Quote:
Originally Posted by chunterer
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.
|
U-turning a bit on Latifi now are we?! [emoji12]
Bianchi didn't struggle with tyres. He did a year on Bridgestones and a year on Pirellis that weren't that extreme.
What I don't understand is you've decided this series isn't based on 'fact', yet it seems that it's based on you not really liking the results and blaming it on the tyres.
What's to say that the other series' aren't exactly a true picture of ability? It would stand to reason that F2 shows more of a driver's skill as the driving standard is higher and there are more variables to manage than in junior series'.