74 replies to this topic

[Veemax]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

[Heisenberg]

Come on, Max showed that he has enough talent to at least be in F1! How can the fact that he is the son of a former F1 driver can cloud your judgement? I am not saying he's THE BEST, because I don't know how great he is, but he certainly has skill. And Rosberg is really underrated as a driver, I can't believe how many in here fail to realize that not many drivers currently in F1 could keep up with Hamilton's speed, let alone beat him from time to time. So I wouldn't say they got here by having a "name" nor by their fathers pulling strings! And even if they did, their place in the sport was earned by talent!

[anneomoly]

The financial barrier and connection barrier are a massive deterrent and obviously ex-driver children have at least one of those. Having said that, there's plenty of driver children who aren't any good, tried and failed to make it. Nico Prost etc.

 

There's only two children of former drivers who have world championships - Hill and Villeneuve.

 

And you only have to go to the Barclay's Premier League, this year, to find a son of a PL champion who's also a PL champion (Kasper and Peter Schmeichel). For other famous pairs, there's Harry and Jamie Redknapp, Johan and Jordi Cruyff, Ian Wright and Shaun Wright-Phillips...

 

Not to mention other family relations that have done well in sport... Michael and Ralf, obviously, but Phil, Gary and Tracy Neville are successful sportspeople (Phil and Gary footballers, Tracy was an international netball player and coach). Venus and Serena Williams are related and both made it as top class tennis players. Zara Phillips has a world and european title with her horses and is the child of two Olympians...

 

It's totally natural for kids to have a greater chance of going into their parents' career than any other random kid. It's also totally natural for kids to want to do what their siblings are doing. It doesn't necessarily say anything except that there's some damn good genes running in some families to go with the sporting knowhow.

 

As was said when Max Verstappen entered F1, he's been bred like a Kentucky Derby entrant. Jos picked a winning broodmare from good racing lines and that's shown in the produce, and they've put in the training as well.

Edited by anneomoly, 15 May 2016 - 19:23.

[ANF]

No.

[JHSingo]

You're right in one sense. Having a famous surname, and coming from a wealthy family, almost certainly helps your cause.

I do worry if it is sending the wrong message. F1's an already exclusive sport, but it shouldn't just be a sport for "sons of".

Edited by JHSingo, 15 May 2016 - 19:40.

[Myrvold]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

 

It is not the 22 best drivers in the world at all.

 

But, Verstappen is absolutely not the proof of it though. That's more on the other end of the grid.

[garoidb]

 

There's only two children of former drivers who have world championships - Hill and Villeneuve.

 

In history, we could also talk about Alberto Ascari and Alan Jones. Jenson's dad had a motorsports career in rallycross. However, it is noteworthy that Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and most of the other top top drivers came up on the basis of their talent (and their parents sacrifices).

[zanquis]

I think people like the OP are focussing on the wrong parts that lead to the success of "sons".

Sure it helps to have connections, it can help to have a name. But what really helps is a family that is dedicated to the performance of their kids, look at what their fathers (and mothers) where doing for their success, they often make great sacrifices.

[garoidb]

I think people like the OP are focussing on the wrong parts that lead to the success of "sons".

Sure it helps to have connections, it can help to have a name. But what really helps is a family that is dedicated to the performance of their kids, look at what their fathers (and mothers) where doing for their success, they often make great sacrifices.

 

Yes. Interestingly, in previous decades it was often the case that drivers had no parental support at all (parental opposition, in fact) but got there somehow. Perhaps this accounts, to some extent, for the difference in personalities between racers from the 70s and 80s and those of today. 

[zanquis]

Yes. Interestingly, in previous decades it was often the case that drivers had no parental support at all (parental opposition, in fact) but got there somehow. Perhaps this accounts, to some extent, for the difference in personalities between racers from the 70s and 80s and those of today.

True old generation often combined money and lying to parents what they where doing with it.

Alternatively working their way up with all kinds of garage jobs.

[Auzz]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

 

Nonsense: From Max his early days to this day Jos and Max were very focused and worked very very hard to get to this point. After Jos his Formula 1 career he could have had a solid career in WEC.  The Van Markestijn/Porsche LMP2 campaign was a good indication of that. Instead Jos quit his motorsport career and coached Max.

