Unpopular F1 opinions

[Nuppiz]

The Swiss have lifted the ban. In 2007

They didn't.

[Aerospeed]

The Swiss have lifted the ban. In 2007

They didn't.

Honestly, why do we need a track in Switzerland when there are tracks in Belgium, France and Austria that fit the bill nicely?

[Salamander]

The Swiss have lifted the ban. In 2007

They didn't.

Honestly, why do we need a track in Switzerland when there are tracks in Belgium, France and Austria that fit the bill nicely?

Exactly.

[go_Rubens]

Unsure how unpopular it is, but I actually really like the current formula as it is now.

Quite honestly, I do kinda like the formula now but there can be improvements to the formula.

An unpopular (or not) opinion here: The new regs in 2014 can see really great on track action.

What improvements would you have suggested to the current formula? And I confess I have spent very little time as of yet researching the 2014 regs due to final year exams. When I look at some of the slightly insane regulations that F1 has had in the past (in my mind the best x results of the 80s which IIRC cost Prost a championship), or my personal pet peeve of grooved tyres, it does seem like there is quite a nice balance currently.

I think that the wings on the cars should be made smaller, so hopefully the cars can draft well enough to eliminate DRS and make KERS be either unlimited or around 10 to 15 seconds. The platypus noses need to disappear, even with the vanity covers. And I'd bring back the unlimited V8s or rev-limited V10s, but trying to increase efficiency for both engines by reducing some of the power. Some of this is in the "Your Dream Formula 1" thread.

[roblo97]

More reliance on underbody aerodynamics I.E remove the plank.


Now for my one.
The circuit Giles Vilneruve was better in 1979 than it is now

[Salamander]

More reliance on underbody aerodynamics I.E remove the plank.


Now for my one.
The circuit Giles Vilneruve was better in 1979 than it is now

.... pretty sure it wasn't. The home straight was full of kinks which made overtaking much more difficult than it needed to be. Plus, I'm pretty sure back then they still had the crappy pits right on the exit of the hairpin.

[go_Rubens]

More reliance on underbody aerodynamics I.E remove the plank.


Now for my one.
The circuit Giles Vilneruve was better in 1979 than it is now

.... pretty sure it wasn't. The home straight was full of kinks which made overtaking much more difficult than it needed to be. Plus, I'm pretty sure back then they still had the crappy pits right on the exit of the hairpin.

They had that until the early '80s. Wasn't it '83 when they removed the pits at the hairpin or am I mistaken?

[ibsey]

More reliance on underbody aerodynamics I.E remove the plank.


Now for my one.
The circuit Giles Vilneruve was better in 1979 than it is now

.... pretty sure it wasn't. The home straight was full of kinks which made overtaking much more difficult than it needed to be. Plus, I'm pretty sure back then they still had the crappy pits right on the exit of the hairpin.

They had that until the early '80s. Wasn't it '83 when they removed the pits at the hairpin or am I mistaken?

In 1987, the race was not held due to sponsorship dispute between two local breweries, Labatt and Molson.[3] During the break the track was modified, and starting line moved to its current position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_G ... present.29



Also agree with BlindCaveSalamander in that the final straight & pits straight was too full of kinks making overtaking much more difficult than it needed to be. Here's the old circuit layout;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montreal_1979.jpg

Also recently drove the old circuit on rFactor, and just found the old Montreal track a bit to tiresome with the amount of left & right corners, which IMO seemed quite similar to one another. Again IMO, somehow today's Montreal track has a nicer flow to drive. And a nicer challenge, like for example trying to go that extra meter deeper in those massive braking zones like the last chicane. Or straight lining the chicane itself. Although having said that, that fast right, left, right curves just after the old pits were great, which also produced some great racing. Prost showing us what a great & brave racer he can be here;

http://www.f1archives.com/blog/archives/canada86gp

(See 6:00 minutes into the video)


And Johansson talking us through a couple of overtaking moves on that section here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH6cNwEF5fY

(see 2.50 onwards...also loving the 'reject' moment from Andrea De Cesaris @ 2.12 mintues )

[go_Rubens]

More reliance on underbody aerodynamics I.E remove the plank.


Now for my one.
The circuit Giles Vilneruve was better in 1979 than it is now

I haven't given my opinion yet, so:

.... pretty sure it wasn't. The home straight was full of kinks which made overtaking much more difficult than it needed to be. Plus, I'm pretty sure back then they still had the crappy pits right on the exit of the hairpin.

