Quote:
Originally Posted by chunterer
F2 does not have much.more variables. Its all about setting the car up to make dodgy tyres last!
Rowland's is main flaw is hot headedness and he gets a bit rash when the bullshit tyres go off and all his hard work goes out the window but the guy has such natural talent. He doed need to work on maxxing set ups but if you don't have the right engineer or tyres then you ain't gonna win.
The current F2 is not an accurate and consistent barometer of talent. In 12 years how many times have the quickest/most talented drivers won it?
About half at most i reckon off top of my head i can think of:
Rosberg
Hamilton
Glock
Hulk
Grosjean
Vandoorne
A few decent ones came through having not won it but the rest were journeymen benefitting from the best team/engineer/ weaker field that season
In a one make series if you have artificial rules and too much emphasis on one element (in this case tyre enginnering!) it is bound to give a false representation.
|
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?