173 replies to this topic

[Rob]

Also all the no hopers like Morbidelli, Inoue, Diniz, Badoer, Lavaggi, Montermini, Martini, Suzuki, Katayama

 

Really? You think Pierluigi Martini was a no-hoper? I had him down as someone who never got the chance that his talent deserved.

[hittheapex]

"F1 talent pool has never been weaker" - Mark Webber

Everyone's entitled to a different opinion, but it's rather absurd to dismiss an opinion of a former driver solely on the basis they weren't the best of their era. Anybody doing that and being unhypocritical about it wouldn't sign into the forum again.

[anneomoly]

Everyone's entitled to a different opinion, but it's rather absurd to dismiss an opinion of a former driver solely on the basis they weren't the best of their era. Anybody doing that and being unhypocritical about it wouldn't sign into the forum again.

 

There's that, but then there's the fact that he's criticising "the back of the top ten backwards" - a place where he spent a lot of his career. If he's calling 12-14 out of 20 drivers part of a weak cohort, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, 'well, where would Mark Webber fit into that weak cohort? Where does it seem reasonable to draw the line between on the grid and not? Does he make the cut under his own rules?'

[charly0418]

Grosjean

Hulk

Perez

Kimi

Seb

Rosberg

Hamilton

Ricciardo

Kvyat

Sainz

Max

Massa

Bottas

Alonso

Button

 

That's 15 very strong drivers, some better than others of course, but they all deserve to be in F1 and can compete with anyone

 

Ericcson is gaining respect, I didnt have much faith in him but he's been great so far, beating Nasr by quite a margin in races

Nasr of course, is getting me worried, has the credentials to be in F1 do, and its his rookie year

 

Maldonado, I rather not say a word, but he did win GP2

 

The Manor drivers are a bit of a special case

 

 

Sorry Mark, but you're really lost, its a pretty good damn grid

[hittheapex]

There's that, but then there's the fact that he's criticising "the back of the top ten backwards" - a place where he spent a lot of his career. If he's calling 12-14 out of 20 drivers part of a weak cohort, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, 'well, where would Mark Webber fit into that weak cohort? Where does it seem reasonable to draw the line between on the grid and not? Does he make the cut under his own rules?'

Varying quality of grids from season to season aside, the bigger point is that I think there's a difference between spending a lot of one's career in middling machinery through bad luck and somebody mired there because of averageness, such as Adrian Sutil.

 

3 years after his debut Webber was being courted by Renault, Williams and McLaren. Later offered a Ferrari drive. He made the wrong choice in going to Williams and found himself in one midfield team from another.

 

I'd like to highlight again Webber is critical of the sport's structure and the knock on effect that has on teams and that he isn't sitting there saying "I was better than you lot." My point, and I think it is being missed, is that whether you agree with him or not, to bring Webber's career into this as any judgement on the validity of his opinion at all is irrelevant. Do we rank the opinion of say, a former world champion higher even if he talks complete and utter drivel?

 

Flame the opinion, not the man.

 

The cynic in me thinks that given how Webber's opinion is quite wide of the mark and that he is managing Mitch Evans who just so happens to be chasing an F1 drive, there could be an agenda here. But I didn't deduce that from Webber's performances in a Minardi or a Jaguar.

Edited by hittheapex, 10 September 2015 - 18:05.

[Marklar]

To sum the grid up
3 multiple WDC
2 additional WDC
2 runner up WDC
6 additional top level drivers
2 super talents
5 mediocore drivers

It is probably the best grid for many years, but signs are worrying as even more talented guys are not able to enter F1...

[Heisenberg]

In the early 2000s everyone complained that there are no overtakes and F1 is boring! Today, guess what? It's the same! I'm no FIA fan in the way they handle things, but no matter what they would do, they will never please anyone as it's impossible. As for races, you can't always have races like in Hungary this year or like Canada 2011. Name me one season when most of the races were thrillers! Of course there will always be "boring" races where the TOp3 might be the same as it was in Quali after the chequered flag, you can't get rid of them, every season will have such GPs. People are simply hard to please though, if there are 2 interesting races in a row everything is awesome and F1 is the best! But then if we have a boring one, all of sudden F1 sucks again... 