That says it all.

[SgtPepper]

- KERS is actually a positive addition to F1, due to its tactical nature and applicability to modern road cars in a time when F1 rarely innovates like it used to. However it often seems lumped in with new regulations, like DRS, and dismissed.

- Even DRS has the potential to be a positive force if it was massively reduced (i.e to merely give a hundred yards to allow the following car to draw up alongside the leading car, or limit the DRS time open to around 2 seconds), although obviously the current situation is pretty hopeless and given the choice I'd say it's best not in the formula at all.

- I resent that criticising Vettel has become cliched by the rabid Alonso fandom, and at most he's the 4th best driver on the grid - however to say so has become taboo because a driver winning due to the strength of a car is detrimental to the 'sporting' aspect of F1.

- Button's not actually that bad, although his attitude to Perez this year on track has been pretty pathetic.

- I genuinely don't grasp why people dislike Di Resta so much, and I would've liked to see him in the second Mclaren seat.

- I'm quietly glad Mercedes had the secret/not secret (depending on who you believe) test and hope that it helps them bring the championship fight to the soft-drinks company. As a sub-point, I have my suspicions Hamilton was somehow aware that the 2013 Mclaren would be poor, and jumped ship.

- Mclaren needs Ron Dennis back, and I also miss Flavio purely because he was such a character.

- I tend to feel that people look at the 90s through slightly rose-tinted glasses, and that if there was a 'golden era' of F1, it was Prost-Senna at Mclaren, and the late 2000s.

[Aerospeed]

Martin Whitmarsh should get the sack. That is all

[Salamander]

- I genuinely don't grasp why people dislike Di Resta so much, and I would've liked to see him in the second Mclaren seat.

Because di Resta is far too arrogant for someone who's had 3, 4 good races so far in his career.

- Mclaren needs Ron Dennis back, and I also miss Flavio purely because he was such a character.

I'm gonna say that returning Ron Dennis to the helm won't help McLaren. The team has underperformed to some degree every year since 1999, when Dennis was in charge. The team needs a new general outlook. Maybe with Whitmarsh, maybe without, just so long as they get a new direction and way of thinking.

[Shadaza]

Of the 4 backmarker drivers (Bianchi, Chilton, Pic, Van de Garde) I would rate Pic as the least impressive at the moment.

Bianchi is obviously the best of the four and deserves a higher tier car for sure. (Not unpopular)
Whilst Chilton and Van de Garde has shown excellent improvement of form over the last few races, with Chilton looking particularly good in the wet weather.

Pic on the other hand has a full season of F1 under his belt and though clearly not as error prone as the other 3, doesn't seem to be getting any faster, particularly in qualifying. In Barcelona and Monaco, two tracks Van de Garde knows just as well as Pic, the Dutchman was clearly the faster driver all weekend!

[Onxy Wrecked]

Of the 4 backmarker drivers (Bianchi, Chilton, Pic, Van de Garde) I would rate Pic as the least impressive at the moment.

Bianchi is obviously the best of the four and deserves a higher tier car for sure. (Not unpopular)
Whilst Chilton and Van de Garde has shown excellent improvement of form over the last few races, with Chilton looking particularly good in the wet weather.

Pic on the other hand has a full season of F1 under his belt and though clearly not as error prone as the other 3, doesn't seem to be getting any faster, particularly in qualifying. In Barcelona and Monaco, two tracks Van de Garde knows just as well as Pic, the Dutchman was clearly the faster driver all weekend!

The only good thing about Max Chilton is that he's good in the wet, but still lags far behind Bianchi and even Pic.

[Alextrax52]

Of the 4 backmarker drivers (Bianchi, Chilton, Pic, Van de Garde) I would rate Pic as the least impressive at the moment.

Bianchi is obviously the best of the four and deserves a higher tier car for sure. (Not unpopular)
Whilst Chilton and Van de Garde has shown excellent improvement of form over the last few races, with Chilton looking particularly good in the wet weather.

Pic on the other hand has a full season of F1 under his belt and though clearly not as error prone as the other 3, doesn't seem to be getting any faster, particularly in qualifying. In Barcelona and Monaco, two tracks Van de Garde knows just as well as Pic, the Dutchman was clearly the faster driver all weekend!

