|
Carth Dookie posted:I've read this a couple of times and still don't get it. No, I'm saying a huge chunk of his wins are from his competitors crashing out or suffering mechanical failures. Loeb simply never broke under pressure and this drove a bunch of his competitors to push themselves much harder than necessary, ending in driver mistakes or broken cars. He is certainly a good driver, but Latvala and Ogier were clearly better when they turned up, and if Gronholm hadn't been having issues with his teams and then phoning it in, he probably would have done much better. Now, Citroen did outspend other manufacturers by quite a bit, so the cars Loeb had were good and reliable performers. I personally don't think this had too much influence in any given race vs the money Citroen was spending compared to the other teams. Over the season though, it paid off by maximizing race finishes, which is what matters for the WDC. Alain Post posted:I'm not going to be dumb enough to denigrate Loeb as a driver but I do think a lot of his success (and Ogier's after) was due to a general collapse in the competition level of the sport at a high level. Rally just loving died. Yeah, Citroen was spending 50 million+ a year vs Fords 10 million and Subaru's 5-7 million. Every time the WRC signed up a new manufacturer, they'd turn up for a year, look at the actual costs vs what the WRC had told them, and drop out again (rip Suzuki). The car Citroen got for the money was certainly good, but not 5 times better than other cars. The results Citroen got were though, and that made the investment worth it.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
I would still says for the quality of the field and racing the 80s was the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Loeb is a loving beast. Just look at how competitive he is in everything beyond rallying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:What makes you say that, other than the mistaken general perception that people have that the stars who were around when they first watched a particular sport were the first ones ever to be any good? I imagine you're going to say something about professionalism and the age at which kids start today. A lot of drivers were half-assed amateurs back then, true. But there were always drivers around who were fully professional and who had been into dirt track racing, midgets or karts or some poo poo since age 8 - and they couldn't (and can't) necessarily beat talented '"'"gentleman"''"' racers, even if they started at age 20. Whatever that dipshit Malcolm Gladwell says, some tiny number of people are naturals, and they have always existed and still do. Sebastien Loeb didn't start racing cars until his early twenties, for instance. I like to think of it like Usain Bolt going back to the 50's for the 100m sprint where the world record was like a 10.2. Don't think he would have all that much trouble. Hell the 200m record was a 20.6. A time he could beat at age 15. The money, training, science and professionalism that goes into all sports now is way more advanced then what it was back in the day. I see the old grand prix drivers as half daredevil half sportsman. A poo poo load of bravery and a good amount of talent, but not compared to todays stars. Although speaking of talent I do feel that F1 does have a huge problem with the grid being half full of guys that arent there purely, or even primarily, on talent alone. Even the sons of former racers is a big problem if you ask me. Bossberg, Magnussen, Palmer, Sainz, Verstappen - it begs the question of whether racing (or any sporting) talent is genetic in some way, or did these guys make it too the top because they came from privileged backgrounds and had famous last names. It may be a bit of both, but either way it isnt a good look for F1. Of the 24 drivers this year 5 are the sons of racing drivers and 4 are there entirely from sponsor money! (Erricson, Guiterrez, Haryanto, and Nazr)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:What makes you say that, other than the mistaken general perception that people have that the stars who were around when they first watched a particular sport were the first ones ever to be any good? I imagine you're going to say something about professionalism and the age at which kids start today. A lot of drivers were half-assed amateurs back then, true. But there were always drivers around who were fully professional and who had been into dirt track racing, midgets or karts or some poo poo since age 8 - and they couldn't (and can't) necessarily beat talented '"'"gentleman"''"' racers, even if they started at age 20. Whatever that dipshit Malcolm Gladwell says, some tiny number of people are naturals, and they have always existed and still do. Sebastien Loeb didn't start racing cars until his early twenties, for instance. What a fabulous username/post combo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Drivers in the 50s had just lived through a world war, which does tend to mess with the funding and driver demographic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Hot take: all F1 seasons are bad  Except for the ones that gave out points for the Indy 500
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Hi, i havent kept up with F1 since Rossberg retired, has anything happened since then or has it been nothing but rumors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Basticle posted:Hi, i havent kept up with F1 since Rossberg retired, has anything happened since then or has it been nothing but rumors? Manor is all but dead (administration).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Basticle posted:Hi, i havent kept up with F1 since Rossberg retired, has anything happened since then or has it been nothing but rumors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
