Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

[Pedinhuh]

Popular opinion these days and I agree.

The unpopular part of my opinion is that Monaco always was a garbage racetrack, it's made to look good, to promote the city and make the elites living there feel better about the tons of money they spend to park their multi-million dollar yatches at the marina to watch the race.

For the sport itself the racetrack never did anything but be an unnecessary risk, racing there was always crap even with the old and smaller, cigarette-looking F1 cars. It's just ****.

I personally view the track as bad as any other bland Hermann Tilke track.

 

[Com Fox]

It's been good recently for Formula e though that's due to the cars being small enough to actually go around the track with overtaking being possible.

 

[toastet]

It's been good recently for Formula e though that's due to the cars being small enough to actually go around the track with overtaking being possible.

Nobody wants to give slipstream and loose energy in P1 is the main overtake reason in F-E.

 

[Com Fox]

Fair but even with the upside down strategy of FE it still leads to even a horrible track to race on normally like Monaco some decent racing.

 

[Pete05]

The unpopular part of my opinion is that Monaco always was a garbage racetrack, it's made to look good, to promote the city and make the elites living there feel better about the tons of money they spend to park their multi-million dollar yatches at the marina to watch the race.

For the sport itself the racetrack never did anything but be an unnecessary risk, racing there was always crap even with the old and smaller, cigarette-looking F1 cars. It's just ****.

I personally view the track as bad as any other bland Hermann Tilke track.

Wrong, unless that is your opinion, in which case it is your's.

As a defence for Monaco, I offer the 1961 Monaco Grand Prix.
A race for cars with well less than 200bhp, on skinny tyres, that required more skill & precision than any other motor race at the time.

Now, the cars are too big, but that same basic skill set of precision still stands today in cars with five times the power & less room for errors.
That is, do you miss the barrier by two inches or one?
When your opponent be it your team mate, or your bitter rival is 0.10 faster than you, and you feel like you have done your best lap.
Your team has just given you the signal to head out for another go.

There used to be a saying, " To go fast in Monaco, you have to take the Goodyear off the side walls of the tyres."
That still stands true today.

 

[sillybilly]

...take the Goodyear off the side walls of the tyres."

I'm looking for new tyres for a road car and 100% will avoid Pirelli because of their involvement in Fl and my opinion that they have not done a good job due to making tyre too consistent, too durable and too similar in performance.

My impression was that they were asked to make tyres years ago to make good racing and the first half of 2012 was pretty amazing and then they bowed to whinging and made boring consistent tyres. For the road you probably want some boring, consistent, reliable tyres but I think many brands can manufacture good road tyres.

Is this an "unpopular motorsport opinion" and are other people purchase decisions favourable to pirelli or not swayed?

 

[Pete05]

I'm looking for new tyres for a road car and 100% will avoid Pirelli because of their involvement in Fl and my opinion that they have not done a good job due to making tyre too consistent, too durable and too similar in performance.

My impression was that they were asked to make tyres years ago to make good racing and the first half of 2012 was pretty amazing and then they bowed to whinging and made boring consistent tyres. For the road you probably want some boring, consistent, reliable tyres but I think many brands can manufacture good road tyres.

Is this an "unpopular motorsport opinion" and are other people purchase decisions favourable to pirelli or not swayed?

When it comes to tyres for my road car, my only considerations are, what fits & which ones offer the best grip in the wet without too much of a compromise in other areas.
I also watch/read comprehensive reviews by respected testers to make sure I'm getting all the relevant information I need.

I strongly advise you to do the same & forget who has done what in motorsport as that has little or no relevance to what you ultimately fit to your car.

As for Pirelli and their track record in Formula One, I imagine they have done exactly what Formula One has asked them to do.
I can't imagine they would have had the contract to do so, by ignoring those with the power to tear said contract to pieces.

I have hardly been keeping up to date with the goings on of Pirellis involvement in Formula One.
I'm not even sure if Pirelli are 'it' through winning a tender, or are there by default because none of the others are interested.

Have they done a good job? In my opinion, no.
I was only thinking earlier this week, of the days when Goodyear won everything in Formula One & those tyres were pushed to limit from the moment they were fitted to the car.