The only good thing about Max Chilton is that he's good in the wet, but still lags far behind Bianchi and even Pic.

I think Chilton is worse than Van der Garde as well because GVDG has made Q2 Chilton hasn't broken into the top 19 in qualifying on pure speed. I think i'm the only one who says Van der Garde is not crap

[Ataxia]

Of the 4 backmarker drivers (Bianchi, Chilton, Pic, Van de Garde) I would rate Pic as the least impressive at the moment.

Bianchi is obviously the best of the four and deserves a higher tier car for sure. (Not unpopular)
Whilst Chilton and Van de Garde has shown excellent improvement of form over the last few races, with Chilton looking particularly good in the wet weather.

Pic on the other hand has a full season of F1 under his belt and though clearly not as error prone as the other 3, doesn't seem to be getting any faster, particularly in qualifying. In Barcelona and Monaco, two tracks Van de Garde knows just as well as Pic, the Dutchman was clearly the faster driver all weekend!

The only good thing about Max Chilton is that he's good in the wet, but still lags far behind Bianchi and even Pic.

I think Chilton is worse than Van der Garde as well because GVDG has made Q2 Chilton hasn't broken into the top 19 in qualifying on pure speed. I think i'm the only one who says Van der Garde is not crap

You're not. I don't think that's the sole reason why I'd suggest van der Garde was better than Chilton, but I'll try and give my take on things.

Firstly, van der Garde is a driver that's proven over the course of a few seasons that he's certainly a driver who can do a good job in F1. Never a great job, but his GP2 results point to an able driver. He and Pic were teammates together at Barwa Addax in 2011, and although the scoreboard suggests Pic had the upper hand the reality was they were quite evenly matched. However, right now I'd accept that Pic is the better driver.

Giedo doesn't exactly deserve the flak he got from Mark Webber, which I've alluded to in the past. I think the "paydriver" tag is one that's thoroughly misleading; although the sponsorship is a good reason to take vdG on, the word "paydriver" evokes an image of a driver with little prior experience or proof of talent. Because there's a greater majority of casual fans, it's an image we're most exposed to by the media which the average casual fan will take in.

I do think Chilton isn't a driver who is quite as good as van der Garde, but he's still proven that he's a very good driver. He had a rather inauspicious 2011 with Carlin, but one might suggest that they were an outfit not quite as prepared as they are now. He easily saw off Haryanto who was highly rated by many (but has definitely gone into decline somewhat; not sure if the fault of the driver or Barwa Addax) and managed a pair of wins.

It's very hard to decipher what the talent levels each driver has at the back of the grid, because a) there's two evenly matched teams there, b) we don't get the full coverage at the back, so if a Caterham/Marussia beats a more "established" runner such as a Williams, we're not entirely sure of the circumstances around that Williams and c) almost all of the forays into Q2 have been weather affected, so it requires the individual's discretion whether or not the abnormally high grid slot is the result of that or of a gutsy drive.

I think that the current 4 drivers permanently lodged in Q1 are very good F1 drivers, and the grid we have currently houses some of the most all-round talent. We admittedly don't have a real bright star at the moment, but on the flipside we have no drivers who are classed as 'inept' or 'not-worthy'.

To end back where I started, Giedo van der Garde is certainly not a bad driver. I definitely think he's a safer pair of hands than, say, Gutierrez...but he's not a top-level driver by any stretch. I think most criticism of him is unfair, and based solely on the fact that he brings some money.

I vote we remove the tag of "paydriver" for drivers that have proved themselves in a lower category, and replace it with "financially-incentivised racer".

[SgtPepper]

Because di Resta is far too arrogant for someone who's had 3, 4 good races so far in his career.

Fair enough.

I'm gonna say that returning Ron Dennis to the helm won't help McLaren. The team has underperformed to some degree every year since 1999, when Dennis was in charge. The team needs a new general outlook. Maybe with Whitmarsh, maybe without, just so long as they get a new direction and way of thinking.

I think at the very least bringing Dennis back would help push them through these rather hopeless times. Whitmarsh is clearly a smart man, but the general consensus is that he lacks focus and leadership, and really seems to want to avoid treading on toes - if a new direction was found, at least the team would be steered more concisely with Dennis back. Surely?

