October 30 1998, just before Hakkinen's first title

That means you're almost exactly the same age as Jeroen. And considering Mr Metcalf never comes here anyone, that must make you the Youngest Forum Member.

Bloody kids. I come from a faraway place. February 1995 to be exact.

Wow, people on here don't half know how to make me feel old. January 1993 for me.

You feel old...

Heh. "Far away". By February 1995 I'd done the first of my GCSEs, and I suspect dr-b wasn't far behind.

Did Maths GCSE in 1998, all the others in 1999.

Well isn't this thread making me feel old all of a sudden

John Watson's drive to win from the back of the grid at Long Beach was the last Grand Prix to take place before I was born, Prost winning at Ricard when I was a couple of days old.

Ah, somebody who is a similar age, therefore! I was born between the German and Austrian GPs in 1982, therefore just missed out on being around during Pironi's career by days.

[roblo97]

Judging by what people are posting, this forum has a very low average age

[andrew2209]

McLaren are overrated.

In my opinion, McLaren, since Senna left, have only been the best team for 2 seasons ('98 and '07), and there were legal issues in both of those seasons. Furthermore, they have a tendency to make errors at time, with pitstops, to bad car design, and they have had spells of poor results.

[Bleu]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Which I guess brings me to why we'll probably never see this happen ever again, with the engine life restrictions and tyres the way they are, drivers are pretty much obliged to back off once fairly comfortable, which to me is the equivalent of a football team taking it easy once 2 or 3 goals up instead of pushing on and trying to smash a few more in the net.

Although part of me actually doesn't want to see this happen, since no doubt if it did we'd have the torches and pitchforks assembled immediately and more knee-jerk rules and tyre changes for the next race no doubt.

Only place how I can see this happening nowadays is that WDC and WCC is sealed early. So Vettel could well have tried it in late 2011.

[Hound55]

One of these days I'd just love to see a driver - any driver, whether I support, loathe or am indifferent to them - completely hook it together and completely destroy the opposition - by which I mean completely checking out and winning by the best part of a lap. The last one that springs to mind immediately (although there are probably others more recent) is Montoya at Hockenheim in '03, there are probably a few Schumacher ones although it seemed that half the time he'd go in cruise control once he was clear.

Which I guess brings me to why we'll probably never see this happen ever again, with the engine life restrictions and tyres the way they are, drivers are pretty much obliged to back off once fairly comfortable, which to me is the equivalent of a football team taking it easy once 2 or 3 goals up instead of pushing on and trying to smash a few more in the net.

Although part of me actually doesn't want to see this happen, since no doubt if it did we'd have the torches and pitchforks assembled immediately and more knee-jerk rules and tyre changes for the next race no doubt.

Only place how I can see this happening nowadays is that WDC and WCC is sealed early. So Vettel could well have tried it in late 2011.

And it really wouldn't be a straight fight. After all, 2nd place would probably back off once they saw the lead car dominate by a significant margin.

[dr-baker]

After all, 2nd place would probably back off once they saw the lead car dominate by a significant margin.

Adelaide 1995. Damon Hill had a 2-LAP advantage, Olivier Panis (in 2nd) had a self-detonating engine, yet had to push on thanks to Gianni Morbedelli pushing on.

[takagi_for_the_win]

McLaren are overrated.

In my opinion, McLaren, since Senna left, have only been the best team for 2 seasons ('98 and '07), and there were legal issues in both of those seasons. Furthermore, they have a tendency to make errors at time, with pitstops, to bad car design, and they have had spells of poor results.

Certainly, since Ron Dennis left, they haven't looked the same, pissing away both titles last year, and managing to get rid of McLewis himself. However, for some of the other charges you level at them, two don't ring true. First, "have only been the best for 2 seasons ('98 and '07)- for the second half of 1997, they were one of the top 2 teams, 1999, for good spells in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008 and last year, they were the top team. And another thing you accuse them of: "bad car design"- again, in the second half of 1997, the Macca was one of the top 2. Their 1999 car was class of the field. Their 2000 car was undoubtedly quicker than the Ferrari, it was poor reliability that cost them the title. In the second half of 2004, they had one of the top 3 quickest cars. In 2005, their car was so much quicker at times it was embarrasing, same for '07, '08 and last year.