 

[Liquid]

I'm looking for new tyres for a road car and 100% will avoid Pirelli because of their involvement in Fl and my opinion that they have not done a good job due to making tyre too consistent, too durable and too similar in performance.

I refer you to what I have said in the past about Pirelli:

I feel sorry for Pirelli; first they were accused of making tyres out of cheese, then they were accused of making the tyres too hard, after that they were accused of offering too many choices and now they're back on tyres made out of toilet paper.

Pirelli is a professional, international tyre manufacturer with a presence in all major markets. They know how to make tyres, it's just that they're told what specifications to make by the governing bodies. Their hands are tied.

It makes me wonder how the racing would fare if Pirelli were given a white paper to make whatever tyre compounds it wanted, as the company involved in the industry's primary manufacturing and therefore has all the specialist and technical knowledge to make the highest quality tyres, and see which teams would then opt for softer or harder tyres.

I don't seem to recall Goodyear ever getting that much stick and back then you had special qualy tyres that wouldn't last 5 laps. It's only since the 2000s that the tyre manufacturers have really come under scrutiny as it happened to both Bridgestone and obviously Michelin in this pursuit for control tyres.

In fact, reintroducing a competing tyre manufacturer would eliminate this control tyre nonsense and bring back some lost element of competition.

 

[Veinz]

I’ll avoid Pirelli road tires because they are overpriced and loud af when highway driving, even the chunky Nittos on our 4Runner are quieter than the P zeros on our TLX.

 

[sillybilly]

I strongly advise you to do the same & forget who has done what in motorsport as that has little or no relevance to what you ultimately fit to your car.

For sure, I go down the rabbit hole of researching reviews and comparisons, and I am willing to pay premium price for tyres as they are a critically important part of a car...

I go off criteria starting wit correct size, safety and performance - but then in this sort of situation there are many products on the market and many manufacturers so if there are multiple choices that are all similar then a 'brand value' can affect menu peoples decisions. I think that's the main idea of marketing and the main reason for involvement in motorsport as a brand whether sponsor or component supply...

For me I am sure that there are very good products available for many makers such as Michelin, Goodyear, Continental, Dunlop - and probably Pirelli however due to my opinion I do not consider Pirelli products at the moment so I am not sure how they compare.

I'm not even sure if Pirelli are 'it' through winning a tender, or are there by default because none of the others are interested.

It would be interesting to know if any other manufacturers would like to replace Pirelli's position - or if Pirelli want to get out for the negative aspects...

I think the negative complaints are probably not too significant and the marketing benefit of their brand label being advertised globally probably results in positive 'brand value' impression for the majority of the audience.

I refer you to what I have said in the past about Pirelli:

For sure Pirelli are a bit damned either way, and there has probably been quite a bit of unfair criticism of them over the years by various drivers, team, pundits and fans...

However, my opinion is that they have NOT done a good job all things considered. They have in many occasions failed to improve my entertainment of the sport due to how the tyres and sport has evolved of the last few years. I will not reward them with any financial benefit of me as a customer.

 

[Liquid]

For sure Pirelli are a bit damned either way, and there has probably been quite a bit of unfair criticism of them over the years by various drivers, team, pundits and fans...

However, my opinion is that they have NOT done a good job all things considered. They have in many occasions failed to improve my entertainment of the sport due to how the tyres and sport has evolved of the last few years

That's not their fault, the people at fault are the ones who make the rules. Pirelli do what they are told by the rulemakers.

I will not reward them with any financial benefit of me as a customer.

Which you're free to do so but I think it's a strange reason for doing it.

 

[toastet]

It would be interesting to know if any other manufacturers would like to replace Pirelli's position - or if Pirelli want to get out for the negative aspects...

Bridgestone is on it's way to replace Pirelli

 

[sillybilly]

That's not their fault, the people at fault are the ones who make the rules. Pirelli do what they are told by the rulemakers.


Which you're free to do so but I think it's a strange reason for doing it.