[Salamander]

I'm gonna say that returning Ron Dennis to the helm won't help McLaren. The team has underperformed to some degree every year since 1999, when Dennis was in charge. The team needs a new general outlook. Maybe with Whitmarsh, maybe without, just so long as they get a new direction and way of thinking.

I think at the very least bringing Dennis back would help push them through these rather hopeless times. Whitmarsh is clearly a smart man, but the general consensus is that he lacks focus and leadership, and really seems to want to avoid treading on toes - if a new direction was found, at least the team would be steered more concisely with Dennis back. Surely?

Maybe, but turning to the past for an answer to the future seems... backwards to me. Dennis might be able to steer the team more precisely, but I think McLaren's situation requires a new outlook, and I'm not sure Dennis can provide that.

[go_Rubens]

I'm gonna say that returning Ron Dennis to the helm won't help McLaren. The team has underperformed to some degree every year since 1999, when Dennis was in charge. The team needs a new general outlook. Maybe with Whitmarsh, maybe without, just so long as they get a new direction and way of thinking.

I think at the very least bringing Dennis back would help push them through these rather hopeless times. Whitmarsh is clearly a smart man, but the general consensus is that he lacks focus and leadership, and really seems to want to avoid treading on toes - if a new direction was found, at least the team would be steered more concisely with Dennis back. Surely?

Maybe, but turning to the past for an answer to the future seems... backwards to me. Dennis might be able to steer the team more precisely, but I think McLaren's situation requires a new outlook, and I'm not sure Dennis can provide that.

Agreed. If McLaren are to proceed back to winning ways, they need a new outlook on how to steer themselves back to podiums, wins, and championships. It seems that Whitnarsh wants things to happen his way, but that won't happen with the team being run as is.

[Onxy Wrecked]

I think Chilton is worse than Van der Garde as well because GVDG has made Q2 Chilton hasn't broken into the top 19 in qualifying on pure speed. I think i'm the only one who says Van der Garde is not crap

Until Van der Garde finishes a race after his qualifying runs that are that strong, I'll consider him little more than a single lap wonder in a couple races. Has the upside to be decent someday, but when he put both a strong run in qualifying and in the race together?

[Gerudo Dragon]

I still like Mark Webber.

[Salamander]

I still like Mark Webber.

So do I, but I think it would be best for him if he left F1 and went back to Le Mans. He's clearly not enjoying it as much anymore.

[AdrianSutil]

I still like Mark Webber.

So do I, but I think it would be best for him if he left F1 and went back to Le Mans. He's clearly not enjoying it as much anymore.

Agreed. He just doesn't seem totally motivated anymore.

@Ataxia. That post above explaining the backmarkers is probably the best explanation given by a member about them. I agreed with everything you said.

[go_Rubens]

The FOM should run the whole aspect of F1. The FIA have made themselves (or have been) a farce of an organization since the Mercedes and Pirelli controversy broke out.

[SgtPepper]

Maybe, but turning to the past for an answer to the future seems... backwards to me. Dennis might be able to steer the team more precisely, but I think McLaren's situation requires a new outlook, and I'm not sure Dennis can provide that.

I understand exactly what you're saying in the sense that Dennis returning appears regressive at first glance - however, surely strong leadership, respect within the team (witness the chaos at Red Bull in terms of discipline under the leadership of Mr Horner OBE) can never be regressive? That surely it's wiser to stick to a tried and tested formula with a boss that is, at least from where I'm standing, widely respected and not to be crossed.

For example, the 2013 car seemed strong in testing, IIRC due to the ride height/fuel load combo - yet it ended up a dog. I somehow suspect Dennis would have brought back the far superior 2012 car after dire results in the first race or two, and openly said why - proceeding to put the 2013 back in the wind tunnel. With Whitmarsh, it's too much of a PR nightmare to admit the 2013 is rubbish (as a side-note, does anyone ever wonder where Hamilton or Alonso could put it on the grid?) and consequently ploughs on, spouting double-speak. Maybe I sound harsh, and maybe I'm completely wrong, but I just feel that there's a reason Dennis is part of the old guard.

However, what would you suggest to renew the team? Personally I'd like to see someone else in Perez's seat for a start.

I still like Mark Webber.

We all do.

[pi314159]

The FOM should run the whole aspect of F1. The FIA have made themselves (or have been) a farce of an organization since the Mercedes and Pirelli controversy broke out.

