Dixon to F1 - Never happen

[TheGreg]

Never happen.

But what if....

What if like Renault paired him with Alonso...

Do you think Alonso is better than Dixon? I don't.

Who do you think is better than Dixon? Verstappen? no.

Perez? Lando? Bottas?

no, no, no.

Hamilton..... hmmmmmm

What happens if you put Dixon in a top shelf car in F1. Would the iceman succeed?

It's great we've got to see Dixon work his skill-magic in Indycar. His surgical management of winning championships, his cool, his fortune (cough Portland crash 2018), his ice. But what would he have done in F1?

The driver he reminds me of is Michael Schumacher. Cool, crisp, killer, winner.

It woulda been epic.

[S griffin]

Dixon was considered for Williams in 2005. He even had a few tests with the team. It's never going to happen now though as you say. But it would be nice to see him in the series at his peak

[Formulahistory]

Dixon wouldn't have been better than Bourdais for example.

[gert]

Originally Posted by Formulahistory

Dixon wouldn't have been better than Bourdais for example.

That totally depends on the moment he would have made the switch + the amount of testing he could/would have done

[TheGreg]

Originally Posted by gert

That totally depends on the moment he would have made the switch + the amount of testing he could/would have done

... and he's been better than Bourdais for years in Indycar, I'm just wondering why he wouldn't be better in F1.

[Hawkwood]

In my opinion, Dixon is the best driver of the past 15-20 years to not race an F1 car (and far better than many who have raced an F1 car in that same period).

[peebee2]

A top, top driver but the F1 boat sailed long ago.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by TheGreg

... and he's been better than Bourdais for years in Indycar, I'm just wondering why he wouldn't be better in F1.

He'd be a bit soft for F1, at least initially.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

He'd be a bit soft for F1, at least initially.

What do you mean by, a bit soft for F1?

[TheGreg]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

He'd be a bit soft for F1, at least initially.

Are you in opposite world?

He's the toughest driver in the paddock. A strategic championship ice cold winner.

[mstets]

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

In my opinion, Dixon is the best driver of the past 15-20 years to not race an F1 car (and far better than many who have raced an F1 car in that same period).

I haven't thought about it those terms but couldn't disagree based on his results. I would certainly agree with the second part of your statement. Dixon's talent was pretty evident as far back as 2000 when he won a bunch of Indy Lights races and the championship. That would probably have been the point when F1 teams should have been paying attention.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What do you mean by, a bit soft for F1?

He's raced his whole pro career in America. He hasn't raced in Europe, crucially not even for his formative racing.

He's spent his career racing a slower, simpler car than F1. Even worse, he's driven for the same team for 19 years.

F1 is a faster, more complicated car. European motor racing is a higher level and a much harsher environment.

He's great for what he's comfortable with but would get mauled in the cutthroat scene of F1. Scott Dixon racing in F1 is like a lion living his whole life in captivity being asked to fight a bigger lion straight from the jungle.

Originally Posted by TheGreg

Are you in opposite world?

He's the toughest driver in the paddock. A strategic championship ice cold winner.

He would be exposed for all his weakness in F1. Weaknesses not seen because he's atop dog in Indycar.

Your opinions in your OP are wrong.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Your opinions in your OP are wrong.

Man, you're the one person on this forum who is always right, eh?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Man, you're the one person on this forum who is always right, eh?

And can an opinion be wrong in this context?

Opinion formed from incorrect evidence - the evidence is wrong not the opinion formed, surely?

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Your opinions in your OP are wrong.

Looking back at the OP:
'Do you think Alonso is better than Dixon? I don't.

Who do you think is better than Dixon? Verstappen? no.'

You might have a different opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

He's raced his whole pro career in America. He hasn't raced in Europe, crucially not even for his formative racing.

He's spent his career racing a slower, simpler car than F1. Even worse, he's driven for the same team for 19 years.

F1 is a faster, more complicated car. European motor racing is a higher level and a much harsher environment.

He's great for what he's comfortable with but would get mauled in the cutthroat scene of F1. Scott Dixon racing in F1 is like a lion living his whole life in captivity being asked to fight a bigger lion straight from the jungle.

Well we'll never know as this is all hypothetical. As it is, none of what you say answers the question as to why Dixon is soft. I don't know how long you have been following F1 and IndyCar, but from what I've seen and I've followed both for decades, both can be equally ruthless and cutthroat. I think anyone who had a crash like Dixon did at the 500 in 2017 is far from soft.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

He's raced his whole pro career in America. He hasn't raced in Europe, crucially not even for his formative racing.

He's spent his career racing a slower, simpler car than F1. Even worse, he's driven for the same team for 19 years.

F1 is a faster, more complicated car. European motor racing is a higher level and a much harsher environment.