Edited by Auzz, 15 May 2016 - 20:03.

[ElJefe]

It's mostly due to finances: motorsport was never cheap, but nowadays even a season in F3 already costs 500 grand. The rags-to-riches stories of Schumacher or Hamilton would not be possible today I'm afraid. 

[zanquis]

It's mostly due to finances: motorsport was never cheap, but nowadays even a season in F3 already costs 500 grand. The rags-to-riches stories of Schumacher or Hamilton would not be possible today I'm afraid.

Actually, unless I am mistaken Hamilton was fully sponsored by McLaren after his entire car racing career until his switch to Mercedes. Schumacher was I believe government funded together with Wendlinger and Frentzen to get a German F1 driver.

But if u want rags-to-riches, look at Verstappen Senior, he was probably a F1 driver with one of the lowest background in history. Which would probably a more interesting topic than whining about rich racing dads and their sons.

[THEWALL]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

Hmm Max, HAM, VET and others ARE the Messis of F1: started from a very early age and have freak-like talent, just the perfect combination. So, the OP does not make much sense at all.

[ElJefe]

Actually, unless I am mistaken Hamilton was fully sponsored by McLaren after his entire car racing career until his switch to Mercedes. Schumacher was I believe government funded together with Wendlinger and Frentzen to get a German F1 driver.

But if u want rags-to-riches, look at Verstappen Senior, he was probably a F1 driver with one of the lowest background in history. Which would probably a more interesting topic than whining about rich racing dads and their sons.

Verstappen sr. was sponsored heavily by Marlboro during his F3 days. Schumacher was backed by local businessmen on an ad hoc basis, and he received some funding from Mercedes in sportscars. Hamilton, Schumacher, and Verstappen sr. all blitzed the field in karting, but their parents had to make great sacrifices to let their sons pursue their dreams. The problem is that nowadays even karting is incredibly expensive if you want to compete on a high level - let alone racing in feeder formulae. 

[Nathan]

You see this phenomenon in all versions of sport, and I think it makes perfect sense that a son/daughter of a former participant is going to develop the required skills and mental traits at a greater pace than that a son/daughter coming from a family without the knowledge and experience of how to excel at a given sport.  My father was a police officer, and thus if I wanted to become a police officer it is more likely I would be better prepared to become a police officer, provided my father did his role, than someone that doesn't have that.

 

If you dad is a former F1 driver then he knows what to teach his sons from the point they can co-ordinate hand/feet/eyes how to be an F1 driver better than 99.9% of fathers that never raced.  And you're F1 dad is also probably going to have the means to supply you the training tools like a kart to wizz around a track from 2 years old.  We seen this with Alonso and the Schumacher's as well.

 

Add to this you have the connections to the right people, no kidding is what I think.  But I think the preparation given by those who know to kids at the ages where such mentorship is most effective is the main reason we see successful sons/daughters of whatever top flight professional athlete.

[Nonesuch]

If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes.

 

No, he wouldn't.

 

Thoughts?

 
First; these are all great drivers. Untold numbers of drivers try and fail to reach F1; sons or not.
 
Second; these modern cars do not pose the greatest of challenges for such skilled drivers. Alonso called them 'too slow' and 'quite boring' in 2014.
 
Combined, these two things mean the drivers are all perfectly capable of driving these cars; at which point winning races or finishing 10th becomes a matter of being in the right car.

[Nathan]

 

If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes.

 

With the car being more important to total performance than the driver, I don't see how this would be the case.

[JeePee]

How many world cup titles does Messi have with Argentina? Messi also needs a good team around him. 

[PlatenGlass]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

I agree that the absolute sporting level of F1 is unlikely to be that high.

If you looked at all sports and looked at the ratio of number of viewers against number of people who actually get to participate to show whether they are good enough, then motorsport generally would have one of the worst ratios out there.

In something like football, most young boys play at school or at the local park, and if they're good enough and the will is there, there's a reasonable chance that this will enable them to progress to a professional career. I'm sure it's not perfect and many talented youngsters get overlooked or don't make it for whatever reason, but contrast that to motorsport. Most fans of motorsport will never take part in any sort of competitive car race (other than a go-kart race against their mates on a stag do). So the talent pool is inevitably much smaller than other sports of comparable popularity (in terms of viewership).