[roblo97]

McLaren are overrated.

In my opinion, McLaren, since Senna left, have only been the best team for 2 seasons ('98 and '07), and there were legal issues in both of those seasons. Furthermore, they have a tendency to make errors at time, with pitstops, to bad car design, and they have had spells of poor results.

Certainly, since Ron Dennis left, they haven't looked the same, pissing away both titles last year, and managing to get rid of McLewis himself. However, for some of the other charges you level at them, two don't ring true. First, "have only been the best for 2 seasons ('98 and '07)- for the second half of 1997, they were one of the top 2 teams, 1999, for good spells in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008 and last year, they were the top team. And another thing you accuse them of: "bad car design"- again, in the second half of 1997, the Macca was one of the top 2. Their 1999 car was class of the field. Their 2000 car was undoubtedly quicker than the Ferrari, it was poor reliability that cost them the title. In the second half of 2004, they had one of the top 3 quickest cars. In 2005, their car was so much quicker at times it was embarrasing, same for '07, '08 and last year.

McLaren are shite. Period


The reasons have all been stated above so I can't really add more to it I'm afraid

[takagi_for_the_win]

McLaren are shite. Period

They're the second most successful team in the history of the sport, so the 'period' at the end of your statement is unjustified. Also, over the last 3 seasons, only Red Bull have won more races. Being second only to this Red Bull team in races won is hardly the mark of a 'shite' team.

[Salamander]

McLaren are shite. Period

They aren't as good as the British media makes them out to be, but calling them shite reeks of ignorance. Even in the 2 races run so far this year, Button was doing well enough in Malaysia that he could've threatened the Mercedes' for 3rd. That's hardly shite by any stretch of the imagination.

[Ataxia]

McLaren are shite. Period

They aren't as good as the British media makes them out to be, but calling them shite reeks of ignorance. Even in the 2 races run so far this year, Button was doing well enough in Malaysia that he could've threatened the Mercedes' for 3rd. That's hardly shite by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't rise to it chaps, he's not got the hang of "engage brain before fingers" yet.

[takagi_for_the_win]

Don't rise to it chaps, he's not got the hang of "engage brain before fingers" yet.

To be frank, I think it's more a case of him trying to increase his post count more than anything.

[Salamander]

Don't rise to it chaps, he's not got the hang of "engage brain before fingers" yet.

To be frank, I think it's more a case of him trying to increase his post count more than anything.

Can't it be both?

[FullMetalJack]

Don't rise to it chaps, he's not got the hang of "engage brain before fingers" yet.

To be frank, I think it's more a case of him trying to increase his post count more than anything.

Isn't that what the Word Association Thread was for? I don't know as I never posted in it.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Don't rise to it chaps, he's not got the hang of "engage brain before fingers" yet.

To be frank, I think it's more a case of him trying to increase his post count more than anything.

Isn't that what the Word Association Thread was for? I don't know as I never posted in it.

And for getting controversial opinions out without people yelling at you.

[roblo97]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

[dr-baker]

If McLaren are merde, I would like to know what that makes the rest of the grid that are not Red Bull or Ferrari (or what Williams were in the 1980s and 1990s)... Or, say, Andrea Moda or Mastercard Lola!

[Salamander]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

Please explain how this makes McLaren shite.

[takagi_for_the_win]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

By that logic, you could call every team in the history of the sport (possibly bar Brawn) shite

[roblo97]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

By that logic, you could call every team in the history of the sport (possibly bar Brawn) shite

Because no team is without its flaws

[pasta_maldonado]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

By that logic, you could call every team in the history of the sport (possibly bar Brawn) shite

Because no team is without its flaws

So basically what you've done whilst attempting to prove your logic, disproved it. You're saying McLaren are shite because of all the mistakes they've made over the last 15 years, yet when pushed further say that McLaren are shite because every team isn't a team without its flaws?

[dr-baker]

By that logic, you could call every team in the history of the sport (possibly bar Brawn) shite

Because no team is without its flaws

So basically what you've done whilst attempting to prove your logic, disproved it. You're saying McLaren are shite because of all the mistakes they've made over the last 15 years, yet when pushed further say that McLaren are shite because every team isn't a team without its flaws?