Edited by Heisenberg, 10 September 2015 - 18:25.

[surbjits]

Hmmm. I still disagree.

 

Underneath the 6 drivers I mentioned, you have Hulk, Bottas, Max, Perez, Romain, Saintz, Kimi and Massa. That's a strong selection of mid-tier drivers.

 

Edit: I missed out D.K.

 

lol

[JHSingo]

Grosjean

Hulk

Perez

Kimi

Seb

Rosberg

Hamilton

Ricciardo

Kvyat

Sainz

Max

Massa

Bottas

Alonso

Button

 

This is a controversial one, but I'm still unconvinced by both Kvyat and Verstappen.

 

It comes back to the physical aspect that Webber was talking about. Would a teenager like Verstappen (or Kvyat last year) be as competitive in cars from a decade ago, when they had 1,000bhp and V10s? Probably not. The physical demands were a lot bigger back then that I struggle to imagine a teenager being able to get the most out of those cars.

 

Of course, it's not Verstappen or Kvyat's fault. They're just driving the cars they've been given. But I think, really, with the cars not being as challenging to drive these days, they are probably being slightly flattered. Perhaps it's the case for some others too, they're being made to look better than they really are because they're not being challenged sufficiently.

 

On the other side of that, there may be drivers who are currently being held back by the current cars, and are not really able to show just how good they are. If Webber is true about these cars not really being challenging to the top guys, that's got to be the case as well.

[sennafan24]

lol

[lars75]

This is a controversial one, but I'm still unconvinced by both Kvyat and Verstappen.

 

It comes back to the physical aspect that Webber was talking about. Would a teenager like Verstappen (or Kvyat last year) be as competitive in cars from a decade ago, when they had 1,000bhp and V10s? Probably not. The physical demands were a lot bigger back then that I struggle to imagine a teenager being able to get the most out of those cars.

 

Of course, it's not Verstappen or Kvyat's fault. They're just driving the cars they've been given. But I think, really, with the cars not being as challenging to drive these days, they are probably being slightly flattered. Perhaps it's the case for some others too, they're being made to look better than they really are because they're not being challenged sufficiently.

 

On the other side of that, there may be drivers who are currently being held back by the current cars, and are not really able to show just how good they are. If Webber is true about these cars not really being challenging to the top guys, that's got to be the case as well.

 

Well but we will never know and that was then and this is now!

 

Never the less Max is spinning old V8 engined RedBulls round tracks like it is a go kart, doing donuts and burn-outs and seems quit comfortable in handeling and controling those machines. But doing shows is still al little differend then racing them I know. But he could control and handle them!

[lars75]

Of course, it's not Verstappen or Kvyat's fault. They're just driving the cars they've been given. But I think, really, with the cars not being as challenging to drive these days, they are probably being slightly flattered. Perhaps it's the case for some others too, they're being made to look better than they really are because they're not being challenged sufficiently.

 

Denying Kvyat and Verstappen their talent based on the cars they are driving is a little short sighted I think. Perhaps the old spec cars would be harder to drive for them, but they still would have the feeling and talent that they have regardless of the cars. Perhaps they should be a little older to gain some muscles to controle them for a race distance.

[Peter Perfect]

This is a controversial one, but I'm still unconvinced by both Kvyat and Verstappen.

 

It comes back to the physical aspect that Webber was talking about. Would a teenager like Verstappen (or Kvyat last year) be as competitive in cars from a decade ago, when they had 1,000bhp and V10s? Probably not. The physical demands were a lot bigger back then that I struggle to imagine a teenager being able to get the most out of those cars.

 

Of course, it's not Verstappen or Kvyat's fault. They're just driving the cars they've been given. But I think, really, with the cars not being as challenging to drive these days, they are probably being slightly flattered. Perhaps it's the case for some others too, they're being made to look better than they really are because they're not being challenged sufficiently.