So yes, that does go a long way to explaining why a lot of sons of F1 drivers also make it to F1. Obviously being a son of an F1 driver is no guarantee of success, but it helps a lot more with motorsport than most other sports because you're competing against far fewer people.

But even then it's not just about making it onto the motorsport ladder. Many promising drivers run out of budget. It's also not particularly meritocratic. Driving for a good team is as important as being a good driver. At least in F1 there's more scrutiny on what's going on, so if you're beating your team-mate every weekend but coming tenth, you might get a chance. But most motorsport isn't F1. If you're in Formula Z (or whatever), and you're beating your team-mate every week and coming tenth, no-one will notice you and you'll disappear. Of course, being a son of an F1 driver is likely to make you more noticeable and often comes with a bigger budget.

There is also a lot of inertia in motorsport. You don't simply move up the rankings if you get better. You have to be given a chance and be in the right position when an opening comes up. There are only 22 F1 drivers, who are the only people in the world who regularly get to drive F1 cars. And even if you are lucky enough to get a drive, if things don't work out straight away, you might not get another chance, even if you subsequently become the best driver in the world (because people won't know you are). And look at Vettel's "off year" in 2014. What would have happened if he'd had an off year when he first started? We might never have seen him again. Look at the start of Mansell's career. He could easily never have got a race-winning car. How many drivers could have been champion given a bit more time? Other sports aren't like that. In tennis, for example, if you're 50th in the world and you improve, you'd go up to 40 or whatever. And if you become the best, you go up to number 1. There's no "gatekeeper" that has to give you permission to go up the ranks.

And even in F1, things aren't remotely meritocratic. Even people who should know better are routinely blinded by performances in the top cars. If you look at people's top 10 lists over the years, there is a strong correlation between being in a good car and having a high ranking even for an individual driver. I once did a comparison of Hill and Villeneuve in their 1996 year and looked at what would have happened if Hill had qualified in the middle of the grid everywhere (maybe it was 10th I think) and if there had been the same time gap between them as there actually was. Other than the fact that he outqualified Hill in the first race, Villeneuve's year would have been totally unremarkable (sometimes there were large gaps that went unnoticed because they were first and second), and rather than being lauded as great, he could even have simply fallen out of F1 at the end of the year - drivers have for less.

So yeah, I'm totally onboard with the opening post - "the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high".

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hmm Max, HAM, VET and others ARE the Messis of F1: started from a very early age and have freak-like talent, just the perfect combination. So, the OP does not make much sense at all.

It does actually, because you are naming the exceptions. People you can count on one or two hands. Rather than the entire grid being there by merit. Or these Superstars having beat fields full of deserving drivers in the junior ranks rather than the children of the wealthy/connected.

It all becomes slightly precarious if you dig into it.

[HP]

In history, we could also talk about Alberto Ascari and Alan Jones. Jenson's dad had a motorsports career in rallycross. However, it is noteworthy that Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and most of the other top top drivers came up on the basis of their talent (and their parents sacrifices).

Same for Max Verstappen. Sure his father was an F1 driver too. But not one that is a household name to many. Max has the talent, and his parents made sacrifices too. That his father has had F1 experience is nice, but the cars his father drove were different beasts.Goes for most other dad/sons too.

[HaydenFan]

I think people like the OP are focussing on the wrong parts that lead to the success of "sons".

Sure it helps to have connections, it can help to have a name. But what really helps is a family that is dedicated to the performance of their kids, look at what their fathers (and mothers) where doing for their success, they often make great sacrifices.

 

Casey Stoner style? 

 

The sporting level in F1 is always questionable. One could argue, based in junior racing level's, most of the current grid doesn't deserve to be there. Even some of the best drivers make it based on the right circumstances. Same in every sport. Just that racing is actually a small community. And a community where it is much easier for a kid to get exposed to the sport at a young age. 

[Izzyeviel]

Your name gives you an opportunity, but it takes talent to get to F1. That's why we hear about Hill jr, Rosberg jr, Verstappen Jr. We don't hear about Lauda Jr or Mansell jr.

 

Your name will only get you so far.