Well, it has certainly proved to be an unpopular opinion! But I like the logic, implying that Ferrari are also merda. Because that I would like to believe (albeit only throughout the Schumacher era!).

[Salamander]

Yes its all well and good having The faster car on the grid but if it isn't reliable, it won't win the title
Here is MY thoughts on every McLaren since 2005(my first full season)
2005: fast but chronically unreliable.
2006: birthday celebrations by failing to win a race
2007: spygate
2008: fast but still lost constructors to Ferrari
2009: quite poor from what I can remember
2010: see above
2011:buttons win in Canada highlight of the season
2012: see 2005
2013: ???

Please note that this is from memory and is probably wrong

By that logic, you could call every team in the history of the sport (possibly bar Brawn) shite

Because no team is without its flaws

This is true. It still doesn't prove your point about McLaren being shite, but at this point I think we can take it as given that you were just pulling shite out of your ass without anything to back it up whatsoever.

[mario]

Whilst I would not agree with the notion that McLaren are as bad as some have posted, there is perhaps a debate that could be had about whether McLaren have under delivered.

Whilst McLaren are statistically quite a successful team, having won 25% of all the races they have participated in (and, with the exception of 2009, their win rate in the past five years has actually been above 25%), they have struggled to convert that individual success into titles (they've only won the constructors title 17% of the time).
True, they have been in the top three constructors pretty consistently for the past decade, and some might argue that they might have been more successful if they'd perhaps been a little more careful with their driver choice (I think that picking Montoya was a mistake because his mindset was so different to that of the team, we saw how the team couldn't manage the Alonso-Hamilton pairing and although Kovalainen, by his own admission, struggled to adapt to the car and the working environment, it does seem that perhaps the team could have also tried adapting their approach when working with him).

Still, the team have generally been one of the better funded teams on the grid - whilst Ferrari have generally had a larger budget, that has been partially offset by the higher overheads that come with producing engines in house (whereas McLaren has had their engines for free from Mercedes HPE until this year), and McLaren's facilities are, in some areas, more modern than Ferrari's because Ferrari traditionally relied so heavily on track testing, which is now heavily restricted, whereas McLaren tended to rely more heavily on simulation work, where the restrictions are considerably laxer by contrast.
Even now the team is not exactly poor - their last set of account, according to the BBC, indicated they had a budget of £160 million to work with, which is still one of the largest in the field (Red Bull, Ferrari and reportedly Mercedes spent more, although the claims about the latter seem to include the expenditure on Mercedes HPE, which skews the figures since some of that money, indirectly, was effectively being used to subsidise McLaren's engine bills). OK, budgets alone don't guarantee success - Toyota and Honda had relatively poor returns for their heavy expenditure, whilst Renault were able to pick up both the WCC and WDC twice despite reportedly having a smaller budget than either Ferrari or McLaren - but development work and continuous investment in new facilities doesn't come cheap.

Now, it is perhaps fair to say that, in some ways, the problems McLaren have had have come from outside - Mercedes's engines have, at times, proven to be a weak link, although ostensibly they've had a slight advantage over Ferrari in recent years (Ferrari's engine reportedly having slightly higher fuel consumption but the same power output as the Mercedes engine), and there were times when, arguably, Michelin (during the tyre war era) were behind Bridgestone in terms of development or were accused of favouring Renault over McLaren (I'm pretty sure Newey complained that Michelin was providing preferential treatment to Renault, especially in 2006, which was hurting the other teams). They're not a bad team by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps they've not quite had the success that you would expect either given their resources and staff over the past couple of decades.

[AndreaModa]

And I suppose, when you properly consider it, McLaren have only had one real period of dominant success, that being the 1980s/early 90s on the back of the TAG and then Honda engine supplies and some of the finest drivers the sport has ever seen. Once the factory engines went away, and the same with the drivers their form diminished, and which has only been tempered since thanks to the partnership with Mercedes and some decent drivers, notably Hakkinen. But even then, Mercedes haven't always been on top of their game, and some of McLaren's driver choices have left a lot to be desired. Kovalainen for example, whilst a pretty good all-round driver, couldn't hold a candle to Hamilton and with Ferrari's form in 2008, probably cost McLaren the constructors' title that year.