FOM, no, FOM and CVC are doing their best to destroy Formula 1 even without controlling the rules. They give top teams better conditions, while midfielders and backmarkers struggle to survive. They just care about making money, without looking after the long-term future of the sport.

While the FIA's reaction to the Mercedes/Pirelli controversity is quite farcial, I'm sure the FIA is still doing a much better job than FOM would ever do.

I have another unpopular opinion: I think Formula 1 needs Sauber and Williams more than Mercedes and Red Bull.

[TomWazzleshaw]

The FOM should run the whole aspect of F1. The FIA have made themselves (or have been) a farce of an organization since the Mercedes and Pirelli controversy broke out.

FOM, no, FOM and CVC are doing their best to destroy Formula 1 even without controlling the rules. They give top teams better conditions, while midfielders and backmarkers struggle to survive. They just care about making money, without looking after the long-term future of the sport.

Blame Bernie for that. From memoy, the convoluted deal between CVC, FOM and Bernie means that CVC ended up with a lot of debts to pay off, which Bernie is trying to pay off with the exuberant race fees for places like Aba Dabby and Bahrain.

[mario]

The FOM should run the whole aspect of F1. The FIA have made themselves (or have been) a farce of an organization since the Mercedes and Pirelli controversy broke out.

FOM, no, FOM and CVC are doing their best to destroy Formula 1 even without controlling the rules. They give top teams better conditions, while midfielders and backmarkers struggle to survive. They just care about making money, without looking after the long-term future of the sport.

While the FIA's reaction to the Mercedes/Pirelli controversity is quite farcial, I'm sure the FIA is still doing a much better job than FOM would ever do.

I have another unpopular opinion: I think Formula 1 needs Sauber and Williams more than Mercedes and Red Bull.

On your first point, I would also be concerned about handing over control of the sport to FOM - their long term interests are not beneficial to the sport, and in some instances rather damaging (such as their desire to downsize the grid to cut the payments they make to the teams). Yes, the FIA might be farcical at times, but would it be more attractive to replace them with an organisation that is highly biased towards the top four teams?

On your second point, the sport does need independent organisations like Sauber and Williams as much as the major manufacturers and sponsors in order to maintain a stable grid and provide avenues for new drivers and designers to be able to enter the sport and develop. You need some other body outside of the manufacturer outfits to help stimulate the grid and paddock with new talent, and the midfield independent teams are often the best outfits to do that.
It's one reason why I am concerned about the larger teams effectively placing their chosen proteges in smaller teams in recent years, since it is cutting off those who rise through the junior driver ranks without backing from an existing team. Similarly, a number of the major designers in F1 are not exactly that young either - Newey is in his mid 50's and Oatley in his late 50's, for example - and you need opportunities for aspiring designers to be able to step into a smaller outfit and make their mark in the sport. James Key, for example, is quite highly rated for his abilities, but it was only because he got a break in Jordan that he was able to enter the sport at all - remove that mechanism for designers to enter the sport, and the talent pool is going to start shrinking.

[go_Rubens]

The F1 talent pool has been shrinking since GP2 started. Look at the drivers in GP2 and some in F1 today. I've said enough.

[Salamander]

The idolization of Ayrton Senna, in particular his driving style, is detrimental to Formula 1.

[roblo97]

The idolization of Ayrton Senna, in particular his driving style, is detrimental to Formula 1.

Seconded

[Faustus]

The idolization of Ayrton Senna, in particular his driving style, is detrimental to Formula 1.

Seconded

+1

[dr-baker]

The idolization of Ayrton Senna, in particular his driving style, is detrimental to Formula 1.

Seconded

+1

Particularly when Alain Prost was on a par, and he is not generally held as high a regard, despite having more wins and titles.

[CoopsII]

Particularly when Alain Prost was on a par, and he is not generally held as high a regard, despite having more wins and titles.

Based on some of the criteria often cited on these lovely pages Alain Prost was undeserving of the 1993 WDC therefore they both had the same amount of 'earned' titles

[good_Ralf]

Based on some of the criteria often cited on these lovely pages Alain Prost was undeserving of the 1993 WDC therefore they both had the same amount of 'earned' titles

Then who desreved the 1993 title? If Senna did then he would have had four 'earned' titles to Prost's three so they still wouldn't have the same number.