I've been watching a bunch of Group B stuff lately. Why can't any series be as good and cool as Group B was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
AgentJotun posted:Although speaking of talent I do feel that F1 does have a huge problem with the grid being half full of guys that arent there purely, or even primarily, on talent alone. Even the sons of former racers is a big problem if you ask me. Bossberg, Magnussen, Palmer, Sainz, Verstappen - it begs the question of whether racing (or any sporting) talent is genetic in some way, or did these guys make it too the top because they came from privileged backgrounds and had famous last names. It may be a bit of both, but either way it isnt a good look for F1. The family thing is new but it makes a certain amount of sense since you have a guy that has a lot of cash, free time now that his career is over, he's now got a kid and knows what the kid has to do to get into the sport. Allen Berg will just force his kid to go out on a friday with three seperate stopwatches and a clipboard and continuously write down sector times, no other parent has that the time or energy to just loving sit around collecting data like that for their kid racing at a club level. There's always been a fairly large portion of the grid there because they have sponsors writing cheques. Decesaris by any rational measure should've had no future in any form of racing after '85 but he got another 9 years out of the sport because of Marlboro money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
AgentJotun posted:I like to think of it like Usain Bolt going back to the 50's for the 100m sprint where the world record was like a 10.2. Don't think he would have all that much trouble. Hell the 200m record was a 20.6. A time he could beat at age 15. The money, training, science and professionalism that goes into all sports now is way more advanced then what it was back in the day. I see the old grand prix drivers as half daredevil half sportsman. A poo poo load of bravery and a good amount of talent, but not compared to todays stars. The effect of today's sports psychology/nutrition/fitness aspect alone would see 50s drivers getting completely crushed by their modern equivalents. 1500quidporsche posted:The family thing is new but it makes a certain amount of sense since you have a guy that has a lot of cash, free time now that his career is over, he's now got a kid and knows what the kid has to do to get into the sport. Roller Coast Guard fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
F1 is remarkably light on pay drivers right now. Go back to 2006 and look how poo poo the grid was. I know we don't like Red Bull but if there had been any better drivers in their program then there is no way Max and Carlos would have seats. I'm not that sure Jos even has the influence and sponsorship in his pocket to get max in a F1 seat without him being on a program anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:Loeb is a loving beast. Just look at how competitive he is in everything beyond rallying. So, only good when he can outspend and outluck everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:F1 is remarkably light on pay drivers right now. Go back to 2006 and look how poo poo the grid was. I know we don't like Red Bull but if there had been any better drivers in their program then there is no way Max and Carlos would have seats. I'm not that sure Jos even has the influence and sponsorship in his pocket to get max in a F1 seat without him being on a program anyway. If the grid stays as is, really the only "paydriver" in the remotely traditional sense next year is Marcus Ericsson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I got Damon Hill's autobiography for Christmas, about 2/3 through it and I'm absolutely loving it. Would definitely recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
minstrels posted:I got Damon Hill's autobiography for Christmas, about 2/3 through it and I'm absolutely loving it. details! I've been looking for something new to read recently
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Dudley posted:If the grid stays as is, really the only "paydriver" in the remotely traditional sense next year is Marcus Ericsson. Also the understandably forgettable Palmer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
minstrels posted:I got Damon Hill's autobiography for Christmas, about 2/3 through it and I'm absolutely loving it. Cheers, have read extracts, but gonna dive into this, finally finished Webbers, also good and sheds light on the RBR team at the time, obviously biased but to be fair Webber always was straight up
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Triple A posted:So, only good when he can outspend and outluck everyone else? Outluck? That part really isn't in his control so that bit of criticism makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
WTCC blows
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:There's always been a fairly large portion of the grid there because they have sponsors writing cheques. Decesaris by any rational measure should've had no future in any form of racing after '85 but he got another 9 years out of the sport because of Marlboro money. I strongly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