[THEWALL]

It does actually, because you are naming the exceptions. People you can count on one or two hands. Rather than the entire grid being there by merit. Or these Superstars having beat fields full of deserving drivers in the junior ranks rather than the children of the wealthy/connected.

It all becomes slightly precarious if you dig into it.

It's more complicated than football where basically anyone can afford a ball and play at the park. Yes, there are pay drivers but the talents have had some kind of sponsor, be it companies, business-people, parents or others. As someone said, aside from connections, it's the vision and dedication, arguably genetics as well, of parents that can create these talents. Sure connections help as well, but the idea of the modest kid who raced wooden cars and raises to F1 stardom is mostly a utopia.  

[goldenboy]

Eh? This is nothing new. F1 is never going to be as accessible as something like football.

[secessionman]

I remember well my Manager in 1994, a Mr Smale, who to my knowledge had no professional racing experience, claiming that he was quicker than Mansell. We all scoffed at the notion, yet of course, nobody could prove him wrong.

 

Two decades later, and I give the guy much more credibility than I did back then. Whilst he might have been full of ****, he never had, and never would have had, the opportunity to prove otherwise.

 

And maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be waxing lyrical about the exploits of Mansell or Warwick or Hill, because, of those times, Phil Smale would have been the dominant force.

 

And who can say otherwise?

[chunder27]

Being good at motorsport requires a balance of conditions.

 

Money being the prime one, not talent. And that is a big problem when you understand it as a fan.

[zanquis]

Well maybe F1 is out of reach but what about Jann Mardenborough, he started with a playstation, and even got a GP3 win and a raceweekend in GP2. It might not be much but I would not be surprised that this will be a way drivers can breakthrough also. And that doesn't mean racing becomes to easy just that in the okd days you raced F1 maybe 10 times a year, many therefor filled their time with racing endurance and GP2, but the future playstation generation will have the benefit from driving a whole race season in a week. They might miss the feeling, and the g forces but their minds to build up the recognition points that normally takes years of experience and they do it in a time when they can learn much better.


It is like learning a language. A kid can easily learn multiple languages at a very young age, butfor a adult it is much harder.

[BillyWhizz]

I was actually considering starting a thread about this during the week, and it was based on the simple premise that these wee lads would never have been fit for the F1 cars I grew up watching. I decided against starting it because it would surely have descended into a bash-fest, and that was not what I was trying to start.

 

It's great for Max and his team and fans (and congratulations to him - although I am categorically not a fan), but when a twig of a lad with an influential dad can get straight into a car at the implied 'top level' of motorsport and be able to hang it out on the limit for two hours, then for me F1 has ceased to be the challenge it once was.

[7MGTEsup]

It's great for Max and his team and fans (and congratulations to him - although I am categorically not a fan), but when a twig of a lad with an influential dad can get straight into a car at the implied 'top level' of motorsport and be able to hang it out on the limit for two hours, then for me F1 has ceased to be the challenge it once was.

 

I think all sport has moved on since then, people like Schumacher raised the bar so everyone had to raise their game. In golf Tiger Woods re defined the game back in the late 1990's the same with tennis and Roger Federer. Once one person comes along and works on all aspects of there chosen profession with huge dedication then to beat them you have to work just as hard. The professionalism in sport has gone up 10 fold in the last 20 years.

[F1matt]

F1 is different to most sports, you can be a natural athlete or footballer but you cant be a natural driver, it is something that has to be taught, so it stands to reason that the one who has the budget to practice the most will reach the highest echelons of the sport. Add that to the fact that you can buy a seat at the top table means it will never be recognised in the way Tiger Woods or Lionel Messi are. 

 

But I enjoy cars driven really quick so I am happy with that!

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's great for Max and his team and fans (and congratulations to him - although I am categorically not a fan), but when a twig of a lad with an influential dad can get straight into a car at the implied 'top level' of motorsport and be able to hang it out on the limit for two hours, then for me F1 has ceased to be the challenge it once was.

I think there's an element of that but we also have to balance it that an 18 year old in 2016 is way better prepared than one in 2006 or 1996.