[CoopsII]

Based on some of the criteria often cited on these lovely pages Alain Prost was undeserving of the 1993 WDC therefore they both had the same amount of 'earned' titles

Then who desreved the 1993 title? If Senna did then he would have had four 'earned' titles to Prost's three so they still wouldn't have the same number.

Im just highlighting the absurdity of the 'Underserving Champion' nonsense that often pollutes the pages, particulary recently when Vettel has been doing a Prost '93 by beating others in the best car.

[Ataxia]

The F1 talent pool has been shrinking since GP2 started. Look at the drivers in GP2 and some in F1 today. I've said enough.

Are you kidding me? Since we've had GP2, we've had some top, top drivers coming into F1. Kubica and Vettel came into F1 from FR3.5, and from GP2 we've had Hamilton, Rosberg, Grosjean, Kobayashi, Hulkenberg and Perez to name but a few. Try telling me that they're not talents.

Despite GP2 coming in for criticism, I think F1 is much richer for it. If F3000 had carried on, then there's no way we'd have the insanely talented grid we have today, as the series was in its death throes...especially with a grid like this.

And this season, we've got a ton of F1-worthy drivers like: Nasr, Coletti, Calado, Rossi and Frijns and Dillmann, and perhaps in the future Evans, Abt and maybe Ceccon.

I don't even think you've displayed an unpopular opinion, because the facts are there. I think you're trying to be controversial for the sake of it.

[kevinbotz]

The F1 talent pool has been shrinking since GP2 started. Look at the drivers in GP2 and some in F1 today. I've said enough.

Are you kidding me? Since we've had GP2, we've had some top, top drivers coming into F1. Kubica and Vettel came into F1 from FR3.5, and from GP2 we've had Hamilton, Rosberg, Grosjean, Kobayashi, Hulkenberg and Perez to name but a few. Try telling me that they're not talents.

Despite GP2 coming in for criticism, I think F1 is much richer for it. If F3000 had carried on, then there's no way we'd have the insanely talented grid we have today, as the series was in its death throes...especially with a grid like this.

And this season, we've got a ton of F1-worthy drivers like: Nasr, Coletti, Calado, Rossi and Frijns and Dillmann, and perhaps in the future Evans, Abt and maybe Ceccon.

I don't even think you've displayed an unpopular opinion, because the facts are there. I think you're trying to be controversial for the sake of it.

GP2 isn't perfect; by far the most egregious weakness of the GP2 regime, in my opinion, is the relatively complacent reinforcement of driving standards. Too many GP2 graduates have made too many impetuous errors, and the sport is suffering from it.

What the sport isn't suffering from is the sheer pace demonstrated by these GP2 guys. Even disregarding the spectacular success of Lewis Hamilton, GP2 graduates on the whole have shown some electrifying potential. Grosjean, Kobayashi, Hulkenberg, Petrov, Kovalainen, Glock, Maldonado. Even the likes of Pic, Chilton and Van der Garde are a far, far cry from the backmarkers of yesteryear. In terms of driver quality, we, as the present F1 audience, are well and truly spoiled for choice.

Personally, I prefer GP2 as a feeder series compared to the tortuous, nebulous and hopelessly convoluted system of national Formula 3 and Formula 3000 series' that used to represent the gateway to Formula One. GP2, for all of its flaws, is at the very least coherent and consistent, and as I've stated above, it's been very effective over the 8 years of its existence in producing very effective drivers. Though many, including myself, have often lambasted GP2 graduates for their reckless impetuosity, upon reflection, I cannot help but feel that Formula One as a whole would be a poorer sport without the existence of GP2.

[Klon]

Based on some of the criteria often cited on these lovely pages Alain Prost was undeserving of the 1993 WDC therefore they both had the same amount of 'earned' titles

Dangerous game they are playing. Let's look at Senna's titles in a more critical way;
1988: Had actually less points than Prost (-1)
1990: Should have been DSQ'd and sent to jail for his stunt in Suzuka (-1)
1991: If we ignore that he should have been in jail it is legit

Leaves Senna with one "earned" title ... checkmate, Church of Senna.

[Faustus]

The F1 talent pool has been shrinking since GP2 started. Look at the drivers in GP2 and some in F1 today. I've said enough.

It's not a consequence of GP2, it's a consequence of the lack of an accepted career path from karting to Formula 1 and the various series at similar levels of performance, all vying for the same pool of drivers.