Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull
So the list you've made suggests that irrespective, the most talented tend to rise to the top (Leclerc too). And if the "journeymen" that won (as if driver development doesn't happen - look at Markelov) were against weaker fields, then surely there were no talents to win the series? If Rowland can't look after the tyres then I'm sorry that's not good enough, and if he can't race against other drivers cleanly then again, that's his problem. Plenty of other talented drivers have done both successfully. I'm not denying engineers help, they obviously do, but the driver does the driving at the end of the day. It's a very good barometer as it tests an awful lot of the drivers' abilities. The fact Latifi has outscored Rowland over the last 3 rounds is telling imo.
If GP2/F2 has been a false representation then how come most of the champions tend to be quite handy in F1? Rosberg, Hamilton, Glock, Hulkenberg, Maldonado, Grosjean - all bar Hulkenberg have podiums in F1, and he's rather handy. Even those who didn't win the series but were frontrunners have made impressions - Pérez, Bianchi, Kovalainen, Nasr and even Petrov and Kobayashi at a stretch. Giovinazzi looked quite good too in the Sauber, given his inexperience. Vandoorne is currently swimming, even against Alonso, and what's to say Gasly won't do a better job than Kvyat? As far as I can see, you're taking your argument way too far in this respect. Yes, tyres are a dynamic that obstructs raw pace, but false representation? Not at all...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by p-matt
Nonsense. You need raw pace. You need to be able to learn quick in 45 mins of practice. You need to be able to manage tyres, demonstrate racecraft and an ability to overtake and defend. Drivers that rely on talent and instinct rather than thinking their way through a race are not rewarded. That's the way it should be; that's the way F1 has always been.
In F3 or 3.5, surely there is too much emphasis on qualifying and being able to lead into turn 1? Is that not giving a false representation? I get that you value raw pace in a driver, but it alone is not enough. It's led to underdeveloped drivers - i.e. Rowland's struggles now, Magnussen's inability to manage tyres and generally poor racecraft in his year at McLaren.
If F2 wasn't a reliable barometer of talent, why would F1 teams have their junior drivers in it?
And why do you bother watching F2 if you have such a bee in your bonnet about it?
|
Rowland does have raw pace and we know he has some sensitivity to what the car underneath him is doing because he is often one of the best guys on cold tyres, a huge skill and example of confidence in itself which not many drivers have. Latifi who I failed to mention I think is pretty good and getting better doesn't seem to have that skill.
Bianchi is an excellent example of a top talent who was unable to get the job done in this series. We all knew he was good enough and his talent wasn't enough to get the job done. But we don't think any less of him. He did not have the right equipment or magic ingredient to get the tyres to last, it was nothing to do with his abilities as a driver, just as I believe is the same problem for Rowland.
Plus I do not see any drivers who took 3 or 4 years to win it as F1 quality talent. Maldonado I once thought was a firebrand but he proved he could not learn from his mistakes and that cost him his career. Being unbelievable on his day wasn't enough. Palmer? Valsecchi, Pantano?
I understand why people will take what they see happening and results as 'fact' but it does not tell the full story, far from it.