djssniper posted:Cheers, have read extracts, but gonna dive into this, finally finished Webbers, also good and sheds light on the RBR team at the time, obviously biased but to be fair Webber always was straight up Just started reading the Webber book myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
minstrels posted:I got Damon Hill's autobiography for Christmas, Norns posted:Just started reading the Webber book myself. Cause I've read Prof. Sid's book and Niki's book and they both say Bernie is just the best guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:Outluck? That part really isn't in his control so that bit of criticism makes no sense. Every bit of talent he has is overshadowed by his amazing and consistent luck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
you don't luck into nine titles in a row, any advantage in reliability is probably because he's good at managing the car, and because Citroen spent millions more than their competitors. Keep in mind that he finished first in a team of him, Carlos Sainz and Colin McRae (both admittedly past their prime, but still a hell of an accomplishment).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:What does he say about Bernie? I honestly believe Bernie is a benevolent dictator. His dumbass suggestions to tweak the sport are probably less 'serious suggestions' and more of a satire on how the teams, for all their bluster, can't organise a piss up in a brewery when decision making is up to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Triple A posted:Every bit of talent he has is overshadowed by his amazing and consistent luck. A famous Gary Player quote comes to mind...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Also the understandably forgettable Palmer. I don't think I can count anyone in a manufacturer team as a pay driver. Plus he won GP2. That's night and day compared to the likes of Mazzacane, Belmondo, Langes, Lavaggi snr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Oh ho. Palmer was signed originally by Lotus for Lots of Money. Only reason he's still in Renault/F1 is because his daddy has the only bid in for Silverstone, and already owns a lot of other tracks including brands hatch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Palmer isn't exceptionally good, yes, but many drivers now have to bring funding with them. Technically Sergio Perez is also a "pay driver".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Who gave Claudio Langes a super licence? A mystery for our times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
The only reason Palmer is still at Renault is because they wanted to keep one of their two drivers so they'd have a basis on which to measure the progress of their 2017 car. Magnussen chose to leave and that made the decision for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
In defence of Palmer he did look better than Kmag in the back half of the season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Palmer showed more progress over one season in F1 than Magnussen has in two. He's going to be totally outclassed by Grosjean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
I still don't fully understand why Haas took in Kmag when they probably could've gambled on Nsar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Man I didn't realise Mika was such a jokester: http://www.grandprixtimes.com/news/id/13517
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I still don't fully understand why Haas took in Kmag when they probably could've gambled on Nsar. I'm kind of amazing that Merc isn't taking Perez, or at least giving him a hint of recognition. Then again, Bottas will just sit there quietly as a No.2 driver and collect the odd win and 2nd place, where Perez would probably want to go for that title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
dandaman posted:I can't argue too much with this list... Most important realization from that study: "So how much does the driver actually contribute to a Formula 1 team's success? A mere 15 percent". Roller Coast Guard posted:The effect of today's sports psychology/nutrition/fitness aspect alone would see 50s drivers getting completely crushed by their modern equivalents. This would make a huge competitive difference. Even naturally talented guys at their peak in the 50's wouldn't be able to compete with the top drivers from today. Without looking at stats, I'd guess that it probably meant that it was easier for the good drivers to become dominant, with such a huge disparity in talent and conditioning in the field. Would the comparison even consider level of fitness? I think since it tries to maintain independence from the influence of teams and equipment, it probably isn't relevant in the quoted study. I don't think Fangio could rip around a track for an hour pulling 3 or 4 Gs in the corners in a modern car. But let's take it a step further. To really even things out, and get a flat comparison, modern drivers should be compared based on skill alone, leaving fitness out of the equation. So... get that time machine. Kidnap the various drivers a-la Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but get them when they're kids. Isolate them and don't let them do any training until they are all at their peak age and then turn them all loose on the track at the same time, going through various decades and equipment. After you've had them race each other in each of the main F1 eras, THEN we would have a pretty good comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:08
|
|