[Auzz]

F1 is different to most sports, you can be a natural athlete or footballer but you cant be a natural driver, it is something that has to be taught, so it stands to reason that the one who has the budget to practice the most will reach the highest echelons of the sport. Add that to the fact that you can buy a seat at the top table means it will never be recognised in the way Tiger Woods or Lionel Messi are.

But I enjoy cars driven really quick so I am happy with that!

I disagree. There are natural gifted drivers and there are some who never will master it. Practise and hard work still makes perfect.

And buying a seat at the top table.. really?

[Dan333SP]

F1 is almost certainly the single "sport" with the highest entry cost in the world. I can't think of anything else that requires anything like the investment at the lower levels just to get noticed, much less advance up the ladder towards F1. 

 

Having connections in the sport helps accelerate the process of getting noticed to some extent.

 

It's safe to say that these aren't the best drivers in the world, they are the best of a very limited self-selecting class of people that represent maybe .00001% of the population. There's the old cliche that the best driver in the world is a goat herder in Ethiopia, or something to that effect, and it's true. Still, it's not just genetic traits that help on track like reaction time and feel, it's also endless focus and practice and coaching and physical training.

[TimRTC]

I think you would be surprised how important money is in all forms of sport these days. In 1996 Britain won one Olympic gold medal, after Lottery funding started in 1997, come the 2000 Olympics they won 12.

 

This funding is available for children from about 15 years of age, but to even get noticed they need to be on top of the pyramid by that age and that doesn't come cheap. For every "rags to riches" success story, there are hundreds who got there because their parents could afford private coaching and had the time and money to spend taking their children to events.

[Dan333SP]

I think you would be surprised how important money is in all forms of sport these days. In 1996 Britain won one Olympic gold medal, after Lottery funding started in 1997, come the 2000 Olympics they won 12.

 

This funding is available for children from about 15 years of age, but to even get noticed they need to be on top of the pyramid by that age and that doesn't come cheap. For every "rags to riches" success story, there are hundreds who got there because their parents could afford private coaching and had the time and money to spend taking their children to events.

 

Yes, money drives the majority of sports, and has an increasing role in the development of athletes in other sports, but there is still nothing on the same plane as F1 when it comes to investment require to reach the top. The amount spent on driver development before entering F1 for someone like Lewis, even if it was paid by Mclaren and sponsors, would probably fund a smaller nation's Olympic committee for several years. 

Edited by Dan333SP, 16 May 2016 - 13:49.

[Yamamoto]

F1 is different to most sports, you can be a natural athlete or footballer but you cant be a natural driver, it is something that has to be taught, so it stands to reason that the one who has the budget to practice the most will reach the highest echelons of the sport. Add that to the fact that you can buy a seat at the top table means it will never be recognised in the way Tiger Woods or Lionel Messi are. 

 

But I enjoy cars driven really quick so I am happy with that!

 

Plus, however naturally skilled you are you would need to have loads of work and practice to be better than other naturally skilled people. I think sprinting is one of the sports in the world which relies the most on natural ability, but once you have that ability it still needs to be finely and intensely honed or others with the ability will be better.

 

If some random guy claims he's faster than Lewis Hamilton, you can't prove him wrong unless you stick him in a car. But if you do, it will soon become clear.

 

Saying someone had the potential to be faster is a completely different thing, and unverifiable. I could claim that I had the potential to be better than Lionel Messi but didn't work as hard. It's completely meaningless, but you can't actually prove me wrong unless you have access to alternate realities. 

 

Compare any sport to football and it will have a shallow talent pool. 

 

 

F1 is almost certainly the single "sport" with the highest entry cost in the world. I can't think of anything else that requires anything like the investment at the lower levels just to get noticed, much less advance up the ladder towards F1. 

 

Having connections in the sport helps accelerate the process of getting noticed to some extent.

 

It's safe to say that these aren't the best drivers in the world, they are the best of a very limited self-selecting class of people that represent maybe .00001% of the population. There's the old cliche that the best driver in the world is a goat herder in Ethiopia, or something to that effect, and it's true. Still, it's not just genetic traits that help on track like reaction time and feel, it's also endless focus and practice and coaching and physical training.

 

If there is anyone better than the drivers in F1, it is either someone who is or has recently been competing in a very high level of motorsport. There may be more gifted people elsewhere, but that's different and applicable to pretty much everything else in the entire world.