It's over simplification to only blame "the rule makers" - Pirelli have been a partner of the sport for an era now and have had significant input in the direction of the "rules" notably the decision for 18" rims and likely with decisions on the number of compounds to manufacture and how many at each race etc.

I was actually supporting the decision to go to 18" tyres - but I don't like them on the performance so far, nor the appearance. Earlier test tyres looked cool low profile but the ones they race with look a bit bulbous again - maybe an illusion because of the ugly wheel covers.

Bridgestone is on it's way to replace Pirelli

It could be interesting to see how a different maker will change (or not change) things on this front.

I would probably take a few seasons for me to make any judgement on their performance and treatment of the sport.

However I will stick to my unpopular opinion to blame Pirelli for their part so harshly that I will not purchase any of their products in the the foreseeable future.

 

[Liquid]

McLaren have some of the worst liveries in Formula One. Since they've gone back to orange or orange-blue, it's been one horrid mess after another.

 

[2112]

Wrong, unless that is your opinion, in which case it is your's.

As a defence for Monaco, I offer the 1961 Monaco Grand Prix.
A race for cars with well less than 200bhp, on skinny tyres, that required more skill & precision than any other motor race at the time.

Now, the cars are too big, but that same basic skill set of precision still stands today in cars with five times the power & less room for errors.
That is, do you miss the barrier by two inches or one?
When your opponent be it your team mate, or your bitter rival is 0.10 faster than you, and you feel like you have done your best lap.
Your team has just given you the signal to head out for another go.

There used to be a saying, " To go fast in Monaco, you have to take the Goodyear off the side walls of the tyres."
That still stands true today.

And, of course, that is your opinion, of which some will agree based on their views, and some will not, based on their views.

IMO, the track has been outdated and quite ridiculous since before the Ground Effects era of F1 and the only reason why they still race there is, indeed, due to the cache of the event as opposed to any real racing. It has been a multi-lap parade broken only by moments of actual racing (Senna's run in the rain is the last actual exciting moment there I can remember).

I mean F1 is traditionally a multi-lap parade anyway, Monaco just puts a shiny spotlight on that parade.

 

[TheCracker]

IMO, the track has been outdated and quite ridiculous since before the Ground Effects era of F1 and the only reason why they still race there is, indeed, due to the cache of the event as opposed to any real racing. It has been a multi-lap parade broken only by moments of actual racing (Senna's run in the rain is the last actual exciting moment there I can remember).

I mean F1 is traditionally a multi-lap parade anyway, Monaco just puts a shiny spotlight on that parade.

That's the crux of the matter with Monaco, it's part of the motorsport 'triple crown'.

There's little pretending that much actual racing is going to happen, it just has its place as the perennial street-racing event that every driver wants to win and the rich and famous want to attend. It coincides with the Cannes Film Festival too, so there's always plenty of famouses in the area to boost those figures.

It doesn't need to be a good actual race as the spectacle of fast cars racing around tight streets is the entertainment.

 

[Liquid]

the spectacle of fast cars racing around tight streets is the entertainment.

*Terms & Conditions apply

 

[TheCracker]

*Terms & Conditions apply

For motorsport fans perhaps, but i doubt the majority of Monte Carlo GP attendees give a damn or even notice how the actual race pans out. It's like Ladies Day at Ascot. They're there to be seen and take in the atmosphere, the nuisances of the competition element of the experience are a secondry consideration at best.

 

[Greycap]

[...] the nuisances of the competition element of the experience [...]

This has to be one of the best Freudian slips ever. I'm pretty sure you meant nuances, but I'm also equally sure that the entire competition thing going on is nothing more than a nuisance for the people who are there for the sake of being in the spotlights.

 

[Liquid]

For motorsport fans perhaps, but i doubt the majority of Monte Carlo GP attendees give a damn or even notice how the actual race pans out. It's like Ladies Day at Ascot. They're there to be seen and take in the atmosphere, the nuisances of the competition element of the experience are a secondry consideration at best.

I know. Don't televise it then. It's a non-championship exhibition in all but name.

 

[TheCracker]

I know. Don't televise it then. It's a non-championship exhibition in all but name.