He's great for what he's comfortable with but would get mauled in the cutthroat scene of F1. Scott Dixon racing in F1 is like a lion living his whole life in captivity being asked to fight a bigger lion straight from the jungle.



He would be exposed for all his weakness in F1. Weaknesses not seen because he's atop dog in Indycar.

or , whichever you prefer.

[RWill2073]

C'mon guys, dont you know dixon is too soft to run to his daddy and have him buy a whole team so he can race in F1? He's too soft to even have his daddy pay for the sponsorship on the car! Or to get in bed with the richest people in his country, like some.

People need to get it in their heads that F1 doesn't have a uniquely talented field of drivers. It has a uniquely rich field of drivers. Unless you believe that out of the whole world, 3 or 4 of the top 20 drivers in the world just happen to have grown up on the meanest, toughest streets of Monaco.

Had he been given the opportunity and time to adjust and test, he would have been a top driver in F1. Maybe not the top, as Hamilton is obviously great, verstappen too. (I wouldn't call either of them "tough" either, really)

Being snippy and cutting others down to play mond games isn't "tough", but I'm sure they could have trained dixon on how to drop comments in press conferences, too.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Well we'll never know as this is all hypothetical.

As it is, none of what you say answers the question as to why Dixon is soft.

Dixon has spent his whole professional career in America, At the higher end, American racing isn't as hard as European racing.

Part of being a great driver is taking initiative in your career and aspiring to be the best. He may have had a dud test with Williams, but it was only one test. He could've come back a few years later, more experienced and developed, and began from there. But took the easy option of racing in America.

American racing is something he's familiar with and winning in it is in his comfort zone. Like with all the American drivers, or Europeans who gained some success in America.

Not only that but he's driven for the same team for 19 years. So he's not even challenged by working with different people or owners, which can contribute to results. He'd be lost in an F1 team.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't know how long you have been following F1 and IndyCar,

30ish years.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

but from what I've seen and I've followed both for decades, both can be equally ruthless and cutthroat.

In its own right, American racing is cutthroat. But the tip of European racing is just that little bit harder and more cutthroat.

American racing does allow a margin of mediocrity in comparison.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Dixon has spent his whole professional career in America, At the higher end, American racing isn't as hard as European racing.

Part of being a great driver is taking initiative in your career and aspiring to be the best. He may have had a dud test with Williams, but it was only one test. He could've come back a few years later, more experienced and developed, and began from there. But took the easy option of racing in America.

American racing is something he's familiar with and winning in it is in his comfort zone. Like with all the American drivers, or Europeans who gained some success in America.

Not only that but he's driven for the same team for 19 years. So he's not even challenged by working with different people or owners, which can contribute to results. He'd be lost in an F1 team.

30ish years.


In its own right, American racing is cutthroat. But the tip of European racing is just that little bit harder and more cutthroat.

American racing does allow a margin of mediocrity in comparison.

"But daddy, I really want to be a race car driver! Pretty please? Its only a billion dollars or whatever, aho cares! Just buy the team if you have to!" Said the cutthroat F1 drivers....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Dixon has spent his whole professional career in America, At the higher end, American racing isn't as hard as European racing.

Is European racing harder than American racing? They don't race on ovals in Europe. They don't race on tracks, with nice big run off areas.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Part of being a great driver is taking initiative in your career and aspiring to be the best. He may have had a dud test with Williams, but it was only one test. He could've come back a few years later, more experienced and developed, and began from there. But took the easy option of racing in America.

American racing is something he's familiar with and winning in it is in his comfort zone. Like with all the American drivers, or Europeans who gained some success in America.

Not only that but he's driven for the same team for 19 years. So he's not even challenged by working with different people or owners, which can contribute to results. He'd be lost in an F1 team.

As Dixon was already racing in IndyCar when he tested, the logical step to take, when the Williams test didn't result in a drive, was to continue racing in America and build on that, which he clearly has done and with great success. I think that takes a fair amount of aspiring to. It's all very well saying he could've come back a few years later, but he didn't and there will be a number of reasons why he didn't, which we aren't aware of. So I don't know about racing in America being the easy option. More likely it was the best option with which to consolidate and further his career.

A number of drivers in IndyCar have stayed with one team for a long time and in Dixon's case it clearly has produced the results. Saying he's be lost in an F1 team is pure conjecture. If anything, being in one team for a long time shows how well he has embedded himself and continues to produce the results. Many drivers chop and change teams and never bring the results.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

30ish years.

F1 since '72 and IndyCar since '76

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

In its own right, American racing is cutthroat. But the tip of European racing is just that little bit harder and more cutthroat.


American racing does allow a margin of mediocrity in comparison.

I don't think it is anymore cutthroat and I've seen plenty of mediocrity in both.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is European racing harder than American racing?

Yep.

I'll clarify by saying there is an overlap between the two cultures. At the tip, European racing is harder.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They don't race on ovals in Europe. They don't race on tracks, with nice big run off areas.