Edited by Yamamoto, 16 May 2016 - 14:31.

[HoldenRT]

Max Verstappen winning got me thinking that the absolute sporting level of F1 is not that high. Too many sons of former F1 drivers have done extremely good like Rosberg, Hill and now Verstappen. If you have a right name and connections you can be a star. Compare that to football where there are millions playing and you don't really need any of that to have a chance. If we had a sort of "Messi of F1" he would probably be leading the WDC if driving for Ferrari or Red Bull even if Rosberg and Hamilton were in the Mercedes. Thoughts?

 

I agree with you but I wish you had of created this topic 7 days ago compared to now.

 

WAY TO KILL EVERYONE'S BUZZ MAN!!!

 

Geez..

[VIVAFERRARI]

I have a question for all you. It does not matter if you are Ham, Vet, Alo fan...Why does one 18 yrs old teen jump in F1 car and win? Why Senna, Prost, Piquet, Schumacher did not do it. I mean are they slow drivers or F1 is one total mess right now. I will put all my money and couple of balls that random Gp2/3 kid and lets say Alonso will lock up front row for Canada(because i do not think Monaco deserves to be called race, this is the stupidest "track" on Earth) if they have Mercedes for a car. And the Gp2 guy will not be far away behind Alonso. This is the stupidity of our F1.

[Nonesuch]

Why does one 18 yrs old teen jump in F1 car and win? Why Senna, Prost, Piquet, Schumacher did not do it.

He didn't jump in. This was his 24th race, and for all Christian Horner's complaining Red Bull-Renault is not a bad team.

Also consider that Nelson Piquet won his 24th race, just like Verstappen. Michael Schumacher won his 18th race. Lewis Hamilton won his 6th race. Ayrton Senna won his 17th race. Sebastian Vettel won his 22nd race. Alain Prost won his 19th race. Jacques Villeneuve won his 4th race. Juan Pablo Montoya won his 15th race (and should have won his 3rd if not for that other Verstappen).

Drivers who - for whatever reason - find their way into top teams can also win races in those top teams. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

Edited by Nonesuch, 16 May 2016 - 15:38.

[VIVAFERRARI]

He didn't jump in. This was his 24th race, and for all Christian Horner's complaining Red Bull-Renault is not a bad team.

Also consider that Nelson Piquet won his 24th race, just like Verstappen. Michael Schumacher won his 18th race. Lewis Hamilton won his 6th race. Ayrton Senna won his 17th race. Sebastian Vettel won his 22nd race. Alain Prost won his 19th race. Jacques Villeneuve won his 4th race. Juan Pablo Montoya won his 15th race (and should have won his 3rd if not for that other Verstappen).

Drivers who - for whatever reason - find their way into top teams can also win races in those top teams. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

Yes he did because i was talking for first race with a new car. Looks like from last years it does not matter who you are and which team are you coming from. All you need is a seat in better car and you are start winning. Nobody needs time for studying the car and especially when your rivals are forced to the ground....bum we have a news like this. 

[PlatenGlass]

I have a question for all you. It does not matter if you are Ham, Vet, Alo fan...Why does one 18 yrs old teen jump in F1 car and win? Why Senna, Prost, Piquet, Schumacher did not do it. I mean are they slow drivers or F1 is one total mess right now.

I wouldn't say there is just one reason. But F1 isn't like other sports where if you're good enough you automatically win. You have to be given the opportunities for one thing. And it might be that if in the 80s and 90s there was more of a tendency to get young drivers out of karts and into single-seaters at an earlier age, drivers back then would have won at an earlier age. And yes, maybe the cars of today do have something to do with it. But we've never really been able to know how young someone could win in F1 based on skill/ability because there are so many other factors, like having to prove yourself in the lower formulas, work your way up and be given a chance in a winning car.

In other sports, sometimes people do win at an early age. Boris Becker won Wimbledon at 17. And then again at 18.

[Nonesuch]

All you need is a seat in better car and you are start winning.

 

There are numerous race winners from the past couple of years whose team mates failed to win races, as well as drivers who have reached the podium with midfield cars while their team mates struggled to make it into the big points; so having the car is only half the story.