 

On the other side of that, there may be drivers who are currently being held back by the current cars, and are not really able to show just how good they are. If Webber is true about these cars not really being challenging to the top guys, that's got to be the case as well.

 

It's an interesting point. I think the way the drivers are stressed currently is more on the mental side, managing all the buttons and switches, and like you say not so much on the physical side. Removing the radio help was supposed to make things harder but I'm not convinced. 

[P123]

This is a controversial one, but I'm still unconvinced by both Kvyat and Verstappen.
 
It comes back to the physical aspect that Webber was talking about. Would a teenager like Verstappen (or Kvyat last year) be as competitive in cars from a decade ago, when they had 1,000bhp and V10s? Probably not. The physical demands were a lot bigger back then that I struggle to imagine a teenager being able to get the most out of those cars.
 
Of course, it's not Verstappen or Kvyat's fault. They're just driving the cars they've been given. But I think, really, with the cars not being as challenging to drive these days, they are probably being slightly flattered. Perhaps it's the case for some others too, they're being made to look better than they really are because they're not being challenged sufficiently.
 
On the other side of that, there may be drivers who are currently being held back by the current cars, and are not really able to show just how good they are. If Webber is true about these cars not really being challenging to the top guys, that's got to be the case as well.

All the drivers are relatively fit these days. Save for 2004 I don't think there is any year that would trouble any newbie too much in the fitness stakes. JB managed fine in 2000, Kimi in 2001. And even in 2004.... they were fast, they were physical (oh, but JPM was so unfit and he won in them...) but did they test skill or allow skill to flourish any more than today? I'm not convinced. They did test nerve and bravery, but that challenge is gone along with the gravel traps. The likes of Webber are stuck on the 'physical' aspect and making the cars faster (opinion sponsored by Red Bull aero...). What they are proposing won't make the racing better, won't provide a real challenge to the drivers skillset...

It wasn't so long ago we were being told that managing tyres, managing fuel, playing with all the steering wheel buttons were all part of the job and that some would struggle more than others. Flat out racing was bad and any dummy could do it. Well I guess the wrong guys struggled and the wrong guys prevailed with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'drivers being held back by these current cars'? If you are fast, you are fast. What is the perfect formula for determining driving talent? There isn't one. Is Raikkonen being held back? The hell he is. He may flourish more under different regulations. That doesn't make what we have now wrong compared to what was there in the recent past.

If the drivers are to be pushed, and push, they need to up the power, up the mechanical grip, drastically reduce the downforce generated by the wings, do away with DRS, relax the fuel limit, relax the idiotic 4 engines per season rule... Making the cars 5s per lap faster... who cares if they are glued to the track and they give us early noughties like racing with their ridiculous complex front wings necessitating DRS to enable some passing outwith the pits.


Edit- rant over!

Edited by P123, 10 September 2015 - 20:39.

[sopa]

Hmmm. I still disagree.

 

Underneath the 6 drivers I mentioned, you have Hulk, Bottas, Max, Perez, Romain, Saintz, Kimi and Massa. That's a strong selection of mid-tier drivers.

 

Edit: I missed out D.K.

 

Interesting thing I just thought about. People often argue whether top caliber across different eras is the same, and they also argue about backmarkers - admittedly we have not had a driver completely out of his depth on F1 level ever since Yuji Ide.

 

But how to rate mid-level talents of different eras? By my reckoning mid-level standard has seemed pretty consistent whichever period you look at. Or not? Drivers, who are worthy of F1 seats, would not be out of place as #2 drivers in top teams, and can win races in the right circumstances. But fall short in terms of speed and/or consistency over a full season of racing compared to top standard.

[sopa]

We've always had boring races at Spa and Monza, though. Spa was always great cuz of the prospect of rain. I know many people have forgotten, but most of us used to collectively pray for rain almost every weekend, because most dry races were dull. Spa always had a good chance for rain and so was quite popular. Do you remember what happened during the 2007 Belgian GP? I'd be surprised if you did, but I'll remind you - nothing. Was boring as hell.

Monza seems to be popular because of its tradition and unique characteristics more than anything. Cuz it certainly doesn't produce the best races. Never really has in the relatively modern times, even before DRS and Pirelli.