Run-off areas are a recent development and a sign of weakness in F1. Had the whole history of car racing been exclusively done on ovals, the tip of Europe/F1 would still be harder than American racing.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is European racing harder than American racing?

As Dixon was already racing in IndyCar when he tested, the logical step to take, when the Williams test didn't result in a drive, was to continue racing in America and build on that, which he clearly has done and with great success. I think that takes a fair amount of aspiring to. It's all very well saying he could've come back a few years later, but he didn't and there will be a number of reasons why he didn't, which we aren't aware of. So I don't know about racing in America being the easy option. More likely it was the best option with which to consolidate and further his career.[/quote]To me, you're justifying his decision to take the easier option.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A number of drivers in IndyCar have stayed with one team for a long time and in Dixon's case it clearly has produced the results. Saying he's be lost in an F1 team is pure conjecture. If anything, being in one team for a long time shows how well he has embedded himself and continues to produce the results. Many drivers chop and change teams and never bring the results.

Again, to me you're affirming the notion that it's the easy option. He hadn't put his neck on the line pursuing F1.

Not mastering an F1 car (or racing) should really be something that annoys him. But he's just too comfortable in America.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think it is anymore cutthroat and I've seen plenty of mediocrity in both.

There would be a mediocrity in F1, but it's more costly. The front 1/2, 1/3 of F1 is above American teams definitely.

It's getting late for me now. I'll bring up other factors later

[macdaddy]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Run-off areas are a recent development and a sign of weakness in F1.

Wow. Try explaining that logic to Jackie Stewart.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Had the whole history of car racing been exclusively done on ovals, the tip of Europe/F1 would still be harder than American racing.

You're suggesting that driving on an oval in Italy would be harder than driving on an oval in Indiana?

[macdaddy]

An added thought...

He's got a wife and three kids. Two of which are in school. He's lived in the same house and the same city for many years. He knows his neighbours and he has many friends. His future is relatively secure and he's not worried about his next paycheque. Even if he were to lose his job tomorrow, his family will still have food on the table. Why upend everything to go race in Europe? Sometimes one must prioritize.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Yep.

I'll clarify by saying there is an overlap between the two cultures. At the tip, European racing is harder.

Run-off areas are a recent development and a sign of weakness in F1. Had the whole history of car racing been exclusively done on ovals, the tip of Europe/F1 would still be harder than American racing.

To me, you're justifying his decision to take the easier option.

Again, to me you're affirming the notion that it's the easy option. He hadn't put his neck on the line pursuing F1.

Not mastering an F1 car (or racing) should really be something that annoys him. But he's just too comfortable in America.


There would be a mediocrity in F1, but it's more costly. The front 1/2, 1/3 of F1 is above American teams definitely.

It's getting late for me now. I'll bring up other factors later

If I were you, I wouldn't bother to bring other factors later, as you haven't substantiated any of the factors you have brought so far, therefore they are just conjecture. So I suggest, before you bring any more factors, you substantiate these ones first, or they will remain nothing more than conjecture.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

What would you need? You can pass off anything as conjecture.

Indycars are watered down F1 cars. The performance (and complexity) of F1 is higher than Indycars/American racing.

Even the slowest F1 car would beat the best Indycar. On a road course, a Nascar is slower than the F1 safety car.

The most obvious evidence showing the difference between the two cultures is Nigel Mansell and Michael Andretti's 1993 seasons.

All of Andretti's weaknesses were exposed, and Nigel Mansell not only wins the Indycar series but had a better season on ovals than any season Rick Mears had. It's not that Andretti was ordinary; that's not a big deal (He could've overcome them with time and the introduction of passive cars), but having to work and adjust to a new, more critical environment put him off. Much easier in the comfort of home.

How many UK/European drivers who don't see any room for them in F1 then go to American and produce results they were unlikely to reach in F1?
How common is it to see a successful American racer go to Europe?
You'd definitely don't see any of the weaker American drivers go, "Yeah, I'll go to Europe since it's much easier over there.

Alex Zanardi, who was not remarkable in F1 before champcars, then became a Champcar/American racing legend in the space of 3 years. Then after doing that, became a worse f1 driver!

I've seen it here with Australian drivers. In the 90s, Marcos Ambrose had some potential, but was just another good young driver, Probably slightly diminished as he didn't win the formula ford series driving for the team that won the previous 3.

Ambrose spent a couple of years in Europe and usurped drivers that would've had the better of him or higher reputations than him before racing in Europe. Jason Bright was better than Ambrose in Formula fords. He did 1 year of USfford2000 but didn't improve. ."


Why did the IRL exist? Tony George couldn't hack the UK/European influence on American racing, which was shown up.
Drivers, constructors, everything.


Americans fail in Europe for the same reason the Japanese do. It's too hard, and you can have it easier at home.


What more do you want?