 

Verstappen did a great job, but it shouldn't be forgotten that it's not every day that the best team takes itself out and the second best team makes a crummy mess of their strategy. On any other day Verstappen might have looked at a 5th position - which, while solid, wouldn't even have been his best result. But as always in sports: you have to be there when others fail - and fail they most certainly did.

 

 

[Yamamoto]

I guess time will tell whether Max is simply a phenomenon or this becomes a more regular occurrence. Ronaldo was the greatest footballer on Earth at 19/20.

[VIVAFERRARI]

There are numerous race winners from the past couple of years whose team mates failed to win races, as well as drivers who have reached the podium with midfield cars while their team mates struggled to make it into the big points; so having the car is only half the story.

 

Verstappen did a great job, but it shouldn't be forgotten that it's not every day that the best team takes itself out and the second best team makes a crummy mess of their strategy. On any other day Verstappen might have looked at a 5th position - which, while solid, wouldn't even have been his best result. But as always in sports: you have to be there when others fail - and fail they most certainly did.

I agree with that.    But my biggest point is...F1 now is for PS4 drivers. Every now and than we are talking how some rookie would not be able to catch up with his teammate with 12 seasons behind his back...there is nothing like that anymore. Just because of a new trend started 16 years ago. Forgive me if i am wrong but was not season 2000 the last one you can compete with different type of engines(number of cylinders/pistons...etc). And than everything had to be more equalized, more sterilized, more political and less racy. This is just my point of view. 

Edited by VIVAFERRARI, 16 May 2016 - 16:33.

[TimRTC]

I agree with that.    But my biggest point is...F1 now is for PS4 drivers. Every now and than we are talking how some rookie would not be able to catch up with his teammate with 12 seasons behind his back...there is nothing like that anymore. Just because of a new trend started 16 years ago. Forgive me if i am wrong but was not season 2000 the last one you can compete with different type of engines(number of cylinders/pistons...etc). And than everything had to be more equalized, more sterilized, more political and less racy. This is just my point of view. 

 

Erm, what?

 

No idea what engine rules you are thinking of, but nothing major changed in 2000, look back to the 80s for more open specs and earlier for the Turbo vs. normally aspirated days. I'm not sure how letting teams use different types of engine would make things more "racy". It would just mean that teams with more money could go even faster and make the racing even less about the drivers.

 

I don't think it has anything at all to do with Playstation gaming, or the ability of a rookie to upset the apple cart and beat a load of veteran racers.

 

If you want to see the drivers really compete on their pure merit, the cars should be 100% spec. so all of the speed and time differences are just down to driver skill.

[DrFurby]

Seriously? F1 is as sporty as Eurovision Song Festival       

[VIVAFERRARI]

Erm, what?

No idea what engine rules you are thinking of, but nothing major changed in 2000, look back to the 80s for more open specs and earlier for the Turbo vs. normally aspirated days. I'm not sure how letting teams use different types of engine would make things more "racy". It would just mean that teams with more money could go even faster and make the racing even less about the drivers.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with Playstation gaming, or the ability of a rookie to upset the apple cart and beat a load of veteran racers.

If you want to see the drivers really compete on their pure merit, the cars should be 100% spec. so all of the speed and time differences are just down to driver skill.

I did not say my opinion is 100 % legit and there are no any other options. This is my point of view. It might be wrong. Yet it is not for me.

The things that i saw for engines were In some pdf online. It was explained by BMW experts. They started from late 80's up to 2006. I saw it long time ago. I am not able to find it but i will give it a shot once more after work.

Do you have equal teams In Premier league, Seria A, Primera? Do you have them In MotoGP, basket Ball? In every sport we have leaders, midfielders and guys at bottom of the tables. Even In life nothing is equal. And you have GP2 where you can watch those equal cars. I do not want to watch this In F1. Or if you prefer endurance... No problem again. We have Le Mans. F1 engine does not Suppose to be able to do 100k km. It needs to do only 500 km. But with revlimiter every second.

At Last but not least... There is no a single sport that training is forbiden.

Excuse my English. It is not my native language.

Edited by VIVAFERRARI, 16 May 2016 - 19:07.

[SimeonSasparella]

Ue' guaglio'