 

You are right about that one. I think circuits, which on average tend to bring us exciting races more often in dry conditions. have some street circuit characteristics in them, which includes Albert Park and Montreal. And by my reckoning the much-maligned new Hockenheim has also proven to be pretty good for racing in dry conditions, regardless of whether it was in the Bridgestone or DRS/Pirelli era.

[superden]

The current cars and, to an extent, some of the circuits, flatter quite a few of the 'great drivers' in the present line up, never mind some of the lower order seats.

[lars75]

Interesting thing I just thought about. People often argue whether top caliber across different eras is the same, and they also argue about backmarkers - admittedly we have not had a driver completely out of his depth on F1 level ever since Yuji Ide.

 

But how to rate mid-level talents of different eras? By my reckoning mid-level standard has seemed pretty consistent whichever period you look at. Or not? Drivers, who are worthy of F1 seats, would not be out of place as #2 drivers in top teams, and can win races in the right circumstances. But fall short in terms of speed and/or consistency over a full season of racing compared to top standard.

 

Well as you I think that Pic, vd Garde, di Grassi, d'Ambrossio, Petrov, Chilton, Merhi and Ericsson are all capable of winning in a Mercedes and perhaps in a Ferrari on a longshot! All these boys deserved their chance in F1 based on their resume I believe and are nowhere near the not worthy F1 paydriver backmarkers where Webber seems to be talking about. I dare to say that all the names above wouldn't have done much worse or even slightly better then Webber himself in the 2009-2013 RedBull. And it doesn't mean I think Webber is rubbish or that the others are really great, I think it means there is not much between all these guys in the first place and they all have a great amount of talent to get where they are. But they all need money to get there one way or the other.

[lars75]

The current cars and, to an extent, some of the circuits, flatter quite a few of the 'great drivers' in the present line up, never mind some of the lower order seats.

 

Such as?

 

It's all pure speculation wich nobody could back up!

 

Maybe when Vettel, Schumacher and Senna where all in their prime on track at the same time Vettel could be the best. But change the name in Vettel, Max Verstappen and Senna and the anwser would be the same. Simple because you don't know but speculate it would be!

 

Give all the current drivers a KZ1 go kart on a unknown track and see who will shine and who not.

 

Who would you think will be on top of the timesheets?

[RiccardoPatrese]

I think it's too early to call the card on Sainz. I think he has held up well against Verstappen in qualifying though maybe not on race day. He has had a lot of retirements, Austria, Belgium, Hungary and Britain which I think exaggerates the points gap between him and Verstappen. He might not have the flamboyancy that Verstappen has in the car but I would argue he has been the more consistent of the two. You are right that maybe both drivers are showing better because of a great chassis, or else maybe they are simply fantastic drivers and making the car look better than it is. I think it's a combination of both. From what I've seen, they both deserve their seat in F1. and I've been impressed with them. Potential WDC's? I think so, potentially, but it is not a certainty by any means.

 

Verstappen had the same amount of bad luck and retirements (DNF's in Australia, China, Bahrain, Monaco and Silverstone), so this can't be an argument. If both drivers had finished all races the gap in points wouldn't be much different.

 

[sennafan24]

 

But how to rate mid-level talents of different eras? By my reckoning mid-level standard has seemed pretty consistent whichever period you look at. Or not? Drivers, who are worthy of F1 seats, would not be out of place as #2 drivers in top teams, and can win races in the right circumstances. But fall short in terms of speed and/or consistency over a full season of racing compared to top standard.

You also get up and coming drivers. These drivers are not strictly set in the mid-field, as it's unclear how their careers will pan out. Today's equivalents are probably Bottas, Hulk, Max and Saintz.

 

I agree with what you are saying though. I watched the 2006 season review a few months back. In the mid-field, you had up and comers, such as, Kubica, Heidfeld, Button, Webber and Rosberg, mixed in with veterans such as D.C, J.V, Ralph and Trulli (at least two of those fit the description you posted). Overall, it was a strong grid, and this was before Lewis and Seb turned up!