In my view, ever since Senna and the Honda engines left McLaren, they've never quite had the cutting edge they once did. They've had their moments, of which the late 90s was the most prominent, but never the consistent dominance that characterised their relationship with Lauda, Prost and then Senna from the mid 80s onwards.

[TheBigJ]

This thread should be in the Paul Stoddart Forum

[Gerudo Dragon]

This thread should be in the Paul Stoddart Forum

Paul Stoddart forum is meant to be for current events in F1, but there are some threads that don't really belong there like the caption thread or the Alex Wurz conspiracy thread...

[TheBigJ]

Put in the Delatraz forum then but it seems out of place here and most of the convos are either about current F1 affairs or f1 history.

[Gerudo Dragon]

Alboreto deserved the 1985 WDC more than Prost.

[Salamander]

Alboreto deserved the 1985 WDC more than Prost.

While I agree that Alboreto did a heroic job to haul himself into title contention, I think Alain Prost, after missing out on championships that he could've won 3 years in a row, deserved to win the 1985 title just as much if not more.

[Aerospeed]

Alboreto deserved the 1985 WDC more than Prost.

While I agree that Alboreto did a heroic job to haul himself into title contention, I think Alain Prost, after missing out on championships that he could've won 3 years in a row, deserved to win the 1985 title just as much if not more.

If anything, Prost deserved the '84 championship on the account that had Monaco been counted for full points, he would have had enough points to surpass Lauda...

[FullMetalJack]

Alboreto deserved the 1985 WDC more than Prost.

While I agree that Alboreto did a heroic job to haul himself into title contention, I think Alain Prost, after missing out on championships that he could've won 3 years in a row, deserved to win the 1985 title just as much if not more.

If anything, Prost deserved the '84 championship on the account that had Monaco been counted for full points, he would have had enough points to surpass Lauda...

He deserved the '88 championship too, as he had enough points to beat Senna. But for some reason not all results counted back then, I don't know why.

[Klon]

If anything, Prost deserved the '84 championship on the account that had Monaco been counted for full points, he would have had enough points to surpass Lauda...

He deserved the '88 championship too, as he had enough points to beat Senna. But for some reason not all results counted back then, I don't know why.

He also deserved the '90 championship, for that stunt in Suzuka should have gotten Senna at least disqualified from the championship, if not jailed.

[Salamander]

If anything, Prost deserved the '84 championship on the account that had Monaco been counted for full points, he would have had enough points to surpass Lauda...

He deserved the '88 championship too, as he had enough points to beat Senna. But for some reason not all results counted back then, I don't know why.

He also deserved the '90 championship, for that stunt in Suzuka should have gotten Senna at least disqualified from the championship, if not jailed.

He also deserved the '83 championship, given that he was in a position to win it in the last race when his turbo failed. (which was admittedly a rare occurrence that year)

[Londoner]

I dare say Prost could have won in 1982 as well, if that Renault had been slightly more reliable and Rene Arnoux had agreed to let Prost through for the win at Paul Ricard that year. He was only 10 points adrift of Rosberg in the final standings that year.

So, we're potentially looking at a 9-time world champion.

[takagi_for_the_win]

I dare say Prost could have won in 1982 as well, if that Renault had been slightly more reliable and Rene Arnoux had agreed to let Prost through for the win at Paul Ricard that year. He was only 10 points adrift of Rosberg in the final standings that year.

So, we're potentially looking at a 9-time world champion.

Which is pretty incredible, when you consider when he won his final title, the F1 championship had been around for 44 full seasons. 9 titles out of 44. Pretty remarkable, all things considered.

[DanielPT]

Since we are at it, Schumacher could have won at least another one, since 1999 was to be his year if not for that broken leg. 1997 was very contentious but had he not decided for that idiotic manoeuvre then we don't know what could have happened. Who knows if Villeneuve would have pushed his car into breaking down.

Now going with Jim Clark, well, besides his three titles he should have won 1962 had he not retired from the lead in the final race. He should have also won 1964 if his engine had not given up in the penultimate lap, causing him to retire from the lead yet again. Finally, 1968 would have been yet another Jim Clark year had he survived it (he won the first race) since Graham Hill, his team-mate, went on to win the championship. That should have been at least 6 for Jim.