I feel there’s a must-watch element to the Monte Carlo GP these days, in that the races have been so dull for so long there’s bound to be one sooner than later that’s going to be really action packed.

 

[toastet]

This years Monaco F1 GP was the best race this F1 season...

 

[Pete05]

There have been many years where, the form guide has been ripped in half by the Monaco GP.

The driver that leads into turn 1, doesnt always end up the victor.

1992 is a perfect example.

 

[Liquid]

This years Monaco F1 GP was the best race this F1 season...

If the worst track has the best race, that's a damning statement on the sport.

 

[MagpieRacer]

This years Monaco F1 GP was the best race this F1 season...

Which is reflective of F1 as a whole this year, rather than Monaco being genuinely good.

I also felt that Silverstone was better.

 

[toastet]

Which is reflective of F1 as a whole this year, rather than Monaco being genuinely good.

I also felt that Silverstone was better.

Not for me really. 2 nice start laps, 3/4 snoozefest and then just safetycar roulette damaging pit strategies which obviously was exciting but didn't make it a good race. Pretty much the worst season in my ~30 years of F1.

Bahrain: 3/10
Saudi Arabia: 2/10
Australia: 5/10
Baku: 3/10
Miami: 4/10
Monaco: 6/10
Barcelona: 2/10
Montreal: 5/10
Spielberg: 5/10
Silverstone: 5/10

 

[2112]

That's the crux of the matter with Monaco, it's part of the motorsport 'triple crown'.

There's little pretending that much actual racing is going to happen, it just has its place as the perennial street-racing event that every driver wants to win and the rich and famous want to attend. It coincides with the Cannes Film Festival too, so there's always plenty of famouses in the area to boost those figures.

It doesn't need to be a good actual race as the spectacle of fast cars racing around tight streets is the entertainment.

Eh...I find the entire race as boring as NASCAR oval racing.

Again, is it highly subjective depending on the respondent.

 

[m355y]

I think my most controversial/unpopular opinion is obviously this one -

Lewis Hamilton is a great driver, but I don’t think he is or ever was head and shoulders above his peers. He was incredibly fortunate to sign a deal at Mercedes that (unknown to him at the time obviously) would guarantee him not only THE best car for the next seven or eight years but for at least five or six of those seasons, an utterly dominant one. The second he put pen to paper on that contract in 2012 he signed up for about seventy Grand Prix wins and eye watering statistical superiority over what was actually quite a closely matched peer group with Vettel, Alonso, Ricciardo etc and the likes of Button, Massa and Kimi just below.

None of that, I’d argue in my defence, is a criticism of Lewis. Nico Rosberg ended his career with 23 Grand Prix wins and a World Championship, and I’d say exactly the same thing there - in football these days they use the “expected goals” stat a lot and while I don’t actually understand it completely, I think it’s basically using AI to calculate based on a player’s stats, game time etc etc, how many goals they’ll score then comparing it to the reality. In F1 terms I think both Hamilton and Rosberg are way, WAY above their XG. If it’d been Seb or Alonso who’d signed that contract instead I suspect they’d have similar numbers. It’s amazing how sometimes one career decision can transform your entire career and legacy.

For me, the two drivers in my lifetime I’ve seen who have really had that spark of genius about them are Schumacher and Verstappen. I never saw Senna live.

 

[Liquid]

The second he put pen to paper on that contract in 2012 he signed up for about seventy Grand Prix wins and eye watering statistical superiority over what was actually quite a closely matched peer group with Vettel, Alonso, Ricciardo etc and the likes of Button, Massa and Kimi just below.

Firstly, Ricciardo and Massa do not belong in that group. Full stop.

Secondly, what would your opinion of Alonso, Vettel or Button be had they signed with Mercedes and won six titles? How would anyone from that group rise up above the rest and stand out?

 

[GingerBredMan]

I sometimes genuinely wonder how many people are aware that Lewis Hamilton had a career before Mercedes.

Edit: Lewis was also criticized pretty badly for moving to Mercedes. The “he got lucky” angle is kind of funny cause there weren’t any other top drivers that wanted to take that risk.