 

I think we saw a dip in the mid/late 90's, which lasted until around 2003. Since then, I think the grids have been consistently strong in depth. 

Edited by sennafan24, 11 September 2015 - 14:46.

[Laura23]

Seems to be a recurring theme of WEC drivers having a go at Formula One and it's drivers. 

 

I'm getting rather fed up of it because at the end of the day all these driver's are talented. Fernando Rees claimed on twitter a few nights ago that F1 is nothing to do with driver talent anywhere which I found rather disrespectful to his colleagues, especially Hulkenberg who won Le Mans in WEC this year. It just comes across like sour grapes from Rees and Webber because their careers perhaps didn't go the way they wanted them to at certain stages. Rees in particular seems keen to put the boot into F1 whenever he can, but I'd like to see how he'd cope if you stuck Hamilton or Alonso in his Aston Martin and time trialled the three of them together. He wouldn't be so keen slamming the talent level in F1 then I feel.

 

I haven't seen any F1 drivers in recent years say anything negative about WEC or it's talent levels even though the WEC plays host to countless pay drivers and gentlemen drivers itself. It smacks of hypocrisy.

 

WEC and F1 are two totally different products aiming for two totally different markets. They can co-exist in perfect harmony if the drivers and fans would let them. Both have stupendously talented drivers who have strengths in different areas. 

[lars75]

You also get up and coming drivers. These drivers are not strictly set in the mid-field, as it's unclear how their careers will pan out. Today's equivalents are probably Bottas, Hulk, Max and Saintz.

 

I agree with what you are saying though. I watched the 2006 season review a few months back. In the mid-field, you had up and comers, such as, Kubica, Heidfeld, Button, Webber and Rosberg, mixed in with veterans such as D.C, J.V, Ralph and Trulli (at least two of those fit the description you posted). Overall, it was a strong grid, and this was before Lewis and Seb turned up!

 

I think we saw a dip in the mid/late 90's, which lasted until around 2003. Since then, I think the grids have been consistently strong in depth. 

 

Time flies when you're having fun isn't it!!! 

 

I couldn't believe Rpsberg was in F1 since 2006 already, I thought it should be 2007/2008 but no.

[lars75]

Seems to be a recurring theme of WEC drivers having a go at Formula One and it's drivers. 

 

I'm getting rather fed up of it because at the end of the day all these driver's are talented. Fernando Rees claimed on twitter a few nights ago that F1 is nothing to do with driver talent anywhere which I found rather disrespectful to his colleagues, especially Hulkenberg who won Le Mans in WEC this year. It just comes across like sour grapes from Rees and Webber because their careers perhaps didn't go the way they wanted them to at certain stages. Rees in particular seems keen to put the boot into F1 whenever he can, but I'd like to see how he'd cope if you stuck Hamilton or Alonso in his Aston Martin and time trialled the three of them together. He wouldn't be so keen slamming the talent level in F1 then I feel.

 

I haven't seen any F1 drivers in recent years say anything negative about WEC or it's talent levels even though the WEC plays host to countless pay drivers and gentlemen drivers itself. It smacks of hypocrisy.

 

WEC and F1 are two totally different products aiming for two totally different markets. They can co-exist in perfect harmony if the drivers and fans would let them. Both have stupendously talented drivers who have strengths in different areas. 

 

Well Rees his career smashed out the hard way! He did quit well in junior series and was often among the fastest on track and a Mercedes protoge. But his accident did harm him and his career, a bit like Stoneman had/has because of his illness. Although Stoneman got a second shot in single seaters for that matter and doing quit well once more. But when you're competing against the bigger names in F1 and almost beating them most of the time and you don't make it. I can imagine that you're al little frustrated by missing your shot at glory.

 

Never the less, all these boys are very talented and one is more lucky then the other. But all of them are making huge secrifices to make the best out of there dreams, chances and abilities to become the best they can be.

 

To me it's a little like Frijns, Parente, Premat and a couple other talented drivers that didn't make it in to F1 although they had the talent for it I think.

Edited by lars75, 11 September 2015 - 15:45.